The Importance of Open-Mindedness in Scientific Inquiry

[PIT2]

Is it always logical to be skeptical of something?

What about when it concerns alien-controlled ufo's or paranormal phenomena?
And what about the roundness of the earth?

 

[out of whack]

Is it always logical to be skeptical of something?

It is logical to doubt the truth of a claim that has not been shown to be true.

The converse approach is to have faith in unsubstantiated claims. This is not logical simply due to the lack of any foundation that makes it logical.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Maybe until it is proven.. yes, I would say so.

 

[Thrice]

Well not if you also like believing in junk.

 

[Pythagorean]

I would say logic and skepticism are independent of each other.

A lot of people like to convince you that they're rational just because they're skeptics

 

[Garth]

Never forget to be sceptical about your scepticism.

Garth

 

[Tony11235]

I agree with Pythagorean. The two are separate. One can be skeptical, but one's reasons for being skeptical are what determine whether it is logical.

 

[out of whack]

I would say logic and skepticism are independent of each other.

Different but not independent, there is a direct connection. It is necessary to be skeptical of a unsupported claim if you want to apply logic. If you don't apply any doubt to a claim in the absence of evidence then you cannot say that you are using logic. Call it "faith" instead, something else entirely.

A lot of people like to convince you that they're rational just because they're skeptics

Can you prove it?

I don't doubt that it happens (oops!) but it doesn't follow that skepticism is unnecessary to logic.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree with Pythagorean. The two are separate. One can be skeptical, but one's reasons for being skeptical are what determine whether it is logical.

Absolutely. I have a son who sees corruption everywhere. He is highly skeptical, yet has little logic to back it up. I see it as an emotional reaction to a highly complex and confusing world.

 

[Pythagorean]

Different but not independent, there is a direct connection. It is necessary to be skeptical of a unsupported claim if you want to apply logic. If you don't apply any doubt to a claim in the absence of evidence then you cannot say that you are using logic. Call it "faith" instead, something else entirely.




Can you prove it?

I don't doubt that it happens (oops!) but it doesn't follow that skepticism is unnecessary to logic.

here's an example from someone on a different forum http://iwforums.com/showthread.php?t=3601"

True Scientific Skepticism is supposed to be critical and analytical, but I often see people wear this guise to look more intelligent. The difference, I think, is between casual skepticism and scientific skepticism.

It can also be said that in some instances, scientific skepticism has slowed down the scientific process, because the skeptics (even though they were being rational) were being rational about the wrong things.

I think this is most evident in the development of both quantum physics and optics.

 

[out of whack]

It can also be said that in some instances, scientific skepticism has slowed down the scientific process, because the skeptics (even though they were being rational) were being rational about the wrong things.

Yes, scientific progress requires not only logic but also imagination and creativity. People are built in such a way that those with a proclivity for one often lack a proclivity for the other. Few are blessed with a good balance of both. Someone here has a good signature about how all progress depends on the unreasonable man because the reasonable man is not the one who tries to change the world.

 

[Tony11235]

It seems a lot of people lack the ability to distinguish good skepticism from bad skepticism. I continually have arguments with my Dad who doesn't see the difference and thinks that being skeptical automatically limits your ability to discover anything new, while I try to tell him that it actually helps us discover more. Perhaps he's encountered too many dumb skeptics in his life.

 

[out of whack]

I'll add a general clarification: skepticism is not rejection, doubting is not denying. It just means that you cannot reach a logical conclusion. And it works both ways: there is no more logic in rejecting without reason as there is in accepting without reason.

 

[PIT2]

It is logical to doubt the truth of a claim that has not been shown to be true.

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

Is it logical to then be skeptical to the point where one still thinks its more plausible that the 'something' is not what the information indicates it to be, but that it is actually something else that does not match the information, but which has been proven to exist?

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes, scientific progress requires not only logic but also imagination and creativity. People are built in such a way that those with a proclivity for one often lack a proclivity for the other. Few are blessed with a good balance of both. Someone here has a good signature about how all progress depends on the unreasonable man because the reasonable man is not the one who tries to change the world.

I really like http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-3-not-playing-to-win/#more-50 description of this phenomenon. Partly because I like his writing style, and partly because I think he doesn't try and portray one kind of person as being better than the other.

 

[out of whack]

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

Your comments beg for the definition of a proof. Essentially, a proof is nothing more than a convincing argument. Since arguments can be more or less convincing, proofs have different degrees of strength. When you say that something has not been proven to be true you are saying that no convincing argument has been provided. And of course depending on the nature of the 'something' in question, eyewitness accounts may or may not constitute proof. Even more frustrating is that the same argument can constitute sufficient proof to one but not to the other.

Is it logical to then be skeptical to the point where one still thinks its more plausible that the 'something' is not what the information indicates it to be, but that it is actually something else that does not match the information, but which has been proven to exist?

The logic lies in the reasoning process after the argument has been presented. If the argument is convincing to you then logically you should accept the claim. If not then you should remain skeptical.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'll add a general clarification: skepticism is not rejection, doubting is not denying. It just means that you cannot reach a logical conclusion. And it works both ways: there is no more logic in rejecting without reason as there is in accepting without reason.

I agree that's how skepticism is designed (and even practiced by a few) but in the real world, people generally assume the role of skeptic because they don't like something. They argue adamantly against something rather than stating it's inconclusive, and then they throw in Occam's razor.

For instance, string theory. I have no faith in it, personally. Will I argue with string theorists? Absolutely not. I use Occam's razor so that I can "cut the fat" in my own work. I take the "simplest explanation that yields the same results" because it's less work. (i.e. I use Newton's laws in some cases, ignoring relativity and quantum because it's affects are negligible). But if I have an idea that I think will work to make new predictions, than Occam's razor is a moot point. It's not an effective tool for argument in this case.

Whether string theory will ever be capable of new predictions, I cannot say. I don't understand string theory, and I will probably never take the time to understand it, so I will never be able to debunk it.

On the other hand, if I just leave string theorists alone, there's a chance (because of my lack knowledge of it) they might actually come up with a testable theory that makes new, concrete predictions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that's how skepticism is designed (and even practiced by a few) but in the real world, people generally assume the role of skeptic because they don't like something. They argue adamantly against something rather than stating it's inconclusive, and then they throw in Occam's razor.

Faith based debunking:

One common tactic is to cite the weakest evidence for a claim, or even to completely misrepresent the claim, or to ignore the most significant aspects of a claim, and then denounce it as being weak. Probably the most common statement found regarding UFOs, and in particular, claims of advanced crafts of some sort, is, I need more than "lights in the sky". Well, if obscure "lights in the sky" were the only sorts of UFOs, most of us who follow the subject would have little to no interest in the claims of ET. It is the alleged observations by apprently respectable people, of seemingly advanced and "alien" looking crafts that demonstrate capabilities far beyond what would normally be considered possible, that peaks our interest. To deny this is not skepticism, it is dishonesty. To say that the whole UFO business is nonsense, is ignorance. To insist on good scientific evidence for ET before we assume that such beings exist, now that is good and valid skepticism. But, to say that the burden of proof lies with coincidental observers is a cop-out. And finally, to automatically assume that anyone making a claim that we can't explain, is lying, or hallucinating, is the worst sort of cop-out because it denies the first step in the process of discovery - observation.

 

[StuMyers]

here's an example from someone on a different forum http://iwforums.com/showthread.php?t=3601"

True Scientific Skepticism is supposed to be critical and analytical, but I often see people wear this guise to look more intelligent. The difference, I think, is between casual skepticism and scientific skepticism.

Right. There's definitely a difference between being skeptical and being contrarian.

 

[Old Smuggler]

It can also be said that in some instances, scientific skepticism has slowed down the scientific process, because the skeptics (even though they were being rational) were being rational about the wrong things.

Right. Even well-documented observations that do not fit easily into a
preconceived notion of how the world should work, may be rationalized away
or just neglected. One example of this is the observed mean acceleration
{\dot n} of the Moon; from lunar laser ranging experiments this has the value of about -13.8 arcseconds/(century)^2. Furthermore, the
mean motion of the Moon n is about .549 arcseconds/s.
Now the interesting part is that to within one standard deviation,
{\dot n}=-Hn, where H is the Hubble parameter.

How should a real skeptic react to this fact?

 

[Pythagorean]

Right. Even well-documented observations that do not fit easily into a
preconceived notion of how the world should work, may be rationalized away
or just neglected. One example of this is the observed mean acceleration
{\dot n} of the Moon; from lunar laser ranging experiments this has the value of about -13.8 arcseconds/(century)^2. Furthermore, the
mean motion of the Moon n is about .549 arcseconds/s.
Now the interesting part is that to within one standard deviation,
{\dot n}=-Hn, where H is the Hubble parameter.

How should a real skeptic react to this fact?

I haven't done any astronomy (currently studying Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in classical mechanics) so I'm a little shaky, but I'm interpreting what you're saying is that the velocity of the moon depends only on it's location about its center of orbit.

Until I understand what you're saying though, I can't see your point.

 

[Hurkyl]

How should a real skeptic react to this fact?

One appriate response is "So what?"

 

[StuMyers]

I think he's stating a coincidence.

A skeptic would probably say that looking in an enormous sea of facts and figures, you are bound to find some meaningless coincidences.

Humans are VERY good at naturally finding patterns in nature. After all, that's what intelligence really is, at its core. Humans are not so good at separating meaningful patterns from coincident ones (correlation vs causation). Hence, superstition.

 

[Thrice]

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

The irony being that your 'something' is a good example of why eyewitness accounts aren't taken seriously.

 

[PIT2]

The irony being that your 'something' is a good example of why eyewitness accounts aren't taken seriously.

There is a difference between an eyewitness account being 'sufficient proof' and it being suggestive of a particular phenomenom. As Ivan said:

to automatically assume that anyone making a claim that we can't explain, is lying, or hallucinating, is the worst sort of cop-out because it denies the first step in the process of discovery - observation.

 

[Aether]

Now the interesting part is that to within one standard deviation, {\dot n}=-Hn, where H is the Hubble parameter.

How should a real skeptic react to this fact?

This equation implies that the fundamental physical constants vary over cosmological time scales: e.g., the SI base units of time (the second), of length (the meter), and Newton's gravitational constant. That is an interesting proposition that deserves to be carefully examined. If it is presented in that way (e.g., as a proposal for further investigation), then a "real skeptic" (e.g., a scientist) should react positively. If however this is presented as a claim/conclusion, then a "real skeptic" should react by pointing out (directly or indirectly) that it is premature to be making claims/conclusions at this stage of your investigation.

In this particular case for example, all spinning and orbiting bodies in the universe should also obey this equation if it is really true (e.g., not just a coincidence) for the Earth's moon. Therefore, a claim/conclusion like this should at least be accompanied by a thorough analysis of the orbits of all planets and moons in our solar system, and of the observed spin-down rates of all known millisecond binary pulsars (this data is readily available in several online catalogs) before it is presented as a claim/conclusion.

A good starting point for such an investigation would be to review this article: J.P. Uzan, The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 75, April 2003, pp. 403-455.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a difference between an eyewitness account being 'sufficient proof' and it being suggestive of a particular phenomenom. As Ivan said:

Is there anywhere in science where purely qualatative eyewitness accounts are considered useful evidence? I don't think you need to go as far as what Ivan is saying: Eyewitness accounts do not need to be halucinations or lies to be unreliable. Indeed, I would say most of the more interesting UFO cases are neither halucinations nor lies. But by their nature, they must always be considered poor quality evidence.

One thing we see a lot in this forum is attempts to weigh the value of eyewitness evidence based on the qualifications of the observer. It is necesary, but does such a thing exist elsewhere in science? Do we have to do the same thing for people operating a scale?

This is the sort of "starting assumption" people are referring to here in discussing whether scepticism is logical. It is reasonable and rational, but it is harsh and I think too often people see harsh as unfair when the reality of the subject matter is that you need a good low-transmittance filter to deal with the sheer volume of low-quality data out there. Consider the converse:

The fact that better data is not available is not a logical reason to inflate the value of the data that is available. Looking for signal when there is only noise is a common tactic/fallacy in all areas of physics. For example, aether crackpots often cite the original Michelson-Morley experiment as not having a result of zero, when in reality, the non-zero result was within the margin for error of the experiment, thus supporting the prediction.

 

[PIT2]

Is there anywhere in science where purely qualatative eyewitness accounts are considered useful evidence? I don't think you need to go as far as what Ivan is saying: Eyewitness accounts do not need to be halucinations or lies to be unreliable. Indeed, I would say most of the more interesting UFO cases are neither halucinations nor lies. But by their nature, they must always be considered poor quality evidence.

Poor is a relative term, i think most rational people would (when confronted with some of the more interesting eyewitness accounts) also conclude that they are neither hallucinations nor lies. So it may be poor compared to the standards of scientific experiments, but it seems to be good enough quality to convince rational people.

Do u think the filter (which u call harsh but necessary) is logical and useful when it cuts out such cases?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there anywhere in science where purely qualatative eyewitness accounts are considered useful evidence?

They can lead to useful science. If we don't recognize that an unexplained phenomenon exists, how can it be studied? Ball lightning is the easiest example to point to, which, as yet, is not understood. That is what makes good science happen - i.e. questions. Note that we first learned that the world is round due to anecdotal claims of a well that casts no midday shadow on the water, one day of the year.

No doubt though, the typical debunker wishes to deny anecdotal evidence that may be highly suggestive, by claiming that it is not proof or scientific evidence, when in fact no one has made such a claim.

 

[russ_watters]

Poor is a relative term, i think most rational people would (when confronted with some of the more interesting eyewitness accounts) also conclude that they are neither hallucinations nor lies. So it may be poor compared to the standards of scientific experiments, but it seems to be good enough quality to convince rational people.

Who do you consider rational people? Aren't most UFO believers non-scientists? [quot]Do u think the filter (which u call harsh but necessary) is logical and useful when it cuts out such cases?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. It is not unlike Occam's razor in that it helps focus investigations and cut out wasted time. Yes, it is possible that mediocre evidence of a spectacular phenomena gets missed that way, but with such an enormous amount of bad data out there, finding it wouldn't be likely anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

They can lead to useful science. If we don't recognize that an unexplained phenomenon exists, how can it be studied?

That isn't what I asked. People aren't claiming that UFOlogy can lead to useful science, they are claiming it is useful science. Similarly, few people doubt that it would be interesting to know if there are earthlike planets outside the solar system, but we aren't looking because our equipment isn't capable of detecting them. Just recognizing that an unexplained phenomena exists is not on its own a reasonable basis for starting an investigation. You need a reliable scientific means to isolate and examine the phenomena. Your example of ball lightning is another good one - since it is a difficult phenomena to reliably study, not much is going on there.

The problem with things like UFOlogy (which you seem to acknowledge below) is that no reliable scientific means exists to isolate and examine the phenomena.

Note that we first learned that the world is round due to anecdotal claims of a well that casts no midday shadow on the water, one day of the year.

I'm not sure how you would define "anecdotal", but I would call that a scientific measurement - a precursor to the vertical telescope of Brahe (I think it was Brahe). I call it a scientific measurement because it does not rely on the human eye or human judgement to take the measurement - only to read the measurement.

No doubt though, the typical debunker wishes to deny anecdotal evidence that may be highly suggestive, by claiming that it is not proof or scientific evidence, when in fact no one has made such a claim.

What? What is UFOlogy supposed to be if not the scientific investigation of UFO phenomena? Didn't you just acknowledge that UFOlogy isn't science?

I'm saying that in order to be a scientific investigation, the evidence used to investigate a phenomena has to be scientific in nature. Isn't that a tautology?

 

[PIT2]

Who do you consider rational people? Aren't most UFO believers non-scientists?

I can't answer those questions. I will give an example of a situation:

Ten people individually all see, from different angles, a man coming out of a murdered persons house. They tell this to another person and also mention that the man looked exactly like the neighbour. I think the other person is rational to then conclude that a man that fits the description, probably the neighbour, did come out of the house.

Now replace the man with a giant ufo, which is seen by ten people individually from different angles. They tell this to another person and also describe the craft in detail and say it looked completely unlike anything humans could make(and as a result they think it was extra-terrestrial). I think the other person is rational to conclude that a ufo which fits the description did fly by.

Now all we have is eyewitness accounts, and according to 'the filter' this is poor evidence. Yet in the first scenario, these accounts are very useful for police to track down the killer, as well as in court to convict the man. In such a case the filter would be the opposite of useful and it would be illogical for police, as well as the judge/jury to not take the eyewitness accounts seriously.

Why would the filter be useful and logical in the second scenario, if it isn't in the first?

 

[Old Smuggler]

One appropriate response is "So what?"

That's the classic response of archconservatism, nicely illustrating my point.
Furthermore, this response is useless, and I consider it inappropriate since
it in effect denies any significance of the observation without giving any reasons why.

A much better response from a real (conservative) skeptic would be, "This must be a coincidence because <insert good reasons here>, and any model that circumvents
<these good reasons> also has to explain <independent observations underlying the
good reasons>."

But of course, when it comes to assess the significance of anomalous observations,
nothing beats hindsight.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Some people are sceptical of 9/11 being a terrorist attack.

Is that logical?

 

[Pythagorean]

Some people are sceptical of 9/11 being a terrorist attack.

Is that logical?

It doesn't matter what one thinks. Logic is the technique you used to reach your conclusion, not the conclusion itself. People can be right for the wrong reasons.

So it's not what you think, it's why you think it.

People can also be wrong using logic, but the idea is that they can generally prove whether they're wrong or right (if it's logical enough, then it's easier to design an experiment to test it) and move on.

 

[Old Smuggler]

This equation implies that the fundamental physical constants vary over cosmological time scales: e.g., the SI base units of time (the second), of length (the meter), and Newton's gravitational constant.

Taken in isolation, the equation just describes an observational fact. Attempting to implement the equation into a wider setting or theory is a different cup of tea.
The question is if this equation represents something potentially significant or if it
represents only a coincidence.

That is an interesting proposition that deserves to be carefully examined. If it is presented in that way (e.g., as a proposal for further investigation), then a "real skeptic" (e.g., a scientist) should react positively. If however this is presented as a claim/conclusion, then a "real skeptic" should react by pointing out (directly or indirectly) that it is premature to be making claims/conclusions at this stage of your investigation.

The equation was presented as representing an observational fact, nothing more.
The "real skeptic" would be asked for an assesment of the significance of this
observation as basis for further investigation.

In this particular case for example, all spinning and orbiting bodies in the universe should also obey this equation if it is really true (e.g., not just a coincidence) for the Earth's moon. Therefore, a claim/conclusion like this should at least be accompanied by a thorough analysis of the orbits of all planets and moons in our solar system, and of the observed spin-down rates of all known millisecond binary pulsars (this data is readily available in several online catalogs) before it is presented as a claim/conclusion.

Of course the equation should be significant for orbits of other bodies than the Moon,
if it represents something more than just a coincidence. However, spin-down rates
of millisecond pulsars is another matter, since by extrapolation, the equation should apply only to orbits. For spinning bodies, extrapolation of the equation would be more risky. Overgeneralizing is not a good thing.

A good starting point for such an investigation would be to review this article: J.P. Uzan, The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 75, April 2003, pp. 403-455.

Yes, I am aware of this paper. For LLR data and their interpretation, see

J. Chapront, M. Chapront-Touze and G. Francou, Astron. & Astrophys. 387, 700 (2002).

 

[Hurkyl]

Furthermore, this response is useless, and I consider it inappropriate since it in effect denies any significance of the observation without giving any reasons why.

Contrary to popular belief, facts do not speak for themselves. Your post provided absolutely no reason why one would be interested in this fact, or what its implications might be. You never even raised the issue of whether the fact is interesting or significant. Asking, "so what?" cannot deny anything -- you haven't said anything that can be confirmed or denied!^* "So what?" is exactly the question that prompts you to supply that missing information.*: except for the veracity of the fact, which I will assume for the sake of argument and because I'm too lazy to check it myself)

 

[BillJx]

To me that's what skepticism is. Critical thinking. It doesn't imply rejection of current scientific explanations. It does imply an understanding that they are "current" explanations. And to my way of thinking, at least, it implies that contrarian explanations are unlikely to be correct because, by definition, they are doubted by the people best trained to judge. In other words, to me, skepticism and logic are the same.

 

[Aether]

Even well-documented observations that do not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work, may be rationalized away or just neglected. One example of this is the observed mean acceleration {\dot n} of the Moon; from lunar laser ranging experiments this has the value of about -13.8 arcseconds/(century)^2. Furthermore, the mean motion of the Moon n is about .549 arcseconds/s.

Assuming that these numbers accurately reflect well-documented observations of LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) measurements, and that you don't mean to suggest that they "do not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work" or that anyone has "rationalized away or just neglected" them; then it must be this statement of yours that you are saying does "not fit easily into a preconceived notion of how the world should work", and it must be this statement of yours that you are saying has been "rationalized away or just neglected":

Now the interesting part is that to within one standard deviation, {\dot n}=-Hn, where H is the Hubble parameter

Right?

...Taken in isolation, the equation just describes an observational fact. Attempting to implement the equation into a wider setting or theory is a different cup of tea...The equation was presented as representing an observational fact, nothing more.

Wrong. This equation describes a line extending from a time several billion years in the past when the Moon was first formed to a time several billion years in the future when the Sun will burn out. The LLR observations that you have presented so far might represent, at most, one single point on this line. If you are claiming that this line is a plausible one, then please show a plot of this line over the life-span of the Moon vs. the mainstream scientific estimate of what this line should actually be (e.g., where the total angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is conserved over the time period).

 

[Old Smuggler]

Contrary to popular belief, facts do not speak for themselves.

That's right. However, some facts are highly suggestive. This is one of them. See below.

Your post provided absolutely no reason why one would be interested in this fact, or what its implications might be.

Observational facts do not come with tailored explanations. I was merely interested in how a skeptic would react to a surprising and inconvenient fact. The fact is surprising
since according to standard theory, the mean acceleration of the Moon consists of two
main parts, namely 1) secular effects of planetary perturbations on the Earth-Moon system, 2) tidal friction. There is no a priori reason why the natural time scales associated with any of these mechanisms should have anything to do with the Hubble time. Yet, as standard theory will have us to believe, by an incredible coincidence, these mechanisms conspire to relate the mean acceleration of the Moon to its mean motion via the Hubble
parameter! This suggests that cosmology somehow is relevant in the Solar system,
contrary to predictions from standard theory. Moreover, since no explanation can be made of this within standard theory, this fact is inconvenient, and easy to dismiss without justification.

You never even raised the issue of whether the fact is interesting or significant.

But that's what I asked for, a real skeptic's reaction to and assessment of this fact. Of course I also assumed that this skeptic knows astrophysics so well that it would be
unnecessary to point out why the fact is surprising and unconvenient.

Asking, "so what?" cannot deny anything -- you haven't said anything that can be confirmed or denied!^* "So what?" is exactly the question that prompts you to supply that missing information.

In my opinion "so what?" is not a real, but a rethorical question; having an arrogant tone
and an air of dismissal about it. Therefore it is inappropriate and counterproductive as
part of a constructive discussion. Please, do not use such questions as part of your discussion style.

To repeat myself, all I did was to point to a surprising observational fact and ask how a real skeptic would react to it. It was not my intention to offer an "explanation" of the fact. But to take the fact seriously, you seem to suggest that some explanation should be offered. Which leads to another question; which kind of "explanation" would be necessary for you (or any skeptic) to take the fact seriously?

*: except for the veracity of the fact, which I will assume for the sake of argument and because I'm too lazy to check it myself)

The Chapront et. al. paper I referred to in an earlier post has all the necessary information.
Please check it out.

 

[StuMyers]

Is there ANY reason to speculate that it's anything more than a coincidence? There's not a causal reason for every correlation in the universe. Today, the moon and sun appear to be the same size from the surface of the Earth. Is there some law of nature that dictates that this must be so? No.

 

[Maxwells Demon]

It all depends on having the right amount of scepticism. Have too much and you might miss something great, have too little and you might be wrong. It's a very fine balance that only few master perfectly, I think.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It doesn't matter what one thinks. Logic is the technique you used to reach your conclusion, not the conclusion itself. People can be right for the wrong reasons.

So it's not what you think, it's why you think it.

People can also be wrong using logic, but the idea is that they can generally prove whether they're wrong or right (if it's logical enough, then it's easier to design an experiment to test it) and move on.

Right, and have you seen the arguments that people use to argue their conspiracy theories?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The off-topic discussion was moved to GD
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1285530#post1285530

 

[Pythagorean]

Right, and have you seen the arguments that people use to argue their conspiracy theories?

no, when I was in high school, and I was interested in conspiracy theories, I wasn't interested in logical arguments or supporting facts. I was interested in 'facts' that were more appealing to pathos than logos.

 

[LightbulbSun]

It's healthy to be skeptical until proven otherwise. Especially for claims that are outside the realm of our body of knowledge. That's why we have the scientific method.

Epsilon: I've done significant research into the 9/11 conspiracies and none of them are scientific. They are the antithesis of research. Instead of experts in relevant fields, they get an expert in testing water. Besides, these theories have been debunked a multitude of times already.

 

[rahuldandekar]

Suppose 'something' has not been proven to be true, but nevertheless every piece of information with regard to that 'something' (for example eyewitness accounts) suggest that the 'something' IS true.

Is it logical to then be skeptical to the point where one still thinks its more plausible that the 'something' is not what the information indicates it to be, but that it is actually something else that does not match the information, but which has been proven to exist?

I don't think so. True scientific skeptics always proceed with reason. If something does not match the information, it cannot be an explanation. But if something does, and has been proven to exist, and explains the same phenomenon as an unproven hypothesis, it's more likely to be valid. Eg. Sleep Paralysis in case of alien abductions.

I think logic is essential to skepticism, and theories which are logically inconsistent, or experimentally disproved, cannot be taken to be true. You are free to believe in them, but don't take them as the truth.

It's easy to test theories in physics (comparitively). In other fields there enter matters of interpretation, cause and effect, etc. I don't think that in such matters there is any better way to truth than controlled double-blind tests (if possible).

Then again, one may question the validity of the scientific method itself, as a path to "truth". Best left to philosophy...

 

[BoredNL]

Yes, scientific progress requires not only logic but also imagination and creativity. People are built in such a way that those with a proclivity for one often lack a proclivity for the other. Few are blessed with a good balance of both. Someone here has a good signature about how all progress depends on the unreasonable man because the reasonable man is not the one who tries to change the world.

For what reason would a reasonable man not reason to create reason?

I imagine he would.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Is it always logical to be skeptical of something?

I am skeptical of my own judgment, and not of anything else.

 

[BoredNL]

I am skeptical of my own judgment, and not of anything else.

If that is a literal statement, I would be too if I were you.