My question about this quote by Darryl Sloan

[cubeangel]

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?

[Arouet]

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!

[cubeangel]

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?

[Arouet]

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.

[cubeangel]

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.

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

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"

[Arouet]

[Scepcop]

[Arouet]

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?