Wednesday, December 22, 2010

False Skepticism



What does this mean, though? What is a skeptic?
















Let us begin by clarifying what we know about scientific skepticism.
















  1. A quote from Sagan from Cosmos:

    "There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly all right; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."

  2. Josh,

    Sagan was a man well ahead of his time. Truly, he was a scientist with brilliant insight and a way with words that was profound.


    It's also called dogma. His site, and many that he collaborate with are preaching dogma. The irony is thick.

    I think the ultimate display of arrogance from those fools is the coining of the term "science based medicine". If you read their definition carefully, they have decided that they don't like the definition of evidence based medicine because it includes what they consider modalities that they personally deem "scientifically implausible". In other words, if we don't understand the mechanism, then even if the evidence points to something we don't understand, it's not "science based".

    In reality, it's a completely arbitrary classification moderated by what they personally "believe" to be plausible. Everything else is not scientific and therefore should be casually disregarded.

    As you pointed out, this is completely contrary to the acceptance that our understanding is incomplete, and that curiousity should rule the day.

    You have provided yet more evidence that these are false skeptics, preaching dogma, and they try to shut out all discourse about any conflicting views while claiming heresy. What an appropriate observation to make at Christmas.

    Don't forget, we've touched on the false skeptic topic here before:

  4. We lost a great man and mind when Carl passed. I felt he went a little overboard with the denouncing of astrology (that said, I was so young at the time and maybe astrology needed to be knocked down if it was as rampant as the series portrayed), but for the most part Cosmos was wonderful, imaginative, and opens the universe for everyone. Unlike the so-called "science" hacks of today -- coughcough Dawkins -- Sagan refused to bleed the wonder out of the unknown, embraced curiosity, and was inclusive instead of elitist and exclusive.

  5. Craig, I've got a request/suggestion. Could you add categories to your blog? Make it easier to find a group of articles on a particular topic?

  6. Well said. I agree with your assessment of Dr. David H. Gorski's false skepticism.

  7. Minority, I will try a couple of different formats for categories. Right now, I have the labels up as a way to navigate. Please let me know if that works for you, or if you'd like me to try something different.

  8. the labels help, but, for example, it would be helpful for people who are fans of Schwartz to be able to find all of his articles, or for people who find Kwombles a pain to be able to find all of your articles discussing her blog. That is the sort of thing I was hoping for.

  9. "By their own admission, Ken and Jamie were breaking the rules of the conference by taking photographs of the event."

    Not true. I was not taking photographs, and I broke no rules. I registered in March under my own name. I paid my $25, and produced my receipt. My conduct was not disruptive, and nobody alleged that it was disruptive. Teri Arranga could not tell me why I was being ejected. Do you know something she doesn't?

    In the four hours I spent at the conference, I saw multiple instances of attendees taking photographs. The signs posted throughout conference referred only to video and audio recordings. Jamie took two photos, and she deleted them from her memory card in front of Teri Arranga and the Lombard officers. One photo was of the Generation Rescue lounge, and the other was of a sign at the hyperbaric oxygen display. But Teri did not tell Jamie she was being ejected for taking photographs. If that's what she told police, then that information will be in the official police report.

    I never admitted to taking a photograph. I did not take a photograph. If you are truly middle of the road, this might be a good opportunity for you to question why Generation Rescue is afraid to allow skeptics to attend their conference.

    Thank you for allowing me to comment.

  10. I'll copy this comment over to the proper article and respond to it when I get the chance.