A foot in each camp

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by happyanne
There aren't many of us with a foot in each camp so I'd like Zaira to stay!

Originally Posted by John
Again, what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that I don't want Zaira to stay? Are you saying that I'm trying to drive her out? Are you suggesting that Zaira feels as if she has to leave? You see - it's your intervention here that's likely to cause tension. I actively welcome people like Zaira as we tend to have meaningful conversations (unlike this one) and as far as I was aware we were doing just fine until you butted in.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=14118#post14118


A foot in each camp. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it like sitting on the fence refusing to take sides?

[Dr B]

Zaira

These are my thoughts - for they are worth.

UK-skeptics has a novel approach. Firstly, we do not support cynicism. We would distance ourselves from many other well-known organisations and figures that we feel stir the wrong emotions and perceptions about skepticism.

Secondly, let me tell you, I am not a skeptic and do not count myself as one. I have many arguments with skeptics who think they are clever - when all they really do is shout alot and display very little understanding. We (or at least I) try to distance ourselves from this as it gives skepticism and critical thinking a bad image. However, that does not mean we abandon reasoned debate and the principles of sound argumentation. If someone makes unsubstantiated claims - we need to explore that and identify it.

I describe myself and my approach as scientific - no more no less. I hope it is based in the principles of science, logic, critical thinking, and reason. I have seen hard-nosed so-called skeptics in action and it is often laughable to see ;D - we here have recognised this and try to avoid it (although personalities clash - open debate should win through). The reason I am saying this is that I do not think these 'two-camps' you talk of really exist.

It is easier for conversational purposes to talk of believers and skeptics - and it is easier for the media to portray it as a polarised approaches - but i feel this always misses the true essence of "the middle ground" approach - we accept only that a sensible and reasoned approach be adopted.

If you abandon reason, you are wide open to entertain and endorse ideas which are false, and even dangerous. It is in all our interests to help each other reduce that probability.

We have never (as far as I am aware) had to lock a thread here and we pride ourselves on that.

We welcome open debate from everyone and no one minds what philosophical position you come from. We are interested in how good the argument you offer is and we try to explore the counter arguments as best we can.

[Admin]

A foot in each camp. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it like sitting on the fence refusing to take sides?

It's a little more complicated than it might first appear. I'm a Skeptic. OK it's a label and means nothing more than I base my approach to thinking about things using the method of Skepticism (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php).

As a skeptic, I do like to take a stance on an issue if there's enough information available to do so. Without getting into arguments about philosophy of science issues (at this point), there are good reasons for taking stances on issues with regard to the available evidence.

Fence-sitting is fine if there's not currently enough evidence to come to a justifiable and provisional conclusion on an issue but if the evidence is there (or lack of it where it should be expected) then forming a conclusion is a valid position to take.

e.g. Are psychic abilities real?

There's no robust evidence to support the fact that they are (and plenty of explanations as to why they're illusory) so to take the stance that psychic abilities are not real until/unless someone proves that they are is a logically sound position to take.

If they were real then some robust evidence would surely have emerged by now. So, to sit on the fence because psychic powers haven't been disproved (see also: Argument to Ignorance (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php)) is really not a tenable position.

The statement "Psychic powers do not exist" is also a falsifiable statement (this is important for it to be meaningful). It's OK to adhere to it as there's an inbuilt assumption that should one case of psychic ability emerge then the statement is blown out of the water. This is why skeptics take this position. It's a robust position to take and it could be proved wrong by one single psychic proving their ability.

Fence sitting, or one foot in each camp, is not a tenable or useful position to take unless there really is not enough evidence (positive or negative) to take a justifiable stance on an issue.

[Zaira]

I was a little concerned as to the kind of impression I was giving because my take on a foot in both camps is rather negative and could mean you were a traitor to your cause.

I don't argue for my beliefs. I don't try to convince anyone to believe what I believe. If asked, I enjoy sharing what I call my weird and wonderful ideas. I see it as simply giving them the information, what they do with it is up to them.

Perhaps that’s why skeptics gets such a rough deal. It’s not enough for them that they learn the truth and prove the person wrong, they practically insist that you simply drop what you believe and take on board what they have discovered to be the truth. I think this is where they get ratty, because they don’t seem to realise that it takes time for others to process the new information. They may have held that belief for many years and yet if they hesitate to accept what the skeptic is telling them to be true threads can get locked.

[Garth]

It's probably about respect.
Me I don't believe in God(s) or psychics and many other things that appear to me to be hanging onto stone age beliefs or falling for con mens tricks.
But my best friend is a devout Christian. I respect her right to choose what she wants to believe and she respects mine. That way I don't argue the inconsistencies of her Bible and she won't preach to me.

Some people like to tell me they dream strange predictive dreams and some want to tell me they astral project (a spirit or mind detaches from their sleeping physical body).
I just don't buy it.
But I'm not really the one to tell people I consider as friends that they are delusional. It's their choice to believe it. I'll put some of my ideas on the table and if they can't accept what I suggest and remain fixed with their interpretation..... then it's their choice.

[median]

A foot in each camp. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it like sitting on the fence refusing to take sides?


I think Dr B and John have summed up things quite nicely. Good points from Garth too.

One thing I would add is to remember that skepticism in itself is open to skeptical evaluation. You should never be unwilling to re-evaluate your own position on a regular basis.

[Cuddles]

One thing I would add is to remember that skepticism in itself is open to skeptical evaluation. You should never be unwilling to re-evaluate your own position on a regular basis.

I think this is pretty much the most important point of skepticism and science. There is never any point in sitting on the fence because it really doesn't matter if you're wrong. No matter how weak the evidence you base a conclusion on, as long as you are open to changing your conclusions based on new evidence there is no problem.

The idea of being a "traitor to the cause" is very much a position that only believers will take, where they will deride you simply for questioning their beliefs. The only way of being a "traitor to skepticism" is to deliberately ignore or distort data to support the conclusion that you want. As long as you have a sensible reason for your conclusions, no skeptic should ever criticise you personally for it, although they will of course be free to criticise your evidence and logic.


Firstly, we do not support cynicism.

Ah, crap.:-X

[Dr B]

I was a little concerned as to the kind of impression I was giving because my take on a foot in both camps is rather negative and could mean you were a traitor to your cause.

As Cuddles has said - you cannot really be a traitor to skepticism as it is a method which does not dictate the contents of idea / views / theories. The only way to fall foul is to be illogical and throw out the role of logic, reason and evidence in evaluating information. By doing this what you are really saying is - these rules dont apply to my 'special' argument. We would counter...'oh yes they do'.



I don't try to convince anyone to believe what I believe.

Nor do skeptics per-se. Skeptics try to get you to consider alternatives - particularly if you are making a facutal claim of truth or even undermining scientific truths based on real evidence. A skeptic would say - why do you hold those views about x,y,z?


I see it as simply giving them the information, what they do with it is up to them.

The problem is not all information counts as knowledge which can provide understanding. Some information is bogus and we need not waste our time with it. The quality of other information could be improved and we need to identify how this might come about.


It’s not enough for them that they learn the truth and prove the person wrong, they practically insist that you simply drop what you believe and take on board what they have discovered to be the truth.

I dont recognise this view of skepticism. No one is trying to prove anyone else wrong - that would be unscientific and illogical. No one is insisting anything. However, in the world of factual claims and real knowledge the rules are clear. Many people are not aware of them and this is where they fall foul.



I think this is where they get ratty, because they don’t seem to realise that it takes time for others to process the new information.

I think thats a very good point. Not the bit about getting ratty - but the bit about it takes time to digest new information - it does. But skeptics are here to be consulted in that process as well. Remember - in many areas of science there is no right answer - you just have to keep making sure you are less wrong today than you were yesterday O0


They may have held that belief for many years and yet if they hesitate to accept what the skeptic is telling them to be true threads can get locked.


We have never locked a thread here because we endorse open, free, rational debate. As long as people do not verbally vomit all over the forum - there is no need to lock anything.

[Dr B]

Ah, crap.:-X

well, in your case I will make an exception.....;D;D

[Jocky]

I completely agree that polarisation between 'camps' is an unhealthy thing - it encourages ad hominem arguments and similar "yah boo sucks" debates, more appropriate in Politics than Science. The media of course like to present simple polarised positions as it makes their job easier and often creates entertaining output.

[Aside: Scientists are of course people too, and are therefore not immune from falling into such behaviour from time to time! However, the principles of the scientific method should always rise above this: logical conclusions based on evidence will win out in the end.]

I strongly support what seems to have emerged as 'the UKS position' as outlined by Dr B above - we do not espouse cynicism (sorry Cuddles ;) ), naysaying, name-calling or knee-jerk debunking, preferring reasoned debate where arguments and positions are robustly examined but individuals are not derided.

Zaira: I think you've made a great contribution to the board in the time you have been here. It is valuable to have people involved in the debate in a constructive and thoughtful way who do not find themselves naturally drawn to skepticism as an intellectual approach, in the way that 'card-carrying' skeptics like John and myself are. Allo Allo and others have made similarly valuable contributions along the same lines.

[If anybody feels I've misrepresented their position here, please forgive me!]

The idea of being a "traitor to the cause" does not arise, as long as there is a culture of reasoned, open debate. You can only be a traitor to something where there is a rigid party line, a "believe this or else" kind of attitude. My personal take on skepticism is that I don't "believe" anything simply as an article of faith - I strive to base my point of view about everything on the most logical conclusion derived from available evidence. As others have pointed out above, this means that skeptics (unlike 'believers') can be convinced to change their mind in a straightforward way - all that is required is valid evidence.

[Zaira]

Garth,

Thanks for that. That is my thoughts exactly.

I think you're right about it coming down to respect. The best relationships are built on respecting each other's position. We can't all be the same.

I'm fine now but I have had some pretty tough times in the past, and my motto used to be "Whatever gets you through the night." I became a bit of an eclectic, I took on board anything that helped me to get from one day to the next.

I ran the gauntlet of religion and the Occult. Older and wiser, and feeling much stronger now, I am open to sharing my personal beliefs and philosophy in an attempt to fine tune what I took on board when I was in a more venerable state.

And everyone here has been so kind and generous - and patient. And I appreciate it very much.

[Zaira]

Jocky,

"Zaira: I think you've made a great contribution to the board in the time you have been here. It is valuable to have people involved in the debate in a constructive and thoughtful way who do not find themselves naturally drawn to skepticism as an intellectual approach, in the way that 'card-carrying' skeptics like John and myself are. Allo Allo and others have made similarly valuable contributions along the same lines."

Everyone enjoys a little validation. And I can never get enough of it. Thank you.

"One thing I would add is to remember that skepticism in itself is open to skeptical evaluation. You should never be unwilling to re-evaluate your own position on a regular basis." - median

I would just like to say that that seems to be where I am right now re-evaluating everything I took on board during a more vulnerable time.

[Zaira]

Quote: Zaira
It’s not enough for them that they learn the truth and prove the person wrong, they practically insist that you simply drop what you believe and take on board what they have discovered to be the truth.

Quote: Dr B
I don’t recognise this view of skepticism. No one is trying to prove anyone else wrong - that would be unscientific and illogical. No one is insisting anything. However, in the world of factual claims and real knowledge the rules are clear. Many people are not aware of them and this is where they fall foul.


Sorry. Should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to anyone here. I was referring to my experience with other so called skeptics on another forum.

[Dr B]

Ahhhh I see. Well, when you encounter that - its cynicism and you should point that out to them O0

[Zaira]

Thank you, I will.