Comments on: Skepticism in Theory and Practice: A CSI Case Study http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/ Martial arts for personal development Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:51:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Derren Brown Investigates The Bronnikov Method http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-13145 Derren Brown Investigates The Bronnikov Method Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:41:14 +0000 http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-13145 [...] again, you begin to understand that these are not really meant to be objective investigations–they are religious rituals, intended to end in a sacrifice. But having noted that point, we may as well ignore it henceforth, [...] [...] again, you begin to understand that these are not really meant to be objective investigations–they are religious rituals, intended to end in a sacrifice. But having noted that point, we may as well ignore it henceforth, [...]

]]> By: Thomas http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9278 Thomas Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:22:07 +0000 http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9278 Like Rawlins seemed to imply, the case of CSICOP shouldn't be taken to represent the entire scientific community, nor the entire skeptical community, nor rationalism in general. While inherently flawed, due to being a human social activity with room for human and social errors, the scientific process is useful, as is our ability to use logic and experimentation. After all, while I cannot see, hear, or in any way confirm your existence as a living human being, logic (perhaps flawed, perhaps misplaced, etc.) tells me that you do exist and read my comments. Of course, there is the possibility that I'm conversing with a digital ghost, like our friend Sagan, or that I'm not actually sitting in front of my computer and I'm actually a brain in a jar being stimulated into thinking I'm a complete human being. If one truly wants to solidify oneself within philosophical skepticism, it does indeed take a great deal of hard work and effort, especially in deciding whether lack of evidence for or lack of evidence against is more important. As mentioned, it is quite impractical, and difficult to really hold fast to outside of playing devil's advocate. Lastly, as for the lack of scientific integrity and ethics, from an outside perspective it's quite easy to see that while they claim to be using science, their actions prove that they are not. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but nonetheless I have found that when most people present examples like this one or other similar cases against science, they aren't so much present cases against science as they are presenting cases against bad science and poorly done science. Pure science may well be an ideal that mankind will never achieve, but I feel that at least the idea of it should continue to exist, in order for us to have an example of what to move towards. It's great to be reading and posting on your site again, thanks for sticking around. Like Rawlins seemed to imply, the case of CSICOP shouldn’t be taken to represent the entire scientific community, nor the entire skeptical community, nor rationalism in general. While inherently flawed, due to being a human social activity with room for human and social errors, the scientific process is useful, as is our ability to use logic and experimentation. After all, while I cannot see, hear, or in any way confirm your existence as a living human being, logic (perhaps flawed, perhaps misplaced, etc.) tells me that you do exist and read my comments.

Of course, there is the possibility that I’m conversing with a digital ghost, like our friend Sagan, or that I’m not actually sitting in front of my computer and I’m actually a brain in a jar being stimulated into thinking I’m a complete human being. If one truly wants to solidify oneself within philosophical skepticism, it does indeed take a great deal of hard work and effort, especially in deciding whether lack of evidence for or lack of evidence against is more important. As mentioned, it is quite impractical, and difficult to really hold fast to outside of playing devil’s advocate.

Lastly, as for the lack of scientific integrity and ethics, from an outside perspective it’s quite easy to see that while they claim to be using science, their actions prove that they are not. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but nonetheless I have found that when most people present examples like this one or other similar cases against science, they aren’t so much present cases against science as they are presenting cases against bad science and poorly done science. Pure science may well be an ideal that mankind will never achieve, but I feel that at least the idea of it should continue to exist, in order for us to have an example of what to move towards.

It’s great to be reading and posting on your site again, thanks for sticking around.

]]> By: Chris http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9061 Chris Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:28:27 +0000 http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9061 Everyone knows that ghosts do not exist! Everyone knows that ghosts do not exist!

]]> By: Carl Sagan http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9060 Carl Sagan Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:28:43 +0000 http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9060 I'm not a witch. However, I AM a ghost. Carl I’m not a witch. However, I AM a ghost.

Carl

]]> By: Ho Ho Holidays & Those Pesky Skeptics… « Striking Thoughts http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9055 Ho Ho Holidays & Those Pesky Skeptics… « Striking Thoughts Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:40:58 +0000 http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/skepticism-in-theory-and-practice/#comment-9055 [...] Chris over at Martial Development takes on those pesky skeptics. [...] [...] Chris over at Martial Development takes on those pesky skeptics. [...]

]]>