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.:cheesy:

[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? :smiley:

[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.:cheesy:

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. :cheesy:

[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 O0, 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 O0, 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! ::)

[chaggle]

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.


Agreed. I can't think of many sciencey ones for the reasons you give.

On the other hand a list of Moral and Political topics would be endless.

[Floppit]

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.

I can't help but see a strong connection between debate and evaluation of evidence. While I want to drill down into evidence I'm reliant on evaluation of debate because consensus in the scientific community isn't (quite rightly) the default setting. Evidence is rarely gathered by me first hand except in anecdote which in itself is not reliable enough to generalise from, which means I remain reliant on the process of debate and the evidence others can produce to support their argument. In the case of evolution, for example, it is the very fact that the debate has been won so wholeheartedly that in turn convinces me. While I cannot personally date a fossil I know people who are able to do so are continuously adding to the weight of evidence - because they are in agreement, because I understand the process of that agreement I have a high level of trust in the conclusions drawn.

When I surf through google scholar I can get a picture of debate very quickly, what the debate is, if there is any, and who is siding where in terms of journals (ie are they obscure, new journals or older ones with more to lose in reputation and better qualified peer review panels). To go one step further and decide which side I wish to bet on in a debate I need to read the whole article, granted, but for an awareness of where dispute lies abstracts work bloody well for me.

I can't see there ever being a time when I don't value or want to improve my own linguistic skills because I need those skills to read actively rather than passively. Which perhaps explains why I crave practice.


Apologise, 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! ::) No need to apologies, it struck me as a caring thing to do and I can certainly cope with having my pride a little dented, even if I couldn't quite resist a huff!

[Pebble]

Floppit,

Absolutely agree that debate is a far better medium for disseminating ideas, both from a learning and educating standpoint. The problem arises because if debates get technical, the audience loses interest, but if it is too superficial, then the quality of the protagonists rather than the quality of the evidence determines the outcome, and the general impression created in respect of apparently convincing evidence that may be in reality very flawed.

The problem for the purist, is that one ends up convincing an audience of one, by being excessively fastidious about the quality of evidence behind every point.

A happy medium obviously exists, but this probably varies topic by topic. As such I think there are degrees of certainty, complexities of evidence base and personal factors all of which determine whether one is dealing with a high quality or poor quality debate - rather than a 'cutting edge' topic or list of topics.

[Floppit]

A happy medium obviously exists, but this probably varies topic by topic. As such I think there are degrees of certainty, complexities of evidence base and personal factors all of which determine whether one is dealing with a high quality or poor quality debate - rather than a 'cutting edge' topic or list of topics.

I'm begining to agree - still, I find it a bit of a shame.

[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. :cheesy:

Yes I know, sad isn't it. Well at least the tartan army will teach the world to party, its the reel thing. O0

[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. O0

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?

[bobdezon]

Assign a debate topic, and one person must defend that position, while the opponent refutes it. Both must do so to the best of their ability, in spite of whether they really agree/disagree or not.

Should make for some inflammatory eye candy ;D

[Matt]

Assign a debate topic, and one person must defend that position, while the opponent refutes it. Both must do so to the best of their ability, in spite of whether they really agree/disagree or not.

Should make for some inflammatory eye candy ;D

I'll play. Either side, any topic.

[bobdezon]

I've heard that before ???

[DrS]

I don't know whether it's possible, but one thing I'd like is some ability to comment on the structure of the argument while it's going on ... use of rhetorical devices for example.

Love the overall idea though.

[Trinoc]

I don't think advocacy and arguing a pre-determined point of view to the best of someone's ability are what skepticism is, or should be, about. The truth about a scientific matter is not determined by who can come up with the best rhetoric, and so "defeat" the other side, but to examine the evidence dispassionately and come to a consensus if possible, or at least make it clear exactly what the remaining points of disagreement are.

To engage in adversarial debate is to bow to the post-modernist idea that all points of view start out with equal validity, and that the "truth" is determined by the person who can argue most forcefully. Science it ain't!

[bobdezon]

I don't think advocacy and arguing a pre-determined point of view to the best of someone's ability are what skepticism is, or should be, about.

It is not, you are correct. However the in the process of debating a subject, you can recognise how errors or reasoning are used. Also, how to avoid them if dispassionately arbitrated.


The truth about a scientific matter is not determined by who can come up with the best rhetoric, and so "defeat" the other side, but to examine the evidence dispassionately and come to a consensus if possible, or at least make it clear exactly what the remaining points of disagreement are.

Again I agree, however it does not have to be a stricly scientific debate does it? Scepticism can cover any subject on the table, not just science.


To engage in adversarial debate is to bow to the post-modernist idea that all points of view start out with equal validity, and that the "truth" is determined by the person who can argue most forcefully.

Post modernism cannot be applied to this, as the original greeks did nothing but argue for their case. All points of view are not equal, they cannot be. There is usually a right and a wrong, or a blending of the two (shades of gray). Truth has always been provisional, and should be determined by what is observable and correct, not who is the most eloquent.


Science it ain't!

Yup O0

[Admin]

I don't know whether it's possible, but one thing I'd like is some ability to comment on the structure of the argument while it's going on ... use of rhetorical devices for example.

Love the overall idea though.

Do you have an example available of what you have in mind?

We may be limited to what can be done with the forum software but if it's being done elsewhere then I'm sure we can copy the format.

I was thinking of using something like a 'sticky first post' feature to introduce a topic and use it to build up an argument map as the points develop.

i.e. if we debate X then there will be points for and points against and then we try to create a visual map of how these arguments relate to each other and how they tie in with a conclusion. Doing it this way means that we define an argument structure, which makes it easier to understand all the points, but as each of us will weigh the points differently, we might still come to different conclusions.

For example: if we are debating "should smoking be banned in public places?" (a largely prescriptive issue) we usually get an 'individual freedom versus collective responsibility' dichotomy. These two stances would fit into the argument map in the same place for everyone but depending on which stance you prefer to take personally, you will give different weights to each position.

That's just one idea where you don't have to be a protagonist or antagonist but many points can be introduced and a good argument built up. It's good critical thinking practise.

[Admin]

I don't think advocacy and arguing a pre-determined point of view to the best of someone's ability are what skepticism is, or should be, about.

I used to hear of debating societies giving a speaker a topic and telling them to either argue for or against it and think "what's the point of that?" If you don't agree with the position, why would you want to argue against it?

But, critical thinking is about assessing issues thoroughly and if you don't know both sides of the argument, you're not going to be reaching the best conclusions.

One of the principles of critical thinking is to put yourself in your opponent's position and and look at their best argument. If you can still pull it to pieces all good and well, but you should understand the opposing point of view so you can assess it properly.

Even empirical evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. So even where you think you have a rock solid case because the evidence backs you up, you might actually find that the evidence also supports alternative hypotheses.

We don't have to do things this way, but there are good reasons for taking this approach.

It probably depends on how interested you are in the subject though so perhaps we shouldn't use arbitrary topics if we do it this way.

[Trinoc]

One of the principles of critical thinking is to put yourself in your opponent's position and and look at their best argument. If you can still pull it to pieces all good and well, but you should understand the opposing point of view so you can assess it properly.
I prefer not to think in terms of an "opponent". There is evidence to evaluate and it should be possible for all participants (not just two "sides") to examine it dispassionately. There will be differences of opinion about how certain evidence should be seen, or about the relative reliability of evidence, but these should not be seen as antagonists occupying implacably opposing camps. At the end, there should not be a winner and a loser, but an agreement, even if it is an agreement to differ on some matters.

The Skeptics in the Pub meeting when Chris French argued for UFOs (as aliens) and Nick Pope argued against, was very entertaining, but hardly enlightening. All that came out of it other than a fun evening in the pub was the knowledge that Chris is better at arguing for something he disagrees with than Nick - probably something to do with being a university teacher rather than a civil servant. I came away no more knowledgeable about UFOs than I was when I went in.

[Croydon Bob]

probably something to do with being a university teacher rather than a civil servant.

As a Civil Servant I spend more time arguing for things that I don't agree with than against. I think it was more to do with Chris being intelligent and Nick being a twat.

[Trinoc]

As a Civil Servant I spend more time arguing for things that I don't agree with than against. I think it was more to do with Chris being intelligent and Nick being a twat.
I thought about that after I posted it. Can civil servants possibly believe even half the stuff they are called on to support?

[DrS]

Do you have an example available of what you have in mind?

No, I'm afraid not. :-[

I suppose in general terms I was anticipating a sub-forum sort of format, with one main sticky argument thread, and other areas for discussion on various aspects, though it's hard to see how they could all be tied in together. It does though sound as though the visual map might be what I'm hoping for in any case.

Perhaps after the first one we could discuss ways to improve subsequent ones ... if improvement will actually be necessary at all! :smiley:

[Admin]

Not to worry Dr S. I'll have a think about it and see what I can come up with.

It might be worth trying it out with a few lighter topics to begin with - "what's the meaning of life?", that sort of thing. ;D

I'll have a look around and see if any philosophy forums etc. are doing anything similar.

[Croydon Bob]

Can civil servants possibly believe even half the stuff they are called on to support?

I'll assume that that is a rhetorical question and I won't answer it in long and painfully boring detail...

[Trinoc]

I'll assume that that is a rhetorical question and I won't answer it in long and painfully boring detail...
You assume correctly. I wouldn't want to make you relive it just so as to explain it to me.

[Croydon Bob]

You assume correctly. I wouldn't want to make you relive it just so as to explain it to me.

Perhaps it would make for a useful conversation we could have to fill the gap between 7pm and 7.30pm at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting?

[Admin]

This seems to be a pretty standard way of doing formal debates: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=23

That would be quite easy to do. Just get two people who either disagree on a subject or wish to take a different stance on a subject and then let them post alternately.

It would be moderated (i.e. posts would be checked for possible inflammatory remarks, issues of ambiguity etc.) before the posting goes live.

Obviously exchanges like these would be slow, but (hopefully) of high quality.

But there are other ways we could do things as stated above.

[Admin]

Another one here with the standard set up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259928

However, they link the debate to a 'peanut gallery' (just another thread really) that is used for observers to comment. That's more like what Dr S was after. We could do it in a sub forum of the debating forum.

[Trinoc]

Perhaps it would make for a useful conversation we could have to fill the gap between 7pm and 7.30pm at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting?
Good idea. See you Monday?

[Floppit]

I love the idea - but I'm also a bit scared by it, still love it though!

Totally off topic bit:
I feel a bit hypocritical starting a few threads then disappearing a bit. Hubby has been coming home for visits most afternoons so I've been shoe horning 5 more hours in every day (it doesn't fit!), and PT work. He's home tomorrow but off work till at least the middle of May, I don't really know how it'll pan out but hopefully I'll get some time here.

Save a seat for me, I've not lost interest. O0

[Pebble]

This seems to be a pretty standard way of doing formal debates: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=23

That would be quite easy to do. Just get two people who either disagree on a subject or wish to take a different stance on a subject and then let them post alternately.

It would be moderated (i.e. posts would be checked for possible inflammatory remarks, issues of ambiguity etc.) before the posting goes live.

Obviously exchanges like these would be slow, but (hopefully) of high quality.

But there are other ways we could do things as stated above.

Looking at these the problem for me is that the argument can get rather turgid.

I wonder whether a consensus statement approach would be better, one or more selected topics are agreed, a group of individuals agree to tackle the evidence base on said subjects, they then get together for a day and review the evidence base and produce an agreed (readable) summary of the evidence base with an analysis of the strength/weakness of the available evidence and the consensus of the most reasonable position given available evidence, summarised and presented in plain English.

This kind of thing that could be done as a satellite symposium of the UKS meeting.

Once a position is published on line, then a single named individual (perhaps for 3 year terms) could be responsible for maintaining this consensus position. Comments could be added (perhaps on a linked thread) and where new evidence is presented that requires a rethink, this could be presented to the original group for consideration and the consensus position altered (or amendments added) over time.

I appreciate that the notion of a consensus position will be an anathema to many here, but in reality if this is a consensus reached by application of critical thinking to currently available evidence, this should set a standard to be emulated.

[polomint38]

I appreciate that the notion of a consensus position will be an anathema to many here

Consensus, agree with people, are you mad. :cheesy:

Did bolding, italicising, underlining, increasing font and colouring red show how weird the concept of agreeing is to me.

Although I do agree with Pebble that this is probably an anathema to me and many others here (no names mention, but you know who you are). O0

[Floppit]

Is there any reason that both consensus and debate couldn't exist?

From an outsider point of view I reckon there's already alot of consensus here which gets displayed in full on issues such as ghosts or gods.

If one side of a debate gets turgid then surely readers will stop reading giving the speaker a disadvantage. I can get as fuzzy as the next person but I'm aware that getting over complex is part and parcel of not having truly clarified my own thoughts first. The skill to use language well enough to portray complex ideas concisely and in a way that engages the reader is as important as researching those same ideas, one without the other is error prone and vulnerable to self flattery.

[bobdezon]

Consensus and debate can, and should coexist. Sceptics must accept debate points and make them their own, if the debate points are valid. This is how we accept provisional truths which can be factual until better information becomes present.

[Mulder]

I find formal debates terminally dull. I guess it must our 'bite-size' culture affecting me. I'm really not sure it's the way to go stir up interest in any subject. But, that's just me, I'm sure others will love debates.

I expect if it was left to me we'd have '20 things you never knew about skepticism' ...

[Croydon Bob]

Good idea. See you Monday?

Probably.

[Trinoc]

Consensus and debate can, and should coexist. Sceptics must accept debate points and make them their own, if the debate points are valid. This is how we accept provisional truths which can be factual until better information becomes present.
It would be nice if it were possible. Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

[Mulder]

Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

I don't think that behaviour is confined to skeptics.

[bobdezon]

It would be nice if it were possible.

It is, I can assure you.


Unfortunately what I see in a lot of skeptics forums, podcasts, etc., is a set of entrenched positions, with people forming into gangs to bully the person who dares to bring up a point of view that doesn't fit with the orthodoxy, rather than examining the subject politely and seeing where it goes.

This happens quite a lot. The problem is, those sceptics think they are adhering to a formal position. Scepticism is not a position, it is a method. If they do not apply methodology, then in all fairness they are not sceptics. This is how I distinguish between real sceptics, and psuedosceptics.

[Trinoc]

I don't think that behaviour is confined to skeptics.
Of course it isn't. But the core belief of skepticism should be that there are no core beliefs of skepticism. We make a feature out of our supposed open-mindedness, but sadly we don't always practice what we ... ummm ... preach.

[Mulder]

We make a feature out of our supposed open-mindedness, but sadly we don't always practice what we ... ummm ... preach.

Like the way politicians are always moral and law abiding ...

[Trinoc]

Like the way politicians are always moral and law abiding ...
... until they are caught! >:D

[Tony Williams]

... until they are caught! >:D
And then, whatever they did, it was within the rules they had invented for their own convenience and profit!

[polomint38]

... until they are caught! >:D


And then, whatever they did, it was within the rules they had invented for their own convenience and profit!

You Cynical lot. >:-)

Proving that cynicism can be right. O0