Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

[paarsurrey]

Not everyone who claims to be a skeptic is one and not every skeptic is a good one. People are people

Does one mean the ordinary folks, not serious to know and who like to go with wind that blows? Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Do they- the "Skeptics" and the like, take refuge behind science and the current trend ideologies? Is it so, please?

There is no "refuge behind science" because science is a process and means toward knowledge. There is nothing at all concrete behind which to shelter but most skeptics believe that science is a concrete fact that will protect them from ignorance and storms. They don't understand what science is or what it means. Even many scientists haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe.

People, skeptics mostly, make broad assumptions and extrapolations and then build models from these right amid the experimental models which they often don't understand. In a sea of knowledge and science they are dying of thirst. They see only the mirages of what they are told are real and certain but they can't feel the rising tide of facts and logic that dispute what they take as reality.

True skepticism is good just like true faith is good. But most "skeptics" on the net are no more skeptical than the lake in its bed.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no "refuge behind science" because science is a process and means toward knowledge. There is nothing at all concrete behind which to shelter but most skeptics believe that science is a concrete fact that will protect them from ignorance and storms. They don't understand what science is or what it means. Even many scientists haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe.

People, skeptics mostly, make broad assumptions and extrapolations and then build models from these right amid the experimental models which they often don't understand. In a sea of knowledge and science they are dying of thirst. They see only the mirages of what they are told are real and certain but they can't feel the rising tide of facts and logic that dispute what they take as reality.

True skepticism is good just like true faith is good. But most "skeptics" on the net are no more skeptical than the lake in its bed.

"refuge behind science"

I didn't mean the real Science, I meant "Scientism" like our friend
@whirlingmerc has mentioned in his post
#50 in another thread , please.

Regards
__________
Note:I have made change in my post referenced by one, accordingly, please.

 

[Milton Platt]

Does one mean the ordinary folks, not serious to know and who like to go with wind that blows? Right, please?

Regards

Those who "would go with what the wind blows" would not be skeptics when doing so. Such as those who follow religious dogma.

It is important to recognize that not all skeptics are uniformly skeptical in all things.

 

[Milton Platt]

There is no "refuge behind science" because science is a process and means toward knowledge. There is nothing at all concrete behind which to shelter but most skeptics believe that science is a concrete fact that will protect them from ignorance and storms. They don't understand what science is or what it means. Even many scientists haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe.

People, skeptics mostly, make broad assumptions and extrapolations and then build models from these right amid the experimental models which they often don't understand. In a sea of knowledge and science they are dying of thirst. They see only the mirages of what they are told are real and certain but they can't feel the rising tide of facts and logic that dispute what they take as reality.

True skepticism is good just like true faith is good. But most "skeptics" on the net are no more skeptical than the lake in its bed.

You haven't a clue what skepticism is.

 

[cladking]

Well, when I was young "inflammable" meant something that burned. Now it means the opposite.

Well, when I was young "skeptic" was someone who didn't adopt beliefs readily. Now it means the opposite.

Turin used to be a city in Italy and Peking a city in China. They are gone now even though the names of the cities were never actually changed.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, when I was young "inflammable" meant something that burned. Now it means the opposite.

Well, when I was young "skeptic" was someone who didn't adopt beliefs readily. Now it means the opposite.

Turin used to be a city in Italy and Peking a city in China. They are gone now even though the names of the cities were never actually changed.

Please elaborate.

Regards

 

[cladking]

Please elaborate.

Simple enough. "Torino" has been the Italian word for a specific city. It has never changed. Our quisling and ignorant media changed the English word from "Turin" to "Torino" without ever announcing it.

They've changed cities and added all sorts of foreign letters and language.

People always seem to think they know how nature works and what the other guy means. If you refuse to play semantics and rhetoric then you are accused of not knowing what words mean or not knowing everything. I don't know anything but I don't play semantics.

 

[joelr]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

Are there really skeptics? Or is it a fake word that really means "people who don't believe stuff without good evidence"?
Everyone in science knows that 99% of our ideas turn out to be wrong. Because of that we don't believe stuff until it's well proven.
But really everyone follows that rule. Like I asked in another post, would you have surgery or fly on a plane if all the components were theories and never field tested? Technology and procedures that doctors and airplane mechanics meditated on and felt would work but had never actually done or tested?
No way. You would be like "test that crap out first!"
But when someone wants proof of some supernatural claim then they are a skeptic?
I'm not seeing it. They are simply applying the same "evidence first" belief system to other areas. They don't need a special word for it?

 

[joelr]

There is no "refuge behind science" because science is a process and means toward knowledge. There is nothing at all concrete behind which to shelter but most skeptics believe that science is a concrete fact that will protect them from ignorance and storms. They don't understand what science is or what it means. Even many scientists haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe.

People, skeptics mostly, make broad assumptions and extrapolations and then build models from these right amid the experimental models which they often don't understand. In a sea of knowledge and science they are dying of thirst. They see only the mirages of what they are told are real and certain but they can't feel the rising tide of facts and logic that dispute what they take as reality.

True skepticism is good just like true faith is good. But most "skeptics" on the net are no more skeptical than the lake in its bed.

Can you give one example of these broad assumptions and extrapolations you are making?
Have you ever listened to an actual scientist? They are the most aware of our ignorance and often speak of how we have so much to learn and how much we don't know.
Can you explain which scientist haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe?

 

[ChristineM]

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

Sheldrake is a loon, an ex scientist who fell in love with his pet, unsupported hypothesis and gave up science to promote it.

Rupert Sheldrake - RationalWiki

Dont rely on con men as sources

 

[cladking]

Can you give one example of these broad assumptions and extrapolations you are making?
Have you ever listened to an actual scientist? They are the most aware of our ignorance and often speak of how we have so much to learn and how much we don't know.
Can you explain which scientist haven't a ghost of a clue of what they know and what they believe?

People all believe they are 'intelligent". Everyone thinks they understand science and its models as well as the experiments that generate them.

The reality is none of these things are true. The ability to learn from the insights and experiments of the past have nothing to do with what we call "intelligence" largely because no such thing exists. It is a function of language and not some imaginary attribute of the human mind. "intelligence" is an event and not a condition. The proof is all around us but we choose not to see it.

That people do not understand science is patently obvious. All you have to do is listen to what they say, do, and believe. Half of aviation engineers believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Even 3% of physicists miss the correct answer. Some of this is lack of care or playing devil's advocate but many miss it because they can't hold all the relevant parameters in mind and maintain a single frame of reference. Many don't really understand the nature of a wheel.

Nowhere is the lack of understanding of science more pronounced than among people who claim to be "skeptics" on the net. They have some idea of what reality is and they can't be dissuaded from it regardless of how wrong they are. The last hundred years has seen a steep drop off in the percentages of people with a working knowledge of simple mechanics and simple physics. But those who don't understand will still pontificate on why you're wrong about anything from initial Causes to planes glued to conveyors.

Without an understanding of metaphysics an understanding of science is impossible. Without understanding science it is virtually impossible to devise proper experiment or hypothesis. It is improbable experiment will even be interpreted correctly. This has always been true for modern science.

It is not true for any other life form which don't use abstractions and experiment. Any beaver can invent a new way to build dams. Very few humans have any chance at discovering the unified field theory and if one does it will be the result of an insight and not because they are "smarter" than everyone else.

 

[joelr]

People all believe they are 'intelligent". Everyone thinks they understand science and its models as well as the experiments that generate them.

The reality is none of these things are true. The ability to learn from the insights and experiments of the past have nothing to do with what we call "intelligence" largely because no such thing exists. It is a function of language and not some imaginary attribute of the human mind. "intelligence" is an event and not a condition. The proof is all around us but we choose not to see it.

That people do not understand science is patently obvious. All you have to do is listen to what they say, do, and believe. Half of aviation engineers believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving the opposite direction. Even 3% of physicists miss the correct answer. Some of this is lack of care or playing devil's advocate but many miss it because they can't hold all the relevant parameters in mind and maintain a single frame of reference. Many don't really understand the nature of a wheel.

Nowhere is the lack of understanding of science more pronounced than among people who claim to be "skeptics" on the net. They have some idea of what reality is and they can't be dissuaded from it regardless of how wrong they are. The last hundred years has seen a steep drop off in the percentages of people with a working knowledge of simple mechanics and simple physics. But those who don't understand will still pontificate on why you're wrong about anything from initial Causes to planes glued to conveyors.

Without an understanding of metaphysics an understanding of science is impossible. Without understanding science it is virtually impossible to devise proper experiment or hypothesis. It is improbable experiment will even be interpreted correctly. This has always been true for modern science.

It is not true for any other life form which don't use abstractions and experiment. Any beaver can invent a new way to build dams. Very few humans have any chance at discovering the unified field theory and if one does it will be the result of an insight and not because they are "smarter" than everyone else.

None of that answered any question.
Which scientist? 3% of physicists is vague, not supported and doesn't really matter because science is working pretty well.
Aviation engineers?, Huh, do you know that planes work? Have you heard of jet fighters? The space program?
You say science is impossible yet you are writing on a computer?

Many don't understand wheels? Ok, we have a 26 mile particle accelerator and space ships. Which scientist doesn't know wheels?

 

[cladking]

Many don't understand wheels? Ok, we have a 26 mile particle accelerator and space ships. Which scientist doesn't know wheels?

Why don't you explain to me why so many "skeptics" don't believe a plane can take off from a conveyor belt.

Explain to me why swimming pool,s in the US are at great expense shut down when there is thunder even in steel frame buildings despite the fact that there is no danger from lightning and certainly none from thunder?

Explain to me why so many people think the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night. Explain to me why specialists never agree on anything unless they are all wrong.

By the by "3%" means three in every hundred. Even though there are no two identical things in the universe we use words like "physicist" to apply to individuals who are trained in physics. Three of every hundred polled (not a real poll to my knowledge) missed the question as well. That's called 3%. It applies to no individual but a group.

The belief in "intelligence" is virtually universal among humans. To maintain this belief we have to overlook the fact that animals can outthink people and the very nature of consciousness. We achieve this through language and the lies we learn with it. Language is analog programming for a digital brain in what is "obviously" a digital universe. Only humans are so deluded by belief and omniscience. Meanwhile there is less communication than war and bullets.

"God" is probably an artefact of consciousness and atheism a by-product of knowing everything.

 

[joelr]

Why don't you explain to me why so many "skeptics" don't believe a plane can take off from a conveyor belt.

Explain to me why swimming pool,s in the US are at great expense shut down when there is thunder even in steel frame buildings despite the fact that there is no danger from lightning and certainly none from thunder?

Explain to me why so many people think the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night. Explain to me why specialists never agree on anything unless they are all wrong.

By the by "3%" means three in every hundred. Even though there are no two identical things in the universe we use words like "physicist" to apply to individuals who are trained in physics. Three of every hundred polled (not a real poll to my knowledge) missed the question as well. That's called 3%. It applies to no individual but a group.

The belief in "intelligence" is virtually universal among humans. To maintain this belief we have to overlook the fact that animals can outthink people and the very nature of consciousness. We achieve this through language and the lies we learn with it. Language is analog programming for a digital brain in what is "obviously" a digital universe. Only humans are so deluded by belief and omniscience. Meanwhile there is less communication than war and bullets.

"God" is probably an artefact of consciousness and atheism a by-product of knowing everything.

You answered my question with questions and vague statistics?
There isn't anything there I can respond to.
3% of blah, blah, cool, yet we have a space station. And a Hubble telescope. If you ever need a ultrasound, MRI or X-Ray to save your life you'll be pretty glad science has come so far.
Science is working. Believing stuff with poor empirical evidence is not.

 

[cladking]

You answered my question with questions and vague statistics?

Your belief in your own intelligence is an extrapolation of things you know just as your belief in science is an extrapolation of its efficacy (technology) and your belief in the intelligence of scientists. You essentially believe gravity is understood because everything falls straight down. Once something is defined people believe they understand it as well.

Reality is far more complex than the average "skeptic" takes it to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are Skepticism “lonely defenders of science and reason”?

Or, are they “self-appointed vigilantes”?

How does one visualize the above, please?

Regards

i'm a skeptic.
I'm not at all lonely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What do you mean?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

Ow please...........................

Get over it already. Human activity polluted the atmosphere with gigatons of greenhouse gases for over a century now and what the inevitable effect of this was going to be has been known since the friggin' 50s.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

But scientists need to be in both.

Both politicians as well as businesses should be listening to what science has to say.
Had they done that in the 50s, we wouldn't be in this climate mess.