Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

[paarsurrey]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

 

[epronovost]

A second pf pedantry, but it's skeptics if you want to refer to people and skepticism if you want to refer to the philosophy and to answer your question, it depends on the individual skeptic. Some are a bit loony while other provide invaluable public services.

 

[paarsurrey]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?
How does one visualize the above, please?

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.”

*Education
· PhD (biochemistry), University of Cambridge[2]
· Frank Knox Fellow (philosophy and history of science), Harvard University
· MA ( natural sciences), Clare College, Cambridge
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

Regards

 

[Nakosis]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Nope, I just defend my own position as to how I understand things to work and try to learn from my mistakes so I can have a more defensible position in the future.

 

[cladking]

There was a time when "skeptic" meant someone who thinks for himself and accepts nothing at face value.

But in the last half a century it has come to mean someone who accepts the status quo and all current "knowledge" without thought or reflection.

I consider myself a "skeptic" under the old definition but now days I'm much more a "crackpot" than anything else since I reject most modern beliefs.

 

[sun rise]

You make multiple and somewhat conflicting statements. Skeptics are not necessarily members of any organization, for one thing. I believe in God and defend the value of science and reason for another thing (and I'm not alone). And I am against superstition and credulity.

But it's also true that some are members of organizations and the rest as Sheldrake wrote.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.”

*Education
· PhD (biochemistry), University of Cambridge[2]
· Frank Knox Fellow (philosophy and history of science), Harvard University
· MA ( natural sciences), Clare College, Cambridge
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

Regards

Skeptics vary wildly. Some are I suppose defenders of science and reason. Some may see themselves as renegades or lone rebels. But not all skeptics belong to organisations.

 

[epronovost]

I reject most modern beliefs.

Yikes, that does sound a bit crackpot. Could you name one or two of those belief you don't believe in and make a quick resumé of why?

 

[George-ananda]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Skepticism is actually a good thing in my opinion. Things should not be accepted without evidence and scrutiny.

However the good name of skepticism has been hijacked in recent times by pseudo-skeptics who are not interested in a fair dissection of the evidence but are really materialists with anti-paranormal bent.

Most of the skeptics on a forum like this are really pseudo-skeptics. They are one-sided defenders of materialism and are outright anti-paranormal.

 

[cladking]

Yikes, that does sound a bit crackpot. Could you name one or two of those belief you don't believe in and make a quick resumé of why?

I don't believe in 'intelligence". I don't believe ancient people were superstitious but we are. I don't believe that humans know even the tiniest fraction of what we think we do.

Language leads to knowledge, not intelligence. Ancient people thought like animals and had no use for abstractions and knowing everything.

 

[LuisDantas]

Skepticism is necessary for the advancement of science, certainly.

But the word has been used loosely in recent decades, often being used to present political extremism as a more legitimate thing than it is.

And there is no particular group to be called "skeptics" in any case. Nor should there be. There are no people who would benefit from not being skeptical.

As for "self-appointed vigilantes"... well, @paarsurrey , I think that you will have to describe the scenario for us to tell what might resemble it in reality.

 

[epronovost]

Skepticism is actually a good thing in my opinion. Things should not be accepted without evidence and scrutiny.

However the good name of skepticism has been hijacked in recent times by pseudo-skeptics who are not interested in a fair dissection of the evidence but are really materialists with anti-paranormal bent.

Most of the skeptics on a forum like this are really pseudo-skeptics. They are one-sided defenders of materialism and are outright anti-paranormal.

That's not a bug of skepticism, it's a feature. Our best method to verify if a thing is true or not relies on methodological naturalism as one of its premise. The supernatural and the paranormal are by definition unexplained and/or unverifiable. Skepticism as a philosophy also embrace the concept of prudence which means that if there is a doubt that a thing is true one shouldn't consider it true but unconfirmed. Thus everything paranormal or supernatural can only be at the very best unconfirmed.

 

[George-ananda]

That's not a bug of skepticism, it's a feature. Our best method to verify if a thing is true or not relies on methodological naturalism as one of its premise. The supernatural and the paranormal are by definition unexplained and/or unverifiable. Skepticism as a philosophy also embrace the concept of prudence which means that if there is a doubt that a thing is true one shouldn't consider it true but unconfirmed. Thus everything paranormal or supernatural can only be at the very best unconfirmed.

From Wikipedia:
Skepticism or scepticism is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma.

I do not see where 'methodological naturalism' is one of Skepticism's premises. What you are describing is really a defender of materialism and methodological naturalism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.”

*Education

· PhD (biochemistry), University of Cambridge[2]
· Frank Knox Fellow (philosophy and history of science), Harvard University
· MA ( natural sciences), Clare College, Cambridge
Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia

Regards

Yes, that's often how we see ourselves. After all, what does scripture (either Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or other) say that can be definitively shown to be true, compared to what science and reason can demonstrate?

Know what? Nobody was ever cured of snake bite by looking at a brass idol of a snake. Nobody flew to Jerusalem on a flying horse. The earth isn't the centre of the universe. God doesn't give a rats *** if you wear a turban, a yarmulke or a veil, and certainly doesn't want you mutilating your children's genitals. If God didn't like your genitals the way they are -- he wouldn't have bloody made them that way!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There was a time when "skeptic" meant someone who thinks for himself and accepts nothing at face value.

But in the last half a century it has come to mean someone who accepts the status quo and all current "knowledge" without thought or reflection.

I consider myself a "skeptic" under the old definition but now days I'm much more a "crackpot" than anything else since I reject most modern beliefs.

Well...couple of things to unpack there, I think.
1. The original skeptics were more a philosophical movement than anything, and their focus was largely on whether it's possible to know anything. Consider someone like Cratylus. I'm not sure if you're suggesting you subscribe to that school of skeptical thought, or if you mean a more modern style, but not what you see as common usage.
(Note, I'm focusing on the Greek origins, but I'm aware of Eastern schools of thought which independently came to be. I just don't know much about them.)

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.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

From Wikipedia:
Skepticism or scepticism is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief or dogma.

I do not see where 'methodological naturalism' is one of Skepticism's premises. What you are describing is really a defender of materialism and methodological naturalism.

Actually, methodological naturalism differs from philosophical materialism in an important way.
A methodological naturalist is not stating that the world is material. S/he is stating that we cannot effectively measure or identify that which is not material. Whether there IS anything apart from the material is not covered, since you could have both materialists and non-materialists operating under methodological naturalist principles.

Skepticism has been defined and redefined over the years, but doubting our ability to acquire knowledge on a topic is a very traditional form of skepticism, and methodological naturalism dovetails with that, although (granted) some would say it doesn't go far enough, and that our ability to acquire ALL knowledge (including material) is questionable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

I wouldn't think of myself as either 'lonely' or a 'vigilante'.
However, neither am I a member of a 'skeptic organisation' so maybe I don't really fit with what the OP is asking.

I certainly find superstition uncomfortable, although I've learnt to let people believe as they will up to a point.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

If you are asking if the skeptical thinkers are the ones who accept scientific and objective evidence as a basis for reasoning and defend that way of reasoning over subjective belief, then yes.

 

[Phaedrus]

I wouldn't place much intellectual stock in someone who pairs delusion with science.

 

[Shad]

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Neither.