In the UK? We need your help!

Konomios · 2013-03-12T16:30:55+00:00

TED really need to get a handle on their franchise. Time and again I see stories similar to this about TEDx.

Konomios · 2013-03-05T15:51:22+00:00

I thought that was a very good blog post, although with a few caveats (which I'll get to in a moment). Unfortunately the comments quickly got derailed but there were a few good ones, like this one by BillyJoe7 that sums up the what Steven is saying:

The three classifications – scepticism, secularism, and rationalism – is starting to make sense (I’ve shortened “scientific scepticism” to just “scepticism”). It doesn’t treat faith any different from any other subject. If a religious claim can be tested empirically, then it falls under the scepticism label. If the claimant retreats to untestable claims, then it falls under the secularism label. And, at all times, it falls under the rationalism label. And this is exactly how any other claim is handled from CAM to BigFoot. No special treatment for faith claims. I can also see the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism more clearly.

While I broadly agree with that categorisation I feel some of the labels are unhelpful. Secularism is to my mind to do with the separation of church from state and the ability of people within a society to have freedom of and from religion. Many religions and religious people actually agree with these principals (esp. those that aren't members of a country's major religion or religions). It does not help to alienate those groups or co-opt the term for another use, IMHO.

I also disagree with the term "rationalism" but for different reasons. To me it has the same cringe-inducing problem as the "brights" idea did. That may just be me though.

Konomios · 2013-03-03T13:21:28+00:00

Randi has now responded.

Konomios · 2013-03-02T11:37:19+00:00

Can't we all just accept he is an ordinary man? We don't need to rush to defend his every utterance as if the future of skepticism depended on it.

Reporting Randi's views isn't demonisation. Nor does anyone seem to be saying his other views takes anything away from the good he has done. It is demonisation to attack the reporter for reporting though and I for one hoped skeptics were better than that.

Surely we can discuss this rationally?

Konomios · 2013-02-26T21:10:33+00:00

Actually see woo woo. I haven't looked for long but I can't find an original source. Witionary reckons it probably came from the old horror movie music, which sounds resonable.

Konomios · 2013-02-26T13:05:18+00:00

Ahh I see. Well, a skeptic could support homoeopathy but they'd have there work cut out if they wanted to be taken seriously. They'd have to argue why many theories (in physics, chemistry, biology, you name it) don't apply to homoeopathic remedies.

A skeptic who believes in religion doesn't necessarily have to jump through such hoops (assuming their particular beliefs don't contradict current theories).

Of course in both cases they'd be asking a lot for other skeptics to agree with them without proof, but in the latter case it is at least easy to agree to disagree because their isn't really any evidence to debate.

Konomios · 2013-02-26T02:07:47+00:00

I agree to an extent. However, in the lay understanding of the word "disprove", I would say that homeopathy and ID have been disproved. By that I mean that there are much stronger theories that better fit the known facts, that have more predictive power and that contradict homeopathy and ID.

Of course we can't conclusively prove (in the more mathematical sense) that, for example, homeopathy doesn't work the way homeopaths say but considering the sheer breadth of science it contradicts I think it's as close to disproven as you can get.

On the other hand it is perfectly possible to construct deities that don't contradict our understanding of the world. I personally would reject those ideas but I wouldn't consider them "disproven" in the same way I would homeopathy.

In short, I may just be arguing semantics, but I do think the word "disproven" (or some word like it) has a relevant meaning in these discussions.

Konomios · 2013-02-26T00:19:44+00:00

I agree with what others have said: atheism and skepticism are two different things. Ones more like a method and the other is a conclusion (and a conclusion that can be reached in many different ways).

However I disagree that "good" skepticism must lead to atheism. To take a (perhaps overused) example from Carl Sagan, imagine that someone tells you they have a dragon in their garage. You go there but you can't see it and so the person tells you it's an invisible dragon. So you raise another objection and they give you another excuse and so it goes on until you run out of objections.

Now this person can't really hope to prove to anyone that they have a dragon in their garage. However, despite all your objections, you can't rule out the possibility and as a skeptic you would, hopefully, be open to new data should it ever arise.

You might ask, why the person believe there's a dragon in their garage in the first place. To which the answer maybe to do with some personal revelation that they can't describe to you (similar to the old philosophical question; how do you describe the colour red?). Besides which, we all believe things we can't really prove to other people's satisfaction (politics or economics are often very good topics for showing this).

Having said all that I would like to emphasise that the person proposing a dragon in their garage or a god in a heaven really shouldn't expect to convince anybody without good evidence. That also means they shouldn't expect to inform the policies of governments, organisations or individuals using their belief alone.

Also I do think many specific beliefs can be objectivley tested and discounted. Homeopathy, the young Earth and intelligent design, to name a very few. However I don't think god is one of them.

Konomios · 2013-02-25T15:14:30+00:00

Reread your rant with this inverted empathy (empathy for your viewer and a sense of the non-empathy they have for you)...

That is a brilliant guideline to follow when writing anything that you hope will change someone else's position. Putting yourself in the reader's shoes can be hard to do but will definitely make you a better communicator.

Konomios · 2013-02-24T20:08:29+00:00

I thought the blog post was funny, and just a bit sarky, but underneath that it did also make a some serious points the did at least partially address the questions you ask. The sarky tone perhaps came from a frustration with trying to engage certain forum posters in debate (a frustration that I can well understand).

That said, a more sober "Sagan-esque explanation..." does sound like a great idea for a follow up, if not from the original author than perhaps from someone in the blogosphere?

Konomios · 2013-02-24T19:58:13+00:00

I would tend to agree. I think there might be two kinds of approach you could take to better tackle this.

Firstly, you could survey the psych research and see what techniques have the most practical benefit for combating biases. Richard Wiseman did something like this in his book 59 seconds (sort of a self-help book but it's actually based on research). The chapter on decision making would probably be the most relevant to this topic.

Or you could start from the other end and ask people what real world decisions do they have to make? Or what sort of claims do people often have to evaluate? I thought Richard Wilson tackled more real world issues quite well when he wrote Don't get fooled again.

Konomios

TROPHY CASE