Re: [UUPoly-L] Rational skepticism (was:"law" of attraction)

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

--- On Sun, 9/28/08, Catherine Deville <catdeville@cox.net> wrote:

>> Choosing to believe that only if something can be proven is it real is a POV, just as "magickal thinking", or choosing to believe that not everything can be quantified, measure and empirically tested but that this does not make it any less real is a POV. 

With all due respect, that's a distortion.  An unproven statement is not untrue -- merely unproven.  If you state that a method for fixing a door is better, but can't prove it, then it remains unproven; preferring proven methods over unproven ones is about using the most practical method at hand, not deciding for all time whether your method is true or not.  It's not that I don't want to debate how to fix a door; it's that when I need to fix it, spending time debating is time away from getting the task completed.

As for your statement "that not everything can be quantified" etc., ... I'm not sure whether you're accusing me of holding to a rigid "either/or" dichotomy, or whether you're espousing one as well, but I don't hold to that.  Yes, many things depend upon evidence for evaluation, but such evaluations are tentative, subject to re-evaluation in the face of new evidence -- that's how science and logic work.  Additionally, there are some things which cannot be determined by rigid formulae, such as aesthetic appreciation.
 
>> IMO a truly scientific POV can never be "skeptical", as skepticism begins with a closed mind, with "doubt", with undue, unsupported *dis*belief

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Your definition of "skepticism" is extreme even by skeptical standards.  The only one more extreme is the Pyrrhonic variety which asserts that we can't know anything about anything -- try to function while consistently believing that.

Your assertions seem to be more based on how you perceive certain self-proclaimed skeptics to approach such issues.  Yes, some people can take positions on A, B and C based on an empirical/rational approach, and turn them into a dogma.  That does not mean that an empirical/rational approach is a dogma in itself -- merely that it has been misused.  And to argue that "true science" should be open to any claim is like arguing that a "true carpenter" should be able to fix a door without necessarily using her carpenter's tools.

Claims are just that -- claims.  If you can't prove a given claim, then admit it can't be proven.  Until then, I have less reason to believe it than one which can be currently proven.  But to demand that scientific method be changed so that you don't have to prove it?  Sorry, but IMHO that's like trying to change the rules of Scrabble in midstream because you can't prove that ZRFGLOQ is a word.

Desmond Ravenstone

********************

http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone