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

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

I said: 

>> 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. <<

And Desmond replied: 
<<With all due respect, that's a distortion.  >>

It is not a distortion, you're taking me out of context and arguing a whole
different topic here.  I'm not referring to anything that you believe or do
not believe, I'm addressing the definition and behavior of *RATIONAL
SKEPTICISM*, as an _epistemological position_.  As an epistemological
position Rational Skepticism *is defined as* one which "questions the
veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence."  I was debating your
statement that this is not a POV.  As I said, if you choose to ignore the
definitions and redefine what rational skepticism is, then obviously we
can't have a discussion on it, but by definition it is a "epistemological
position", and by definition an "epistemological position" is a
philosophical position, i.e., a POV.  So, with all due respect, either
address the actual point I made which you chose to "argue" or recognize that
we're on different topics. 

<<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; >>

And in that statement you miss the fact that "better" is a relative term
which implies a value judgment, *also* implying a "POV".  What is "better"
to you may not be "better" to me, so if we have different definitions of
"better", then any discussion we try to have around which method is "better"
is unlikely to be fruitful.  You also ignore the fact that opinions (and
what is "better" or "worse" is always going to be a matter of opinion), not
fact.  "Better" is not a measurable, quantifiable thing... "faster", "more
sturdy", "more durable", these may be quantifiable things, but "better" is
an opinion.  And an opinion isn't something that I can "prove".  You can
only prove a "fact" (And I personally am of the *opinion* that "proof" is
only valid in mathematics and science.  I agree with Robert A. Heinlein on
that one, "If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is
opinion."

<<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. >>

I'm doing neither.  I'm expressing a fact... not everything *can* be
quantified, which I'm using to explain my own choice *not* to make science
my God.  I'm explaining why I don't take the "rational skeptics" POV when
making my personal evaluations. I do not assume that you take the position
of a rational skeptic when making your personal evaluations... I'll leave it
to you to label yourself, and if you choose to label yourself as a "rational
skeptic" but choose to redefine the term I'll likely acknowledge your right
to call yourself anything you please, while refusing to accept that your
label is accurate and easily understood, since you would be choosing to use
a label that others will understand differently than you're using it.  Which
I've done myself, as I'm a Witch, a witch and a NeoPagan. 

Me again:
>> IMO a truly scientific POV can never be "skeptical", as skepticism begins
with a closed mind, with "doubt", with undue, unsupported *dis*belief

Desmond:
<<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.>>

My definition of skepticism is the *dictionary* definition, which means it's
the definition as most commonly used and I documented that.  With all due
respect, choosing to call black white doesn't make it so. 

And the different between me and the "kettle", is that I *recognize* that my
opinion is an *opinion*, while the "kettle" presents it's opinion as "fact"
or 

<<Your assertions seem to be more based on how you perceive certain
self-proclaimed skeptics to approach such issues. >>

My 'assertions' are based *in context* on the fact that the "Rational
Skeptics" on Wikipedia have apparently chosen to watch-dog an article on
wikipedia which they disagree with and have therefore *Slanted* that article
to exclude anything which does not mesh with the "Rational Skeptic" POV.
I'm using *their* definition - the definition which is in wikipedia which
their "project" monitors - to allow them the right of self definition, but I
also have studied epistemology, so I also recognize the type of position
that they're putting forth.  If they are calling themselves "rational
skeptics" and you consider yourself one and feel they do not represent you
properly, then your beef is with *them*, not with me.  Perhaps you should
become a wikipedia editor, join their project, and straighten out their
definition.   

If you insist on taking a conversation consistently out of context, then you
can't actually have a meaningful conversation, and at this point that's what
this is devolving into.  You're either arguing just for the sake of
argument, or you've entirely missed what I was objecting to in the first
place.  Try going back to the first post and getting the context, and
perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion.  But not today, as at this
point I've eaten up way more of my time than I can give you to straighten
you out. 

<<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.>>

Non sequitor... your analogy doesn't hold.  And IMO true science *should* be
open to any hypothesis.  That is not to say that they should accept it as
proven when it isn't, only that they shouldn't assume that something cannot
be because they have insufficient data.  As you yourself state, unprove !=
untrue, and a good scientist does not make a logical leap to that, it's a
logical fallacy and a good scientist knows that. Just as a good carpenter
knows that just because a nail won't work for a specific job, doesn't mean
that a screw won't work for that job.

<<  But to demand that scientific method be changed so that you don't have
to prove it?  >>

And that's a distortion of what *I* said (now whose the "pot" and whose the
"kettle"? ) ... I never claimed that the scientific method should be changed
(although I think that scientists should be open minded so that they don't
miss it if a *new*, "better" method should appear)... I said that I do not
believe that everything can be quantified.  Nor do I believe that everything
needs to be "proven" for me to accept it's validity.  You have a right to
believe otherwise, please respect my right to choose not to bow down at the
altar of Science like it's a God, just as I respect your right to choose how
you will evaluate the validity of things in your own life, whether you
choose to be a follower of "rational skepticism", a scientist, a
rationalist, a skeptic, an empiricist, or whatever epistemological position
you choose to take.  But don't expect me to respect your insistence that
none of these *are* epistemological positions, as I know that to be false. 

NT, 
Cat