donnerkeil

However, in order to successfully investigate the methodology, one is going to have to submit to some authority (ie: college professor perhaps) in order to learn about these methods and practices. Biases can and do creep in (even at the graduate degree level), based simply on who is the mentor. One's whole scientific perspective can be influenced by the perspective of the authority under which one worked. One man's "Hey, this is good science." is another persons "Hey, this is a piece of crap." This can easily be seen by looking at citation numbers for various articles. Even though an article is peer reviewed, it may never be cited in other articles in the same field (except when that same author is referencing him/her-self in a followup report). It was "good enough" to be published (and by the untrained eye it was reproducible and hence good science) but not good enough to be deemed relevant to the rest of tha particular community.

"Anyone" is not accurate. Not anyone can directly investigate the loftiest theory to the most mundane experimental result. They might be able to if they dedicated their entire life to pursue one particular line of questioning, but this hardly leaves the door open to anyone. Science is not the realm of the novice and professional alike. Fact of the matter is, even within the scientific field, one's authority carries many benefits, least of which is funding... the almighty dollar.

donnerkeil

But can't the same be said of history? There are historical facts which we can no longer verify, simply because there is no one who is left alive to verify it for us. Yet, we look at the records left behind and we come to the conclusion that they are reliable (ie: authoritative) and worthy of belief.

Do you mean to tell me that any good free-thinker would suspend belief in a Napoleon because his existance can no longer be verified by any person? I doubt you would. So then, where is the cutoff for acceptable belief (a particular year perhaps?), and is this set in stone? In other words, what historical facts are deemed reasonable for a free-thinker to accept and which ones must they reject? Of course, that seems rather dogmatic in and of itself.

Malaclypse the Younger

donnerkeil

You are equivocating the concept of authority with reputation and accuracy.

I take no one at their word except with regard to subjective facts.

And even in extending subjective facts (such as reports of perceptions) to objective facts (such as something actually happening), I am going to apply external criteria, such as their reputation for accuracy, superficial plausibility, independent corroboration, and other factors.

There is no comparison. I wouldn't take Einstein at his word about physics. If I wasn't sufficiently interested to examine one of Einsteins statements, I would believe and report the fact that "Einstein believes X".

And if Einstein himself told me something about science that couldn't in principle be verified directly, I would laugh in his face. But he was a scientist, and didn't say stupid stuff like that.

I find it offensive and objectionable that you would presume to assert what I would or would not do.

Certainly I would take Einstein seriously; I have evidence that he's worth taking seriously. But being taken seriously is different than being believed on one's authority

I go to the experts. But I do not accept their statements on their authority. I examine their arguments. If I find them persuasive, I will agree with them. If I find them unpersuasive, I will disagree with them. As noted, I find Einsteins arguments against QM unpersuasive, and I disagree with them. The important thing is that I choose to believe or disbelieve an expert based on my own evaluation.

General credibility refers to my understanding of scientific meta-methodology. I have evidence that people in general who claims to be doing science and publish peer-reviewed journals will report their experimental results accurately. I also have evidence that if they do not report their results accurately, their fraud will be quickly discovered.

Additionally, since quite a lot of scientific experiments (and ideally they all should be) are reproduced by people who have no stake in confirming them and every stake in disconfirming them, I have further evidence that their reports are accurate.

The basis for examining them is their expertise (which can be established evidentially). I have a limited amount of time, and cannot examine every claim made by every person. However the basis for believing them has nothing to do with their expertise. It depends only on the quality of their argument.

Stipulated. So what? You're just moving the fundamental authority from the Pope to the guy who wrote the scripture.

That they are analyzed is not evidence of freethought. Freethought entails a specific methodology, not just having any methodology.

Merely not contradicting prior statements is not evidence of objective truth, it is evidence only of internal consistency. To establish the Pope's statement as truth requires dependence on the authority of his private knowledge (and the private knowledge of the authors of scripture). Reliance on private knowledge of any kind contradicts freethought.

I cannot independently verify the truthfulness of the Pope's statements. Thus I have no rational basis in freethought for believing them.

Malaclypse the Younger

donnerkeil

This is nonsensical. Scientific methodology is well-defined. One can examine its value for oneself without relying on any authority. Indeed, if one were to reject scientific methodology for oneself, one would still be engaging in freethought. However, to reject scientific methodology, for example, on the word of one's priest that it is "contrary to god", you would have to rely on that priest's private knowledge; such a rejection would be contrary to freethought.

That human beings show bias is unsurprising. Scientific methodology (and freethought itself) exists to ameliorate this bias.

I fail to understand this statement. It sounds like you are making stuff up out of the blue. What is one's "scientific perspective"? Freethought does not demand that we are not influenced by others, but that we choose to accept or reject that infuence on our own authority.

Your understanding of actual science appears deeply flawed. Scientists in general are in strong agreement on what constitutes "good science". There is an objectively defined basis for challenging someone's methodology and conclusions. Proper methodology is not a matter of opinion.

This is irrelevant. Differential citation is not evidence of disagreement about methodology, it is merely evidence that some scientific works are more relevant and interesting than others.

Yes, anyone can, in principle.

The door is indeed open to anyone--although not all need to enter it. You need merely work and study (and not for a lifetime; most people can get a Ph.D. in less than 10 years); you don't need to wait for a revelation from god.

And it does not even take a decade of study to establish confidence in the accuracy of experimental reports nor the understanding of the loftiest theory. It might take genius to create Relativity or QM, but it takes only careful study to understand it.

Malaclypse the Younger

The science of history makes inferences from facts we actually have, such as documents, etc. The existence of document X is a fact, and again its existence and content can be verified by anyone who chooses to do so. And one can examine the quality of arguments based on that evidence to determine whether one should accept or reject any particular argument.

Some facts are indeed lost in the mists of time. This does not really have anything to do with freethought.

As noted earlier, I believe in the existence and content of particular historical documents. As to whether those contents represent actual objective facts is a matter of argumentation.

His existence can be verified by the evidence. But it is a matter for each individual freethinker to examine the evidence and the arguments for Napoleon's existence and come to his own conclusion.

There is no "cutoff" for acceptable belief. That is up to each individual person. If a freethinker examines the evidence and comes to the conclusion that Napoleon didn't exist, he would still be a freethinker.

It merely happens to be the case that most freethinkers have come to the conclusion from examining the evidence that Napoleon did indeed exist. But there is no "compulsion" to do so, and I cannot determine whether a person is a freethinker merely by examining his conclusions about Napoleon. I must, rather, examine how he arrived at his results. If he examined the evidence and decided for himself that he didn't believe Napoleon existed, he's a freethinker. If he says, "Napoleon didn't exist because so-and-so said so," then he would not be a freethinker.

Malaclypse the Younger

It should also be noted that I personally find the historical existence or nonexistence of Napoleon fairly irrelevant and uninteresting. Even if it were shown that he did not exist (or we did not have sufficient basis for that belief), my life would not change in the least.

Laurentius

Here's what I've come across:
<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.html" target="_blank">What is a free thinker?</a>
AVE

John Page

Interesting. It says "No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah". I'm trying to figure out of logic qualifies as a creed. Definitions of creed include "...formal summaries of the principal items of belief..." Definitions of logic from the same source (Macmillan Dictionary) include "the science of reasoned argument ... rules..."

This puts me on the horns of a dilemma. Do I say there are absolute truths, thereby placing logic above religions and their creeds (I don't recommend this!); or do I say truth is relative, relegating the rules of logic to a creed that I believe in and risking status as a freethinker?

I can try pointing to the rules of logic coming from some kind of "better" reasoning, objectivity or scientific method, but religious folks can also claim knowledge throught their direct knowledge and experience of god.

What do you suggest?

yygke

I think it is impossible for a human living in a populated world (as we all do) to be a truly "free thinker." Someone said that they decide their own truth for themselves without any other influence, and by rejecting dogma (I assume religious) etc...

So how exactly do you do that? Do you just "clear" your mind? Do you look at everything in a cold, hard, factual light? If so, doesn't that seem a bit "objective"?

I think that a free thinker doesn't exist. However, I think that by living our lives certain ways, we can come closer to achieving the truth. I think that morals, virtues, ethics, etc., also play a big role in someone's thought.

Just my 2c

yygke

Hey I like the link, but disagree with:

NOT SO! I know many religious people who talk to me daily about their struggles, and how they would be doing this or that twenty years ago, but not now, because they have found truth in God.

Also, look at the decline of the state of this country with regard to sexual abberation. I think morals play a big role in having a proggressing society.
Compare our children who are taught that they are simply descendants of animals, and their schooling, with Asian children (from asia, in asia) who are taught religion and honor in their homes. There is a huge difference in the work ethic in other areas as well (i.e arts, music).

I think that by removing certain values from our youth, we severely handicap their ability to think freely.