Some interesting discussions around here involving our most welcome 'newbies' members would benefit from some new members looking at the information on the main website. Lots of discussions here seem to be united by a lack of appreciation for basic argumentation, reasoning and logic. One conversation on 'God' has already led to a host of Ad-homs from the so-called open minded
Anyway, here is a clip from an article on the main site which addresses what appears to be a very common fallacy. I hope it helps.
"(2) Science cannot disprove the paranormal – therefore, this failure is, by default, support for the existence of paranormal phenomena.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of central principles of science. It reflects a variety of logical fallacies and mistakes of reason. These include (i) argumentum ad ignorantiam, (ii) a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence or absence and the absence of evidence, (iii) a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiency, (iv) a shifting of the burden of proof. These, along with other contextual issues are discussed below.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam basically means the argument to ignorance. The underlying fallacy from the argument to ignorance is when it is argued that something must be true, purely and simply because it has not been proved to be false (or vice versa). Carroll (2004) suggests, this fallacy could also be called the “fallacy from lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary” (Carroll, 2004; pp115). The fallacy of the argument to ignorance is not based in any one individual in an argument being ignorant – it is thus not directed to the individual. The notion of ignorance relates to the form of the argument itself. In this case, to there being ‘no evidence’ and thus, we are ignorant of the potential truth. The crucial point to keep in mind here is that an inability to disprove a claim does not automatically mean that the claim being made is true. An individual might make the claim that he / she can run the 100 metres sprint in under seven seconds (which would be the fastest ever recorded). However, if the person refuses to be tested in a race, our inability to falsify the claim does not make the claim true by default. If this was the case, anybody making a claim like this would be eligible for an Olympic gold medal, without ever having to run a single race! A similar fallacious argument to ignorance would be one that states “as nobody can prove God did not create the universe, it must therefore be true”. The lack of evidence means nothing either way. The fallacy also works in the other direction as well. For example, a statement like; “Of course apparitions do not exist, nobody has provided any proof that they are indeed real” is also an error in reasoning committing the same fallacy. In science, we can make the valid assumption that from the lack of evidence, something has not occurred. However, we cannot conclude with absolute certainty that it has not occurred.
One mistake related to the argument to ignorance is to falsely interpret the absence of evidence as being equal to that of there being evidence of absence. Clearly they are not equal. The crucial point is that although science may not be able to disprove a claim, this is not evidence in support of the claim. Science accepts claims, not just on the basis of the absence of evidence but mainly on the presence of confirming evidence (i.e., positive evidence). There must be positive empirical evidence for accepting any claim or argument as being true. The lack of any evidence itself is not direct support of an alternative paranormal theory. It is completely neutral on the matter. The absence of evidence for Creationism does not, on its own, provide support for the theory of Evolution. The theory of Evolution requires its own positive evidence to establish it as a truth. The confusion over the absence of evidence being the same as evidence of absence is also related to some misunderstandings over the notion of falsification in science."
The above extract was taken from this link
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p...and_reason.php
Interested people should also view, digest and consider,
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/documents...hinkingv51.pdf
Very interesting read. Thank you.Originally Posted by Dr B
Dr B,
"Some interesting discussions around here involving our most welcome 'newbies' members would benefit from some new members looking at the information on the main website. Lots of discussions here seem to be united by a lack of appreciation for basic argumentation, reasoning and logic. ..."
Speaking for myself, I completely misunderstood what skeptics do, I thought they were more cynical than skeptical. I thought they were out to disprove other people's beliefs. I'm sure there are a few newbies who come here thinking the same way I did.
I have read many of the links and found them very helpful in understanding where the skeptic is coming from. One of the pieces I found most helpful was the part that explained that it is the post that is being criticised and not the postee. I think there would be a lot less sarcasm and bickering if we were all to remember that that goes both ways. Another important point is that skeptics are not so much out to disprove your beliefs as they are out to have you prove them.
I may not always agree with skeptics or their views but I now have a better understanding of what a skeptic is and what they are trying to do. Since coming here, I have let go of some of my wilder ideas, my head is clearer and I am less confused. I still have my beliefs and my opinions and I am open to discussing them with the board in the understanding that it is my beliefs and opinions that are being criticised not me personally.
I think reminders like this encourage us all to take a step back and take stock of just what is being said and what may be meant by it. Sometimes reading them acts like a cooling off period. But it will only work if we are willing to do it with that open-mindedness that we all claim to have.
I've always been of the opinion that cynicism is a better starting point than blind acceptance. Keep in mind the adages "If something seems to good to be true it probably isn't" and "Never underestimate stupidity\greed" are right far more often than they're wrong
Oh, and I prefer curmudgeon, not enough people use that word nowadays
I think part of the problem is that many, if not most, skeptics are also quite cynical. It can be hard not to be when you see all the different frauds and cons that people are suckered in to, and especially when you've seen all the claims before and get tired of answering the same leading questions and misunderstandings over and over again. Most of us try to be patient because many people genuinely haven't heard the explanations before and are willing to at least listen, if not necessarily change their minds.
Unfortunately, there are a few bad apples among the believers who go out of their way to be dishonest and annoy people, and there are a few among the skeptics who really do just want to attack believers, or have simply lost patience and no longer give the benefit of the doubt. This ends up dragging everyone else in by association and creates a rather false "us vs. them" attitude on both sides.
You just have to remember that people are always just people, no matter what labels they, or others, apply to them. Whenever people interact there will always be personalities involved, not just facts and evidence. If you just remember that and assume that people aren't actually out to get you, the world will generally seem a much friendlier place.
Mongrel,
I had to look up 'curmudgeon'.
"A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.
Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor."
Thanks for the input.
Occam's razor states that one should start out by making only those assumptions that are necessary - and only add assumptions if a case can be made for them (i.e., making new assumptions necessary).
In the end your theory / model / account / should only contain those assumptions that are necessary for the conclusion.
Don't start out asusming things are paranormal - but by all means work towards that theory if the data / evidence suggest it is indeed necessary in order to explain the object being studied.
The arguments can now be seen to rage over what counts as necessary? ???
For me - most skeptics apply this in their logic whereas most Woo's do not......
Hi Zero
You are most welcome
Mongrel,
"I've always been of the opinion that cynicism is a better starting point than blind acceptance. Keep in mind the adages "If something seems to good to be true it probably isn't" and "Never underestimate stupidity\greed" are right far more often than they're wrong.."
Just thought of something I would like to add for the benefit of newbies -
Remember, a serious question will receive a serious answer and a silly question will receive a silly answer.
Cuddles,
"I think part of the problem is that many, if not most, skeptics are also quite cynical. It can be hard not to be when you see all the different frauds and cons that people are suckered in to, and especially when you've seen all the claims before and get tired of answering the same leading questions and misunderstandings over and over again. Most of us try to be patient because many people genuinely haven't heard the explanations before and are willing to at least listen, if not necessarily change their minds."
Well I for one really appreciate the Skeptic’s patience and understanding. We too can get a little frustrated because we are for all intent and purposes questioning our beliefs and at the same time struggling to process the information the skeptic is putting forward.
And yes it is unfortunately that there are people who simply come to challenge the Skeptic’s point of view. On the other hand, they are fortunate if they have the time and energy to waste - I don't. And I can get just as frustrated with them as the skeptic can because they are not only undermining the skeptic, they are undermining me and my quest causing some skeptic to lump genuine enquirers in with those who simply come to challenge the Skeptic’s point of view.
".. and there are a few among the skeptics who really do just want to attack believers, or have simply lost patience and no longer give the benefit of the doubt. This ends up dragging everyone else in by association and creates a rather false "us vs. them" attitude on both sides."
I agree and I appreciate your honesty.
"You just have to remember that people are always just people, no matter what labels they, or others, apply to them. Whenever people interact there will always be personalities involved, not just facts and evidence. If you just remember that and assume that people aren't actually out to get you, the world will generally seem a much friendlier place."
Thank you for that information. I'm sure that will go a long way to encourage genuine newbies to be more patent and continue to ask questions.
Some of the faulty types of "argument" described above would be classed as "begging the question". Has anyone noticed how almost nobody seems to know the correct meaning of that phrase any more? This includes loads of BBC broadcasters, one being a sports commentator (who shall be nameless) who was, according to his online biographical sketch, educated at a top public school! When I encounter this on my radio, my remarks undoubtedly entitle me to the role of curmudgeon! If you said to one of these people "Ah, that's begging the question," they'd reply "What question?" just as when Oliver Hardy says in a film "A lot of water's passed under the bridge since then" Stan Laurel replies "Which bridge?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks