This thread is for the discussion of Chapter 17: The marriage of skepticism and wonder.
![Clap :clap:](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/ges_clap.gif)
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
And yet, the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs Them - the sense that we have a monopoly on truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across. It condemns the skeptics to permanent minority status; whereas, a compassionate approach that from the beginning acknowledges the human roots of psuedoscience and superstition might be much more widely accepted.
As I've tried to stress, at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or conterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. The collective enterprise of creative thinking and skeptical thinking, working together, keeps the field on track. These two seemingly contradictory attitudes are, though, in some tension.
...If you're only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything. You become a crotchety misanthrope convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) Since major discoveries at the borderline of science are rare, experience will tend to confirm your grumpiness. But every now and then a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you're too resolutely and uncompromisingly skeptical, you're going to miss (or resent) the transforming discoveries in science, and either way you will be obstructing understanding and progress. Mere skepticism is not enough.
At the same time, science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones. Uncritically accepting every proffered notion, idea, and hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing. Ideas contradict one another; only through skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them. Some ideas really are better than others.
The judicious mix of these two modes of thought is central to the success of science. Good scientists do both.
pgs. 304 - 305
- Carl SaganAt the same time, science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones
DWill wrote:I might have opined this already. SETI pseudoscience would have something resembling theories, and a set of conclusions drawn from these theories amounting to claims about reality. Does SETI have these, or is SETI really an hypothesis that awaits testing? Are the means with which it is being done scientific?--seems like it. Where is there proof of charlatanism? Yes, SETI could be a dry hole, but some people really want to find out. For you, the unknown unknowns make this a fool's mission, but it can still be a scientific fool's mission. We can scientifically investigate astrology if we want to, and in fact that has been done. SETI has a lot stronger basis than astrology, though.
I mentioned a hypothesis, an equation, and probabilities before—we're looking for objective evidence for support – sounds quite scientific. You agree it's worthwhile, so I don't understand these repeated questions.Ant wrote:(SETI is) more of a research program than anything that can be identified as pure science.
Not me. YEC is based on one book and is impervious to skepticism—it's extremely non-scientific.Ant wrote:Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is more science than SETI is for one simple and obvious reason that I'm certain you know.
What? Of course it can be falsified. Astrology makes gobs o' predictions, just track 'em. Don't allow adjustments to the predictions. Someone had a reading done on me (without my knowledge) a long time ago based on astrological data such as birth place and time, etc. The astrologer predicted my car would have serious problems 4 months in the future. This turned out to be true. I had no problems with that car for six months before or after the predicted month when it did require a significant repair. That remains a head-scratcher for me to this day. However the same reading predicted an old person would die and leave me a large amount of money in the near future. Nope!Ant wrote:What distinguishes astrology from science is that it can not be falsified and it makes no progress. Think about that - astrological data used as a forecast for someone's immediate or distant future can always be adjusted so as to remain relatively accurate.
Well I see where you're going with that, I'm sure it's true except I don't recall any evidence of the accuracy of its predictions at all. (I.e. if the evidence was strong, it would have been strumpeted in the media.)Ant wrote:And astrology has no evidence that the accuracy of its predictions have increased over time.
Between SETI, YEC, and Astrology, you seem to have an imbalance between the two contradictory attitudes of science I quoted above: openness to new ideas and skepticism.Carl Sagan wrote:Many valid criticisms of astrology can be formulated in a few sentences: for example, its acceptance of precession of the equinoxes in announcing the "Age of Aquarius" and its rejection of precession of the equinoxes in casting horoscopes; its neglect of atmospheric refraction; its list of supposedly significant celestial objects that is mainly limited to naked eye objects known to Ptolemy in the second century, and that ignores an enormous variety of new astronomical objects discovered since (where is the astrology of near-Earth asteroids?); inconsistent requirements for detailed information on the time as compared to the latitude and longitude of birth; the failure of astrology to pass the identical-twin test; the major differences in horoscopes cast from the same birth information by different astrologers; and the absence of demonstrated correlation between horoscopes and such psychological tests as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
pg 303
It can be falsified. But it's sort of apples to oranges. SETI utilizes a lot of science, but it isn't a theory or hypothesis.ant wrote:Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is more science than SETI is for one simple and obvious reason that I'm certain you know.