Real Open-mindedness and Skepticism

[_EAllusion]

I guess you didn't actually listen to the video. Go to the area around 4:09. His example is, one person believes in ghosts the other doesn't. He says if the believer were to offer an valid operational definition for what ghosts are supposed to be and produces valid evidence the other person might reevaluate and accept their existence.

I'm talking about how he treats the lamp shade question and how one goes about supporting "the supernatural." It lacked nuance in the same way a Carl Sagan essay might. Which is fine given what it was.

In addition he first talks about non scientific beliefs and within that context he uses the word "supernatural". That is they are non scientific explanations for phenomenon.

No, he actually just uses supernatural in the normal sense of referring to various paranormal, spiritual, etc. ideas. That's why he puts it in ironic quotes and refers to it as "so called supernatural."

And he said that, but in a much more consise clear manner.

No he didn't. In his defense, that's not what he was interested in talking about.

[_marg]

I'm talking about how he treats the lamp shade question and how one goes about supporting "the supernatural." It lacked nuance in the same way a Carl Sagan essay might. Which is fine given what it was.

Look I understand where you think he is being naïve but I disagree with you. I understand your point, for example if there wasn’t the fan below and no other explanation could be found, and let’s just say for argument sake that invisible entities exist which could move lampshades, then just because there is lack of observational evidence of the entity does not mean that a theory that an invisible entity moved the lamp shade is not true in actuality.

But E.A. he does cover this. Nothing he said was naïve. He didn’t say a ghost couldn’t exist. He said that without an operational definition of a ghost which is objectively verifiable it is justifiable to reject the theory, and doing so does not mean one is closed minded. He didn’t discount that in the future evidence may become available.

You have presumed a position for him that he hasn’t taken.

In addition he first talks about non scientific beliefs and within that context he uses the word "supernatural". That is they are non scientific explanations for phenomenon.

No, he actually just uses supernatural in the normal sense of referring to various paranormal, spiritual, etc. ideas. That's why he puts it in ironic quotes and refers to it as "so called supernatural."

Contrary to what you say, he used more than the word "supernatural". In the diagrams he used the words: "pseuoscientific/'supernatural' concepts "and in the talk he repeatedly said non scientific beliefs before he ever mentioned the word supernatural which gave the context that he meant it in relation to science or known natural physical laws. And what he did was promote and defend the scientific method of reasoning in having an open mind willing to change beliefs upon new evidence and/or new ways of reasoning. He made no claim that science can explain everything, nor did he get into how to evaluate competing theories. Nor did he claim science or skeptic who reject claims are always right in doing so, in fact he pointed out that in the future should evidence become available claims once thought supernatural may be accepted. His main point was that rejection of claims which are beyond scientific investigation, beyond natural physical laws which are viewed as supernatural by people generally, is justified and doing so is not being closed minded.

And he said that, but in a much more consise clear manner.

No he didn't. In his defense, that's not what he was interested in talking about.

What's "not what he was talking about"?

I think you assume that he, and skeptics such as myself don't understand what it is science does do. You've got this hobby horse of being critical of those who promote science and like to criticize such individual when they do promote science for positions they don't actually take. He didn't say non scientific/supernatural claims aren't actually true, he merely said that it is justified to reject them absent veriable evidence and I'll add potentially verifiable evidence. Abd that rejection does not entail being closed minded, nor does acceptance entail being openminded.

[_EAllusion]

When he talks about "non-scientific beliefs" he just means beliefs not part of normative science. You can tell this because he references lots of beliefs that are potentially amenable to scientific investigation and calls them non-scientific and supernatural. Again, that's fine, but in this sense of the term one has to be careful when talking about what can and can't support the supernatural. The problem just stems from the fact that it's very difficult to have meaningful distinctions between "supernatural" concepts and "natural" ones. The terms derive from a time where people had very wrong ideas about the matter. He's just using those words in a conventional sense.

I really don't think the writer of this is naïve of science. At least I have no reason to think so. I think he was trying to get across some simple, correct points and in the process lacked some nuance that comes across as naïve here and there - kind of like saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I'm not ever critical of people for "promoting science," so I have no idea where that came off. I have two degrees in scientific fields, routinely keep up the goings on in the scientific community, and am deeply interested in phil of science. What I have criticized people for promoting is naïve and/or incorrect ideas about science. I have also criticized people for arguing logical positivsm, which really isn't "promoting science." For instance, if you Marg were to argue that all potentially true statements must be verifiable through observation (or logically derived from axioms) as you imply here, and you were to be attacked for it with the last 70 or so years of philosophy, this wouldn't actually be an attack on you for the mere act of "promoting science."

[_marg]

I just looked back on the thread and realized you didn't enter it to simply criticize the video but rather you were responding to chap's post in which he was asking for an LDS's counter from someone like DCP.

I do disagree with you that the video maker was referencing beliefs that are potentially amenable to scientific explanation. He was referencing beliefs currently outside of scientific explanation, not that the phenomena themselves are outside science. Take as a for instance ghosts, which you say can exist potentially. Maybe philosophically they can, but such an explanation that a “ghost did it”, is outside natural known physical laws of science, it offers no predictive value which can be verified, nothing objectively testable and verifiable. Throughout the video as examples of supernatural/pseudoscience/non scientific beliefs the examples he used were things like ..ghosts, magic medicine, god, reincarnation, alien crop circles, numerology, astrology, crystal healing, palmistry, spirit channeling. He didn’t say science has the answers for everything, he didn’t say evidence is needed for everything, and he didn’t say those beliefs outside science can not be true, but he did make the point that there is good reason to be skeptical of them, reject them and yet still maintain an open minded attitude to good reasoning and evidence in the future which might warrant accepting those beliefs.

As far as your comment “if you Marg were to argue that all potentially true statements must be verifiable through observation (or logically derived from axioms) as you imply here,”… once again you are creating a strawman as you did for him, by attributing a position to me I don’t make.

[_EAllusion]

Let me clarify a point Marg. If you were to argue justification for a belief must come through observational verification (or, one presumes, logical deduction), then that would be logical positivism. I accept that you grant something could very well be true and not supportable through those means. You just strongly implied that one can only be justified in thinking it true if it has observational evidence in its favor. That's, well, wrong. I've attacked that notion in the past. That isn't really attacking science or science advocacy, though. The irony here is that as an atheist I'm usually accused of worshiping science or incorrectly thinking science has all the answers, which is equally ridiculous on the opposite side of the coin.

Anyway, this is getting far off the topic of my specific point that started this. Really, he just uses the term "supernatural" in the way I already said and that can run into some problems.

[_marg]

You just strongly implied that one can only be justified in thinking it true if it has observational evidence in its favor.

Well science which is about understanding the world, how it operates and phenomena perceived, relies to a great extent on observational evidence. But the evidence includes the observations of when predictions bear out.

The key is that science has predictive value. So whatever theories are proposed, they offer something which can be verified or potentially will be verifiable eventually.

Anyway, this is getting far off the topic of my specific point that started this. Really, he just uses the term "supernatural" in the way I already said and that can run into some problems.

No he doesn't use the term in a wrong way. The phenomena he was referencing were scientifically explanable but the beliefs he referenced were outside the realm of science, and so there was nothing wrong with describing them as non scientific/pseudoscience, supernatural, paranormal.

[_EAllusion]

If you think that scientific verification is the only means by which one can come to have justified beliefs about the world, then you are indeed arguing a positivist position. I don't know how to make it more clear. More to the point, nothing in my history really suggests I attack "promoting science." I think you genuinely are confused with my attacking naïve/incorrect skeptic arguments that in some way touch on science with attacking science itself. It's silly.

Incidentally, I'm not saying he's using a "wrong" definition of supernatural. I don't know how you could get that from what I've written here.

[_Gadianton]

The key is that science has predictive value. So whatever theories are proposed, they offer something which can be verified or potentially will be verifiable eventually.

Can you tell me what's been verified in M-theory or what will ever be potentially verifiable, say, 500 years from now, or rather, what could ever be verified by experiments in the landscape?

This is some of the cutting edge of the cutting edge of science.

[_marg]

If you think that scientific verification is the only means by which one can come to have justified beliefs about the world, then you are indeed arguing a positivist position. I don't know how to make it more clear.

I said science uses observations of phenomena sure, but science includes observations of predictions.

So for example I believe Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't able to be verified but it offered predictions which eventually were verified later.

I can't think of any science theory which doesn't offer predictions.

People can have justified beliefs, but they aren't reliable if they have no predictive value which can be verified at least potentially. So for example theorizing a ghost moved the lampshade because it was observed to have moved, is fine and sure it's a justified belief. If the theory had value, then we could speculate what ghosts do and predict to see if it bears out. That's not evidence ghosts don't exist, but it's evidence that the theory that a ghost moved the lampshade based on that observation alone, offers no value in determining actualities of ghosts.

More to the point, nothing in my history really suggests I attack "promoting science." I think you genuinely are confused with my attacking naïve/incorrect skeptic arguments that in some way touch on science with attacking science itself. It's silly.

Well you see, you really don't help the cause of promoting rationalism when you say things like "ghosts can exist" and when you criticize a video for in my opinion an incorrect assumption on your part. You said, the ghost theory was just an argument from ignorance. But the video maker was doing more than that he was targeting those who invoke supernaturalist explanations for phenomena.

Incidentally, I'm not saying he's using a "wrong" definition of supernatural. I don't know how you could get that from what I've written here.

You appear to have criticized the video maker for using the word "supernatural". I think you missed his point, which was that having beliefs to explain phenomena which are outside current science( scientific natural physical laws) which are commonly labeled as non scientific, pseudoscientific, supernatural, paranormal...are unreliable theories of this world and people who reject them are justified until evidence and reasoning warrants a change of mind. His points, rejection of them, is not being closed minded, being willing to look at evidence and reasoning is being open minded.

[_marg]

Can you tell me what's been verified in M-theory or what will ever be potentially verifiable, say, 500 years from now, or rather, what could ever be verified by experiments in the landscape?

This is some of the cutting edge of the cutting edge of science.

Without me looking at these theories, do they have any predictive value? Is there anything one would expect to see as predicted by these theories sometime in the future?