It may sound like a bit of a daft question but I see it said in various places and by people with various positions on issues (including some skeptics) that ‘true skeptics’ should be agnostic and not claim that things don’t exist or aren’t real.
As an example, we shouldn’t claim that homeopathy doesn’t work but that we should say something like “there’s no evidence to support the claim that homeopathy does work”.
So, should we always stick with the fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty and therefore we should always be agnostic or should we be a little more pragmatic and draw a line somewhere and conclude that some things simply are not true even if ultimately we cannot say it with 100% certainty?
I have my views, which I’ll add later, but I just want to throw the question out for debate first.
.
Well, thats not technically true. In religious matters, Id have to say agnostic athieism is the correct position. There is no evidence for god, so why would you believe in it? However we cant prove god doesnt exist, so agnostic athieism seems to be the way to go there.
In matters like Homeopathy etc, well I think enough trials have been conducted over its tenure, to safely say it has no benefits or efficacy better than a placebo level. This ream of evidence doesnt leave much room for the position of "yeah but it still might work". The evidences collected would suggest it does not at all.
It seems what you are asking here, is should our scepticism be Pyrrhonism? I cannot subscribe to that point of view (philisophically). I believe that some things actually can be known. I think the middle position is the weakest position of all. (Waiting for better data is fine, not to be confused with the "ditherers" and the "open minded™")
As a famous bloke probably once said "pick a side, and die son".
It might be worth having a public position when actual harm is being caused or may be. For instance, when people are using homeopathy instead of a proven conventional treatment and suffering as a result. I would, given what I've said, modify John's statement slightly to read:
"there’s no current evidence to support the claim that homeopathy works beyond placebo levels"
Given that, for homeopathy to work, large amounts of Chemistry, Physics and Biology would have to be wrong or rewritten how much negative evidence is needed before we cross the "it's wrong, it doesn't work and it can't work!" line?Originally Posted by John Jackson
Edit - Sounds a bit like an Appeal to be open minded and "Respect my beliefs"
Last edited by Mongrel; 18th June 2008 at 03:24 PM.
Very good question.
Personally, If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Some things have had plenty of chances to prove they are true - homeopathy, mediumship, psychic surgery, fake moon landings, for example - yet have failed at every turn. To say there is an infinitesimally small chance that it is possible that they work/are true is opening a door to an argument from believers that will lead nowhere. Better to take a stance and argue it strongly than say 'well, there is a teeny-weeny chance you are right'
If your claim has previously been tested and tested, and defies physical 'laws', and has been found wanting, then the onus is heavily on you to prove your claim. I'll change my mind only in the face of extraordinary evidence.
There are areas for real open minded skepticism - I'm going to suggest man made climate change as an example as I've been drinking. I accept it (having spent too long reading the papers) but I do think there is scope for an open minded debate. To equate scope for discussion in this area with scope for discussion about psychic surgery demeans the discussion.
Perhaps it depends on who you are talking to. Amongst fellow skeptics or in a formal sense (eg official journals) then the language should be couched in such terms as "there’s no evidence to support...". If however, you are trying to get a point across to the general public or you are talking to the media, then the objective is somewhat different in that you are mass communicating. Then perhaps saying "homeopathy does not work..." is a better way to put over the message. Just a thought.
I personally think there is very little than one can say will occur with 100% and as such we should maintain a position which attributes events with a certain amount of probability (a bit of fuzzy logic perhaps). Surely, to adopt a pragmatic view and, as you say, 'draw a line' would require a nominal level of probability to be ascribed in which to ascertain 'truth'.So, should we always stick with the fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty and therefore we should always be agnostic or should we be a little more pragmatic and draw a line somewhere and conclude that some things simply are not true even if ultimately we cannot say it with 100% certainty?
Disclaimer: These words were typed under the influence of a number of units of alcohol and as such may display a skewed interpretation.
o.k. fess up you two, you're in the same pub right?
Anyway, I say take a stance, and take the chance of being proven wrong.
From a purist view point, admitting that nothing can be known to be absolutely true or untrue seems self evident. The advantage of avoiding certainty, is that this creates clear blue water between sceptics and believers. The disadvantages are that it is difficult to communicate with most of the population without resorting to the language of 'facts' and 'fallacies' and that it is difficult for most people to categorize things they accept based on a given grade of evidential support.
Thus one would have to say that homeopathy does not work based on high quality trials in a limited number of conditions, but supported by some poorly controlled trials, and a large quantity of testimonial evidence. This added to the absence of any logical mechanism to explain how it might work is sufficient for me to grade this as unsupported. So one could grade Homeopathy as Level 3 (should not be accepted) Grade A (based on good overall evidence). Can you imagine what kind of brain one would require to keep this up for every thing one either did or did not accept?
I think I take a sort of pragmatic view on this. I fully accept that there are few areas where one can get rid of the last tiny bit of doubt: and so for a thinking machine it might be correct to be very careful in expressing the position as "there is no current evidence..." and all of that kind of thing.
I am not a thinking machine. I act "as if" a whole lot of things were settled and get on with my life. I find this essential, actually. I cannot prove that if I get out of my bed I will not be struck by lightning: but I behave as if this were true and I have been lucky so far.
It is important to look at the evidence for things as they come up or as they interest you and to do the best you can. But I do not think it is even desirable to refuse to come to a conclusion. All such conclusions are subject to revision in the light of new evidence or new arguments you have not previously considered (that is kind of an unspoken assumption we all share else we would have no reason to discuss anything at all, surely). But for me I find that progress is made more rapidly if one adopts a position and then subjects it to robust opposition. If each "side" sets out their stall as clearly and strongly as they reasonably can then we can hopefully get the best argument and evidence for each into the arena quickly. I cannot see that as a bad thing
Curses, I've been discovered. OK, I admit it, I'm just an AI experiment doing the Turing Test. Back to the drawing board ...
The general rule, of course, is to say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, I would argue that absence of evidence where one would expect to find evidence can and should be taken as evidence of absence. In this sense, if homeopathy (for example) were true, and worked in the fashion described by true believers, then we should expect to see evidence of its efficacy in clinical trials. And of course we don't.
In this sense, I think it is reasonable to take an affirmative position on certain issues, like homeopathy. Reserving the right, as ever, to change our minds when fresh evidence becomes available.
Oops, forgot about this thread.
I think we're all in pretty much a broad agreement here.
I think skeptics should take a stance on issues as long as the stance can be justified with evidence (or lack of).
Of course it's always debatable as to where the demarcation line is drawn between what constitutes enough evidence to accept something or whether there's just noise in the data (false positives etc.) But the principle that matters, I think, is that we do take a stance on issues (e.g. homeopathy does not work) as it's pragmatic and scientifically justifiable (even if not philosophically so).
To say "homeopathy does not work" is:
To say "homeopathy is yet to be proven" or "there’s no evidence to support the claim that homeopathy does work" is none of these things. It's a non-committal and pretty much meaningless way to deal with issues.
- A scientific statement - it makes the position clear and unambiguous; therefore
- It is falsifiable - if it's wrong then there's still potential to prove it; and
- It's meaningful - it can be used as a solid premise in decision making, for example.
Modern skepticism, to me, is all about taking a pragmatic and scientific approach to issues and acquiring as much knowledge as we can so we can make informed decisions about them. And as long as we always maintain the criterion that our conclusions should be falsifiable then I see this as the most useful way of assessing issues and claims.
.
[quote=John Jackson;39706]
So, should we always stick with the fact that nothing can be known with absolute certainty and therefore we should always be agnostic or should we be a little more pragmatic and draw a line somewhere and conclude that some things simply are not true even if ultimately we cannot say it with 100% certainty?quote]
u have to draw the line sometime otherwise we r forced to say "there is no evidence to support the existence of FSM". even though we know it was a creation of the Dawkins' imagination.
Not Dawkins, Bobby Henderson when the school board where trying to push ID through the schools.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks