MSD

HIV does not cause AIDS, vaccines cause autism, humans did not evolve from less complex life forms, and man did not land on the moon. I have been presented each of these arguments as fact, I have heard arguments in their favor, I have researched each of them, and I have been called an idiot and a sheep when my consideration of the evidence has led me to conclude that they are all empirically and verifiably false. I am a skeptic.

I've been meaning to start a discussion on skepticism on TFP for a while, and the trend of "ask me" thread seems like as good a time as any.

For the record, I am not here to discuss philosophical skepticism, which I consider a bunch of nonsense, I'm here for scientific skepticism. There are two terms that I'm going to define my use of up front to avoid confusion: belief, which I use to mean something an individual feels is true and can be verified or falsified, and faith, which covers stuff like belief in God and cannot be tested scientifically.

Skepticism is simply the application of the scientific method to belief. Evidence precedes belief in the skeptic's mind and the skeptic's mind is always open to new evidence. A skeptic should never be afraid to have his beliefs challenged, he realizes that the outcome will be one of two things -- either he will find the evidence insufficient to trump what he knows, or the person challenging his belief will do him the service of showing him that he was wrong. One of the core values of skepticism is the willingness to accept that you may be wrong, and to appreciate being proven wrong for the sake of learning.

I often hear people claim that people of a skeptical mindset are "closed minded." Frequently, the accuser is much less open minded than the accused in these cases. Skeptics are willing to change their beliefs if more convincing evidence is produced to support an alternative, which can be provided in a number of ways such as more accurate methods of producing evidence, a stronger correlation, a larger volume of evidence, or simply irrefutable evidence that is mutually exclusive to what supported the old belief. Evidence should be verifiable and experiments repeatable.

Skeptical activism is the promotion of critical and scientific thinking. It's as simple as just speaking up and politely disagreeing when someone says something that you know to be untrue, or doing more if you want to. I have plenty of ideas if anyone wants them.

So go ahead and ask me about skepticism, or what I think about something, or whatever you think fits the subject.

braisler

As a skeptic, do you find it hard to believe that anyone else is NOT a skeptic? Or do you feel that many people are skeptical about some aspect of thought and overly accepting of another area?

Have you ever attended a 'Drinking Skeptically' event?

Do you feel that scientific skepticism and atheism go hand in hand?

MSD

I believed many irrational things when I was younger. I believed that I was psychic, that the government was concealing evidence of extraterrestrial life, that I could sense ghosts, that evolution was still debatable, and until I was in my mid-teens, I had a compulsive fear that I would be abducted by aliens. I was also devoutly religious, but abandoning religion led to thinking skeptically rather than the other way around for me.

I haven't found any around here, but once I have more free time I'm going to either find a place I can get to or start my own here.

In no way does skepticism necessitate atheism. I feel that a skeptic should be be either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist due to the lack of empirical evidence, but that's why I put faith in a category of its own. Skepticism is about what we can know, not what we cannot.

In a roundabout way, it serves to diminish religious faith as "miracles" are analyzed rationally and things that we previously had no capacity to explain become explainable with technology. I feel that the historic and modern influence of religion has been overwhelmingly negative, especially when it conflicts with science and still does over issues like sex education and evolution.

I don't think that people should feel pressured to question their belief in God based on the fallibility of the actions and teachings of other people, but it's none of my business to influence the faith of others.

Halx

Do you believe that there is room for skepticism in today's political structure? Do you feel like someone of your mindset could realistically hold public office?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Iliftrocks

A skeptic would probably have to lie to get elected.

__________________
bill hicks - "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out."

Lasereth

A skeptic pretty much has to be agnostic because the two stances are directly related with each other. So yeah, they'd have to lie about religion at the very least to get elected.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

MSD

I think it's possible to inch it in a bit at a time. The majority of the population simply does not think rationally and is generally unwilling to set aside emotional reactions in favor of cold, rational analysis. In a country where media and many politicians and think tanks still want us to think that there's serious scientific debate over something like anthropogenic climate change and there is still a debate over whether to teach evolution as science or the layman's idea of a theory, no. There is no chance that a skeptic could hold office without lying or keeping his views secret unless over half of the population were willing to think rationally instead of emotionally. I would say rational thinkers are outnumbered by at least 5:1 if not more.

Baraka_Guru

From a skeptic's perspective:

Postmodernism: boon or boondoggle?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

MSD

I reject postmodern philosophy on the same basis that I reject philosophical skepticism, pyrrhonism, and cultural relativism. There are absolutes, there are right and wrong answers, and truth is attainable.

Willravel

Has your skepticism ever lead you to a conclusion that is generally considered to be incorrect? Say, for example, after researching the evidence you came to the conclusion that President Kennedy was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Baraka_Guru

But this is not so. The Postmodernists reject that there are any right or wrong answers (ref: the rejection of grand narratives), and to them only truth is that there is no "Truth." This is why I ask. They seem to have a kind of skepticism. But many have problems with postmodernists in that their answer is that there is no answer, at least not one that we can all agree upon...nor even most groups for that matter. That drives people mad.

Anyway, postmodernism isn't about absolutes; it's about grey areas.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

redsneaker

Has your skepticism rubbed off on anyone in your life? Was/is that your intention?

MSD

I have my own theory on the Kennedy assassination. In short, I think that Oswald, who was not particularly sympathetic to the US to begin with, was recruited by the Soviets to avenge the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt and public humiliation of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he acted alone on US soil, and that the US government intentionally muddied the waters and drew attention to themselves knowing that if people found out a Soviet agent killed the president, that they would want war. Occam's razor leads me to that conclusion based on an analysis of all the factors surrounding the assassination, investigation, and mishandling of evidence, and rational actor theory backs me up by predicting that those in power would want to avoid war.

I base my support of abortion rights, comprehensive and mandatory sex education, free contraception, and other things that conflict with mainstream religious attitudes on evidence rather than emotion.

Unlike the majority of people, I don't believe in psychic powers, ghosts, and the supernatural outside of religion based on a complete lack of evidence.

I can't really think of anything where I'm against a vast majority of people other than religion, and like I said, I don't consider that to be within the domain of skepticism or science.
That's what I meant. I don't confine things to grey areas, there is truth and it is attainable. I find it an obnoxious cop out that seeks to avoid having to commit to anything.
My father died when my brother was 14 and I was 18, and I've been the role model and substitute father figure since then, so a lot of me rubs off on him. I discuss stuff with friends all the time, and I think that at least a few of them have started thinking a bit more critically from my influence. My mom listens to me and will at least search out evidence, but she is the queen of logical fallacies.

MSD

I want to add a bit to my last post. I am against what seems to be the majority on "alternative" and "natural" medicines. It's very simple, there are treatments that work, known as medicine, and there's everything else, which is not. Herbal remedies may contain the same active ingredients, like willow bark and aspirin, but the natural form has no consistent dosage and no regulation on quality control. Homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, and chiropractic are all typically passed off as medicine, but are 100% bullshit. Sure, you may have gotten benefits from them or know someone who did, but they are no better than placebo, both homeopathic and chiropractic "medicine" have resulted in permanent damage, chiropractic has killed people, and people have died because they believed the bullshit they were told instead of going to a real doctor.

I also try to educate people, just today I mentioned my dislike of Jim Carrey (and Jenny McCarthy for the same reason) and explained the basics of the anti-vaccination movement (which a couple of people hadn't even heard of) and how harmful this misinformation is. check out www.jennymccarthybodycount.com

www.whatstheharm.net covers a lot, from harm caused by superstitioon and quack medicine to the dangers of blindly relying on your GPS device, like the guy who drove into a river after ignoring "Bridge Out" signs.

Willravel

Not to get too far off topic, but having not come to a definitive conclusion myself (btw, you should ask host about this, he has a TON of incredible information), what do you make of things like the magic bullet?

MSD

One of the few specials worth watching on the Discovery Channel and affiliates these days was "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet." They set up dummies with bones and ballistics gel, and the only thing that prevented their bullet from making the final wound was the fact that it hit 2 ribs instead of one. They also did a good job debunking stuff like the badge man and claims that Oswald couldn't have made the walk in time. Audio analysis is as close to conclusive as I think we can get with current technology to determining whether there was an extra shot, and at this point it looks like it was just 3 and an echo.

On a related note, I love this Onion story

Jinn

How often do you get called "arrogant"?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like anytime someone takes the skepticism angle "arrogant" is the next denigrating comment..

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

MSD

Not very often. I used to be an arrogant braggart since my teachers in primary schools were always telling me how smart I was, and when I realized that a: being smart isn't everything and b: nobody likes a braggart, I worked at not being that guy. I also studied communications and intend to go to grad school focusing in persuasion, so I have a pretty good fundamental understanding of how to persuade people without coming across as pushy. The big thing is that nobody is open to being flat-out told "you're wrong." I find a good way to get people thinking about something is to ask them questions, get them explaining what they believe. Once they break it down, you can express doubts and expose minor flaws, and get an intellectual conversation going. Go bit by bit, and give them reasons to doubt their own belief and you can help them figure it out. If you help someone figure something out, they feel smarter, if you prove them wrong, they feel belittled. I guess it's simple psychology when you boil it down.

Of course, everything has its true believers who won't budge and will dismiss all evidence to the contrary. The only thing they can do is lash out at people, even when proven wrong. The funniest example is right here, the clip that changed my opinion of Criss Angel for the better.

Lasereth

This taping can't be real. Tell me this didn't really air on TV.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

MSD

It was a whole season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon_(TV_series)