• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who can you trust? How did you become a Skeptic?

streetsmart1980

New Blood
S
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15
Who can you trust?

Can you trust yourself, your perceptions and intuitions?
Can you trust people who are smarter than you?
Can you trust scientists? Authority figures? The news?
Your parents? Your friends? Your social support network?
Do you trust experience? Do you trust bravery?

I have trusted all of the above. They helped me expand my perspective. By following the course of our civilization I have achieved a much clearer and accurate understanding of reality than I ever would have come to on my own. I have agressively pursued the knowledge and power these sources provide. Thereby I have set myself apart from the masses.

Here are the things I currently trust:
#1. I trust the premise that "I don't know anything" and the world we live in is profoundly different than the way it appears to us.
#2. I trust the fact that science is the best method to understand the world around us. It is the most reliable and consistent provider of truth. It allows us to build tools that absolutely improve our quality of life. Only science has proven itself faithful to humanities advancement.

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.

I was wondering how you became a skeptic?
I became a skeptic, because all of my sources of trust eventually ended up failing me and letting me down. They failed to question themselves and practically demanded I fully commit myself to them. Once I exhausted their help I gave up on everything and became a skeptic. Science is now my only means of advancing.

What is your motivation for being a skeptic?
I kind of ended up here by accident. My initial goal in life was to become absolutely free from deception. I wanted to live the greatest life I could possibly live. I have come to the conclusion that skepticism is an absolute critical part for me to accomplish and maintain that goal. I also want to share that freedom with others.
 
streetsmart1980 said:
<snip>

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

<snip>
Click to expand...


Eh, I am not thrilled with this quote. I think a better sentiment would be to ask yourself, "Consider what you believe to be true. What would it take to convince you that it is false?" If the answer is "Nothing", that is the idea you must examine with skepticism.

To answer your questions, I am not sure that I could consider any one thing a motivation for skepticism, or a reason to end up skeptical. Skeptcism is simply a tool in the toolbox, and the real lesson to learn is to be able to identify those things to which you can and should apply it.

For example, I certainly could be skeptical of everything my husband tells me, but that is not necessarily conducive to a healthy marriage. It is far better to know which things my husband tells me I should greet with a raised eyebrow.
 
There's a difference between 'trust', and 'accept as always correct and valid'.

As Hokulele says, skepticism is a tool to help determine what you accept and what you question.
 
Fantasy is not a bad thing. millions of sceptic people enjoy many fantasies in arts, books, and (online) games.

As for why I became a sceptic, I am not aware of being one. Form childhood on I just followed the Reason. because when I asked questions reason could answer them. (Of course those answers came to me through parents, teachers and books)
 
I live by the dictum "You can never be sure when you're right, you can only be sure when you're wrong", which I got from Richard Feynman.

And as for these quotes...

streetsmart1980 said:
Thereby I have set myself apart from the masses.

[...]

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong.
Click to expand...

Those are dangerous ways of thinking.
 
Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.
 
I became a skeptic after talking to an insurance professional! ( :duck: and :D for those who are following along. )
 
I became a skeptic after listening to a non-insurance professional. I now know how the physicists feel talking to the crackpots :).
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.
Click to expand...
Scientists often have preconceived notions. It's what they do with them when they are presented with evidence that contradicts them that matters.

Kepler started with two preconceived notions that I can think of off the top of my head. Namely that planets moved in perfect circles and that their orbits might be related by the platonic solids in some way. The evidence eventually persuaded him to discard these ideas in favour of a pretty accurate mathematical description of orbits.

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had the preconceived notion that there was a luminiferous aether and they were trying to measure the aether wind with their famous experiment. Instead the experiment seriously damaged the aether hypothesis.

At a more mundane level, scientific experiments are always performed with a preconceived notion in mind. Scientists don't just perform experiments at random hoping to find something by chance. They usually have a preconceived notion (called a hypothesis) that they are trying to test.
 
My curiosity lead to skepticism. It might sound strange but I was always curious why things were perceived the way they were. I kept asking myself the "why?" question and eventually it would lead to an understanding of how things worked from a purely scientific perspective.

After I dug deep enough, I discovered that the foundations for many things that I took for granted as a child were inherently wrong. I quickly discovered that religion was one of those things, as well as many non-paranormal things as marketing schemes and other gimmicks.

I find it is very difficult to find certainty when even so-called experts don't understand what they claim as truth.

-Maus
 
When I saw the bloated corpse of a Bangladeshi flood victim floating down a river on TV.
 
I think we're all skeptics, just to differing degrees and in different areas. Some people probably aren't skeptical enough for their own good and they end up sending money to the Nigerian Freedom Front on the assumption they'll get millions back in return.

The vast majority of people treat such scam offers with a large dose of skepticism but many of these skeptical people will still give money to a carnival "psychic" on the assumption they'll get to speak with dead relatives.

The difference between the "average" person and many/most of the people on this forum is the degree of skepticism. Many of us here treat anything seemingly inexplicable with skepticism. It doesn't necessarily mean we dismiss it outright, just that we don't automatically assume everything we see promoted in the media is true.

Personally, I think that most people cope adequately with a mix of belief and skepticism. It only becomes a problem when the mix tends toward fundamentalism. If you are too gullible, you set yourself up to be used and abused by unscrupulous people. If you are so skeptical you trust no one, life would be intolerable.

The battle that skeptical activists wage is mainly against those who seek to exploit people who don't generally assume a skeptical stance with regard to incredible claims. Why we do it is another question and one I've asked myself.

Here is a quote from Michael Shermer who is explaining what Skepticism and Science are:

"The default position in science is that: whatever it is you think you believe in, it is not true, unless you prove it otherwise"

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.
Click to expand...

I think your paraphrasing is a little off. I don't read those words with the same level of harshness you ascribe. I see it more as a position of "nothing is actually true until proven so" or more simply "assume nothing".

There's no suggestion of stupidity in his comment since that is a relative term and if everyone is stupid then, since that would be the norm, no one would be stupid. (Dash in Pixar's The Incredibles hit on this idea when he noted that when everyone is special, no one is). "Stupid" suggests an unwillingness or inability to learn and Shermer isn't suggesting that as a default position. That would be stupid ;)

Note also that he was speaking about the default position in science, not life in general, so we shouldn't make assumptions (from that quote alone) on what he thinks the default position is for everyone.
 
streetsmart1980 said:
Do you trust experience? [/qupte]

The odds of the same set of conditions appearing twice are minimal.

Do you trust bravery?
Click to expand...

Calculated risk takeing is a more logical aproach.

#1. I trust the premise that "I don't know anything" and the world we live in is profoundly different than the way it appears to us.
Click to expand...

Diffine appears.

#2. I trust the fact that science is the best method to understand the world around us. It is the most reliable and consistent provider of truth. It allows us to build tools that absolutely improve our quality of life. Only science has proven itself faithful to humanities advancement.
Click to expand...

For a given value of advancement. Science also gives us the ability to kill on a scale that would make the average european imperialist blink.

In other words, humans are stupid and wrong. Their natural tendencies will lead them astray. Only science is a true guide in separating superstition from truth, and reality from fantasy.
Click to expand...

Science as a guide is extreamly dangerious. Badly phrased questions can tend to cause problematical answers. For example the question "how can we redecide the number of AIDS cases?" risks produceing the answer "by instituting mass testing and killing everyone with HIV".


Science is now my only means of advancing.
Click to expand...

How much have you really questioned science?
Click to expand...
 
CFLarsen said:
Shermer is correct.

In science, we don't start with our preconceived notions and then try to prove them false. In science, we start with nothing and work our way from there.

If we start with our preconceived notions, we basically use the trial-and-error method, but without knowing exactly what it is we are doing. That's why medicine was so haphazard and dangerous (often lethal) right up until we learned about correct models of molecules, which didn't happen until we had a pretty good understanding of what atoms are.
Click to expand...

False. Our models of atoms came about because we had preconcived notions (in fact people had a pretty solid hold on simple molecules were before working out what atoms were but that is secondary).

There was first the plum pudding model. It sort of works for some limited kinds of chemistry and electrons. Then Rutherford came along with his gold foil experiment which resulted in a new model the Rutherford model. Which kinda works if you are prepared to accept matter haveing an unreasonably short lifespan. The Bohr model gets around this but I think has issues with the shapes of the orbitals. There are a couple more steps but then we get to the Schrodinger model which works fine except we can't provide exact solutions for most of the equations. Starting from nothing is very uncommon in science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom