What Are the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Philosophy
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of scientific skepticism, exploring whether there is a common outlook among skeptics and how they approach ideas not accepted by mainstream science. Participants differentiate between two camps of skepticism: one that dismisses unscientific ideas outright and another that seeks to understand and critique those ideas through reasoning and evidence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that skepticism can be divided into two camps: one that simply dismisses unscientific ideas and another that engages in deeper analysis and critique.
  • Others argue that merely labeling ideas as "bunk" without further explanation is unproductive and that providing evidence and reasoning is more beneficial.
  • A participant shares their personal experience of using logical and scientific methods to conclude that certain beliefs, like religion, can be dismissed after thorough examination.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the problem lies not in religion itself but in how people engage with it, highlighting the need for understanding the psychological aspects behind belief.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of questioning everything and thinking independently, suggesting that true skepticism involves self-reflection and critical thinking.
  • A later reply discusses the dynamics between reactionary and intellectual skepticism, suggesting that reactionary skeptics may emerge from feelings of being unheard or marginalized.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of skepticism, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness or value of the two proposed camps. Disagreements arise regarding the role of religion, the utility of reactionary skepticism, and the methods of engaging with unscientific ideas.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on personal experiences and subjective interpretations, which may not be universally applicable. The discussion also touches on cultural differences in expressing skepticism and the implications of those differences.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the philosophy of skepticism, the interplay between science and belief systems, and those exploring the dynamics of debate within scientific communities may find this discussion relevant.

  • #91
Originally posted by Zero
No, I am saying that emotions are simply manefestatiosn of biological processes. They don't 'exist' any more than Spider-Man exists.
In other words they're useless, right? Have you told this to your mother lately? Or your wife? Or daughter? Or girlfriend? Hey this is the other half of the equation man ... and, unless we learn how to cultivate both a healthy intellectual state and, a healthy emotional state, we remain "unbalanced," and chances are we "won't" find God.

You weren't by any chance in the Marines were you?

Of course I think the key to a healthy emotional state is not to allow them to sway us (unduly), but rather keep them in context with what we understand, otherwise I don't see how anybody could be happy? Which, is the key to finding God, learning how to complete oneself (through understanding your other side) and, be happy.

Should it be any more complicated than this? I don't think so. Otherwise how could we be happy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by drag
What about the dude/gal who told you:
- "Hey, there's an all powerfull thingy called God."
and you answered:
- "Oh, really ? O.K." :wink:

Live long and prosper.
I think the best thing you can do is teach a person how to see things for themselves, for if you can't see for yourself, how can you come to accept anything? Indeed it was the same person who taught me how to do this that taught me about God. And now I'm not even "subject" to what they have to say. Isn't that something?

Of course there's the rest of the world that you have to deal with, but what you think, does not have to rely upon "what they think."
 
  • #93
Sounds like drag hit it on the head.

I think the best thing you can do is teach a person how to see things for themselves, for if you can't see for yourself, how can you come to accept anything?
Blind faith?
Indeed it was the same person who taught me how to do this that taught me about God.
Ok, did he teach you how to think or did he teach you how to think about god?
And now I'm not even "subject" to what they have to say.
Who, exactly, is they?
Isn't that something?
Indeed !
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words they're useless, right? Have you told this to your mother lately? Or your wife? Or daughter? Or girlfriend? Hey this is the other half of the equation man ... and, unless we learn how to cultivate both a healthy intellectual state and, a healthy emotional state, we remain "unbalanced," and chances are we "won't" find God.

You weren't by any chance in the Marines were you?

Of course I think the key to a healthy emotional state is not to allow them to sway us (unduly), but rather keep them in context with what we understand, otherwise I don't see how anybody could be happy? Which, is the key to finding God, learning how to complete oneself (through understanding your other side) and, be happy.

Should it be any more complicated than this? I don't think so. Otherwise how could we be happy?

Emotions are subjective, and have no reality besides what we give them.

My emotional state is just fine...and doesn't need made up 'gods' to keep it that way.
 
  • #95
All science is based on a number of unproveable assumptions.
One such assumption is that the physical laws are the same everywhere in the universe.
Yet scientist everywhere know that physical laws are not the same inside the event horizon of a black hole.
Another such assumption is that Physical reality exists and that we can know and learn about it.
Yet scientists everywhere say that we cannot know anything prior to the big bang nor anything outside our light cones.
Belief in unproveable assumption in this thread and many others has been call faith.
Yet many of you atheist deny faith in anything and that faith itself is illogical.
I have never seen an electron yet I take it to be a reality because others have told me and shown me proof on paper; but, they have never shown me an electron. This is faith.
Deny it as much as you like but you will never convince me that you don't have faith in something even if it is in science and scientist.

You and I both agree to believe in many things that we don't fully understand and have never personally experienced based on the work and publications of a few scientist whose work as lay people we could never fully understand.
Yet you deny and refuse to believe one word of what millions of good honest sincere people have said that they have experienced personally
and a system of belif that is vertually universal with mankind and has been around for well over ten thousand years.
This is consistent, logical thinking? I don't think so.
Science is the first to say that it has proven very little completely, descively and beyound any possiblity of error or doubt.
Science also admits that for every answer that they do find it opens up a thousand new questions. They also admit that they study and investigate the external physical world of matter and energy. They do not and can not look at the internal and subjective. This is why science does not and can not disprove any religion. Religion is internal and subjective. All of you scientfic and logical atheist are looking in the wrong place for your God. That is why you can't find him. He isn't in a textbook or even the bible. He isn't under a microscope or out in space. He, if he exists, is inside you and me and all of us. There are those who believe that we are also inside him. That all that exists is of God and as long as you insist on looking at the trees you will never see the forest that is God. Some of you vehemently deny any possible existence of God. That you studied the issue once and walked away forever. If that is so why are you here and why are you so often found in the religion forum and why do you always bring up God even in a thread about philosophical skeptism?
 
  • #96
Hmmm...I don't believe in faith. I can accept assumptions based on evidence. There is no solid evidence for the existence of gods or ghosts, some small amount of evidence for certain herbal remedies, and tons of evidence that the natural laws aren't going to reverse themselves in the next tne minutes. Mystical thinking(including religion and pseudoscience) seems to me to be based on special exceptions to the rules that cannot be repeated upon request. I can drop any object less dense than air from where i am sitting, and I can accept the logical assumption that it will fall, like every other object I have dropped has done. That form of faith has nothing to do with the sort of faith that allows people to talk to the sky and expect a response.
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Zero
Emotions are subjective, and have no reality besides what we give them.
Except that they add color to what is an otherwise black and white world. Now you tell me which is more real? A world without emotions? Or, a world with emotions?

Also, you can't say you don't "believe" in faith, because that's a statement of faith right there. While the same holds true when accepting "an assumption."
 
  • #98
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that they add color to what is an otherwise black and white world. Now you tell me which is more real? A world without emotions? Or, a world with emotions?

Also, you can't say you don't "believe" in faith, because that's a statement of faith right there. While the same holds true when accepting "an assumption."

Emotions are great...subjectively[/i]! They are nonexistant in a real, material sense. I base my persona; existence on that, in part, but I make no claims about emotion having any effect on the real world.

As far as 'faith'...I think I spelled out my voiews on it rather clearly. I have 'faith' in repeatable, confirmed concepts, like gravity. Everyday, gravity has a concrete effect on everything I see around me. I don't claim to know how it works, but it does. I don't have faith in myths or magic tricks, that only 'work' if you are gullible...I mean 'if you believe'. Gravity works whether I believe in it or not.
 
  • #99


Originally posted by BoulderHead
Blind faith?
Then what have you actually accepted, except perhaps "a phantom?"

Ok, did he teach you how to think or did he teach you how to think about god?
He taught me a lot of things, some of which weren't true, which I ultimately had to pay the price for. And yet he did teach me how to see things for myself as well as acknowledge God.


Who, exactly, is they?
Right wing religious conservative type, Roy Masters, who's just a little bit too conservative for me ... http://www.fhu.com/
 
  • #100
Originally posted by Royce

Science is the first to say that it has proven very little completely, descively and beyound any possiblity of error or doubt.
Science also admits that for every answer that they do find it opens up a thousand new questions. They also admit that they study and investigate the external physical world of matter and energy. They do not and can not look at the internal and subjective. This is why science does not and can not disprove any religion.
This is also why we can trust science, and not trust religion. Religion claims to have all the answers, despite any proof to the contrary. Science accepts its limitations, and is therefore an honest endeavor.
 
  • #101
Originally posted by Zero
This is also why we can trust science, and not trust religion. Religion claims to have all the answers, despite any proof to the contrary. Science accepts its limitations, and is therefore an honest endeavor.
Do you mean like turning people's skins into lampshades? ... Or Chernobyl? ... The development of weapons of mass destruction? ... Ex-foliating South East Asia with Agent Orange? ... Releasing toxic wastes and bio-hazards into the eco-system?

These are all by-products of science by the way.
 
  • #102
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean like turning people's skins into lampshades? ... Or Chernobyl? ... The development of weapons of mass destruction? ... Ex-foliating South East Asia with Agent Orange? ... Releasing toxic wastes and bio-hazards into the eco-system?

These are all by-products of science by the way.

No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Zero
No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history.
And where was science through all of this, with its thumb stuck up its rear?
 
  • #104
Originally posted by Zero
No, one was the result of madness, one was poor engineering, and the last two are more political than anything else. Religion, however, is responsible for more death than any other cause in human history.

Hitler-18 million

Stalin-22 million

Mao-26 million

If I have to choose between being killed by religious or secular political fanatics it just isn't a choice imo. Ghangus Khan killed millions as well, but never claimed religion was the reason. Many who have claimed religion as a reason were obviously lying. What has undeniably killed more people in history than anything else is fundamentalism, whether secular or religious.

To be fair, it has also promoted the growth of the sciences and saved a huge number of lives as well. No doubt without it the world's population might still be a mere six million instead of billion.
 
  • #105
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And where was science through all of this, with its thumb stuck up its rear?

Science isn't sopposed to solve social problems...religion claims to be that solution, and very obviously isn't. Science doesn't claim to be more than it is, religion does.
 
  • #106
Originally posted by Zero
Science isn't sopposed to solve social problems...religion claims to be that solution, and very obviously isn't. Science doesn't claim to be more than it is, religion does.
Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?
 
  • #107
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?
Yes, that does excuse it.


Without science, you wouldn't be alive
Even worse, you wouldn't be able to access PF.
I think that excuses it pretty well.:wink:
 
  • #108
we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science...
 
  • #109
Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery
 
  • #110
Originally posted by Kerrie
we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science...
And yet what was the whole purpose behind this thread, to illustrate the merit of Science over Religion, or at least that's what I gathered based upon this other post ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would you say that all people who believe in God are superstitious and, that their beliefs are undfounded? If so, then you're just as bad as James Randi. Because to me, he doesn't express anything other than this "very belief." As a matter of fact it comes across loud and clear.


Originally posted by Zero
Actually, if you bothered to read his stuff...you would know how wrong your statement is.

I find that it is funny that you harp on his Ego, since his site is made up mostly of letters from other people.
Then I'm sure you're familiar with the Pigasus Awards? Hmm ... A pig with wings? It kind of brings to mind Pegasus, the winged horse of Greek Mythology? Now I remember him bringing this up on the program I watched, and I think it was about the time that he expounded on the nature of superstitious beliefs, and I couldn't help but believe he was mocking the Pegasus of Greek Mythology. Which suggests to me that he has no perception or understanding whatsoever, of what the Pegasus entails. And that's sad. For indeed there's a great deal more to the Greek Myths than what this man would hold up to mock and ridicule.


Well, the Pigasus Awards are FUNNY...and mythology should be mocked too, you know! So should religion, frankly...not the PC thing to say, but I still think it is semi-true.
And let the truth be known!
 
  • #111
Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about...
 
  • #112
Originally posted by FZ+
Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about...
Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1", that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me! :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #113
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery
The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.
 
  • #114
I repeat, let's get back on topic otherwise it will be locked.
 
  • #115
Yeah, ummm...sorry Kerrie!


Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.
 
  • #116
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1", that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me! :wink:

Actually, before i got sidetracked, I was going to direct you to his column archive, which contains a guest essay about the compatability of spiritualism and skepticism, and to note that often Randi shows respect for researchers who honestly look into the supernatural. If you use the right techniques to look, it is hard to be disrespectful of a scientist using actual real science to look into things like astrology or telepathy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #117
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.

A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.
 
  • #118
Originally posted by Zero
A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.

That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic.
 
  • #119
Originally posted by wuliheron
That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic.

Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.
 
  • #120
Originally posted by Zero
Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.

Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.
 

Similar threads

[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Philosophy and Physics-physics needs philosophy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Explore Banned Book Week & Its Impact on Free Speech
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Fact checking - Scientific method
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
So what are dreams made of? How do they differ from our waking reality?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
Are Skeptics Truly Open-Minded?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Undergrad Are Geometric Points Affected By Forces?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Should we be skeptical of inductive logic in the sciences?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K