home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Cream of the Crop 11
/
Cream of the Crop 11-1.iso
/
games
/
marvin01.zip
/
SKEPTIC.PPA
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-09-02
|
7KB
|
158 lines
SKEPTICISM VS GULLIBILITY
The extent of unjustified, even superstitious, beliefs within high
IQ organizations is surprising. Some persons must have a very
strong need to believe, so strong that it makes them gullible. They
might benefit from a subscription to The Skeptical Enquirer, the
semi-monthly journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investiga-
tion of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).
Several members of the International Society for Philosophical
Enquiry (ISPE, which admits only those in the upper one-tenth of
one percent IQ) have warned in the ISPE journal, TELICOM, that
CSICOP is "oriented towards debunking claims, and is not an
objective organization." Huh? How's that? Isn't the debunking of
unjustified claims a worthwhile (and objective) activity? It's like
saying the Red Cross is just a bunch of do-gooders.
Clarification of Convictions
Convictions fall into three basic categories (based roughly on
Mortimer Adler's writings on this subject): knowledge, beliefs, and
opinions.
Knowledge is what we can take as absolute truth, which is not very
much. It includes mathematical language and self-gained facts that
are not subject to error (I know the name by which I am known). We
do not believe that 2 + 2 = 4, we know it.
Beliefs are (or should be) convictions based on scientific
evidence. Being objective, they may properly be urged on others.
Opinions are convictions that do not qualify as knowledge or
beliefs. Does that make them worthless? Not at all. I opine that
my wife is faithful, that roses are beautiful, and that there is
a meaning to the universe. Religious convictions are in this
category, which is entirely subjective. Opinions are what you want
to be true, or what you feel to be true, not what you can prove.
Since they are subjective, it is improper to insist that others
share them. Superstitions are irrational opinions. No, I'm not
going to define "irrational."
It is important to classify our convictions properly, not treating
beliefs as knowledge, or giving opinions (especially superstitions)
the status of beliefs, as the gullible do. Such mistakes can be
costly, for the maturing of an individual, and of mankind, depends
on seeing the world as it really is.
FiLCHeRS
The acronym "FiLCHeRS," ignoring the vowels, helps in remembering
the six rules of scientific reasoning: Falsifiability, Logic,
Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. The
rules were published in an article by James Lett in the Winter
edition of The Skeptical Inquirer, 1990. Apply them, and no one
will be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be
filch-proof. Following is a paraphrase of Lett's rules:
Falsifiability
It must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove the
claim false. If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim,
it is meaningless. There are two principal ways this rule is
violated:
1) By the undeclared claim: a statement so broad or vague that it
lacks any propositional content, such as the claim that quartz
crystals can restore balance and harmony to a person's spiritual
energy. How could you disprove that? The undeclared claim has the
advantage that virtually any evidence that could be adduced may be
interpreted as confirming the claim. It is especially popular among
paranormalists.
2) By the "multiple out," which is an inexhaustible series of
excuses intended to explain away evidence that would seem to
falsify the claim. Psychic healers, for example, will attribute
failure to a person's lack of faith. The multiple out means, in
effect, "Heads I win, tails you lose."
Logic
Any argument in support of a claim must be both valid and sound.
To be valid, the argument's premises must be true. To be sound, the
well-known rules of logic must be correctly followed in reaching
conclusions based on the premises.
Comprehensiveness
The evidence must be exhaustive; that is, all of the available
evidence must be considered. This rule is frequently broken by
those with paranormal beliefs. The successes of psychics, for
instance, are cited without reference to their much more numerous
failures.
Honesty
The evidence must be evaluated without self-deception. Para-
psychologists violate this rule when they conclude, after failure
to replicate an initially positive result, that psi must be an
elusive phenomenon. The more honest conclusion would be that the
original result must have been a coincidence.
Replicability
If the evidence for a claim is based on an experimental result, or
if the evidence offered in support of a claim could logically by
explained as coincidental, then the evidence must be confirmed by
a repetition of experiments or trials.
The rule of replicability, which requires independent and unbiased
persons to follow the same procedures and achieve the same results,
is effective for uncovering bias, error, or fraud in experimen-
tation.
Claims based on trials must include a sufficient number of well-
documented trials. When I correctly predict the roll of the dice,
is it psychic ability or coincidence? You should demand that I
duplicate the feat a convincing number of times in your presence
(and with your dice).
Sufficiency
The evidence offered in support of a claim must be as substantial
as the claim. There are two guides for determining sufficiency:
1) Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If I claim
that it rained on my way to work last Tuesday, you would be
justified in believing the claim. But if I claim that I was
abducted by Martians, you would want better evidence.
2) Evidence based on authority and/or testimony is inadequate for
any extraordinary claim. A person's credentials, knowledge, and
experience are not in themselves sufficient evidence for an
extraordinary claim. Newton, for instance, believed in alchemy, and
Kepler believed in astrology. No amount of expertise in a field is
a guarantee against human fallibility, nor does expertise preclude
the motivation to lie.
Passing all six tests does not assure that a claim is true, for
there may be contrary evidence tomorrow. It does mean that you have
sold your conviction for a fair price, that it has not been filched
from you.
The world seems to be divided between the mainly skeptical and the
mainly gullible. People tend to take one view or the other. I ask
this: In the history of civilization, which view has brought more
progress for mankind?
(The preceding was published in the TELICOM journal, October 1991)