Comments on: The Passion of the Skepticism http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bronze Dog http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12721 Bronze Dog Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:31:21 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12721 You should try actually understanding skeptics, Radu. "<a href="http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-6-impossible.html" rel="nofollow">Impossible</a>" is a woo word, in my experience. "It's impossible that there could be an alternative explanation! Therefore it must be psychic powers!" Our knowledge is no longer limited to our own heads: With communication and recording technology, research gives us the capacity to learn beyond our personal experiences. Of course, we'll never know everything, but that's why we use the scientific method to find out what's going on when something weird happens. We may have limits, but we don't use that as an excuse to assume we've already reached them. Woos, out of sheer lack of curiosity, prefer inventing magical explanations without evidence, and prefer to believe that mysteries are beyond our reach. Woo is a cynical and closed-minded way of life. Skepticism and science are much more optimistic and expansive by their very nature. You should try actually understanding skeptics, Radu.

“Impossible” is a woo word, in my experience.

“It’s impossible that there could be an alternative explanation! Therefore it must be psychic powers!”

Our knowledge is no longer limited to our own heads: With communication and recording technology, research gives us the capacity to learn beyond our personal experiences.

Of course, we’ll never know everything, but that’s why we use the scientific method to find out what’s going on when something weird happens. We may have limits, but we don’t use that as an excuse to assume we’ve already reached them. Woos, out of sheer lack of curiosity, prefer inventing magical explanations without evidence, and prefer to believe that mysteries are beyond our reach. Woo is a cynical and closed-minded way of life. Skepticism and science are much more optimistic and expansive by their very nature.

]]> By: Bronze Dog http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12720 Bronze Dog Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:20:11 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12720 I didn't expect to end up blushing when I checked my site traffic. I didn’t expect to end up blushing when I checked my site traffic.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12688 Max Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:23:25 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12688 How to lose friends and alienate people. How to lose friends and alienate people.

]]> By: Bobco85 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12686 Bobco85 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:08:57 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12686 I think skeptics don't have a lot of patience for statements that don't have corresponding evidence. It'd be foolish for a skeptic to hear a story and then believe it on the spot. That's why a lot of skeptics go by a mantra resembling "That statement is nice, now prove it!" Skeptics give a lot of credence to good, well-formed evidence and research when it comes to figuring out situations like Shanya West's. In her case, if you were to only say "Shayna West, a 2-week pregnant woman falling at terminal velocity from an airplane on concrete, survived in 2005." and not give any more details, then it would be harder to prove without investigation. Btw, she was not falling at terminal velocity (120 mph for humans in freefall, according to Wikipedia) when she hit the ground, it was calculated at only 50 mph. Plus, she fell onto a paved (black-top) parking lot, not concrete, and black-top is softer than concrete. It's little details like these that can give better validity to claims, and that's what skeptics are after: the whole story. I think skeptics don’t have a lot of patience for statements that don’t have corresponding evidence. It’d be foolish for a skeptic to hear a story and then believe it on the spot. That’s why a lot of skeptics go by a mantra resembling “That statement is nice, now prove it!”

Skeptics give a lot of credence to good, well-formed evidence and research when it comes to figuring out situations like Shanya West’s. In her case, if you were to only say “Shayna West, a 2-week pregnant woman falling at terminal velocity from an airplane on concrete, survived in 2005.” and not give any more details, then it would be harder to prove without investigation. Btw, she was not falling at terminal velocity (120 mph for humans in freefall, according to Wikipedia) when she hit the ground, it was calculated at only 50 mph. Plus, she fell onto a paved (black-top) parking lot, not concrete, and black-top is softer than concrete.

It’s little details like these that can give better validity to claims, and that’s what skeptics are after: the whole story.

]]> By: Jacco http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12648 Jacco Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:06:27 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12648 Radu - Windman, you are making a few wrong assumptions about skeptics. Please hang around and I hope you will see that, for instance, skeptics do not use the word "impossible" very lightly: simply because one can't prove a negative. But when I claim that there is an orange elephant living in my mother's backyard, skeptics don't just take my word for it. They think of different explanations, for example: 1. It is true, there is an orange elephant in my mum's backyard. 2. It is not true, the elephant is grey and in my mum's backyard 3. It is not true, the elephant is grey and living around the corner at the zoo 4. It is not true, I am delusional 5. It is not true, my mum is delusional 6. It is not true, I am joking 7. It is not true, I just want some attention and probably many many more. So when I insist 1 is true, it is my evidence against the skeptic's evidence. If my evidence is "You have to believe me because my mum never lies", than it just doesn't stand up against the skeptic's evidence (there is evidence of elephants living in zoo's, evidence of people being delusional, evidence of people making jokes, seeking attention, etcetera.) I would suggest to stick around and give skeptics a chance. You won't regret it (but you are allowed to be skeptical of that) :-) Radu – Windman, you are making a few wrong assumptions about skeptics. Please hang around and I hope you will see that, for instance, skeptics do not use the word “impossible” very lightly: simply because one can’t prove a negative. But when I claim that there is an orange elephant living in my mother’s backyard, skeptics don’t just take my word for it. They think of different explanations, for example:
1. It is true, there is an orange elephant in my mum’s backyard.
2. It is not true, the elephant is grey and in my mum’s backyard
3. It is not true, the elephant is grey and living around the corner at the zoo
4. It is not true, I am delusional
5. It is not true, my mum is delusional
6. It is not true, I am joking
7. It is not true, I just want some attention
and probably many many more.
So when I insist 1 is true, it is my evidence against the skeptic’s evidence. If my evidence is “You have to believe me because my mum never lies”, than it just doesn’t stand up against the skeptic’s evidence (there is evidence of elephants living in zoo’s, evidence of people being delusional, evidence of people making jokes, seeking attention, etcetera.)

I would suggest to stick around and give skeptics a chance. You won’t regret it (but you are allowed to be skeptical of that) :-)

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12644 Max Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:03:51 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12644 <blockquote>Denying the existence of everything that we don’t have a rational, scientific explanation for, is like the denial of flight for “heavier-than-air” aircraft until not so long ago.</blockquote> Anyone who's ever seen a flying bird or tossed a paper airplane has seen convincing evidence of heavier-than-air flight.

Denying the existence of everything that we don’t have a rational, scientific explanation for, is like the denial of flight for “heavier-than-air” aircraft until not so long ago.

Anyone who’s ever seen a flying bird or tossed a paper airplane has seen convincing evidence of heavier-than-air flight.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12643 Max Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:32:08 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12643 Did any skeptics say that Shayna West's story was impossible? Her reserve parachute deployed improperly, she spun out of control but wasn't in free fall, broke a lot of bones, and was saved by modern medicine. What's impossible about that? Did any skeptics say that Shayna West’s story was impossible?
Her reserve parachute deployed improperly, she spun out of control but wasn’t in free fall, broke a lot of bones, and was saved by modern medicine. What’s impossible about that?

]]> By: Tim http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12642 Tim Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:15:11 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12642 Radu-Windman Dear oh dear, this is exactly the kind of thing that Dr Plait is talking about. Shayna West did not hit concrete at terminal velocity - she had a parachute attached and was spinning out of control. That is definitely not the same thing as terminal velocity. Please review the attached video. Your 'evidence' is really not very convincing - have you got a better one? http://www.schooltube.com/video/9529/Shayna-West Radu-Windman

Dear oh dear, this is exactly the kind of thing that Dr Plait is talking about. Shayna West did not hit concrete at terminal velocity – she had a parachute attached and was spinning out of control. That is definitely not the same thing as terminal velocity. Please review the attached video. Your ‘evidence’ is really not very convincing – have you got a better one?

http://www.schooltube.com/video/9529/Shayna-West

]]> By: Radu - Windman http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12641 Radu - Windman Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:31:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12641 We're people. Limited. Our knowledge is limited. Our knowledge capacity is limited to 1kg of grey matter mass worth of imprefect self-evoluted cell network that is supposed to understand a 14bn years mass, 10^26 times bigger than us. Our cumulated knowledge capacity is limited to the lenght of our short lives, the imperfections of our senses and representations, the imperfection of communication through the coding-decoding of language and even between several languages. If we chose to believe only what we already "know", how can we advance our knowledge? Denying the existence of everything that we don't have a rational, scientific explanation for, is like the denial of flight for "heavier-than-air" aircraft until not so long ago. What if we chose to believe and then try to explain rather than destroy and then explain? "Impossible" things have happened more than once since we are aware of ourselves. It seems to me that you chose to say that it's impossible and argue, rather than check what happened. Shayna West, a 2-week pregnant woman falling at terminal velocity from an airplane on concrete, survived in 2005. Do you think it's possible? So many things that you don't have an explanation for are still happening, in spite of You. Don't be angry. Don't fight them. I don't say that all the bullshit, scams and mischief that we hear are real - there are plenty of crooks, studpid and crazy people saying they've just seen a flying dragon spitting fire. Just that your denial is so angry that it might shut the door of knowledge. Intuition is a form of preliminary knowledge, too, for instance. Trust between people is important, otherwise we'd all be alone. Etc etc. Just thinking... You see what I mean, don't you? We’re people. Limited. Our knowledge is limited. Our knowledge capacity is limited to 1kg of grey matter mass worth of imprefect self-evoluted cell network that is supposed to understand a 14bn years mass, 10^26 times bigger than us. Our cumulated knowledge capacity is limited to the lenght of our short lives, the imperfections of our senses and representations, the imperfection of communication through the coding-decoding of language and even between several languages.

If we chose to believe only what we already “know”, how can we advance our knowledge? Denying the existence of everything that we don’t have a rational, scientific explanation for, is like the denial of flight for “heavier-than-air” aircraft until not so long ago. What if we chose to believe and then try to explain rather than destroy and then explain?

“Impossible” things have happened more than once since we are aware of ourselves. It seems to me that you chose to say that it’s impossible and argue, rather than check what happened. Shayna West, a 2-week pregnant woman falling at terminal velocity from an airplane on concrete, survived in 2005. Do you think it’s possible? So many things that you don’t have an explanation for are still happening, in spite of You. Don’t be angry. Don’t fight them.

I don’t say that all the bullshit, scams and mischief that we hear are real – there are plenty of crooks, studpid and crazy people saying they’ve just seen a flying dragon spitting fire. Just that your denial is so angry that it might shut the door of knowledge. Intuition is a form of preliminary knowledge, too, for instance. Trust between people is important, otherwise we’d all be alone. Etc etc.

Just thinking… You see what I mean, don’t you?

]]> By: Brian M http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/09/09/the-passion-of-the-skepticism/#comment-12615 Brian M Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:07:21 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=4240#comment-12615 Damn rites! When I encounter a creationist, I am no longer afraid to tell them what I think of their quaint little ramblings. I wear my RDF shirts just to piss people off, so I can get them talking. I won't win their mind, but I may win those around me. Hell, I even get loud at my boss when he is non-skeptical, and starts asserting things. Viva la science? Damn rites!

When I encounter a creationist, I am no longer afraid to tell them what I think of their quaint little ramblings. I wear my RDF shirts just to piss people off, so I can get them talking. I won’t win their mind, but I may win those around me.

Hell, I even get loud at my boss when he is non-skeptical, and starts asserting things.

Viva la science?

]]>