Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Time to be skeptical about “skeptics”?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to New science organization offers to set science free from materialism and ID and “Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science”:

We’ve all encountered these “skeptics.” Typically, despite massive evidence, they don’t accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, and many choose to advocate an evidence-free multiverse instead. Some of them even campaign against falsifiability in science.

But many do sign on to a litany of poorly sourced causes bound together by progressive politics. See, for example, Journalist wonders, why Creation Museum inspires rage, whole foods scams don’t. Then there is the litany of causes accepted on weak evidence, warm feelings, and threats against those who doubt.

So becoming skeptical about “skepticism” might be an idea. And here indeed is Skeptical About Skeptics:

… dedicated to countering dogmatic, ill informed attacks leveled by self-styled skeptics on pioneering scientific research and researchers.

Healthy skepticism is an important part of science, and indeed of common sense. But dogmatic skepticism uses skepticism as a weapon to defend an ideology or belief system, and inhibits the spirit of inquiry.

Most self-proclaimed skeptics are believers in a materialist worldview, and dismiss any evidence for phenomena that do not agree with their assumption that minds are nothing but brain activity confined to the inside of heads.

Members of militant skeptical organizations often think of themselves as defending science and reason against superstition and credulity.

These are worthy aims, but we at Skeptical About Skeptics think that science and reason are best served by considering the evidence for unexplained phenomena scientifically rather than assuming that these phenomena do not exist because they do not fit in with materialist assumptions. More.

Materialist assumptions will not work for life forms because the principal difference between life and non-life is the high level of information, which is not a material phenomenon.

It might be a good idea to make SAS a regular stop, at least for now.

One certainly  won’t hear evidence against materialism from Big Hair, whose idea of breaking news is politician Scott Walker’s views on evolution, and he is nowhere near as interested in  any office-seeker’s/holder’s views on other science subjects, even pressing ones.

Any view of science becomes a straitjacket when contrary evidence cannot be considered. Then, “skepticism” is just turf protection. But that suits a dullwitted guy with a job in science and a talent for second-hand invective just fine, as we see.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Andre. Thank you for your religious testimony. I am impressed that your partner accepts you as the head of your house. I understand that you believe it is what you are made for. Could you please explain how your experience relates to the original post?timothya
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PST
rvb8 I was an atheist for 34 years, my wife and I almost divorced twice we did the we are all equal and nobody makes any decisions hippy atheist nonsense...., I slept around and cheated on my wife more than I can remember, nothing wrong with a good F#$% when I'm out of town now is there? Well I'm going to stop you in your tracks with your insane ramblings, when I became born again, my wife suggested we model our marriage on Biblical principles, I was loathe to let go because I did not want her to be below or be subjected to me as many people mistakenly believe. I was so wrong I was very wrong! Being the head of the house is not a means to boss people around or subject people to you, it is a blessing as the custodian and protector, and the ultimately responsible for my family's well being! You should try it because it really highlights and brings out what we men ought to be! A Husband a father and a man! Please stop saying stuff you know buggerall about, nobody oppresses you and you are free to choose who and what you want to be, as for me I thank my wife for suggesting this, we are happily married now, there is total trust (I trust myself now too) total commitment and like I said I cherish the blessing bestowed on me to be the head of my house! It is an honour and it is a privilege and as a man that is what we have been made for!Andre
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PST
Actually DillyGill I'm not giving away or selling atheism, I'm not attempting to proselytize, preach or in any way convert you away from your god, stick with him, have fun. Being an atheist means I don't need your self inflicted fetters and guilt. The old, 'atheists have no moral compass' argument doesn't work on me and my fellow atheists. You see there are more Pastors behind bars than atheists. Actually if you check the prisons I'm sure belief is rife. Without statistics I think its safe to say white collar and blue collar crime are committed more systematically by believers than atheists. Atheists, statistics inform us, have happier marriages (the wifey in the kitchen thing drives us insane, we prefer a sincere equality as apposed to religious gender division medievalism), they are more educated, and they commit less crime. Oh, and our sense of humour is infinately superior to dour religious types; Life of Brian, brilliant! So I really don't care about your personal god preferance,just don't expect me to swallow your ludicrous stories about loaves, fishes, and animal husbandry on boats.rvb8
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PST
Gpuccio says this: "I am very proud to think with my own mind. I can see no reason to be “skeptic”, because, whatever the word can mean, it will always be some form of prejudice, and therefore a bias." Let me get this straight. You are saying that a "skeptic" is biased by definition. Is that what you mean?timothya
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PST
I am very proud to think with my own mind. I can see no reason to be "skeptic", because, whatever the word can mean, it will always be some form of prejudice, and therefore a bias. Cognitive choices are complex things, and they imply one's whole personality and experience. Intellectual confrontation is only part of them, but at least that part should be managed with honesty.gpuccio
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PST
DillyGil wrote this: "If we accept the Bible as true and that it is the designers’ (the author of life who is obviously pro life, pro justice, pro goodness, pro humility, pro love in a way that seems to be missed by many hence why so few seem to understand the OT) manual of life then we can see that there is a check and balance to the human inclination for domination and control and utter wickedness and evil." Wow, that is a big entailment. The problem lies in the "If" part of your proposition. Do you have any evidence (outside of biblewords) that would lead a person to accept your if-proposition as reasonable. PS. "Reasonable" in this context means "something that can be reasoned about using commonly accepted mental tools".timothya
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PST
Because rvb8 that is what you are selling here, a tool to sear the conscience. Fortunately people here are not buying it even though you are prepared to give it away for nothing. Praise God. You are going against the author of life. Causing disquiet against him, that is the abundance of your trade.DillyGill
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PST
rvb8 @ 17 The crimes of the RCC in the middle ages 1) With holding the Bible from the common man 2) Killing people for 'crimes' against the RCC 3) Selling forgiveness (indulgences) for crimes against God There are three to get you going! (the list is much longer) I would agree that religion can be perverted, indeed the Bible is a book of patterns and types and given how wrong the Israelites got it, that is to say they had a strong religious establishment that Jesus called the synagogue of Satan, there is no reason to assume that the Church is immune to such things. So religion (not the Bible) can be a 'vehicle' for evil. If we accept the Bible as true and that it is the designers' (the author of life who is obviously pro life, pro justice, pro goodness, pro humility, pro love in a way that seems to be missed by many hence why so few seem to understand the OT) manual of life then we can see that there is a check and balance to the human inclination for domination and control and utter wickedness and evil. That is why the RCC with held it from the common man. We should be able to have a religious system that is not perverse however because man kind trusts so well in his God given abilities the tendency is to focus more on doctrine (the Jews called it tradition and that is what Jesus was attacking them for) rather than the Bible. Not that doctrine is necessarily bad however an over dependence on it results in man made wisdom (and corruption) So whilst you celebrate ' Once again, scepticism is rather a new trick' and 'I have said before that today’s sceptics are merely expressing a new found freedom, which hither to, was buried under a mound of religious doctrine and intolerance. Sceptics (and I am very proud to call myself one) no longer need fear religious intolerance as we can say, ‘I have no desire, need, or reason to follow your now discredited faith.’ ' You fail to realise there is no check or balance for you (save your own conscience which is God given and under your world view is just a result of a blind purposeless process so carries no grounding... you know the argument) and there is no check and balance of any authority for the scientific establishment who may decree what ever it likes as good for humanity and if it has sufficient might to effect it then it can, regardless of the anti life sentiment it may contain. Thus making your world view the perfect 'vehicle' for evil because it has no restraint. So trusting in your own wisdom and the good of humanity (both of which are floored, you can not even concede design in life making you a fool and mankind has a long history of the abuse of power) you undermine the Bible, pronounce God evil and proceed to dismantle the fabric of our society, bathing in the honeymoon period of your scepticism. You declare triumphantly 'That’s a good thing, it means one more of humanities shackle is being undermined' failing to realise that whilst there are problems in religious systems all is not going to be well under the new freedom. And indeed these shackles of restraint you mention could be the shackles that have kept the very worst kind of evil from us and that is unrestrained evil. Man with a seared conscience. You are not wrong that religion has bought great difficulties to humanity. That is the fault of man (if you remove religion from history do you really think it would have been people living in peace and harmony??) and with the Bible as a check and balance it has been gotten wrong, how much worse under your would view will it be when the check and balance is science which has no foundation for morality????? I would guess you own a copy of John Lennons' 'Imagine' LOLOLOLDillyGill
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PST
Most people are conservative here and would therefore take the word of an organisation that is a conservative bastion; the US Navy. The USN is launching there new carrier fleet, and these Gerald Ford Class carriers are designed with global warming in mind, their bows are strengthened in the anticipation of polar melting. The USN has scientists and weather experts that pay no attention to the squabble in some parts of the US (largely the US, the rest of the world is on board; sorry), they are simply motivated to produce the safest most effective weapons platforms, and that means anticipating areas of future contention; the arctic. I don't know this Soon person, but he would not be hired by the US Navy.rvb8
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PST
REC...."I suggest you shut the **** up." Hilarious, on a thread where the blog owner and WJM are commiserating on the utter incivility of those sparring in debate with them. Then again, Barry sets the tone with insults, most recently "sniveling cowards," I believe. I'll take your incivility as notice I've scored a win here, and move on....REC
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PST
Once again, scepticism is rather a new trick. For most of human history being sceptical of power was not only frowned upon it was actively rooted out. The Church in the West was the obvious power base, and with its intimate marriage with nobility kept sceptisism well away; power doesn't like to be questioned. I have said before that today's sceptics are merely expressing a new found freedom, which hither to, was buried under a mound of religious doctrine and intolerance. Sceptics (and I am very proud to call myself one) no longer need fear religious intolerance as we can say, 'I have no desire, need, or reason to follow your now discredited faith.' That's a good thing, it means one more of humanities shackle is being undermined. But it is most important to remember that as a sceptic you must have reasons for your sceptisism. Science is a good place to start, and science web sites; there are many, and most are free.rvb8
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST
REC, I agree that we all should be skeptical of Soon's work. But, not for the reason you point us toward. But for the same reasons we should cast a skeptical eye on any and all researcher's work. Your reason is nothing more than an instance of the genetic fallacy piled upon an ad hominem . If you cannot skeptically look into his methodology, data collection, analysis or conclusion and point us toward some short coming, then I suggest you shut the **** up. If Soon violated some rule or code which he agreed to as part of his employment or funding then he deserves to suffer the repercussions. However, if he uncovered some truth, it is still truth, whether he violated some rule or not. Deal with that and let his overseers deal with his impropriety, if such exists! StephenSteRusJon
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PST
It should not matter where the funding comes from as long as the science is sound- ie can be verified by other impartial or opposing scientists.Joe
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST
REC the strategy of climate change alarmists is also well documented. There isn't any global temperature. We know the climate changes regardless of us. We know there are many factors that determine weather- the climate dictator. Get the jet stream to maintain its current east-coast killing pattern and you will see real climate change and a rise in orange prices.Joe
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST
WJM, just so. As I've noted on the pages before, the denizens of The "Skeptical" Zone (irony quotes intentional), are skeptical of everything but their own beliefs, which they hold with a quasi-religious fervor that would have made a medieval churchman blush. And their beliefs are well within the cultural mainstream. Indeed, I have never read anything on that site that would make any of the occupants of the average faculty lounge the least bit uncomfortable.Barry Arrington
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PST
The "skeptics" we're used to, and many who elsewhere call themselves skeptics, are not really skeptics at all; they're ideologically fanatical bullies that employ ridicule and personal attacks as an emotional bludgeon to empower their narrative. Ridicule is not a tool of skepticism, science or logic; it is a tool of intellectual fascism. When you see a group constantly employing ridicule towards other views, they're not really interested in an open exchange or honest debate of ideas.William J Murray
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST
Joe @8-Same non-sequitur. They can fund 'research', but it is the policy of journals and most institutions that researchers disclose conflicts of interest. Soon didn't. He lied. Joe @10-The tobacco industry strategy adopted by climate change skeptics has been well documented. They even collaborated together on "Centers for Sound Science" Old news. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdfREC
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST
Tobacco has a connection to climate change?Joe
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST
Exactly, Joe. Like the tobacco companies before them.skram
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PST
LoL! Of course fossil fuel companies are going to fund research into their products' alleged connection to climate change. Do you really think they are just going to sit around and let people try to shaft them without doing anything? Really???Joe
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST
OldArmy.....what a total non-sequitur. A warming 'skeptic' has been receiving $$$, and he failed to disclose the conflict of interest on his publications and advocacy. Your reply: yeah, but Greenpeace raises money, also.REC
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST
REC, Let me see your "energy industry and conservative foundation" and raise you multiple global warming advocacy groups: Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of the 91 conservative think tanks identified in Brulle’s paper. Just as importantly, these two groups raise money solely for environmental causes and frequently advocate for global warming restrictions. Their $1 billion is not diluted addressing issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, etc. Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/OldArmy94
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST
I don't even like the word "skeptic" because it is tainted by selective misuse. "Investigator" is a better term because it is much more neutral and less-loaded.OldArmy94
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
I know one skeptic favored here that we should all be skeptical of: "The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) has launched an inquiry into one of its researchers, solar physicist and global warming sceptic Willie Soon, following the release of documents that detail research funds he and the institution received from the energy industry and a conservative foundation." http://www.nature.com/news/documents-spur-investigation-of-climate-sceptic-1.16972REC
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PST
As to being 'properly' skeptical, this following article is very interesting:
Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory? - Feb. 23, 2015 Excerpt: Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory? In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable classical assumptions mentioned above—objectivity, determinism, and independence—are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable after all.,,, In the new work, the researchers questioned the usual assumption that classical ideas, even if incompatible with quantum mechanics, are consistent. Here, objectivity is defined as a photon being either a particle or a wave, but not both. Determinism means that the outcome (whether the photon is a particle or a wave) can be determined if all information about the scenario, including any hidden variables, is known. Independence means that the outcome does not depend on the specific experimental setting. As the physicists explain, because the photon demonstrates both particle and wave behavior in the two different experimental setups, then trying to satisfy all three requirements makes it impossible to have any experimental result at all. As long as different experimental setups yield different types of behavior, then the three intuitive ideas are incompatible, no matter what kind of theory is used.,,, Because any two of the three ideas are mutually compatible, the physicists suggest that it seems most natural to drop the objectivity assumption, while keeping determinism and independence. This choice requires that wave-particle duality be accepted, regardless of its counterintuitive nature. However, knowing for sure will be a subject of future research. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html Determinism, Independence, and Objectivity are Incompatible. - 2014 http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.060405
bornagain77
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
Wow if materialism is all there is then someone better call up this 57 year old social worker that just had a veridical nde that was verified to have happened during the time that he had no brain function. Gosh darn it, how do you have conscious awareness without a brain Wilbur ? Duhhhhhh , errr maybe consciousness isn't caused by a material brain but by a material soul jim bob ? Nahhhhh, only idiotic believers believe this . Lets follow the atheists Wilbur because they scream the loudest and I love the way they ridicule believers . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11144442/First-hint-of-life-after-death-in-biggest-ever-scientific-study.html The largest ever medical study into near-death and out-of-body experiences has discovered that some awareness may continue even after the brain has shut down completely. One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines. “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” But Wilbur wasn't doctor parnia a darling of atheist conferences 6 years back . Yea jim bob he was but for some reason he is no longer invited to atheist conferences . Jimbob I bet it was a conspiracy by those wacky Christians. They brain washed him To lie . Oops sorry guys , just thinking out loud .wallstreeter43
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PST
as to:
"Most self-proclaimed skeptics are believers in a materialist worldview, and dismiss any evidence for phenomena that do not agree with their assumption that minds are nothing but brain activity confined to the inside of heads."
here is a humorous quote and photo that gets that particular point across quite well:
"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter Photo - "of all the things I've lost, I think I miss my mind the most" http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg
bornagain77
February 23, 2015
February
02
Feb
23
23
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST
1 2