View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

My question about this quote by Darryl Sloan

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

My question about this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby cubeangel » 02 Aug 2012, 08:49

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

"Finally, here is an example and epitome of a true skeptic. Darryl Sloan, author of Reality Check, emphasizes right from the introduction of his book that to be liberated and free, one must question everything and never hold beliefs that are resistant to change. "

If what he says is true by the very logic of this one must question what he says here and this seems to present a paradox. By what he says, are there cases in which this is false? Are there cases in which certain beliefs and other things should not be questioned? Are there beliefs that should always be resistant to change?

How does his own belief(s) always hold up? Can Mr. Sloan's argument be subject to questioning as well? Am I commiting a fallacy in logic? If I am will you please show me?
User avatar
cubeangel
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Aug 2012, 08:34






Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Arouet » 02 Aug 2012, 08:53

Well, Darryl's got it phrased slightly wrong, but he's close. Skepticism is about withholding belief absent sufficient reliable evidence. We should always be willing to change our beliefs if sufficient reliable evidence comes around that indicates we are wrong. If we're being truly skeptical, there shouldn't be any sacred cows.

That said, when your beliefs are sufficiently evidenced it may take a high bar to justify changing one's position.

That gets rid of any real paradox which really was just wordplay anyway.

Welcome to the forum!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby cubeangel » 02 Aug 2012, 09:09

I understand what you are saying. What you are saying is the evidence has to be sufficient meaning it has to be enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sufficient

This means it can't be known for absolute certain but only reasonably or sufficiently certain. This means I have to use more induction than deduction am I correct? Am I on the right track at least or am I still way off the mark?
User avatar
cubeangel
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Aug 2012, 08:34

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Arouet » 02 Aug 2012, 09:15

Honestly, I'm not sure what the correct ration of inductions vs. deduction should be. I think both can be useful.

The key is that one's beliefs should be sufficiently evidenced. The goal is never certainty as that is just not practical in most cases. We want as high a confidence value as we can - though for pragmatic reasons, sometimes relatively low confidence bars suffice.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby cubeangel » 02 Aug 2012, 09:24

Arouet said "Honestly, I'm not sure what the correct ration of inductions vs. deduction should be. I think both can be useful."

My response "I agree they can be both useful as well."

Arouet said "The key is that one's beliefs should be sufficiently evidenced. The goal is never certainty as that is just not practical in most cases. We want as high a confidence value as we can - though for pragmatic reasons, sometimes relatively low confidence bars suffice."

These are grey areas I have major problems dealing in. I do have aspergers syndrome and one of the issues I have is thinking too much in black and white. Things are more complex than black and white. As an analogy there is always a fly in the ointment somewhere or murphy's law seems to happen a lot.
User avatar
cubeangel
 
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Aug 2012, 08:34

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Scepcop » 04 Aug 2012, 14:55

Arouet wrote:Well, Darryl's got it phrased slightly wrong, but he's close. Skepticism is about withholding belief absent sufficient reliable evidence. We should always be willing to change our beliefs if sufficient reliable evidence comes around that indicates we are wrong. If we're being truly skeptical, there shouldn't be any sacred cows.

That said, when your beliefs are sufficiently evidenced it may take a high bar to justify changing one's position.

That gets rid of any real paradox which really was just wordplay anyway.

Welcome to the forum!


That's true and Sloan follows that criteria. He doesn't believe without evidence either. But you and the Randi crowd don't. To you, skepticism means not accepting anything unless the establishment OFFICIALLY approves of it. Is it any coincidence that ALL your views happen to agree with that of the scientific and medical establishment? I don't think so. You guys are worshippers of power and authority. Thus to you, authority = truth, rather than truth is the authority.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Scepcop » 04 Aug 2012, 18:50

I forwarded this thread to Darryl Sloan. Here is his response:

"If what he says is true by the very logic of this one must question
what he says here and this seems to present a paradox. By what he
says, are there cases in which this is false? Are there cases in which
certain beliefs and other things should not be questioned? Are there
beliefs that should always be resistant to change?"

Hi, Winston.

My God, some people must have way too much time on their hands, to
invent unnecessary paradoxes out of thin air.

Surely it is obvious that to question everything includes questioning
whether we should question everything. And once I've questioned
whether I should question everything, and come to the conclusion that
indeed I should, I can continue to question all the other things, too.

Darryl"
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Arouet » 04 Aug 2012, 20:58

Scepcop wrote:That's true and Sloan follows that criteria. He doesn't believe without evidence either. But you and the Randi crowd don't. To you, skepticism means not accepting anything unless the establishment OFFICIALLY approves of it. Is it any coincidence that ALL your views happen to agree with that of the scientific and medical establishment? I don't think so. You guys are worshippers of power and authority. Thus to you, authority = truth, rather than truth is the authority.


Evidence?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Scepcop » 04 Aug 2012, 22:35

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:That's true and Sloan follows that criteria. He doesn't believe without evidence either. But you and the Randi crowd don't. To you, skepticism means not accepting anything unless the establishment OFFICIALLY approves of it. Is it any coincidence that ALL your views happen to agree with that of the scientific and medical establishment? I don't think so. You guys are worshippers of power and authority. Thus to you, authority = truth, rather than truth is the authority.


Evidence?


I don't understand your question. Posting one word is very vague and ambiguous.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: My question of this quote by Darryl Sloan

Postby Arouet » 05 Aug 2012, 01:24

I'll elongate it for you: Do you have any evidence for the charges you have put to me, that: a) skepticism means not accepting anything unless the establishment officially approves of it, b) all my views happen to agree with that of the scientitific and medical establishment, c) that I worship authority, d) that to me authority=truth?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests