Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[SonOfMan]

Again, LURKERS: please be aware that the above is as wrong as if he had said, “The Catholic Church teaches that the world is flat!”

You can dismiss the latter as similarly as you dismiss the former.

Probably not the best analogy to use PR.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. He is an open-minded (typically), charitable, funny and generally likeable guy.

Yes, but I don’t think he can be counted as representative as a convert from Catholicism. I think his background was in loose evangelicalism.

I absolutely disagree with you here.

The sine qua non of scientists is that phenomena beg for explanation.

To be complacent with such a shocking phenomenon is to be quite anti-science.

And this is most egregious given the way that Shermer makes his living.

Yes “loosely” evangelized. I don’t think he really got the whole scope (perhaps I don’t either, for that matter!)

I’m not sure that Shermer communicated complacency. To me, he communicated awe at the mystery. To turn such a candid narration into a scientific inquiry, describing by what means of experimentation one might discern the source of the phenomenon, would have detracted from the message. Sometimes when observing nature, we may certainly be curious as to how things work, but when we jump to do this without standing back and being in awe, we miss out a great deal.

To see such an article in Scientific American reaffirms that the scientist is a spiritual human, as we all are, and there is a place for simply standing back in awe and wonder. To do so, in our own faith, is prayer.

Again, thanks for the thread.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, not a Science Alone advocate at any rate.

Since I explicitly stated (several times!) that I would disagree with anyone who professed “Science Alone” principle, I see no reason for you to chew on this bone.

What you are is a Faith And Science person.

Again, trying to use loosely defined words. Define “Faith” (capitalized?!?) for me. One definition would be “a name given to some women”. Is that what you have in mind?

Again, LURKERS: please be aware that the above is as wrong as if he had said, “The Catholic Church teaches that the world is flat!”

It just don’t get any better than this. When the church declares something to be of divine revelation, that teaching is “binding” of all the Catholics, on pain of excommunication. You should really study the basics of your religion.

 

[tonyrey]

The best test of any belief is whether it corresponds to the way we live.

Not only Hindus but every reasonable person… “belief” of course includes absence of belief. Those who have few beliefs do very little that is meaningful - except by chance. They while away their time waiting for the inevitable…

 

[PRmerger]

Since I explicitly stated (several times!) that I would disagree with anyone who professed “Science Alone” principle, I see no reason for you to chew on this bone.

So you are a Science Plus…*what, *exactly?

 

[PRmerger]

It just don’t get any better than this. When the church declares something to be of divine revelation, that teaching is “binding” of all the Catholics, on pain of excommunication. You should really study the basics of your religion.

And that means that Catholics cannot question…how?

That’s like a professor saying, “In order to pass this class, you must understand how glucose is metabolized. And you are not permitted to profess that this is not how it happens.”

And the student coming home saying, “Daddy! My professor says I cannot ask any questions in class!”

 

[PRmerger]

Probably not the best analogy to use PR.

And why is that?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure that Shermer communicated complacency. To me, he communicated awe at the mystery.

Indeed.

And I am astonished that the man who makes his living investigating phenomena would be ok with finding out what happened and how it occurred.

There are only 2 possibilities:

1. 
   *]it was a supernatural event
   *]it was not a supernatural event.
   
   For someone whose sine qua non, whose raison d’etre, is to investigate and debunk events that appear to fall in to #1, it is astonishing…absolutely jaw dropping staggering…that he has chosen not to investigate this event.
   
   I wonder if the implications are so shattering that the simple solution is to simply suppress his normal “I love to know why and how this occurred!” in favor of “it’s just a mystery!”
   
   At any rate, I hope that someone emails this thread to him and he responds personally.
   
   Wouldn’t that be awesome!
   
   I will be on vacay for a few…so my appearances here may be spotty.

 

[tonyrey]

Pallas-

I know I am walking in at least an hour or so into the movie, but may I ask what you mean when you say that “God fails the test every time”?

Specifically, to what test are you referring?

Thanks.

The scientific test! What else is there?

 

[tonyrey]

Every time there is a properly conducted double-blind test about the efficacy of supplicatory prayers. There is no statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group. The same kind of test that is used to establish the efficacy of a new drug against some specific health problems.

Some people say that this kind of testing is inapplicable when God is being “tested”, because the new drug has no idea that it is being tested, so the results will reflect the efficacy of the drug. However, God is aware of being tested, so he will “skew” the result, and make a false negative outcome. I am always amused to see this defense. The apologists accuse God of being a scoundrel or a cheat, who uses his powers to avoid detection. In my eyes such a defense is much worse than the original “accusation” - namely that God simply does not exist or does not care.

God certainly doesn’t need to use His power to avoid detection. The Creator is necessarily undetectable as one might expect unless one has a very primitive concept of the Deity but that doesn’t exclude the power to intervene whenever and wherever it is in the best interest of His creatures. Human parents often keep an eye on their children unobtrusively but they are not accused of being malicious for doing so - and the older the children become the more discrete the parents become if they have any common sense. We are not left totally in the dark but neither are we overwhelmed with evidence of our divine parentage which would destroy our freedom to choose what to believe and how to live:

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:4-5

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So you are a Science Plus…*what, *exactly?

Ok. Let’s waste some more time. There are several “layers” of world.

1. The first is the objectively existing external reality. This falls under the inductive sciences. Observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify or falsify. This is the realm of sciences.
2. The second one is the realm of abstract sciences, like mathematics. This segment of reality in NOT subject to inductive scientific method. It is deductive, it sets up certain axioms and a grammar to manipulate the symbols. Do I need to repeat that this part of reality does NOT fall under the scientific method to make valid propositions?
3. The third part is the ethical part. It does not deal with what “IS”, rather how to behave if one wishes to achieve some particular goals. So it deals with the “OUGHT TO” paradigm. No epistemology here - therefore no scientific method.
4. The fourth part is aesthetics. This is the realm where anything goes. One person may like something, others may hate it… there is no objective epistemology to decide who is right in his assessment. They both are, according to their taste. Definitely does not deal with the “scientific” method.
5. The next one is the pure imaginative realm. Fairies, leprechauns, dragons, etc… and tales about them. No place for science here.
6. Then comes the realm of emotions, like love, hate, etc. It may ask questions like: “Why does John prefer blonds, while Jim prefers brunettes?” Irrelevant questions. Even if somehow it would be possible to answer it, no one would invest the time and money into such a project.
7. Then we get to nonsensical propositions, like “what exists to the north from the North Pole”? Or “what exists on the reverse side of the Mobius strip”? Or “how many gallons of water can be put into a Klein bottle”? Or “when did you stop beating your wife”? Or "how many kinds of angels “exist”? Or “how do demons cause epilepsy”? The number of nonsensical questions is infinite. And, no. Science does not deal with them either.

So this is it. No “Science Alone” for me. Hopefully this will be sufficient to drop this topic. But I will not hold my breath.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. Let’s waste some more time. There are several “layers” of world.

1. The first is the objectively existing external reality. This falls under the inductive sciences. Observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify or falsify. This is the realm of sciences.
2. The second one is the realm of abstract sciences, like mathematics. This segment of reality in NOT subject to inductive scientific method. It is deductive, it sets up certain axioms and a grammar to manipulate the symbols. Do I need to repeat that this part of reality does NOT fall under the scientific method to make valid propositions?
3. The third part is the ethical part. It does not deal with what “IS”, rather how to behave if one wishes to achieve some particular goals. So it deals with the “OUGHT TO” paradigm. No epistemology here - therefore no scientific method.
4. The fourth part is aesthetics. This is the realm where anything goes. One person may like something, others may hate it… there is no objective epistemology to decide who is right in his assessment. They both are, according to their taste. Definitely does not deal with the “scientific” method.
5. The next one is the pure imaginative realm. Fairies, leprechauns, dragons, etc… and tales about them. No place for science here.
6. Then comes the realm of emotions, like love, hate, etc. It may ask questions like: “Why does John prefer blonds, while Jim prefers brunettes?” Irrelevant questions. Even if somehow it would be possible to answer it, no one would invest the time and money into such a project.
7. Then we get to nonsensical propositions, like “what exists to the north from the North Pole”? Or “what exists on the reverse side of the Mobius strip”? Or “how many gallons of water can be put into a Klein bottle”? Or “when did you stop beating your wife”? Or "how many kinds of angels “exist”? Or “how do demons cause epilepsy”? The number of nonsensical questions is infinite. And, no. Science does not deal with them either.

Thank you for limning this.

Now, can you please apply it to yourself?

What is your view?

So this is it. No “Science Alone” for me. Hopefully this will be sufficient to drop this topic. But I will not hold my breath.

Why do we have to drop the topic?



I find it fascinating.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What is your view?

I don’t understand. You asked me about my principles about “Science Plus what”? I gave you a detailed reply. Now you ask me again? Are you hoping that I will make a contradictory statement, like you did when it came to “science must investigate ALL claims” and “not investigating those claims, which are obviously incorrect”?

Why do we have to drop the topic?

Because I presented my precise views on the subject. You are, of course, free to criticize.

 

[icamhif]

I don’t understand. You asked me about my principles about “Science Plus what”? I gave you a detailed reply. Now you ask me again? Are you hoping that I will make a contradictory statement, like you did when it came to “science must investigate ALL claims” and “not investigating those claims, which are obviously incorrect”?

Because I presented my precise views on the subject. You are, of course, free to criticize.

To be fair to PRmerger, she does not believe that science must investigate all claims. She was simply practicing presuppositional apologetics: “If science is the only basis for all knowledge, then science must investigate all claims.” Of course, you don’t believe in “Science Alone” (nor does Michael Shermer, I suspect), so the point is moot.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

To be fair to PRmerger, she does not believe that science must investigate all claims. She was simply practicing presuppositional apologetics: “If science is the only basis for all knowledge, then science must investigate all claims.” Of course, you don’t believe in “Science Alone” (nor does Michael Shermer, I suspect), so the point is moot.

Very kind of you to help to clarify the matters. The trouble is that I was talking about the paranormal in those posts (the supernatural was on the back burner) and I gave her every opportunity to clarify her stance. I even “bludgeoned” her into a “yes” or “no” choice and she explicitly chose “Yes, all claims must be investigated by science, because otherwise it is not science any more”. There is nothing wrong with making hasty pronouncements, we are all guilty of them (myself especially!) but when one points out the error, it should acknowledged and accepted. That is all. Your help is very much appreciated.

 

[icamhif]

Very kind of you to help to clarify the matters. The trouble is that I was talking about the paranormal in those posts (the supernatural was on the back burner) and I gave her every opportunity to clarify her stance. I even “bludgeoned” her into a “yes” or “no” choice and she explicitly chose “Yes, all claims must be investigated by science, because otherwise it is not science any more”. There is nothing wrong with making hasty pronouncements, we are all guilty of them (myself especially!) but when one points out the error, it should acknowledged and accepted. That is all. Your help is very much appreciated.

You’re very welcome.

 

[Bradski]

Thousands of people witnessed an extraordinary event at Fatima which has no scientific explanation.

I didn’t ask for an explanation of what was reported. I asked if you believe it.

"First, the existence of “God of the gaps” explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs of the past undermine today’s science and medicine. The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorizing in the future.

Misrepresentation. Or the people who wrote that do not understand what the concept of God of the Gaps means. It isn’t a method used to ‘undermine current arguments for God’. It’s simply a way of pointing out that what people thought (past tense) was supernatural turned out to be not the case. It’s another way of saying that if you keep on using God as a place marker when we don’t currently have sufficient knowledge to give a natural answer, then past experience says you are asking for trouble.

In other words, don’t put God in a box.

That’s an example which I cited earlier–some things which are gaga, lala nonsense that even uneducated peasants know to be absurd will be embraced by the most educated intellectuals.

Zeitoun being a good example. But as someone said: ‘Some arguments are ridiculous on their own merit’ and don’t need to be investigated. Is that why the Vatican didn’t investigate this? It’s ridiculous?

Not only Hindus…

So Hindu beliefs are correct.

“If science is the only basis for all knowledge, then science must investigate all claims.”

Only up to the point where it can be reasonably expected that further investigation will give the same result. In this case we are talking about receiving messages from a long dead person. The possibility of this has been investigated well past the point where it can be safely said, from a scientific viewpoint, that it doesn’t happen. End of story.

Now unless something extraordinary happens that would require additional investigation, things that go bump in the night, radios that start working by themselves, the discovery of long lost jewellery, Ouija boards, tarot cards etc etc and gazillions of other nondescript events that people would like to believe are supernatural can be discounted without having to investigate every single event.

This is what I meant earlier when I said that Shermer doesn’t believe in the Supernatural. All previous investigations (and I really mean all – every single one) has shown that there is no evidence for it. And although I’m pretty sure that no-one has investigated all specific claims of anyone whose radio or clock started unexpectedly, that is not, in itself, what is required. The investigation would be: ‘Is this (yet another) case of a message from a dead person’. And as I said, the jury, as far as this matter is concerned, has delivered its verdict.

And a verdict that now requires anyone who believes it can happen to have to prove that the inductive reasoning that science has reached in this regard is wrong. Otherwise, you would say that after you have fully investigated the Ouija board message at this house, you move across town to investigate the next one. And then the next. And maybe back to the first because they had a different message. That’s not what science does.

 

[Bradski]

Not true

This in answer to the statement re the efficacy of prayer: There is no statistically significant difference between the test group and the control group.

You are quite correct. There was a difference. Only in that the people being prayed for seem to have fared worse than those who weren’t.

‘Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

In another of the study’s findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers’ prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.

The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers’. nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Why have you linked to a study that shows that prayer at best does nothing and perhaps leaves people worse off?

 

[SonOfMan]

This sounds like Science of the Gaps.

Now that we know what the sun is, there is no more sun god. Um, “science of the gaps”? Are you implying that we dont currently know what the sun is and that it could actually be a god?

Your response has me puzzled as it really makes no sense at all. Please explain.

 

[Aloysium]

Now that we know what the sun is, there is no more sun god. Um, “science of the gaps”? Are you implying that we dont currently know what the sun is and that it could actually be a god?

Your response has me puzzled as it really makes no sense at all. Please explain.

It makes no sense because you do not understand that science has no explanation for what are the most meaningful and important human realities.

Where did you dream up a sun god? Do you think Catholics believe the sun is a god?

“Science of the gaps” is a phrase that sort of makes fun of people who think that because religion speaks of ultimate realities, it is trying to explain how things found in nature behave and interact. It turns around the phrase “God of the gaps” to point out the silliness of utilizing pseudoscientific explanations for such aspects of human nature such as existence itself, reason, beauty, goodness, meaning, and everything else in which the person is engaged from the moment he/she wakes up until they go to bed, and during their sleep.