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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

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?

[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