Rational Skepticism?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by KUMAR5, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:48 AM.

  1. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Hello,

    We may usually bounce on Belief, Skepticism & Science issues. Let us try to better understand these so that our discussions can be more meaningful. At one site skepticism is described as under which probably be the description of "Rational Skepticism":
    I think, it is common understanding that neither Belief (religion, alternative systems, logics, philosophy etc.) nor Scientific understandings(Modern med. etc.) are absolute and final (a&f). Hence, in view of above description of skepticism, should skeptics not raise issues also for scientific understandings in same manner as they raise for non-scientific systems to justify "Rational Skepticism"? If not, that may just be due to odd perception i.e. positive for one and negative for.

    Best wishes.
     
    river likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Since both sides have pros, cons and unclarity, taking these for discussions equally, shall only justify "Rational Skepticism". We can very well note, many odds in modern med system still come on field/practical applications inspite of fact those were very well studied statistically studied. Other mistakes and variations in prescriptions and applications are also apparent and that too with serious side effects. How it had happened, it should also be routinely taken into discussions, so that people can better understand.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,670
    Sure they should and I am sure they do

    Skeptics are skeptic about any subject they feel they need to be skeptical about and raise issues about scientific understandings in same manner as they raise for non-scientific systems

    And I am sure they are not biased but treat both in a rationale manner so the term Rational in Rational Skeptic is not required

    Surely you are not suggesting that because scientific understandings work out to be more correct than non-scientific systems said non-scientific systems should be treated differently?

    Treat them differently so they are able to fit into a Rational Skeptics understanding???

    Is that the aim of this thread?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    KUMAR5 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Thanks. Actually, many skeptics usually perceive that scientific understandings are well proven statistically, they do not doubt it. But in actual, these are also not constant. But in case other non scientific understandings they percieve negatively on those and remain always doubtful. So issues on forum discussions usually highlighted about non science systems. This is specially apparent on skeptic forums. But they equally take up odds in scientific understandings so many negative issues about these can also be highlighted. Say about, banned medicines due to serious adverse effects noted on field applications, medical wrong prescription and negligences etc. It will help both type of systems to correct and improve. So this should be the rational skepticism i. e. to take and discuss in both equally.
     
  8. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,670
    Having been in in the nursing profession for about 30 years as a Registered Nurse and some of those as a midwife before I moved into Industrial Nursing and then Safety Officer on offshore oil rigs I have some views on what issues you sort of raise

    Sure statistics are manipulated frequently to obtain the required results. However this list banned medicines due to serious adverse effects noted on field applications, medical wrong prescription and negligences etc. really has nothing to do with being skeptical

    The worse case of misplaced skeptasisum is that which is currently being put about antivaxers

    Fine to be skeptical, don't fall into being paranoid

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    As I understand "Rational skepticism" it is more aimed at pushing fringe topics toward being examined scientifically, so that they are investigated through repeatable empirical testing etc.
    Some level of skepticism should be inherent within the scientific method itself, and peer review of papers is just one such method of allowing for skepticism.
    Scientists are also human and so suffer weaknesses of various biases, although the scientific method aims to reduce those and so come to a more objective conclusion.
    And yes, it is right to be skeptical of scientific claims, but there is a difference between being skeptical of fringe topics that have little or no empirical support, and topics that have a wealth of tests and where any dispute is more about interpretation of the facts than the facts themselves.

    Consider it a matter of scale in that regard.
    But you are right that one should remain skeptical of claims regardless of source, but one should also be rational in how far one takes the skepticism.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,923
    Well no shit, science is a system of rational skepticism. Medical science, just like practically all science, doesn't represent a final truth which is beyond question, but the best possible model to explain the data at the time.
     
  11. Andrew256 Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    I think people should always approach every claim with Skepticism. If I see a mouse in the corner of my appartment, I'm not going to say "Oh, there's a mouse, I'm going to kill it". I'm going to ask myself "Am I really see a mouse? Am I not hallucinating? Do I have enough evidence to say with 100% certaintly there is a mouse there?". Meanwhile the mouse safely escapes and my wife beat me with a wet towel.

    But, what I want to say, if all people are inherently approach every claim with Skepticism, it will solve so much world's problems, can prevent so many wars (especially on religions grounds), so many ecological catastrophes, so many broken families.

    Skepticism and Agnosticism are some of the most powerful concepts if used correctly, in my opinion.
     
  12. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    I do not mean, we should be skeptical in right scientific understandings but I mean, we should also be skeptical about wrong or mistakes in scientific understandings, similarily as we are skeptical in non-science understandings. We should not be take it for sure that there can not be wrongs in scientific understandings and should discuss those wrongs in same manner as we discuss all other wrongs. Simply skeptics should take all sides equally.
     
  13. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    True but we should not be perceived that nothing wrong can happen in scientific understandings in view of its well studying nature. Moreover, adverse affects, mistakes & negligence are also to be considered for comparing these with other systems having comparatively lesser such odd affects. Skeptic should be free from all human influences. Don' we see lesser discussions on odds from science side on discussion forums esp. related o skepticism and science?
     
  14. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Yes, is made much apparent. But inspite of it, much odds, that too with serious adverse affects, do not happen in Medical science? Yes these can just be pre-indicative but how these are discussed on discussion forums, is issue to this topic? Many medicines were banned after showing very serious adverse affects, even o fatal level, many negligence also happen but rarely discussed on forums. How?
     
  15. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    True, however all sidedness should be equally maintained by skeptics to justify rational skepticism. To get influenced by popularity and non-absolute outcomes, should not be the property of rational skepticism.
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,670
    One - you do not have to be skeptical in right scientific understandings. If you think it is wrong you need to put forward a better explanation. Not a question of being skeptical more a case of disagreement

    Again not a question of being skeptical about wrong or mistakes. If they ARE wrong or mistakes they stand or fall on that criteria alone

    We don't

    and we do

    There are no sides to being a skeptic. It's more like the material just doesn't appear to be correct and the skeptic is requesting clarification or a different explanation

    Again we don't. Even in view of its well studying nature which I take to be it's high standards of examination

    Not sure what the rest of the particular post refers to so will skip it
    Must be close to coffee time

    If you want discussion on medical mistakes, which appears to be the bee in your bonnet, read medical journals

    You will get plenty of information there

    Medical (medication) mistakes don't fit under the science umbrella

    Yep coffee time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Thanks a lot. Very well clarified. Now we can base weaknesses of all sides equally in our discussions. Since, understandings on any side may yet not be absolute & final, all sides can under skeptic's check.
     
  18. Andrew256 Registered Member

    Messages:
    29
    Our brains are naturally wired towards bias. To build a truly prosperous society, we must acknowledge it, and make a conscious decision to counter it with rational skepticism and other methods.
    Although off topic, may I suggest a possibility that most of the wars and conflicts in history were the result of biased thoughts?
     
  19. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    Yes, bu skepticism itself should not be biased.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    9,791
    Is it ? The aim of this thread ?

    Not that I can see .
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    9,791
    Michael345

    Define that which is high lighted , above .
     
  22. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    I posted it in other topic:
    "Yes but when both are unproven(scientific and non-scientific), whether side affects from both should not be one major deciding modality? One gives more affects and more side affects, other lesser affects and lesser side affects. In this sense, will they both not balanced to provide net benefits?
    We can also do rough estimation in percentage. Can you give rought idea?
    Say, 1.non proven scientific: Real effects+placebo. - side effects - misc factors i.e. cost, ease, misprescription, negligences etc. 2. Non proven non scientific:.real effects+placebo +- side effects, +- misc. factors."
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,639
    This is ridiculous.
    Without scepticism how do we distinguish between "right scientific understandings" and "wrong / mistaken scientific understanding"?

    Hence the need to be sceptical...

    With regard to your earlier question:

    What makes you think that scepticism doesn't apply?
    The thing is that "scientific understandings" have - generally - so much supporting evidence that outright scepticism (i.e. on the same level as that used for "non-scientific systems") is unwarranted
     

Share This Page