Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

[cladking]

2. If you're a skeptic in a more modern sense, I think one of the issues that needs to be grappled with is that there is far more to know now (depending on what type of knowledge we're discussing). We stand on the shoulders of those who came before. The further you step back in time, the more feasible it is for an intelligent individual to 'know' enough, or to be able to apply 'common sense' or consistency of principles to determine their position on anything. In terms of scientific knowledge in modern times, though, you're kidding yourself if you believe you have enough of a handle on it (across all disciplines) to argue with experts.

It's not that science is wrong. Some of our premises are wrong.

I would never argue with an Egyptologist about the dating or origin of a pot shard nor with a statistician about the statistical processes to arrive at a conclusion. But, there's no reason someone can't challenge the meaning, applicability, or importance of equations or any scientific knowledge. We merely assume that it's no longer possible for a lone researcher to upset the applecart because there really is so much knowledge now and there's really little doubt the bulk of this knowledge is real and accurate.

The problem I see is that science put the applecart before the horse so human knowledge is only relevant within its premises and metaphysics. We see thin slices of reality through experiment and then color in the rainbow within this spectrum. This is merely hubris that allows us to do this. Far worse though is that a great deal of what we take for granted isn't true at all but is an artefact of how we think; an artefact of language not of reality.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Skepticism is the only logical stance to take when confronted with fantastical claims.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Science and reason don't always go together.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science and reason don't always go together.

How so, or when?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

How so, or when?

Science has always been muddled with the trends and opinions of those who profess it.

The big one today would be the hysteria surrounding "climate change".

 

[cladking]

Science has always been muddled with the trends and opinions of those who profess it.

The big one today would be the hysteria surrounding "climate change".

People are so hysterical they can't even see that we could increase efficiency sufficiently to reduce carbon emissions thousands of times more than any politics has accomplished. Market forces would lead to increased efficiency EXCEPT for government that keeps the playing field tipped to funnel all the money to the rich. Increased efficiency would increase everyone's share of an even bigger pie. Cutting waste in half simply doubles everyone's income but the rich want it all and want the rest of us poor so we get politics instead of solutions. We get ruined schools instead of an educated populous who might see through the game they are playing.

 

[Swami]

In my view, we need to perceive things as they are. Methological naturalism is a Western limitation. They assume, perhaps by trial and error, that it is the only or closest way to perceive reality as it is. If you follow the Eastern perspective, then clearly this Western conclusion is wrong or at least partially true. There are other ways to perceive reality, and in fact, it is questionable if even the feature you use to perceive, i.e. consciousness, can be thought of as material.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

People are so hysterical they can't even see that we could increase efficiency sufficiently to reduce carbon emissions thousands of times more than any politics has accomplished. Market forces would lead to increased efficiency EXCEPT for government that keeps the playing field tipped to funnel all the money to the rich. Increased efficiency would increase everyone's share of an even bigger pie. Cutting waste in half simply doubles everyone's income but the rich want it all and want the rest of us poor so we get politics instead of solutions. We get ruined schools instead of an educated populous who might see through the game they are playing.

Politicians need to stay out of the scientific community and the free market.

 

[LuisDantas]

Science has always been muddled with the trends and opinions of those who profess it.

The big one today would be the hysteria surrounding "climate change".

...

are you even aware of what science means?

 

[Swami]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Further to post my post #1 above, I quote following:

“Members of skeptical organizations often think of themselves as lonely defenders of science and reason against the forces of superstition and credulity; they see their debunking activities as ‘battles’ against the insidious forces of irrationalism. Their opponents see them as self-appointed vigilantes.”

“Science Delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake* :Chapter 9 “Are Psychic Phenomena Illusory?” Page-157. Foot Note- .49 “French, in Henry (ed.) (2005), Chapter 5.”

I don't see skeptics as being vigilantes but rather some are very close-minded. Some are nervous about any conclusion that supports spirituality or religion so they have a reaction to dismiss it a priori.

 

[Willamena]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Skepticism and science are distinct.

Skeptics say, "I don't know if I can commit to that." Science says, "I've got the evidence, so I commit to that."

 

[night912]

I don't see skeptics as being vigilantes but rather some are very close-minded. Some are nervous about any conclusion that supports spirituality or religion so they have a reaction to dismiss it a priori.

What you are describing is not a skeptic. A skeptic is not nervous about any conclusion.

 

[Swami]

What you are describing is not a skeptic. A skeptic is not nervous about any conclusion.

A skeptic should not be, yes. But we both know that when you say skeptic, what comes to mind is someone who is an atheist and one that tries to debunk superstition and religious claims. Atheists are not true skeptics even though they use skepticism. A true skeptic is willing to question all beliefs and philosophies, atheism and science included.

Thomas Huxley was a true skeptic.

 

[paarsurrey]

A skeptic should not be, yes. But we both know that when you say skeptic, what comes to mind is someone who is an atheist and one that tries to debunk superstition and religious claims. Atheists are not true skeptics even though they use skepticism. A true skeptic is willing to question all beliefs and philosophies, atheism and science included.

Thomas Huxley was a true skeptic.

"atheism and science included"

I agree with one here.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

A skeptic should not be, yes. But we both know that when you say skeptic, what comes to mind is someone who is an atheist and one that tries to debunk superstition and religious claims. Atheists are not true skeptics even though they use skepticism. A true skeptic is willing to question all beliefs and philosophies, atheism and science included.

Thomas Huxley was a true skeptic.

Uh, what are you talking about?

 

[LuisDantas]

"atheism and science included"

I agree with one here.

Regards

It is a shame that this makes no sense, then.

 

[Swami]

Uh, what are you talking about?

Science should be questioned, as well. This is how you keep scientists in check. There are many ways that skepticism can be applied to science. You can question its metaphysics, like does an objective reality exists apart from perceptual reality? You can question its epistemology. Can science be used for anything, like art, history?

 

[LuisDantas]

Science should be questioned, as well. This is how you keep scientists in check. There are many ways that skepticism can be applied to science. You can question its metaphysics, like does an objective reality exists apart from perceptual reality? You can question its epistemology. Can science be used for anything, like art, history?

Science questions itself. That is what makes it science.

What metaphysics are you talking about? Science does not touch that field.

 

[Swami]

Science questions itself. That is what makes it science.

What metaphysics are you talking about? Science does not touch that field.

Reductive materialism is one of the biggest errors of Western science. If you are a Buddhist, you should already see this error. In Western thought, everything (including consciousness) can be reduced to matter and its properties. In Eastern thought, everything can be reduced to consciousness.

Notice that consciousness has resisted any material explanation. There is a reason for this. There is also a reason why many scientists are consulting Eastern thinkers. Even Albert Einstein consulted Eastern mystics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Reductive materialism is one of the biggest errors of Western science. If you are a Buddhist, you should already see this error. In Western thought, everything (including consciousness) can be reduced to matter and its properties. In Eastern thought, everything can be reduced to consciousness.

Notice that consciousness has resisted any material explanation. There is a reason for this. There is also a reason why many scientists are consulting Eastern thinkers. Even Albert Einstein consulted Eastern mystics.

Sorry, we part ways here.