What do skeptics debate?

[Floppit]

Despite my post count, I'm very much the newbie to all this and I'd like to know what gets debated by skeptics? I mean with skeptics on both sides of the fence rather than topics on which we all (mostly) agree.

Ok, there's a degree of sub plot here. I learn best by doing but have the concentration of a gnat for topics where something is said and the responses are all clever forms of 'Yeah, agreed', or some poor believer wanders in and ends up over using the crying smilie. I'd like to see and learn from some real debates with equally well equipped participants - and join in of course!

What lies at the edge of skepticism? Would a question like 'Can science determine the presence of free will?' push the boundaries?

Last of all would others here like a debating section or thread where we debate with each other?

I want to push it a bit, not for malice but for learning and seeing what it looks like when all agree on the use of critical thought, references (at least if they're asked for), logic and the avoidance of fallacy.

[Tony Williams]

There are threads in which skeptics disagree among ourselves - take the current one in the General sub-forum on Population, for instance. This deals with complex issues where the evidence is incomplete or contradictory so there's lots of room for debate.

Where you won't find much argument is over the importance of making logical deductions on the basis of objective evidence. Which is why believers in anything irrational (religion, astrology, England's chance of winning the World Cup) tend to get upset when they visit the forum.

[lost thought]

I believe that some day the Scotland Football team will not let the fans down again, it's my dream and no amount of bubble bursters will make me give it up.

[polomint38]

I believe that some day the Scotland Football team will not let the fans down again, it's my dream and no amount of bubble bursters will make me give it up.

As an England fan, I have to say that the Scottish Football team seems to do the right thing for us more often than not.

[Floppit]

I'm with TW on this: there are cases where the evidence just isn't in yet — or it is in, but the experts are still fighting over it.

Would it be worth collecting some? A sort of list of potential topics of debate that are relevant to science but not yet clear cut? I'll 'fess that's what I hoped people might do here but I beat about the bush too much!

Where you won't find much argument is over the importance of making logical deductions on the basis of objective evidence. Which is why believers in anything irrational (religion, astrology, England's chance of winning the World Cup) tend to get upset when they visit the forum.

I'm not in the least offended that you thought I needed this explaining, but just for future reference - I had noticed , it's why I came here and not something I'd ever like to see change (except, perhaps, the use of crying smilies...).

I missed the population thread, it grew too fast and I had too much catching up to do to make sense on it.

[Pebble]

Skepticism is probably about drilling down into the evidence, determining whether the evidence supports a given position and analyzing what further evidence should be sought to resolve outstanding questions. Unfortunately this is all rather boring after a while.

Debate by contrast is often using linguistic skills plus headlines from a biased selection of the evidence to support one position and undermine another. Much more fun, but not always enlightening.

[Tony Williams]

Would it be worth collecting some? A sort of list of potential topics of debate that are relevant to science but not yet clear cut? I'll 'fess that's what I hoped people might do here but I beat about the bush too much!

They do crop up from time to time, but the problem is that by definition a lot of them involve such complex science (e.g. anything to do with advanced physics, the origin of the universe etc) that only a few specialists can really understand them. It already occasionally happens on this forum that there are technical subjects discussed that I, for one, am not equipped to contribute to or even understand.

The main, relatively understandable, scientific debates of the day are held around what we are doing to our world, which encompasses climate change and how to address it, resource depletion and, underlying everything, population growth. Which is why the 'Population' thread was a good example.

I'm not in the least offended that you thought I needed this explaining, but just for future reference - I had noticed , it's why I came here and not something I'd ever like to see change (except, perhaps, the use of crying smilies...).

Apologies, I wasn't talking down to you. It's just that as a former teacher and current writer I always have this urge to explain things and put them into context. Now if I were still teaching, I'd be repeating everything at least once!

[lost thought]

As an England fan, I have to say that the Scottish Football team seems to do the right thing for us more often than not.

Yes I know, sad isn't it. Well at least the tartan army will teach the world to party, its the reel thing.

[Admin]

Well I'm a big advocate of skepticism being a thinking tool or a process of evaluation and as such, it can be applied to anything. Skepticism is not a position and it's not just about the paranormal and alternative medicine!

For me, skepticism is a mixture of rationalism and empiricism and we use whichever tools best suit our purposes when trying to draw justified conclusions on issues.

There are two basic types of issue that can be addressed: descriptive and prescriptive.

Descriptive issues tend to be "does" type questions like: "does X cause cancer?" These questions can usually be addressed by examining the supporting evidence.

Prescriptive issues tend to be "ought" or "should" type issues like: "should the abortion limit be reduced to 20 weeks?" These questions are usually moral/ethical in nature even though supporting reasons may be empirical.

Although skepticism would seem to lend itself to descriptive issues rather than prescriptive ones, Critical Thinking is also a tool used by skeptics and there's no reason why we can't use CT to address prescriptive issues. All we need do is understand the limitations of such conclusions.

I think it would be a good idea to set up a forum for more formal debate. We could have either a formally moderated exchange between 2 people or a more informal debate on a chosen topic either freely or with a chosen protagonist/antagonist stance.

So we could have a formal debate on dualism where one person argues the case for and someone else argues the case against.

Or we could do a debate on, say, fox hunting where we could examine the different arguments offered and then build the issue up into an 'argument map' at the end and see how the overall picture develops.

Or, of course, if anyone else has any ideas for something slightly different.

So rather than the normal quick exchange of views in normal threads, we have a more measured and deliberate approach. This could be educational as well as enjoyable.

Any further suggestions or ideas?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Floppit, I'm with TW on this: there are cases where the evidence just isn't in yet — or it is in, but the experts are still fighting over it.

There are also moral and political disputes where not even complete agreement about the facts will settle the matter, because we can still disagree about what sorts of societies we think it desirable, or indeed tolerable, to live in.

Then there are questions such as your own:

What lies at the edge of skepticism? Would a question like 'Can science determine the presence of free will?' push the boundaries?

My first thought woud be to wonder what " free will" means here. Are we talking about the man who signs a legal document in the absence of coercion or duress? Or the toddler who, given the choice, reaches for the Chocolate Bonbons rather than the Mint Imperials? Or something else?