PZ Myers had no idea he was stepping into a controversy

[FattyCatty]

That seems like a pretty big jump to a conclusion there.

I wasn’t at the conference and am only reacting to Jeff’s blog, PZ’s response, JT’s response, and this thread. The first poster Jeff referenced, along with the rest of his blog and all the responses are what led to my reactions. The second highlighted portion of this quote from JT’s response, for instance, seems to equate skepticism and atheism. The first highlighted section implies that all good skeptics should be atheists.

Skepticism leads to certain conclusions like homeopathy doesn’t work or that psychics are frauds. Just as certain as it leads to those conclusions, it also leads to the conclusion that god doesn’t exist (or that anybody claiming to have good reason to believe that god exists has done so in error). And just like the previous conclusions, people who fail to grasp the godlessness of the universe often hamstring society. So even if we were to be skeptics who, at this conference, were focusing on the godlessness of the universe, I don’t see much of a difference between us and TAM, which focuses on other conclusions acquired through skeptical thinking. More power to us.

Were any of the atheists at this conference strident?

I don’t know, as I wasn’t at the conference. The response of PZ Myers to Jeff’s blog sounds strident to me.

And I fear the damage has already been done. I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they're uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

And I say good riddance to those people. If these so-called good skeptics are going to abandon the movement because they're uncomfortable with people who openly question their superstitious beliefs, then they don't seem very committed and their departure will be no loss.

Thanks for answering my question. I'll address the rest of your post separately.

Thank you for responding to my post.

The position of this atheist and skeptic is that the evidence has already given an indication of the probability.

I assume you are speaking about atheism. I agree that evidence for direct action by a god is lacking. I just don't think that leads to a “no” conclusion rather than to a “can’t know for sure” position.

If it doesn't act, what is the point in considering its existence?

Because I wonder. There is always the possibility that a god set everything up (e.g., the universe, the laws of nature, the possibility of evolution) and then stepped back to see what happened. No more involvement, no way to prove a god was involved. And, of course, no way to prove one wasn’t.

Believing in the existence of something without evidence is pretty much the same is believing in the existence of something that there is evidence against. It means you're not applying skepticism to that particular belief. The lack of evidence for is the evidence against.

I disagree. A lack of evidence for something does not equate to being evidence against it. It means we don’t know yet. To quote Carl Sagan, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The first five can be "proven" to exist, in that they describe emotions we can observe. The last is a subjective judgment. You perceive puns as funny. It is meaningless to say they "are" or "aren't" funny. They aren't anything in themselves.

You are correct that my belief that puns are funny is a subjective judgement. For the first five concepts, I don’t know if observing how we display or react to an emotion/feeling proves it exists. I’m not saying this right, but we’re not observing the actual emotion/feeling, merely an outward display. The emotions/feelings are common to humanity; the ways they are displayed vary. And people lie, so how can we use these observations as proof of existence? Yet (almost?) everyone will agree that these emotions/feelings exist. I find this belief without proof similar to belief without proof in a god.

 

[AdMan]

There is always the possibility that a god set everything up (e.g., the universe, the laws of nature, the possibility of evolution) and then stepped back to see what happened. No more involvement, no way to prove a god was involved. And, of course, no way to prove one wasn’t.

Sounds like a deistic position. I was at Skepticon, and no one there was arguing against such a position, because, as I think most skeptics believe, you really can't argue on evidence against the idea that a supreme being created the universe and then stepped back to just observe but not interfere.

On the other hand, the "atheist" arguments raised at Skepticon were around the validity of the Bible as a historical document, the historical evidence for Jesus, and the logic--or lack thereof--of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good deity, among others. All good, skeptical arguments with testable and/or logical claims, IMO.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't consider atheism a prerequisite for skepticism. I see skepticism as a prerequisite for the kind of atheism I support. When I meet a skeptic who isn't an atheist, to me it means there is at least one aspect of reality they haven't applied skepticism to yet. With most of them, I'm confident they'll get there eventually.

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to religion and come to a different conclusion than you?

 

[quixotecoyote]

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to religion and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to bigfoot and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to 9/11 Truth and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to Sylvia Browne and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to dowsing and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to homeopathy and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to anti-vax and come to a different conclusion than you?

etc. etc. etc.

If you're being skeptical, in the sense we use it here, you're reaching conclusions based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. If you believe in bigfoot, or 9/11 truth conspiracies, or sylvia browne, or dowsing, or homeopathy, or anti-vax conspiracies, or gods, you are reaching a conclusion not based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. It's really that simple. It's all the same ****.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Sounds like a deistic position. I was at Skepticon, and no one there was arguing against such a position, because, as I think most skeptics believe, you really can't argue on evidence against the idea that a supreme being created the universe and then stepped back to just observe but not interfere.

And more importantly, you can't argue for it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip grade school level "arguments"}

If you're being skeptical, in the sense we use it here...

You mean the "we" who declare everything we don't believe to be a load of garbage, or the "we" who know that all conclusions are provisional and subject to new information. Obviously the latter "we" can take a firm stand and declare something to be garbage to the extent of our knowledge, but still be open to evidence no matter how unlikely it is to show up or be produced.

you're reaching conclusions based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. If you believe in bigfoot, or 9/11 truth conspiracies, or sylvia browne, or dowsing, or homeopathy, or anti-vax conspiracies, or gods, you are reaching a conclusion not based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. It's really that simple. It's all the same ****.

Logic is all well and good, but I prefer to stick with the empirical. Bigfoot and all the supposed evidences can be tested. The same applies to Truther claims, Browns "powers", dowsing, homeopathy and anti-vaxxerism. Individual religious claims like Creationism and faith healing are subject to the same evidentiary claims. I'm sorry, but this particular atheist and skeptic doesn't consider the more amorphous claims of those religions to be amennable to empirical analysis.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You mean the "we" who declare everything we don't believe to be a load of garbage, or the "we" who know that all conclusions are provisional and subject to new information. Obviously the latter "we" can take a firm stand and declare something to be garbage to the extent of our knowledge, but still be open to evidence no matter how unlikely it is to show up or be produced.

God claims are garbage to the extent of our knowledge, yet if new evidence appears, we can consider it. Just like everything else in the list.

eta:On reflection, that was a bit sneaky of you. I'm not declaring these things loads of garbage because I don't believe in them. I'm declaring I don't believe these things because they are loads of garbage. You've managed to completely reverse the skeptical process there.

And fyi, the we in "as we use it here" refers to the use of 'skeptic' on this board as akin to 'critical thinker' as opposed to the general meaning of 'cynic/naysayer' or the classical meaning as a proponent of a sort of solipsist philosophy

Logic is all well and good, but I prefer to stick with the empirical. Bigfoot and all the supposed evidences can be tested. The same applies to Truther claims, Browns "powers", dowsing, homeopathy and anti-vaxxerism. Individual religious claims like Creationism and faith healing are subject to the same evidentiary claims.

And you evaluate that evidence by 'sticking to the empirical', how exactly? Unless you're going to employ logic, all you get from empiricism is a list of facts from which no inferences can be drawn.

I'm sorry, but this particular atheist and skeptic doesn't consider the more amorphous claims of those religions to be amennable to empirical analysis.

I claim the skeptical position on religious claims so amorphous that they can't be empirically evaluated is rejection until such a time as their proponents can come up with a good reason to accept them.

It was an awfully amorphous dragon in Sagan's garage, if you recall.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You mean the "we" who declare everything we don't believe to be a load of garbage, or the "we" who know that all conclusions are provisional and subject to new information. Obviously the latter "we" can take a firm stand and declare something to be garbage to the extent of our knowledge, but still be open to evidence no matter how unlikely it is to show up or be produced.

You are ignoring quix's point and continuing to argue against a straw man.

If there was supporting evidence for gods, one brings it to the table. Just as one could with those other topics. Many of us have looked very closely at the evidence on the subjects quix listed and found no convincing evidence. And that was his point. His point was not the straw man that no one could ever present convincing evidence. If they did, reconsideration of a current conclusion that has been established by overwhelming evidence would be in order.

Logic is all well and good, but I prefer to stick with the empirical. Bigfoot and all the supposed evidences can be tested. The same applies to Truther claims, Browns "powers", dowsing, homeopathy and anti-vaxxerism. Individual religious claims like Creationism and faith healing are subject to the same evidentiary claims. I'm sorry, but this particular atheist and skeptic doesn't consider the more amorphous claims of those religions to be amennable to empirical analysis.

Can you test the hypothesis that gods are mythical beings humans invented?

Can you come to a conclusion that after examining the evidence for [x] number of gods and finding every one of them to be myths, and not finding a single god that was not a myth, that a pattern had emerged?

And do we not, at some point when we see a consistent pattern, conclude we are not likely to find the pattern varies?

 

[FattyCatty]

about skepticism and religion?

According to poster #1 in Jeff's blog, the conference was about religion. Jeff's point was that calling a conference about religion (actually, anti-religion) a skeptics' conference adds to the confusion between the terms. Not all skeptics are atheists; not all atheists are skeptics. The groups intersect; neither one encompasses the other.

Who are these people? PZ never said that. I've never said that. Did I miss someone else saying it?

From JT Eberhard's response to Jeff:

Skepticism leads to certain conclusions like homeopathy doesn’t work or that psychics are frauds. Just as certain as it leads to those conclusions, it also leads to the conclusion that god doesn’t exist (or that anybody claiming to have good reason to believe that god exists has done so in error).
<snip>
My moral and personal obligation is to do my best to acquire a sound world view, to hold others to doing the same, and to tell the truth regardless of who it offends, and I think that skepticism leads to atheism if you’re doing it right (and I’m willing to go to bat on that position).

From the response of PZ Myers to Jeff’s blog:

And I fear the damage has already been done. I see a lot of good people leaving the skeptical community because they're uncomfortable with the tone and disappointed with, frankly, the lack of skepticism presented by many people.

And I say good riddance to those people. If these so-called good skeptics are going to abandon the movement because they're uncomfortable with people who openly question their superstitious beliefs, then they don't seem very committed and their departure will be no loss.
<snip>
I think we can tell where the future of skepticism lies.

Both these quotes imply (to me, at least) that the only good skeptic is an atheist skeptic and that people who don't have that belief (lack of belief?) don't belong with the "true" skeptics who are doing it right. This is where I get the "make atheism a prerequisite for skepticism (as some people seem to want)."

People's filters are very hard to get past.

If you mean everyone has preconceived notions, I agree.

Why would my position, "that there is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings", be any different in terms of alienating skeptics than any other subject for which I or anyone disagrees with another skeptic?

But I don’t agree with that position. I don’t see that evidence, other than saying some gods were probably mythical beings. There is evidence that some things attributed to some gods probably aren’t real. But you can’t prove that there is no god (you can believe it, but not prove it). By the same token, there is no evidence that a god exists; you can believe it but not prove it. But, as stated previously, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." So you risk alienating some skeptics by taking a stand that doesn’t acknowledge some things cannot be known/proven. I read the phrase “failing as skeptics” about people who aren’t strong atheists. I think this kind of attitude also risks alienating some skeptics.

With many other claims, it is possible to provide evidence that they don’t work when they are tested (e.g., dowsing, ESP) [how is this not equal to proving a negative? are you really not proving that they do work?]. Or you can prove they aren’t true based on all the known evidence (e.g., most conspiracy theories). I don’t think providing this evidence alienates skeptics as long as it’s understood that new, strong evidence for the validity of a claim would change your mind. It’s when people become dogmatic in their beliefs and refuse to accept the possibility of there ever being new, different evidence that they risk alienating other skeptics.

With other claims, all you can do is examine and evaluate any evidence for their existence (e.g., UFOs as aliens, reptile overlords); say how likely or unlikely you find the possibility that they may exist; and hold the final determination pending more evidence. I don’t think that there are reptile overlords and give it a very low likelihood of being proven true. In truth, it’s so low on my likelihood scale that I make fun of it and actually believe that it’s untrue (how unskeptical of me). I don’t believe that the UFOs reported to date are aliens; however, because of the size of the universe and how much there still is to find out, I give that possibility a higher likelihood of someday becoming true if (extraordinary) evidence is forthcoming.

I can tell you why I think there is a perceived difference.

1) God beliefs cannot be supported with evidence.
2) The debate is not about one's differing conclusions based on evidence, the debate is about the skeptical process itself.
3) Atheists discuss theism as a topic in skepticism, theists don't necessarily want to include their theism in skeptical discussions.

1. I think that the existence of a god is not provable. You can say there is no evidence for the actions of a god, but how can you prove nonexistence? There is only belief on both sides.
2. I agree that there seem to be differing ideas about the skeptical process.
3. I can understand discussing theism skeptically as there are aspects of it that are provable. I just have a problem with reaching a definite conclusion about something that doesn't lend itself to scientific testing. Isn't it better to doubt than to say no evidence for it means it doesn't exist?

4) God beliefs get a special pass.

Claims of actions by gods are testable; the existence of gods isn't. To me, your "special pass" is just that some things are not testable/provable by science or the scientific method.

4 continued) God beliefs involve a special 'right', the right not to be challenged. One's right to believe other conclusions also exists but the conclusions may be challenged.

I think it depends on what you mean by "challenged." Pointing out evidence in areas where that is possible is challenging. Showing how you reached your conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof is challenging. Pointing out what you feel are errors in someone's logic is challenging. Stating that your interpretation of how skepticism works is the only true way is not challenging. Not everyone agrees on what is and is not outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge. Telling someone they are not skeptical because they came to a different conclusion is not challenging.

5) This straw man emerges on this topic more often than with other topics, probably for the reasons I cited above. If I state my atheist position and the basis of it, I am a fundie trying to convert someone. If I state my position and the basis of it on something else, I am merely debating the subject.

In fact, I was referring to religions here (it probably wasn't clear because you divided up the paragraph to answer questions). I was just saying that I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever religion they want, but they don't have the right to act any way they want if it harms others or infringes on the rights of others. I also disagreed with religions trying to make a reality of everyone believing in one, "right" religion. Now that you brought it up, I would probably include atheism in that last sentence.

This straw man goes with #2 above and results from the difference when one debates the skeptical process when discussing god beliefs, rather than the evidence. That leads to:

6) Our imperfect skepticism (none of of can be a perfect skeptic in all things) is not given the same status as the imperfect skepticism of god beliefs. The former is just a fact, the latter involves beliefs that have deeper meaning to the individual when challenged.

I think that part of the discussion on the skeptical process, especially relating to belief in a god or gods, is on what is provable, as discussed previously. I agree that some beliefs have deeper meaning to individuals who will sometimes react defensively when challenged. I'm not sure what you mean in the highlighted phrase.

And I suggest to you that it is the special case given god beliefs which leads to this perception, not necessarily because atheists are any more assertive regarding their atheism than they are regarding other subjects one might be passionate about. A lot of us must sound pretty preachy in the anti-vaxxer discussions. Do those discussions also sound to you like a bunch of vaccine fundies?

I haven't read the anti-vaxxer threads, I'll have to do that; so I can't answer your question. I have read some threads where people start to sound pretty fundie, as in having their minds made up and not interested in evidence (but that may be because they have been through the same arguments many times before, where I am seeing them for the first time). You may be right that my perception of some atheists comes from reading things where atheism was the main topic. Then again, I may be right.

Never mind, don't answer that.

I don't deny this is a problem. But we differ completely on where the responsibility lies in what to do about it. From my perspective, I'm being asked to give a special pass to god beliefs. I'm being asked to not discuss the elephant in the room that I don't agree there is such a thing as faith based beliefs not subject to the same critical thinking as other non-evidence based beliefs. I'm being asked to not bring up my atheist perspective that there is overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings and challenge a theist to think about why they think that conclusion is true about every god but the one they believe in.

I cannot do these things because they offend theist skeptics. But it's fine if I challenge right wing skeptics or Libertarian skeptics.

I don't see it the same way. I see it as a question of skepticism. There are people who believe that some things aren't subject to empirical testing/knowledge (at least, I think this is the "special pass" you refer to). Apparently you don't believe this. I don't know where you are being asked not to discuss some things and not to bring up your "atheist perspective" in challenging theists. I also don't see how you can have evidence that something untestable/unprovable doesn't exist.

I suggest to you that no matter how politely or carefully worded I discuss my view that the evidence supports the conclusion all gods are mythical beings, it will still result in the same perception as you have described here: atheist fundie proselytizing.

It may. I haven't seen your evidence and don't understand how there can be evidence of nonexistence. I also don't understand how you can have evidence of something "outside the realm of systematic, empirical testing/knowledge."

There are two camps.
One is that since one cannot 'prove' gods don't exist, agnosticism is the better skeptical position. It's hard to buy that people are equally agnostic about invisible pink unicorns but it is supposed to be the same principle.

I think there may be more than just two camps. And although I do not know or think that invisible pink unicorns exist, I do not state that they can't. I am willing to change my mind should extraordinary evidence present itself. (And how can they be pink if they're invisible?)

The second camp, the one I'm in, holds the view that the above camp is trying to fit the evidence to the conclusion that gods might exist. Also it encourages the problem that some theists try to use the fact you cannot disprove gods as if that was evidence for gods existing. Instead, I think one can follow the evidence to the conclusion, and that conclusion is, gods are mythical beings people invented. I see no evidence pointing in any other direction. There is no skeptical principle I'm aware of that says I need to be agnostic about things which are known fiction unless there is some other supporting evidence to consider.

How about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? How did you decide all gods are known fiction? You keep talking about evidence. What evidence?

That's a principle. It doesn't stop one from considering certain things are scientific facts. Scientific facts are subject to change should new evidence arise.

It was a scientific fact the Earth's crust was solid until the paradigm shift of plate tectonics. Now moving crustal plates are scientific facts. It has to do with a judgement on the level of certainty. It's easy for people to see that complex theories might be subject to change in the future. But people might be less aware that such facts as, the Earth orbits the Sun, are also subject to change should new evidence emerge.

I thought these "facts" were always hypotheses or theories. Isn't that how science (and skepticism) works?

You would be in camp number one, you can't prove gods don't exist so concluding they do not is flawed thinking.

I can't prove either existence or nonexistence. It's not provable.

And I'm not the least bit offended you hold that view. I'm pretty sure camp two, (there is overwhelming evidence ALL gods are mythical beings invented by people), is still in the minority within the skeptical community. I'm also convinced the paradigm is shifting toward camp 2.

I'm getting more and more curious about your "overwhelming evidence ALL gods are mythical beings." I still don't understand how you find evidence for something untestable/unprovable.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't consider atheism a prerequisite for skepticism. I see skepticism as a prerequisite for the kind of atheism I support. When I meet a skeptic who isn't an atheist, to me it means there is at least one aspect of reality they haven't applied skepticism to yet. With most of them, I'm confident they'll get there eventually.

And being swarmed by socially inept, black-tshirt-with-witty-Star-Trek-quote-wearing, long hair and bearded creepers, who just want to ask them "this one question" (as if they haven't heard the same question a thousand times before) at TAM, certainly won't help them get there. That is what drives them away, not the topic itself.

 

[Phlebas]

It's amazing how many intelligent people can miss such a simple point.

Good: "These phenomena often attributed to God can also be explained in this non-supernatural way, and here is the evidence."

Bad: "If you attribute things to God, you're [an idiot/not a skeptic/unworthy/some other insult]"

One of these (admittedly oversimplified) approaches leads to conversation. One leads to nonproductive defensiveness. It's all about goals.

But hey, drawing the Venn diagram is important too, I guess.

 

[iknownothing]

A preponderance of atheism at a skeptical conference

A "preponderance?" Depending on how you count it, less than half.

Many atheists come across as very similar to fundamentalist [name your religion here]s. Their way is the only true way and everyone should believe the way they do. If the atheists here I'm addressing don't truly believe that, I apologize, but that's they way they sound to an outsider.

Well, no. I remember being in 4th grade in a Christian school, hearing that same sneering dismissal of atheism -- "they're just as religious as we are, but they just don't realize it." I thought it was a really good point...when I was, like, 10.

There's a difference between being passionate about religion -- based on being born into it, and cultural prejudice against other religions, and magical thinking, and peer pressure, and other logical fallacies -- and being passionate about atheism because long, painstaking consideration and research has led you to believe that it is the most rational conclusion.

I think these attitudes can drive away people who are investigating skepticism and even atheism. Some probably just don't come back to the forum or attend any more conferences or investigate skepticism any further.

And some of those people, over time, might begin realize that their feathers were ruffled not because the "attitudes" were so terrible, but because challenging religion is such a major taboo. They might then begin to reconsider things, and eventually make their way back.

For those who really just pack up their toys and go home and won't play with us anymore...well, why do we need them around anyway?

this experience has made me strongly resistant to atheism. I'm contrary, and some anti-religion posts make me want to run out and join the closest church.

That's really kinda funny. You say you were not raised religious. So apparently you are not aware of the contempt that your closest church will have towards atheists? The attitudes of religious people towards atheists can be much more insulting than most of what you see here, without anyone blinking an eye.

That's the special place religion holds. For skeptics to discuss atheism -- in a part of the country where the topic is terribly relevent to anyone who dares question religion -- is seen as so terribly obnoxious. Anyone who feels strongly about the topic is a meanie. But religious people are free to denigrate atheists and we're supposed to be respectful because it's their religion.

The claimed actions of a god can be studied and tested, but not the actual existence.

So if all claims of God's actions fall apart upon examination, what does that leave? Why is there any further reason to speculate about the existence of a God who apparently has nothing to do with the universe as we know it?

No, you can not say with 100% certainty that you are positive there is no such thing as any kind of God, and that you could never be proved wrong. But you can decide that enough of the evidence is in to form a verdict.

It's not controversial to say that you're firmly convinced, based on the evidence, that there is no Big Foot. Or ghosts. But, again, try to say that about God and you get this reaction of "What a bad attitude! You can't prove a negative!"

I believe in the existence of love and hate and generosity and spite and altruism and that puns are funny; I don't know if any of those can be proved to exist.

Of course those things can be proved to exist. There's ample evidence for all of them. (Except the pun thing, which is just a matter of opinion.)

 

[iknownothing]

Good: "These phenomena often attributed to God can also be explained in this non-supernatural way, and here is the evidence."

Bad: "If you attribute things to God, you're [an idiot/not a skeptic/unworthy/some other insult]"

One of these (admittedly oversimplified) approaches leads to conversation. One leads to nonproductive defensiveness. It's all about goals.

Yes, when people are actually rude -- "you're an idiot" counts -- then that's nonproductive.

But what a lot of people seem to be offended about is the mere presence of atheist discussion at a skeptic's conference. In this case, your "Good" example also counts as rudeness.

And pointing out the faults and the potentially dangerous consequences of religion, no matter how politely you do it, is sure to offend deeply.

 

[technoextreme]

Both these quotes imply (to me, at least) that the only good skeptic is an atheist skeptic and that people who don't have that belief (lack of belief?) don't belong with the "true" skeptics who are doing it right. This is where I get the "make atheism a prerequisite for skepticism (as some people seem to want)."

No. I think PZ is just a blowhard who tends not to communicate his points correctly. I'm not a psychic but I will try and interpret it in a manner that isn't actually dependent on atheism. Incorrect interpretation is not an antithesis to being skeptical. It just means you interpreted information incorrectly which is quite common. The response to being corrected and challenged is what makes you a skeptic. Everyone is human. We are not these superpowers gods of critical thinking that a disturbing amount of the atheist contingent thinks is possible. So by running away you aren't acting skeptically. I can see what he is saying but on the other hand calling people delusional in a skeptical conference is a bit stupid.

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to bigfoot and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to 9/11 Truth and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to Sylvia Browne and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to dowsing and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to homeopathy and come to a different conclusion than you?

So there's no way they could have applied their skepticism to anti-vax and come to a different conclusion than you?

etc. etc. etc.

If you're being skeptical, in the sense we use it here, you're reaching conclusions based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. If you believe in bigfoot, or 9/11 truth conspiracies, or sylvia browne, or dowsing, or homeopathy, or anti-vax conspiracies, or gods, you are reaching a conclusion not based on legitimate evidence and sound logic. It's really that simple. It's all the same ****.

Actually a lot of those questions that you asked are perfect examples of how the skeptical community can come to conclusions lacking all of the information they need.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Actually a lot of those questions that you asked are perfect examples of how the skeptical community can come to conclusions lacking all of the information they need.

Bearing in mind that new evidence is always welcome, which of those things do you think skeptics lack information needed to draw a conclusion about?

 

[TraneWreck]

Bearing in mind that new evidence is always welcome, which of those things do you think skeptics lack information needed to draw a conclusion about?

The response to your question, should it ever come, will be most instructive.

 

[AdMan]

The response to your question, should it ever come, will be most instructive.

And the statement itself is quite revelatory.

 

[TraneWreck]

And the statement itself is quite revelatory.

Indeed.

It's amazing how often "internal arguments" are "stealth criticisms from opponents."

This is the very definition of "concern trolling."

But I should wait for the reply to draw conclusions. Those statements are contingent on how Techno responds.

 

[technoextreme]

Bearing in mind that new evidence is always welcome, which of those things do you think skeptics lack information needed to draw a conclusion about?

Generally most skeptics only superficially scratch the surface of what is wrong with homeopathy. Same thing I noticed with the 9/11 truth movement in some regards.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Homeopathy.

Ok, a theory of medicine whose strongest treatments lack any actual active ingredient, whose operating principles are based on the sympathetic magic of like-cures-like, whose less-is-more philosophy violates everything we know about medicine dosing, and whose effects are either similar to placebo or only appear in flawed or small, highly-subjective studies.

I'd say we have plenty of information to come to a conclusion on this old bottle of snake-oil. Now, if it suddenly starts working in strong, measurable ways, we'll have to turn everything we know about physics, biology, and medicine upside down to figure out why this is working when everything we know about the world says it shouldn't.

You may imagine I'm not too concerned about that happening.

(and reading your edit, I'm going to hold out hope you aren't turning truther on us here and it was just badly expressed)