Jesse

<a href="http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html</a>

The author elaborates on why he thinks each of these is a "myth" (in many cases he just argues that the statements need to be qualified, not that they're completely wrong), but here they are:

Myth #1: Theories cannot be proved, they can only be disproved.

Myth #2: Science is a self-correcting system.

Myth #3: The data speaks for itself.

Myth #4: Extraordinary hypothesis require extraordinary evidence.

Myth #5: There is one universal scientific method.

Myth #6: Science is our best method of acquiring knowledge.

Myth #7: Scientist are more intelligent then average, and better then average problem solvers.

Myth #8: People may not be perfect reasoners, but training in the use of formal methods of reasoning, and particularly knowledge of science improves that reasoning.

Myth #9: Skepticism makes one less vulnerable to errors of reasoning or illogic.

Myth #10: Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, childish, misguided and uninformed ways.

Myth #11: Believers in the paranormal just don't want to give up their comfortable belief system. They are afraid to think independently and need the security blanket that all such belief systems provide.

Myth #12: Failure to accept the findings of science, or a general tendency to believe in paranormal or fringe claims is a sign of intellectual weakness, mental illness or sloppy thinking.

Myth #13: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.

Myth #14: A skeptic should also be an atheist, or at least agnostic, since belief in a diety is incompatible with the truly skeptical mind.

Myth #15: Being a good skeptic means being a debunker.

Myth #16: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.

theyeti

Thanks for posting that link Jesse, that's excellent. This should be required reading not only for skeptics, but for pseudoscience advocates as well, since it gives a good outline about how and why we prefer certain theories over others.

I do wish the author had avoided using the term "myth" though. As he makes clear, these ideas are not so much myths as they are misleading absolutes.

theyeti

Vorkosigan

I don't think it's very good; it looks more like a caricature. When I have time to respond to it in depth, I will. It'll be fun, I suspect he is in the same department at RPI that I am/was.

Michael

Kenny

Tanner Edis, who is mentioned in the opening thank yous, is a physics professor at my university, Truman Sate in Missouri – at least I’m pretty sure that it’s the same one. Small world.

God Bless,
Kenny

tronvillain

I think it's pretty good, though there wasn't really anything that was truly new to me. Of course, calling them "myths" is a little too strong.

Vorkosigan

Well, time to get to all the things I’ve promised to get to…..

Here's a so-so piece on science and skepticism that someone referenced here. Although many of the points the author makes are quite true, some of them are simply foul. Unfortunately I don’t have time to track all of them.

Let’s start with one of several bait-n-switches in the paper. The writer says:

Myth #2: Science is a self-correcting system.
Corollary: An integral part of this self-correcting system is the peer review process.
Unfortunately, the corollary is nowhere suggested by the initial statement. The author has simply snuck it in there to attack the peer review process under the guise of showing that science is not self-correcting. Peer review is only one of literally dozens of strategies that ensure that science is self-correcting.

The proper corollary of “science is a self-correcting system” is of course “experiments are repeated” or “information accumulates and is subjected to repeated testing.” Does the writer really believe that science is not self-correcting? Does he believe that the empirical success of science is just luck? Or a delusion?

Myth #6: Science is our best method of acquiring knowledge.

Whoever claimed this? Skeptics believe science is the best way to acquire reliable and usable knowledge about reality. Nobody claims it is useful in determining which art is good and similar questions, although it might inform them. This “myth” is really quite naïve.

Myth #8: People may not be perfect reasoners, but training in the use of formal methods of reasoning, and particularly knowledge of science improves that reasoning.

There are many demonstrations that even when the expert does have the domain knowledge, they do not always apply it in everyday reasoning, or even in professional settings where it is applicable.

Note that his “refutation” does not address the issue. Certainly trained thinkers make errors even in their own domains. However, the fact that people make errors even in areas in which they are trained does not disprove the myth above. To do that, you would need two data sets, one for trained, and one for untrained persons, and compare their performance in solving a variety of problems. To argue that myth 8 is false, is essentially to argue that training in logic, application of knowledge, critical analysis of evidence and so forth is just one huge waste of time. That would include the graduate education of the writer....

Myth #11: Believers in the paranormal just don't want to give up their comfortable belief system. They are afraid to think independently and need the security blanket that all such belief systems provide.

Corollary: Promoters of the paranormal are manipulative and un-ethical charlatans. These flim-flam artists take advantage of people's ``need to believe'' to bilk them of their money and health.

These myth are suspect. What is so comforting about the belief in hell? What is comforting about a religions which encourages self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, or for self improvement. How are ``New Age'' environmental beliefs a security blanket? I would think quite the opposite, that blind faith in the ability of science and industry to solve all our problems is a comfortable security blanket.

Also, while that may be true of some promoters in the paranormal are in it only for the profit, this is in no way an accurate characterization of, for example, chiropractors or naturalpaths.

This is one of the worst passages in the paper. “First, blind faith in science and industry”—note the highly political yoking of these two fields that most would not immediately connect – is not the opposite of myth 11. The opposite of myth 11 is reason, logic, empiricism, rationality – the opposite of blind faith, any blind faith, including blind faith in “science and industry.” If the writer believes religions aren’t there to comfort, he might have trouble grasping the aftermath of the WTC and the sudden explosion in church membership. As for belief in hell, as surveys at Barna show, well over 90% of respondents believe that they aren’t going to hell. The writer exhibits an incredible naivete here; the attraction of belief in Hell is that other people are going there, not oneself. Hell is an extremely consoling belief for the downtrodden who believe that their oppressors will bake there. What we have in this section is an almost total lack of thought about this "myth."

Myth #16: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.
Corollary: There is a rising tide of irrationality.
On the whole I suspect that irrationality, belief, and credulity are at about the same level as they have always been, just distributed in different ways. I further suspect that the term used to describe the belief of others has more to do with how new versus established that belief is in society. When skeptics attack the New Age qua New Age, I always have this uncomforable feeling that their religion is being singled out. Somebody makes a testable health claim? Ok, test it. Somebody professes belief in a one-ness of life? Let them get on with their own life, and find another hobby for yourself.

I agree with most of this, but the last sentence is a bit unconsidered. I’d be happy to let new agers and fundies get on with their lives, if they didn’t demand that others change their ways to accommodate them, or ask that tax dollars be used to fund their silliness, or sell ridiculous and harmful devices to suckers, etc. Reciprocity is the basis for good relationships, and there isn’t any from the twilight zone.

Michael

Ism Schism

I agree with most of this, but the last sentence is a bit unconsidered. I’d be happy to let new agers and fundies get on with their lives, if they didn’t demand that others change their ways to accommodate them, or ask that tax dollars be used to fund their silliness, or sell ridiculous and harmful devices to suckers, etc. Reciprocity is the basis for good relationships, and there isn’t any from the twilight zone.

Well first off, I'd like to say that I agreed with your other defenses of skepticism, but I am not quite sure in your meaning on this one. As someone who occasionally feels that he is in the 'twilight zone', especially when I hear our President talk, is skepticism of the current political structure valid?

As far as I see it: this has been a 'new age' ever since physics created a portable and deployable form of atomic energy -- which our political structure promptly applied to two Japanese cities. Since then, ours and other 'political structures', have proliferated these atomic devices to a point that seems almost suicidal. This 'new age' is called potential extinction. If no major changes occur -- in my eyes it becomes probable extinction. The world as we know it has gone way past any potential claim of "rationality".

Security or freedom? Or will Government use "security"(from their mess) as a psychological tool to gradually take our freedoms, and make their life at the top of our machine more pleasurable, and easier to maintain? Consent, and even entire societies, can be, and are manufactured, one can rest assured of that.

Also see: marketing, fear tactics, "patriotism", divide et impera, symbol worship, smear tactics, "smoke and mirrors", "bait and switch", demonization, empty rhetoric, education, misinformation, good cop/bad cop, manufactured ideology, manufactured prejudice, the "path of least resistance", mass-media, false dichotomy, and finally -- religion. Psychology is a real bitch.

One can never be too skeptical in this age.

Ism Schism

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism ]</p>

Vorkosigan

One can never be too skeptical in this age.

Ism Schism

To answer your question, in my discussion of blind faith above, I pointed out that reason is the opposite of blind faith in science and industry. A healthy skepticism toward politics is strongly warranted!

Michael

Adrian Selby

I'm not sure skepticism towards politics need be that healthy, though skepticism towards politics as practised is certainly required

Adrian