Talk:Scientific skepticism

• Archive 1 - 2004 February and before

POV is anti-skeptic

This page has gone to hell without my intervention. It's become Reddi's little anti-skeptic page. I'll fix it up and remove those silly Boerner quotes, the guy is nuts and is a liar. Reddi, stick to traditional science, not psychic power crap. What B.S... - Lord Kenneth 04:16, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Kenny ... all the content is cited and verifiable. Check the references.

Sincerely, JDR

And your references are ridiculous, amateurish idiocy. The web site you cite even advocates the idea of alien abductions. I'm not allowing your trash. - Lord Kenneth 01:36, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

1 stop your psuedoskeptical points. Your are not a skeptic, but a psuedoskeptic.

The points are valid and verifiable.

JDR

You are insane. - Lord Kenneth 15:51, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why do all skeptics resort to insulting people? It's always like that, when they can't use logic to dismiss a claim, they resort to attacking the person making the claim, as Lord Kenneth just did. One thing I have a problem with is, in the body of this article is: "Skepticism is an approach to strange or unusual claims where doubt is preferred to belief, given a lack of conclusive evidence. Skeptics generally regard it as misguided to believe in UFOs and psychic powers if no empirical evidence exists supporting such phenomena."

The definition of "empirical" is: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

UFO's are observable phenomena. They have been observed and photographed by many people, including trained observers like astronauts and pilots. They have been recorded on radar by trained technicians. Even alien abductions have been experienced by many people, and they are mentally stable according to researchers such as the late Dr. John Mack, who felt that something was happening to these people that could not be explained. So here we have a phenomena that is observable and has been experienced by a rather large number of people. That sounds empirical to me. Sure, you can't observe a UFO in a lab setting, but the bottom line is not everything is yet testable with standard scientific method. So I feel this article is quite level in its presentation of skepticism, since in my experience most skeptics wont even read the data on a subject they don't believe in. That's NOT science. They are generally very closed minded. Kenneth, can you prove there are no UFO's and that people have not experienced alien abductions? The burden of proof is on you since you say it's "trash". let's see your scientific data. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

It appears that this page is going to be protected for a long, &oldid=2652731 Here] is the one that has balance. Here is the one that does not have balance. Here is the Diff.

2kenny ...

What lies? please explicitly state ...

What distortions? please explicitly state ...

What inaccuracies? please explicitly state ...

Generally, it's appearant that hard core skeptics [along with the psuedoskeptics (like Kenny above)] are not going to acknowledge the cited and verifiable information.

Sincererly, JDR [PS. it seems funny to me that the article can cite the "they laughed at" citation [which wasn't acknoledged; read as "copyright violation"] ... but not the citation over "skeptics vs sun-centered solar system"]

As much as I'd love to point out all the ridiculous claims and strawman arguments in your citations, I'm too busy to sit around and debate with someone who can hardly think, let alone spell. If I cited a source that said aliens abduct humans and claimed it as fact, it would still be ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a sci-fi novel. - Lord Kenneth 00:33, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Put down the pipe, Kenny. JDR

Put down the bong, Reddi. - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Get off the crack, Kenny JDR

I'm afraid it's painfully obvious that I'm the sober one here. - Lord Kenneth 01:53, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

it's painfully obvious that you are a crackhead. JDR

hehehe... you guys are a hoot...

but seriously, Reddi, if you indeed believe you are correct in placing your comments about UFOs and abductions in this article, then I think you may be misguided in your skepticism. A true skeptic must be able to question everything, but he must also NOT base his beliefs on anecdotal evidence. That leads to a cherry-picking of data to 'prove' a viewpoint, instead of trying hard to 'disprove' it. In your case, if you believe in UFOs, you should try extra hard to disprove their existence.

Just because you dont believe 'mainstream' science, doesn't make you a skeptic. Its a start, but that's all. --Bex 19:47, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this page link to pseudoskepticism as a matter of principle? The skeptic's position can often used as a justification in itself for their own beleif. e.g. Lord Kenny here. He denies proof, chooses to discredit rather than investigate, making rash use of the ad hominem falacy in his arguments, a description of a pseudoskeptic to the letter I think. It is our justifiable right as seekers of truth to make others aware of the sanctimony of many a pseudoskeptic who themselves pose as true skeptics to at least mention the hypocracy in this article.

80.169.197.50 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

quick note

Is it nescesary to point out that scientific skepticism is a bit of a misnomer, because scientific skepticism and science are orthogonal? (if not occaisionally downright opposed ;-) ). Hmm, it's lightly mentioned in the article.

Science appears to have a different measure of truth to scientific skepticism.

Short version:

• In science, all statements are probably false, they just haven't been falsified yet. Statements go from {false but not (yet) disproved} to {false and disproved}.
• Contrast scientific skepticism, which says you must have proof for a statement, and statements go from {false} to {true} at the moment the statement is somehow proven.

Having said that, it looks like I can actually defend a stronger position than I set out with. I could probably get away with saying that scientific skepticism is in fact unscientific!

I'd have to find someone who actually said that before I'm allowed to put it in the main article though. Perhaps Richard Feynman would be a good place to start looking.

Kim Bruning 15:05, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) (+ later edits Kim Bruning 17:11, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Okay, further reading suggests that I'm not the first person to have this kind of criticism. At some point it might be interesting to add some common defences or answers to this criticism. Kim Bruning 23:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's not scientific skepticism. Scientific skeptics don't believe in "absolute proof" either. Science and scientific skepticism are closely linked. You don't understand what you are talking about, and I have a feeling if you start to argue with me you're going to redefine scientific skepticism.

In science, nothing is truly "proven", and nothing is truly "disproven". However, scientists (and of course scientific skeptics) agree that enough evidence is enough to call something fact. They are certainly not contradictory-- they are closely related! Tell any scientist that it the world being an oblate spheriod is most likely wrong and you'll be laughed at, because the evidence is overwhelming.

I don't think you read the article on this. The scientific skepticism I am familiar with is certainly not like anything you posit. Also, your view of science resembles "armchair philosophy". - Lord Kenneth 00:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well:

The article claims for scientific skepticism:

" Scientific Skepticism (...) is a (...) position (...) in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced. "

Alright, so that says we start with a hypotheses (claims), and if we get enough proof for it (when we have solid evidence), we call it a fact. And we do so until a better hypothesis comes along perhaps (the article makes a point of provisionality a bit further along).

Using ascii art to put it schematically:

• hypothesis -> mounting proof -> provisional fact
• better hypothesis -> mounting proof -> better provisional fact

From scientific method, we find that for scientists things tend to go in the opposite direction:

• hypothesis -> mounting disproof -> drop it & new hypothesis

So there appears to be a bit of a discrepancy between the two positions, at least within wikipedia.

Regardless of merit, this might make the wikipedia somewhat self-contradictory.

Kim Bruning 13:56, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. You don't know what you're talking about. In science, things aren't true until proven wrong. That would make every single unfalsifiable theory accepted as fact. Things are true when enough evidence accumulates in its favor. Take evolution. We find more and more fossils which only validate the already extremely-accepted theory. When a better explanation able to explain the data better comes along, the old theory is dropped in favor of a better-supported one.

Again, tell a scientists that the fact that the world is an oblate spheriod is most likely wrong will laugh at you, because there is so much evidence in its favor. You're just using words in a way that brings about confusion. Yes, results which conflict with the hypothesis are "disproof", as you put it. But results which echo the hypothesis are also "proof". Yes scientists do try to see if you can make a hypothesis wrong under certain condictions. But in a similar way, that doesn't mean that fossils can't be evidence of evolution becaus scientists do seek to "disprove" evolution.

To put it shortly: Ask a scientist what the evidence is for the earth being an oblate spheriod and he will tell you. He won't say "Well, nothing's disproved it yet...". - Lord Kenneth 17:15, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth, have you taken notice that most hardcore professional skeptics are not scientists? The majority are either psychiatrists, psychologists, or magicians. The first two groups are used to dealing with mental illness, so they view everything as a mental illness, the same way a cop views everyone as a potential perp. Magicians? That's the real joke! People like James Randi made a living out of tricking people, therefore he views everything is a trick. These people are not scientific or unbiased, just as you are not. You can't keep telling people they don't understand, or don't know what they are talking about just because you don't agree. I can say the same thing about you. There are scientists who take things like UFO's and physic phenomena seriously, and these people are "real" scientists. Of course the skeptics will just attack their credentials, often to the point of making up false claims! DavidRavenMoon (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in science there's no such thing as facts or truth at all really. It's something you have to live with. If you want a fact, you can try an empirical data point, if that makes you happy. I'm not sure what you'd do with it though. If you want truth then maybe you can adopt a strong theory. Great, and what are you going to do with it, bury it in your garden :-)? Just don't think you're being scientific when doing so, because once you have your truth and your facts, what are you going to do with them? Science is an intensely practical philosophy that wants to be used.

A scientist will aim to make up new hypotheses big and small and then break them all day long. If they do their work right, then in the long run they'll be learning new things about nature in the process.

There exist unfalsifiable hypotheses sure. But if a hypothesis is hard to falsify, it probably won't be able to predict much either. If it can't predict much, you can't test it very well, so it won't be very scientific (or useful). So scientists usually go around making up very falsifiable hypotheses indeed. The more predictive, (and the more falsifiable) the better.

But all this may or may not have something to do with scientific skepticism. That's what you've got me wondering about.

Kim Bruning 09:18, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, the sci.skeptic FAQ and Philosophy of science seem to agree with each other (and with my view of things too), but -subtly- do not agree with this article. See above for the full rant. I'm trying to figure out how it can be fixed. Any ideas? Kim Bruning 12:44, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reread article now, but it's already much improved. Only the intro perhaps :-) Kim Bruning 13:02, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm,

No comments for over a year.

I've been tweaking the definition to make it more NPOV.

I can't see the "peer review" claimed at the top of talk.

A further improvement I can see would be to tease out the criticism section so that it was clear the different points of view that would criticize skepticism.

The criticism section makes clear that there is tendency of conventional skepticism and scientific skepticism to be conflated by both its proponents and its opponents. I remember some articles from Skeptic magazine that raised this issue.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 05:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from the top of this section: Is it nescesary to point out that scientific skepticism is a bit of a misnomer, because scientific skepticism and science are orthogonal? (if not occaisionally downright opposed ;-)

Every scientist should be a scientific skeptic. That is how the scientific process works. Skepticism is an essential element of the scientific method. Nothing is accepted on faith - the evidence is presented and examined critically (in the critical thinking sense). Scientific skepticism is the application of the scientific method to topics outside what is usually studied by scientists. Bubba73 (talk), 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism is a totally different beast from philosophical skepticism, which you seem to have in mind. The philosophical skeptic doubts everything, the scientific skeptic doubts unsupported and badly supported claims. --Hob Gadling 13:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Crowley

I'm leaving the entry for discussion since it seems debatable but...I'm skeptical about inclusion of Crowley as a famous scientific skeptic. He might have attempted to be scientific and he might attempted to be skeptical about the occult and he might be a philosophical skeptic but I don't think he fits the definition of a scientific skeptic.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to be changing the initial entry edits by 66.117.135.19 ("religious..."). The addition is clear POV. I am an alternative health practitioner and NOT a "scientific sceptic" but wikipedia doesn't need to have every faction essentially "dissing" the other in their definition page.

Hans Joseph Solbrig 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I had to remove him, Aliester Crowley is not a "Rational Skeptic" he was an occultist which is exactly the opposite. It's simply ridiculous to put A.C. here. I don't think this is a POV issue. Crowley was a practitioner and believer in magick, which is very unskeptical, and would not have considered himself a scientific skeptic.

I also reranged the list in a loose, but in no way definitive, order of fame/influence. Carl Sagan should arguably be at the top in this list, but I thought the Sci Am columnists and Richard Dawkins should all be at the top since they are currently very publicly active. I also cleaned up the bios a little bit, most notably removing the phrase "Sagan is less known for his skepticism", he wrote a whole book on the subject, and besides, you can not read Sagan without being keenly aware of his skeptical attitudes. Perhaps Penn&Teller are most well known among the general public, but they are not popular for their skepticism but rather for thier stage shows I think. (Even considering Bullshit!) so I put them more towards the middle. Like I said, it's no way a definitive order, just loose, so please, nobody get too worked up about it. Looking back I might have even rethought the order, I'm just a little lazy, if someone reorders a litlle I won't object. Just please don't put Crowley back in. --Brentt 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Pseudosciences from Pseudoscience Article

I have proposed a move of the very contentious "list of pseudosciences" from the pseudoscience article to this article. The list has been a magnent for revert wars, but has mostly been coming from the scientific skeptic POV. So I made the following proposal:

I think I have a solution that everyone might find acceptable. Lets keep the list, but move it to Scientific skepticism, since the list represents the majority Scientific Skeptic view. Since this article is about a label which is variously applied by various groups, it shouldn't have a list from one particular view, even if it is a majority view. But the list does have value, its just in the wrong place, as having it in the pseudoscience article obviously implies a tacit POV. We can have a reference to the list, since many people coming to this article will likely be interested in the list. And maybe something like a see also to other articles that represent minority views as to what is and isn't pseudoscience (for example a link to the Intelligent Design article to represent the minority view that evolution is pseudoscience).

I can't see any other obvious solution. Otherwise the revert wars are going to be endless. I cringe when I see people add evolution to the list, as I'm sure others cringe when they see thier pet fields added--precisely because the list implies a definite label. If the list is clearly representing a view, which is perfectly acceptable, by being in the scientific skeptic article then there shouldn't be a problem.

If the list represents the skeptical POV there is no POV issue with having it here, an article about the scientific skepticism POV. And I think it can be a valuable addition to this article. Thoughts? --Brentt 02:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to make two points: (1) Just about all of the recent editing and reverting was over only one item on the list: vertebral subluxation. (1a) That was recently changed to Chiropractic's vertebral subluxation, which may find wider acceptance. (2) The title of the section is very weasel-ly anyway: "Fields often associated with pseudoscience". It is very clear that all of the fields are "often associated" with pseudoscience, probably to not offend believers in the pseudosciences. It doesn't even come right out and say that they are pseudoscience, even though they are. Bubba73 (talk), 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Cleanup

Although I think this is a good article in general, I have a few issues with the wording in places and the prominence of the criticism. This article should be about the philosophical position of scientific skepticism, and the movement as a whole - specific references to individual bodies as a means of criticising the whole movement is a little misleading, especially as these bodies (eg CSICOP) have pages of their own. There are also a number of post-modern weasle words, that imply that the position of scientific skepticism is merely a fashioniable paradigm. While this is an interesting viewpoint, many philosophers of science and most scientific skeptics would reject this characterisation, and so it should be made clear that designation as a "paradigm" is a position of criticism.

I'd propose a number of changes, therefore:

• "epistemological position (or paradigm) in which one questions the veracity of claims unless they can be empirically tested" - I would suggest removing "paradigm" (if one takes the postmodern route then all epistemological positions are "paradigms"). Also, a large number of claims investigated by scientific skeptics are testable - such as ESP, crop circles, and alternative medicine. Many scientific skeptics refain from commenting on the truly entestable, such as the existence of God.

• "and is the opposite of what is known as the true-believer syndrome" - ugly phrasing, something like "represents a viewpoint opposing claims based apparently purely on personal belief".

• "they personally consider to be seemingly outrageous" - weasle words. Arguments based on that one personally finds outrageous are simply those from personal incredulity - scientific skeptics universally strive to avoid this logical fallacy. All of the testable claims doubted by skeptics are also doubted by mainstream science, and lack supporting evidence. This paragraph attempts to suggest rejection is based only on personal whimsy, and so this should be removed.

• "...but a belief system which rejects certain alleged phenomena as real possibilities". I would add to this - "Skeptics would counter that scientific skepticism has frequently attempted to investigate claims outside the mainstream of science while retaining reliance upon the scientific method and evidence - and that scientific skepticism, properly carried out, is no more a belief system than the remainder of science".

• "Another criticism is that epistemological positions cannot themselves be scientifically verified; this line of thought can lead to robust forms of skepticism as exemplified by Hume, Quine, Descartes and other philosophical skeptics." This doesn't make sense in its current form. Either it needs to be expanded (not so good in my opinion, as the criticism section is already a bit large), or shortened to something more concise and to the point.

• The section detailing criticism of established scientific theory. This is *way* too long - the examples given are fairly well known, and can be linked to on their own pages. They should be given in outline. The argument given is also very weak - that some legitimate (or illegitimate) doubt was raised about a number of thoeries in the past that subsequently were found to be verified by further evidence has no implication for the other theories with similarly little basis in evidence. The long skeptic's response should also be removed.

• Although the references to the personal nature of scientific inquiry are valid, I fail to see the relevance in the criticism of skepticism. Although we could probably work them in in a more logical place, the quotes from Planck and references to Kuhn are probably not needed.

• The quote from Greg Taylor doesn't add a great deal to the criticism, aside from general abuse of skeptical position. I'd also like to insert here after "negative rather than an agnostic position" something along the lines of "Skeptics would counter that while absence of evidence is not absolute evidence of absence, when no evidence exists for a particular phenomenon it makes no sense to attribute to that any credance or allow it to influence policy or the way one lives one's life".

Any thoughts? --JonAyling 12:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Far too much criticism

It needs to be balanced. Most of the page is currently criticism and resources and external links. Making it balanced would be great! --Havermayer 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. I already had a go at thinning out some of the criticism section, much of it was somewhat irrelevant --JonAyling 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the link to Kuhn's book, as he isn't now mentioned anywhere in the article (and was rather irrelevant to start off with). Cheers --JonAyling 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything to criticize science and skeptics. :-) Bubba73 (talk), 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Make new page called "List of Skeptics and skeptical organizations" ?

Half the page is just the list of well-known skeptics and skeptical organizations. I think they could be moved to a new page and listed. A good idea? --Havermayer 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. There is already a category "skeptics". If yuo decide to do it, link to it/them as the main article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hume a 'scientific' sceptic

In adding Hume to this list, I feel it necessary to justify the claim that he is a 'scientific' rather than a 'philosophical' sceptic. Although usually called a 'philosopher', his mental experiments were directed to understanding how we come to understand the world through our senses; hence he was what we would call an 'experimental psychologist' today. Fenton Robb 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I'm a little concerned that the only thing on this entire page that is cited properly is a single quote about half way through. Everything assertion made here should be cited.

I'm also concerned that this pages mentions some accusations and criticism, but none of it is properly cited.

perfectblue 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything that isn't cited should be and is liable for deletion. - perfectblue 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean it, I'm going to start deleting content soon if it's not source properly. - perfectblue 20:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, work needs to be done on this page to cite and source everything. - perfectblue 14:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Making a mess of the article, changing well-written paragraphs to poorly-written ones, and then adding fact tags to your own changes is not the way to go about getting things in the article sourced. Did you think to ask in areas where people might actually hear your requests, like WP:SKEPTIC, of which you are a member? Finding sources for some of the things you complained about took less than thirty seconds. Surely you could have done that yourself? --Philosophus ^T 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Schmainstream

I definitely take issue with this "...claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science." It should read 'far fetched' or some such moniker.

The so-called 'Mainstream' is as often the target of Scientific Skepticism as any other. Look at Scholes and Merton, two Nobel Laureats in economics who founded LTCM, a famous hedge fund. A hedge fund that tanked so badly, and lost so much money (using their models.. the ones for which they won a Nobel) that the Fed had to step in to mitigate the damage. Skeptics say, their methods were flawed. Well duh. You shouldn't be able to lose hundreds of billions and not have folks raise an eyebrow.

But Mainstream Science prevailed, and people are still using those models today, and they have even evolved to become more complex, and more vulnerable to hidden risk. All thanks to Peer Review, that lovely system that encourages incestuous behavior and back slapping. They just say the event was 'unavoidable' and an 'aberration', so the model was still valid. All Hail the Church of Gauss! I'd say that something that tanks that badly, regardless of why, has issues.

There needs to be a solid differentiation in this article between the 'concept' of Scientific Skepticism, and the 'notion' of it as used by supposed skeptics who are really just trying to justify their positions.

As they say, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence, and just because you have fancy formulae doesn't mean your basic assumptions are not ludicrously limited. Or just ludicrous.

Knomegnome 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever phrase is used, it needs to be sourced - perfectblue 11:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvments.

I've made some drastic improvements to this article. I've added citations where citations were missing and added "fact" tags where citations were missing. I have improved the formatting as well as the grammar and prose. I'll be making more improvements.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence seemed to have been written by a non-scientist who is unaware that it is a rough ride within science itself because of the same skepticism, the same unwillingness to just accept what anyone says. The writer probably only noticed this behaviour when it was aimed outside mainstream science. So I've changed:

> In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on critically examining claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science.

to

> In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories which appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists.

to make it more accurate. 137.82.3.44 19:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrast with Faith

It appears to me that scientific skepticism is a viewpoint which does not leave much to faith. Perhaps something should be added to the article explaining how scientific skepticism rejects faith as a basis for confidence in a belief. -Todemo

The late Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and faith are separate domains that can co-exist. Dawkins and others differ on that point. The topic may already be coverd by Non-overlapping_magisteria. I don't have a cite handy, but there are deists who embrace scientific skepticism. --ReedEs 05:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Martin Gardner embraces scientific skepticism and is either a deist or a theist. Autarch 12:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the recent 'fear' addition?

These outlined suggestions demonstrate how ultimately the skeptical perspective is one dominated by fear and a close-minded approach to information. One does not need to have prejudgments or postjudgments about any information they encounter; in other words, one is not required to form beliefs or disbeliefs of things they consider. Yet the skeptical approach would seem to imply that an individual mind is at war with information from the outside world. Many feel that this is an unnecessary perspective to take and that it only serves to blind otherwise intelligent people from the truth by shrouding them in ignorance, all in the name of waiting for proof.

That's clearly POV, original research and lacks any citation. I suggest that it be removed. Any objections? --ReedEs 05:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - removed. Vsmith 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needs work

The "Criticism" section is, frankly, incoherent. The first paragraph is worth having, but gives an example that doesn't make sense. The second paragraph is just a sentence, and full of bullshit. The phrase "philosophical challenge to materialist fundamentalism" clearly violates NPOV. And what "emerging models and data in physics, the neurosciences and other scientific fields" challenge skepticism? I'd love to see specific claims. JFlav 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly - the second paragraph is just vague handwaving and I have to admit that I can't make much sense of the first one either. Autarch 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from page for consideration:

== Criticism of skepticism ==

Rational or scientific skepticism may sometimes be mistaken for denial. For example, some religious fundamentalists deny evolution. But there are serious scientists who are skeptical of technical features in current models of evolution or the probity of some of the evidence marshaled in support of it. In some notable cases, serious scientists have been mistaken for religious fundamentalists who flatly deny evolution.<ref name=NYT> [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?ex=1298178000&en=de5bd718715864a0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition], Kenneth Chang, [[New York Times]], February 21, 2006.</ref>

Some critics of 'scientific skepticism' suggest that its proponents inconsistently apply the skeptical principle to serve the paradigm conflict between materialism and faith-based world views, even while ignoring the philosophical challenge to materialist fundamentalism by emerging models and data in physics, the neurosciences and other scientific fields. <ref>[http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v550/__show_article/_a000550-000003.htm The Scientific Case Against Materialism]</ref>

The first paragraph was referring to a NYTimes article about a creationist poll. Doesn't seem a valid criticism - seems totally off-track to me.
As for the second, I'm left wondering exactly what the point is... and the source is an essay from a blog? which cites several Wikipedia articles as references. Not a WP:Reliable source.
Seems a criticism section could be written, but these two paragraphs don't make the grade. Vsmith 02:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh =

"rational scepticism (US English spelling: skepticism), sometimes referred to as sceptical inquiry, is a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence." This could use a bit of skepticism itself. It questions all claims lacking empirical evidence? Really? Empiricism's own validity cannot be proven through empiricism, but I don't think Rational Skeptics ever express scepticism about tha validity of mainstream scientific claims based on this position. And why if this is the definition is it called Rational Skepticism. Rationalism and Empiricism are opposing philosophical views. If the Skeptic be spoken of approaches the world with a hybrid of both views, shouldn't he be called a Kantian Skeptic? And do rational sceptics really question mainstream scientific views that are based on semi-empirical data? I think the line should be changed to say Rational scepticism is a ... belief in which on dismisses claims outside of mainstream scientific consensus, and seaks to disprove them by pointing out their differences with mainstream scientific concensus." Seems more accurate. I also have abandoned trying to spell correctly right now.212.179.210.204 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Miracle Making

A very current example of irrationalism is brewing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Myth Florida (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Distinguish within science

By restricting scientific evidence to findings that can be verified and falsified (and, implicitly, repeated), the description of science in "scientific skepticism" includes only one narrow type of work that scientists actually do: controlled experimentals. It precludes all observational, descriptive, and uncontrolled studies, which are undoubtedly performed by scientists and which are used as evidence by other scientists. Some of these are elaborated in the Study design article. (That article could use some expansion to include, for instance, correlation studies and naturalistic observational studies, and presently only refers to medical experiments.)

As some person points out earlier in these comments, there are many things claimed which cannot be tested, but would fall well within the realm of another study design used by actual scientists to publish actual evidence. In some cases, this is because testing would be harmful to the subjects. Scientists are usually ethically bound to avoid harming to their human subjects. In some cases, this is because the phenomenon in question is not under the scientist's control (such as naturalistic observation). In some cases, this is because there are no trained observers of the phenomenon, and the scientist is simply trying to observe trends to establish a testable hypothesis. (And sometimes, testable hypotheses are impossible, as with, for example, the tragedy of the commons.)

It just seems that for a philosophy called "scientific skepticism", said skeptics are restricting themselves to an extremely narrow range of science. It might be better to say that scientific skeptics constrain themselves to the current scientific consensus in a given field, and that the nature of these constraints can change over time as the consensus changes. A simple link to the consensus article would be sufficient to describe that it only includes the majority of scientists and that dissenting views may exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HorridRedThings (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited individuals - says who?

The Perceived dangers of pseudoscience section lists the following individuals as holding views that pseudoscience is bad:

• Plato
• Bertrand Russell
• James Randi
• Richard Dawkins
• "some skeptics" (weasel words?)

Should this be cited? Do we need evidence that these writers actually consider themselves rational/scientific skeptics, or that their reason for opposing said claims is due to their rational skepticism? HorridRedThings (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Added Audiophile

I added the template of this WikiProject to Audiophile. I don't know if the article requires any immediate attention, but interested project members may want to keep an eye on it. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marcello Truzzi: a proposed merge for pseudoskepticism

A skeptic, Marcello Truzzi disagreed with some of his colleages about the approach to take to extraordinary claims. He held that those who failed to remain agnostic in the face of extraordinary claims were taking on a burden of proof, and he termed them pseudoskeptics. His argument was quite a subtle one and it's not clear that he always used the term quite as subtly as that. However the modern usage of the term, which enjoys some small currency mostly amongst adherents of extraordinary claims, almost invariably refers to Truzzi's position. I've cleaned a lot of web-based junk out of the article on pseudoskepticism and little remains except Truzzi's original usage. I suggest that we consider merging the material here. Failing that (and perhaps preferably) we could merge the material to Marcello Truzzi. --TS 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. It should be mentioned here, as a disparaging term dreamed up by Truzzi and that others have jumped upon to try to falsely claim that only believers in wild claims are true skeptics. It really deserves no more space than a couple of sentences. Something like the first sentence of the current article, with the source as there, followed by a statement from some skeptical source pointing out that it's just been used as an attack, or that of course people come to conclusions after evidence comes in, that's not a bad thing. Some major reliable source I'm sure has published something like that we could use as a cite for that. DreamGuy (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support per above. NJGW (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• DreamGuy,I noted your later comment on talk:pseudoskepticism [1] to the effect that the Marcello Truzzi article already has material that "covers this topic quite admirably, so this article should just redirect to that one." I'm leaning towards that opinion myself. Truzzi's point (people who assert a negative but dodge the burden of proof) has often been conflated with the dislike of "debunkers" or skeptical investigators in general, who obviously aren't the kind of people to profess even to a provisional belief that unidentified flying object sightings are evidence of life on other planets, or paranormal aliens. While Truzzi had a point as far as it goes, I don't think the latter is a problem of skepticism so much as unrealistic expectations by the believer in fringe theories and pseudoscience. For that reason I think Truzzi's problems with his fellow skeptics, in the context of CSICOP and Zetetic Scholar, probably belong in the article on the man. --TS 12:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, there's been nearly a week for comments and so I'll go ahead with a merge of Pseudoskepticism to Marcello Truzzi. It can always be reverted if it doesn't work out. --TS 21:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• A User:Wjbeaty has described the merge as "improper" and "discussion-free". I will ask him to come and discuss it here. --TS 22:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• No The article as it is now (restored) is much better and sourced. TS' editing is unsourced and was not good prose and does not aid anyone in trying to understand the term. Editing such as this is detrimental to wikipedia. The term is very helpful for those who subscribe to a scientific worldview that are more in direction of Pyrrhonism. Remember, this is an international project and scientific skepticism in the edutainment radical form popular in the US is not international. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very vauge. The issue is acutally in the notability of the term, and whether it is even notable at all outside of an article about Truzzi. The arguments for this are laid out at talk:Pseudoskepticism, so if there's something specific you'd like to discuss feel free. Just calling TS's edits detrimental is not an argument. NJGW (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the diff between the two versions, and one is clearly better than the other. Read the AfD on the notability and it was established. The citations in the current article also establishes notability, so it is not weird if you think it was non-notable if you only read the TS version. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the list of issues with the article (quoting TS):

• Some of it is an essay. For instance the much of the section "Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method" is unreferenced and indeed seems to be a synthesis of uncited external sources.
• The section "Contemporary usage" just seems to be an assorted set of quotes most likely gleaned from googling.
• The main problem here is that a succession of editors have simply jumped in and added descriptions of their favorite primary sources without regard to weight.

In the end the article was redirected (after 3 weeks of no suggestions to do otherwise) because it seemed unlikely that it could be framed as anything more than Truzzi's concept. The other usages, as TS points out, are simply in passing, and not in terms of a concrete concept, as in Truzzi's case. Perhaps the thing to do is to stub the article and see how it can be rebuilt... but I suspect if we follow wp:UNDUE (which would basically throw out any passing usages of the term) that it will always end up as Truzzi's concept, which isn't notable outside of Truzzi's world... and not notable enough for an article of it's own. This can all be covered at Marcello Truzzi, but there's not enough meat for it to stand on it's own. NJGW (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly urge all to read the version prior to my cleanup, and the discussion page during which I discussed the cleanup as I carried it out. The policies we use at Wikipedia are neutral point of view (with attention to due weight) and verifiability. I removed the Beaty reference because his views are on the fringe. Wherever Beaty's views belong, they do not belong on the lead section about pseudoskepticism. The section "contemporary usage" seemed just to be the result of somebody googling quotes. Stuff from assorted websites does not belong on Wikipedia. In the end, all that remains really, is that Truzzi wrote an article in Zetetic Scholar in which he said that skeptics who make assertions but do not assume the burden of proof, but still want to be called skeptics, are pseudoskeptics. It was just that and nothing more--a personal critique of his fellow skeptics. When people use the term pseudoskepticism nowadays, they are borrowing Truzzi's usage. This is why I think the subject belongs on Marcello Truzzi. --TS 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Using [[2]] as reference. I think it should talk for itself, but first of all it proves without doubt that other people than Truzzi uses the term and the term has no longer anything to do with Truzzi. Second, it contains information on the topic not present on the Truzzi page. Truzzi's usage is more in line with his own zeteticism. A stub would be better, but there's already tons of RS material cut in the last TS version. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, reading more critically I agree the Beaty (amongst other) definition can be put further down in their own section after Truzzi's. It is not just a term, but also a phenomena that those who are interested in fringe science (either by hobby or sociology) have to deal with, since most vocal critics of fringe science are lay men who do not know the subtleties of philosophy of science or simply subscribe to a different philosophy alltogether. But it is removing the article alltogether and reducing it to a single paragraph in the Truzzi article I am completely against. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a paragraph, but a well fleshed out section. As its own article though, it is a neologism. The relevant guideline states that sources should be about the term, not just mention it. Truzzi has material about pseudoskepticism (about half the article is based on this one source), but otherwise we only have a non-wp:RS source (suppressedscience.net) with an article refering to Truzzi. All the rest simply use the term in passing, and could be moved to an wp:In popular culture section. NJGW (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggested merging it because, when all's said and done, there was very little to write about. Truzzi's focus was very tight in that article, bearing specifically on failure to shoulder the burden of proof. He gave a specific example:

Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim.

It's important in an encyclopedia to describe ideas at an appropriate level of detail. This is a very simple idea, and one that has for the most part remained associated with Truzzi, and so I think it would be hard to write more than a paragraph or two about it, properly sourced. --TS 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the sad part. Previously Zetetic Scholar and Zeteticism has been removed after very hostile editing and a lot of hard-to-find information was lost in the process. The idea can't be very simple since I see people failing to get it and construing false conflicts around it. The fact is that the article already contains useful references for further inquiry into the term. You removing all the relevant part that Truzzi wrote about it actually made it nigh impossible to understand what the term means. Your above citation is not even close. I tried removing the unneccessary passing uses, but I found that they all actually discussed what pseudoskepticism entails, and that is interesting to the article. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some brave editing removing the outright wrong claims and the less interesting ones -- although on review it seems there's one too many removed. Also, keep in mind that the article was originally about pathologic skepticism. Problem is that the direction suggested here is to reduce all articles on pathologic critique (and seeing it is removed in this article about scientific skepticism) into a single paragraph on Truzzi (seeing that patohologic skepticism already redirects there). I don't know how to edit redirections, but keep this in mind. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking through what remains in "contemporary usage", there's

• Hufford who doesn't use the term 'pseudoskepticism' (therefore it's wp:SYN to keep him there),

• Leiter who uses the term in passing in re to organized skepticism,

• Meynell who uses it for those who refuse to hear evidence for phenomenon they don't believe in,

• Kluft who uses the term for "harsh and invidious skepticism", and

• Emery who uses the term for CD-encyclopedia articles which aren't skeptical enough.

These do not expand on the supposed topic of the article, and even show that the term is very poorly defined when straying from Truzzi. The examples in "other usages" are completely unhelpful as there is no context given, and they are truly instances of the term (poetically?) dropped in passing. NJGW (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an side-effect from the article originally being about pathological skepticism. I reframed the article in order to broaden the coverage, so that should cover Hufford. And organized skepticism is much of the "problem" with pathological skepticism; Truzzi was after all fed up with exactly that when he coined the term. Kluft's explanation is also in line with Truzzi's definition. Emery is completely wrong indeed - very naughty mis-citing loss of context that. I re-added the Blackmore cite again, just for reference. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it really skepticism?

Scientific skepticism is not really skeptical from a philosophical point of view. It doesn't doubt the current scientific method and the established paradigm. From the outlook it has more to do with positivism (Auguste Comte) rather than skepticism (Sextus Empiricus). Anyone please explain how justified is it to call scientific skepticism "skepticism"? Wandering Courier (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of skepticism in the name "scientific skepticism" refers to the skeptical attitude that researchers in this area take towards claims of the paranormal (and towards other scientific claims). Hence, skepticism is a perfectly reasonable name I.M.O. However, my opinion here is irrelevant, since wikipedia users are not the ones who have coined the term "scientific skepticism", but rather are using the term in the usage coined by others (see for example, here [3]). As such, whether or not you find the term appropriate or not a valid basis for complaint, so long as the usage on wikipedia reflects common usage, which it does seem to. Edhubbard (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it wasn't a complaint about the article title, just seeking a reasonable explanation. Even if I disagreed with the title I wouldn't challenge how Wikipedia reflects common usage. Regards. Wandering Courier (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section is a bit big

Shouldn't we trim down the "See also" section?

I was surprised to find that there's no mention of, say, Phil Plait and Ben Goldacre, but there's a lot of stuff in the "See also" section and it could probably do with a good pruning. --TS 00:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What question?

The "Perceived dangers of Pseudoscience" section contains this line: "Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways."

What question?

64.80.108.52 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

This is a list of links from the old pseudoskepticism article which I think may be useful as sources for this article.

• Truzzi, Marcello, "On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal". Oxymoron, 1998
• Drasin, Daniel, "Zen and the Art of Debunkery". aol.com, 1997.
• Mooney, Chris, "Abuses of Skepticism : Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far". CSICOP, December, 2003.
• Haack, Susan, "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism". CSICOP, December 1997.
• Hall, Stephanie A. "Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics" Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Folkore Society
• Sofka, Michael D., "Myths of Skepticism". ISUNY, March, 2002.
• Hyman, Ray, "Proper Criticism". (csicop.org)
• Martin, Brian, "Strategies for dissenting scientists". Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12 No 4. 1998. (PDF)
• Baez, John, "The crackpot index : Method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.".
• Sarma, Amardeo, Misguided Stigmatization of "Organized Skepticism"

--TS 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rational Skepticism and WP:CONFLICT

Is WikiProject Rational Skepticism involvment in this article WP:POV and WPCONFLICT? Seems like it is. It seems that you have activist skeptics maintaining this article to show them in a good light.

I usually don't edit Wikipedia, but I noticed this when I saw the term "activist debunker" used on another site, and I did a Google search of Wikipedia yesterday for the term. I found the term was still in Google's cache, but removed from this site just that day. I added back the part of the article which was on that page for the past three years, to have it removed by someone whose history is clearly one of an activist debunker. It seems clearly POV and Conflict to me, and I now see this page, and it seems like it's maintained by a group that is POV. 24.209.226.121 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)