Arrowman

Veil of Fire: As a card-carrying Skeptic I'd like to pull together some points which you have discussed in a number of threads, both here (S&S) and in RR&P, because I think they're worth pursuing outside the context of those threads (particularly the RR&P one!).

In particular, I think these points are worth pursuing because they go to the heart of why Skeptics have so much trouble convincing the "lay audience" to adopt a more critical/skeptical thinking attitude.

Typical example: I recently lent to a friend, who was attending a naturopath, a "Skeptic's Guide to Alternative Medicine". She read the book and said she found it "very negative". I pointed out that when you're conducting a detailed analysis of the claims made by the altmed practitioners, including the [lack of] evidence to support those claims, it's pretty difficult to be anything other than "negative".

I'm wary of trying to summarise on your behalf, but it seems to me the points I wish to address are best summed up in these quotes from you, in those threads, interspersed with my response:
(Your words in bold, quotes from others in italics).

(PS I will leave aside all arguments about "the burden of proof being on the person making the claim" as I think you get that; we are arguing here about the legitimacy of "disbelief" in the absence of evidence.)

I don't think anyone here is claiming that Appeal to Ridicule is a valid argument against a given proposition. Nor would it be used as such by any critical thinker/skeptic. However, this accusation, that you have made so many times in these threads, is one to which skeptics must be prepared to reply when trying to get their point across to a "lay" audience. And so I will address it.

The assertion "that's silly" and its variants are often used rhetorically and that is what has happened on this forum. As others have pointed out, these are words you will often hear used in academic circles, however you will never see them used in serious publications. I do not think it is legitimate (not does it do your image any good) to continually insist that people using innocent rhetoric are guilty of some major logical fallacy.

Absent a formal definition, I would say that it is legitimate to describe a claim as "silly" when the claim includes at least some of the following characteristics:
- It does not include a mechanism based on known scientific principles.
- It is based largely on superstition and/or mythology, and/or relies on unmeasurable supernatural intervention.
- It enjoys no substantive support in scientific circles.

I wonder if scigirl or others could improve on this?

Why would we need any kind of formal definition? Because while "it's silly" is not a valid argument against belief in a proposition, I would argue that "it's silly" (perhaps worded more formally!) is a legitimate argument against expending serious effort in researching the proposition and in particular, expending effort in debunking/disproving the proposition.

In illustration of this, I would contrast astrology, say, with Cold Fusion. (I will assume from your later words that you would hold the same "open mind" position on both.) No-one seriously researches astrology because "it's silly". On the other hand, and acknowledging that some people probably said "it's silly" about Cold Fusion, the proposition was taken much more seriously to the point where serious research was done. Yes, the research failed, but (physicists please help me here) it remains, I think, a valid scientific possibility.

You would be quite correct in pointing out that "sometimes silly ideas turn out to be true" - Galileo and all that. But I think it is fair to say that
- in a modern world where scientific research is not shackled by superstition; and
- given limitations on resources, budgets etc
it is legitimate to use "its' silly" as a filter for focusing serious research (and also, as I will note below, as a day to day guide to critical thinking for people in general).

I am wary of using "mocking" articles such as Randi's when trying to make a point to non-Skeptics, because they fall into exactly the same trap that you just have - confusing rhetoric with serious argument. Randi is not making an Appeal to Ridicule - he is just writing a scathing article. I expect the Great Randi would be most offended if you accused him of using that sort of non-logical argument.

Is Randi's approach legitimate? Yes - it has its place. One of the things that I think we need to develop more as a society, is a healthy ridicule for ridiculous ideas. Frauds and con-artists get away with murder because, among other reasons, we seem unwilling as a society to laugh at them. Uri Geller is a joke of the first order and yet some people still take him seriously. As they say, you've gotta laugh, or you'd cry.

It's amazing (and disappointing) how many times people who are otherwise level-headed and sensible, will take offence, or think you are being "unreasonably mocking" when you laugh at a preposterous proposition.

"Everyone has the right to their opinion - they don't have the right to have that opinion taken seriously."
- I think an Australian Skeptic by the name of Barry Williams said that, but he might not have been the first.

And of course, Randi does exactly the opposite of "rejecting the notion that any kind of test is necessary" - he has $1mill up for grabs. Pretty loose for someone who keeps posting definitions of logical fallacies.

No, it's not "proof that psychic abilities don't exist". Randi doesn't have to "disprove" anything and as a critical thinker he knows that. But when proselytising the Skeptical cause to the general public, who don't always get the Burden of Proof argument, it is very useful to produce this sort of persuasion - to at least get people thinking along the right lines.

One of the key Skeptical questions when faced with a proposition, is "How would the world be different if this were true?" In this case, if psychic phenomena were true, among other differences in the world, there'd be at least one more millionaire in the world today. (As opposed to the millionaires who continue to make their money through fraud )

No, it doesn't mean that and no-one here is claiming that it does. It means "I will not believe in any claim without persuasive evidence". See above for discussion on "that's so stupid..."

Classic complaint of the proposer of the preposterous claim - "we don't have any evidence because we don't have the money to do "real scientific testing".

And yet there's $1 million up for grabs, for anyone who can demonstrate psychic abilities under controlled conditions. It's not a question of cost; in fact it's a major opportunity!

In any case - tens of thousands of scientists, in thousands of institutions, all over the world, are daily looking around for interesting (and potentially productive) areas of research. Strangely, while thousands of scientists will duplicate effort in some areas, none of any note have decided to beak from the pack and do some genuinely career-developing work on, for example, pet psychics.

No, that's not "disproof" and it's not an appeal to authority - I'm just making again the point about filtering effort into productive areas.

Well, not as a once off - you'd want to repeat the experiment many times - but, yes, you're on the track. The interesting thing is that Skeptic organisations do this all the time - conduct covert tests of things like Naturopathy - and the results are always negative!

Exactly - and yet, you said above "Give us the funding and we'll be happy to finally do real scientific testing!" Which is it? It would cost little to develop a body of evidence to give real scientists some interest in pursuing the field, and yet no-one has done it. I'm sorry, the "we don't have the money" argument just doesn't cut it.

Whoops, major logic flaw here. The point was that real scientists don't test [creationist] hypotheses because the "theory" is simply too absurd to waste time with - not that they use "absurdity" as a basis for rejecting the claims. Creationists, on the other hand, do exactly as you have said. Argumentum ad Ignorantum (forgive me if I get the Latin wrong).

Have you ever looked at creation "science" material? I'm not talking about the fringe lunatics - I'm talking about the "mainstream" creationist bodies like ICR. Their material is so full of holes that one would not want to waste any time or money on researching it.

You didn't really mean to say that in a discussion of logic and critical thinking, did you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, now we get to the real nub of the argument!

When confronted with an unsupported claim (in particular, a claim which satisfies the formal definition of "silly" as given above), I can take either of two positions:
1. Reject it, and actively disbelieve - "it is untrue".
(always qualified, of course, by acknowledging that however unlikely I believe it to be, it may one day be proven true at which time I will change my position)
2. Adopt an "open mind" - "well, I accept that there's no evidence for this claim but it could be true so I will keep an open mind."

I would say that essentially the position argued by the Skeptics here has been that option 1 is preferred, while you would argue in favour of option 2. Fair enough?

So - what is wrong with option 2? Why should we not "keep an open mind" with regard to "silly claims". What harm?

Let me start with a few off-the-top-of-the-head examples:

- Australian health insurance funds are able to offer taxpayer-subsidised benefits for homeopathy and other quackery because our government doesn't have the nerve to apply proper levels of regulation to altmed. In fact, the government is giving taxpayer funds to these organisations to help them set up "national regulatory bodies"
- Psychic phone scams continue to be legal despite the clear lack of evidence that there is any such thing as psychic powers (and in many cases, powerful evidence that the scam in question is in fact just that). And yet, any other provider of services is subject to the Trade Practices Act and is required to provide supporting evidence for any claims they make about their products.
- Gambling systems continue to sell, despite the immutable laws of probability (and the fact that people just don't seem to be able to figure out that if the system actually works, the author wouldn't need, or even want, to sell it )
- Creationists are trying to use the "open mind" / "what harm" argument to get non-science into classrooms.
- Pet psychics, John Edwards, Uri Geller et al - they all continue to rip off the public, apparently immune from the law.
- I could of course go on.

Why do these things happen? Because lots of people like to have an "open mind"; "it could be true"; governments allow these scams to continue because the majority (I assert) of the electorate may not necessarily actively believe in the scam in question but they will defend to the death the rights of others to believe in something that might be true".

And - if we don't apply the "preposterous filter" to claims, we will dissipate valuable resources (human intellect, research budgets etc) across some completely wasteful areas. Even as it is, I shudder to think how much "human thinking time" is devoted every day to believing in these claims instead of thinking about "real stuff". A bit like how much time is wasted in church every Sunday

That's why "having an open mind" on preposterous claims is wrong. If you don't distinguish between the preposterous and the possible, if you insist on applying the same "burden of disproof" to all claims not matter what their merits, you end up allowing everything through the door.

And that way lies
1. Open season for scamsters and frauds; and
2. Dissipation of valuable human energy and resources.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

scigirl

Great post Arrowman,

I would add to the first point : when the claim seems to defy known scientific principles (homeopathic dilutions, or YEC for example), it should be rejected (until data proves the original known scientific principles are incorrect).

I would also add one--when the claim has a simpler explanation (as your examples show).

For instance, is is more likely, as MrDarwin said in the pet psychic thread, that a TV show would lie or decieve to make money:
Or more likely that these psychics are actually talking to pets (I myself have never watched the show, but I've seen the human psychic ones, and I remain highly highly skeptical).

scigirl

MrDarwin

What it boils down to is that, every day of our lives, we receive conflicting information--whether because of hoax, fraud, misinformation, superstition, or honest error. Whether it's ESP, UFOs, Bigfoot, televised alien autopsies (was that one ever definitively revealed as a hoax?), alternative medicine, some weird new goat in Vietnam with curly horns that may or may not exist, chain letters or the guy down the street trying to get you involved in a pyramid scheme, we need some way to sort through and evaluate that information, not necessarily to determine what is true, but to determine what is likely to be true, and how likely that information is to be useful to us.

I'm inclined to dismiss an awful lot of this stuff out of hand, absent any compelling evidence to believe in it.

Veil of Fire

That's all I was asking for.

Out of three frigging threads, ONE person is willing to do more than insult me for asking about their reasoning.

It's much better than Corwin's "How about an Appeal to It Just Doesn't F~cking Work You Moron" principle.

If Lady Shea, or Darwin, or Corwin, or Annie had just said THAT as opposed to calling me names, that entire debacle last night would have been completely averted. I can't argue with any of that (except maybe the second criterion, but that's debatable).

You don't reject a claim because it's 'stupid', you reject a claim because
"- It does not include a mechanism based on known scientific principles.
- It is based largely on superstition and/or mythology, and/or relies on unmeasurable supernatural intervention.
- It enjoys no substantive support in scientific circles."

There's a big difference there. Am I the only person who can see that difference?

Viti

Could you point out the post where I called you a name? I wasn't even speaking to you on my first post that started this whole mess yet you felt the need to call me intelectually dishonest.

MrDarwin

I'm curious also. What names have I called you?

I was rather taken aback to be called an "intellectually dishonest diptard" by you in another discussion when, to the best of my recollection, the worst I had done was disagree with you. I think other regulars will attest that I am not prone to name-calling.

Corwin

Next we'll see a demonstration of Veil's 'unaided flight and anti-gravity device' which works invisibly through nothing more than sheer will.

We just need a volunteer from the audience to try it out.

You don't want to volunteer? OH COME ON!!!! It's completely safe!!!! Gravity? PAH. Show me 50 studies by the physics lab at MIT that say you can't overcome gravity with sheer will and I might believe it can't work. Otherwise... you're just being stupid and closed minded!!!!!! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT DOESN'T WORK SO STRAP THE DAMN COFFEE CAN ON YOUR BACK AND JUMP YOU CLOSED-MINDED PEONS!!!!!

** pries his tongue out of his cheek with a crowbar **

Marduk

", televised alien autopsies (was that one ever definitively revealed as a hoax?)"

Yes and no.
There are two 'alien autopsy' films that I know of. The one is a brief 10 minute job that is very amateurish dark and out of focus with some guy pulling guts out of some thing. The other is very well done and both forensic pathologists and special effects experts were undecided, however both films are associated with the same producer (I forget his name) so it is assumed to be a hoax. Smiling men with bad reputations.

Mageth

Perhaps this is a good place to mention Carl Sagan's <a href="http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html" target="_blank">baloney detection kit</a> from Demon Haunted World.

VoF, I agree with you in principle that dismissing something offhand without thinking about it is not good skepticism. However, I don't think most people here actually do that. In the example of the pet psychic, this is a type of claim that I and others here have already considered in regards to psychic/telepathic abilities in general. This isn't the first time psychic or other incredible claims have been discussed here. We've applied Arrowman's rules (and our own versions of baloney detection) to previously heard claims. And many of us have done the same to pet psychic claims as well.

And since I, and many others here, have examined those kinds of claims and found them to totally fail our "baloney detection" mechanisms, some of us sometimes tersely dismiss such claims when posted here. Like Arrowman said, we're not using our terse dismissal as a formal argument, but merely as a rhetorical tool which is instantly recognized by the skeptics among us.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

The Lone Ranger

Very good post, Arrowman.

I'd just like to add a comment regarding the fact that many of the "professional skeptics" often come across as somewhat surly, and that this may give them a bad reputation.

I've read a fair amount of James Randi's writings, and he has frequently mentioned that his "bad attitude" is well-earned. For decades now, he has been investigating "faith healers," "psychics," and other such people who claim that they can use "magical" or "paranormal" agents or abilities to heal sickness, communicate with the dead, and so on -- for a fee.

So far, when he and his co-investigators have challenged these people to prove their claims, they have always either: 1.) refused, or 2.) failed the test.

Randi has always been careful to state that he's sure many of these people are simply self-deluded; these people he has no particular problem with. What angers him so much is that there are so many people like Uri Geller out there who appear to be making claims that they know are false, in order to fleece people out of their money. Like that "faith healer" Peter Popoff, for example, whom Randi exposed as a fraud on the Johnny Carson show. (Popoff had agents interview people in the audience before the "demonstrations," then his wife fed him information -- supposedly from God -- via a radio transmitter.) Popoff is still out there, and earning quite a lot of money with his "faith healing" demonstrations.

Cheers,

Michael

[Edited because I apparently can't spell "Popoff".]

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>