Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Proper Skepticism

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 10:33 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 12:18 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 11:40 AM
Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM
News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM
Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM
What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Proper Skepticism

 (Read 4378 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Proper Skepticism
     OP - February 23, 2015, 07:41 PM
    It seems to me that all of us rely on others, especially authorities, for our information. For example, I can tell you what risk factors for heart attacks are, but I have not had any personal experience having heart problems in a period of little to no exercise and poor diet, and not experiencing the same problems when maintaining proper physical activity and diet, nor have I conducted any study that would indicate as such. It has occurred to me that the vast majority of knowledge I have acquired from my schooling, has not been confirmed through my own personal experience or testing. How do I know that Alexander the Great existed or that the Black Plague actually occurred?

    If one were to verify everything they learned about science and history, one would spend their entire life on the task. You would have to master many ancient languages and understand how to date ancient artifacts. You would have to have a state of the art laboratory in your house to verify the properties of chemicals and study microbes.

    How can one go around being properly skeptical if one must receive their information from authority? How can I trust the news if I can't go and meet the people involved?

    I guess the main question is: What is the best way to go about receiving reliable information and detecting false information while not having the time or energy to verify everything for oneself?

    Sorry if this is a loaded question, but I would like to spark a conversation on the nature of critical thought and how we can sift through the insane amount of contradictory claims we are exposed to everyday.
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #1 - February 23, 2015, 07:56 PM
    Quote
    How can one go around being properly skeptical if one must receive their information from authority? How can I trust the news if I can't go and meet the people involved?


    Short answer, based on a strict definition of philosophical scepticism, you can't. Under this form of scepticism, even the laws of logic are under doubt, everything pales in comparison to that.

    If you want to explore scepticism further, meet Carneades, the most sceptical guy evar:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/carneadesofcyrene/videos

    Quote
    What is the best way to go about receiving reliable information and detecting false information while not having the time or energy to verify everything for oneself?


    Nonetheless, let's drop the extreme scepticism for a moment, and think about the issue normally. The best way is to improve your cognitive faculties such that your detection rate of fallacious material improves, it will never be perfect.

    Start with small but deadly obvious things such as dropping the assumption that humans are rational, we aren't. We are swayed by appeals to popularity, and we are swayed by thinking that something is true if someone of authority says it.

    Sometimes people do shit because it's just easier, not because it's necessarily correct.
    For instance, I often use my mobile whilst driving. I know that it impairs my concentration, but it's convenient.
    I still do it even though I understand the associated risks.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #2 - February 23, 2015, 08:00 PM
    Wow, good channel.

    Is skepticism spelled "scepticism" in the UK?
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #3 - February 23, 2015, 08:02 PM
    Yeah, we spell it with a "c".
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #4 - February 23, 2015, 08:06 PM
    How do I know you're not just lying to me so I'll look silly when writing to a Brit?  Tongue
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #5 - February 23, 2015, 08:14 PM
    You don't.

    But by all means, go ahead and confirm/disconfirm it for yourself.

    Or you can use a sort of bayesian analysis. Given his post history, Qtian isn't much of a liar. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that on the balance of probabilities, his next post will not be deceitful.

    The proper sceptic would respond with something along the lines of "You are assuming bayesian epistemology to be an accurate model of future events, how do you know this?

    Do you see how it goes?

    Smiley
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #6 - February 23, 2015, 08:27 PM
    This is cool, I don't agree with all of it, but it's cool :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPskq_bBlv4
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #7 - February 23, 2015, 08:32 PM
    Indeed. In fact, do I really have any reason to believe you exist independently of my mind?

    I find that people are generally trustworthy unless they have a motive to lie. Absent of any prior knowledge of a person's character, if this person makes an ordinary claim with no evident reason to lie, such as "I ate lunch yesterday," I will consider such a statement to be more likely to be true than false. When a person makes a statement which benefits their own agenda, I think it is wise to put the burden of proof on them. I suppose you could construct some sort of formula of bayesian probability with these factors.

    I need to read up on bayesian probability. When I have seen it used it seems like a lot of the values plugged in seem very arbitrary.
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #8 - February 23, 2015, 08:39 PM
    In Bayesian probability?

    I disagree, it isn't arbitary, there are laws of probability that we can derive Bayes' theorem from. Bayes' rule is a legitimate method, which is often used in Statistics. There are some methodological problems that one can note, but it requires a statistical nuance, which probably isn't suited to this Philosophy section.

    I think what you meant is Bayes' application to non statistical fields, i.e. to problems concerning Philosophy and History. I also share that concern, but it's important to note that bayesian confirmation theory with regards to philosophy is used for comparative estimates, not exact numerical values.

    I.e. Let's look at the problem of pointless suffering in the world.

    There are two hypotheses: Naturalism and Theism.

    Let's call cases of pointless suffering E.

    Let's call our background information B (the other stuff that we know about theism and naturalism).


    Pr(E l N & B ) > Pr(E l T & B)


    This comparative estimate tells us the following: Pointless suffering is less surprising on Naturalism than on Theism.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #9 - February 23, 2015, 08:56 PM
    You're right. Mainly I was referring two instances where it was used: Once by WLC in trying to show the resurrection to be more probable than naturalistic alternatives and once by Richard Carrier to try to prove the likelihood of a purely mythical Jesus
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #10 - February 23, 2015, 09:00 PM
    Oh, I know about the WLC one. WLC didn't actually come up with the calculation though, he was quoting someone else (IIRC).

    I would agree with you though, actual numerical attempts of Bayes' in Philosophy are similar to the Ludic fallacy.

    Quote from:  Wiki page on Nassim Taleb's Ludic fallacy
    The alleged fallacy is a central argument in the book and a rebuttal of the predictive mathematical models used to predict the future – as well as an attack on the idea of applying naïve and simplified statistical models in complex domains. According to Taleb, statistics is applicable only in some domains, for instance casinos in which the odds are visible and defined. Taleb's argument centers on the idea that predictive models are based on platonified forms, gravitating towards mathematical purity and failing to take various aspects into account:

    - It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information
        
    - Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. Taleb differentiates his idea from that of mathematical notions in chaos theory, e.g. the butterfly effect
        
    - Theories/models based on empirical data are claimed to be flawed as they may not be able predict events which are previously unobserved, but have tremendous impact, e.g., the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the invention of the automobile.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #11 - February 23, 2015, 09:02 PM
    The Craig one seemed like an attempt to obfuscate and bedazzle the lay audience.
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #12 - February 23, 2015, 09:12 PM
    So, just a normal Craig thing to do?

    lol
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #13 - February 23, 2015, 09:21 PM
    Pretty much  Smiley

    I am looking for ways to be practically skeptical rather than being absolutely skeptical about the very fundamentals of reality. Like what sources of media tend to be more reliable than others and what "skeptical" movements such as 9/11 truthers are really not skeptical at all and trying to push an agenda? And most importantly, what is the best way to go about determining these things?
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #14 - February 23, 2015, 09:47 PM
    Quote from: justperusing on February 23, 2015, 08:00 PM
    Wow, good channel.


    Definitely, I believe that his channel is the most comprehensive Philosophy channel on YouTube.

    There are a few others that I can suggest, if you're interested.

    They cover material different to that of Carneades.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #15 - February 24, 2015, 02:00 AM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoXxPojdyU4

    Looking through his vids, he made an argument that I can't stop thinking about. He claimed that we should be skeptical of Occam's razor because it favors solipsism over a mind independent reality. I'm not sure he is right about this. Doesn't the part of Occam's razor judging the theory's explanatory power include the ad hoc-ness of it? Suppose I claim I am imagining all of reality and you ask me why I'm imagining a reality in which I have a minimum wage job and have to learn from others about how the natural world works. I respond that maybe even though I construct my own world, I didn't construct it in a way where everything would fall easily in my lap and I would be challenged to learn the way things are. While this may not be logically contradictory, these aspects of reality are better explained with fewer "excuses" by positing an independent reality. Wouldn't this give more explanatory power to the mind independent reality hypothesis and cause it to be favored by Occam's razor?
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #16 - February 24, 2015, 02:03 AM
    Wow this guy really is skeptical of everything. His channel is interesting but its kind of a headache at the same time.
    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • Proper Skepticism
     Reply #17 - February 24, 2015, 09:44 AM
    Or only applies when two hypotheses have the same explanatory power, the simpler(the one that is less assumption laden) is favoured. Whilst I agree with carneades in that or is not the final barometer as to the truth of a theory, I disagree with how he frames explanatory power. He seems to treat it as what a theory claims to be able to explain, rather than what it actually explains.

    Just because I claim to be able to explain x , it doesn't follow that I can actually explain x.

    Thus, my view is that or should only apply to hypotheses that we can confirm or disconfirm, unlike solipsism. The mark of a good hypothesis is that it can be falsified, I don't think that a mind independent reality can be falsified.

    Excuse any possible typos, I'm using my tablet.
    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »