How can a person be a 'skeptic' if he refuses to consider the possibility that he's wrong?

Question

In a previous question I asked the self-proclaimed 'skeptics' to consider that they might be wrong about man-made global warming. Somewhere around 20 self-proclaimed 'skeptics' answered, and not a single one was willing to consider the possibility that he might be wrong, despite the fact that most scientific experts have concluded that yes indeed, they are wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20080625204651AAwuMSj

In my opinion, a person who is 'skeptical' keeps an open mind and is willing to consider all sides of an issue, even if he doubts one side is correct. A person who is not willing to consider that he might be wrong is not a 'skeptic', in my opinion.

What do you think - if they're not willing to consider the mere possibility that they might be wrong, do these self-proclaimed 'skeptics' deserve that title? If not, what do you believe is a more appropriate label?

Answer 1

Likewise a believer should keep an open mind for when they are proven wrong.

I've stated many times that I wish someone could prove me wrong, yet no one can.  My only response is that because other people believe, then I should was well.  This isn't scientific proof.

Tell us what the climate is going to be in the future, and show us how you came to your conclusion and you will get some credibility.

In 2005 the believers told us that hurricanes would be more numerous and stronger, yet this hasn't happened.

No one predicted the record cold and snow even though computer models can accurately hind cast climate.

The examples of failed predictions are numerous.  The predictions have been so wrong so often that no one should believe this pseudo science anymore.  Man made global warming is just one more failed prediction.  It's more of a wish by the political left than it is actual science.

Face the truth that no one can predict the future.  That's a scientific folly.

[Edit] Well it looks like Dana just came through and gave a thumbs down to everyone who challenged him.  I guess having an open mind only applies to those who don't believe.

Answer 2

You have already argued AGW in another post so I won't take that up here(primarily)  What you have asked here is a philosophic question not a scientific one.  What is the nature of skeptics and skepticism.  

A skeptic has been defined as:

1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism

2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles 1  This second defination is interesting because it also seems that one can be religiously skeptical.

And skepticism is:

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)2

What is at question is wether a skeptic must also, by defination, be skeptical of his skepticism.  Part of the defination (1) includes the words, "in general or toward a particular object".  While you might conclude that the "general" skeptic might be skeptical about his skepticism by defination one who is skeptical about a "particular object" need not be and may not be skeptical about himself.  So no, not by defination.  But this also flys in the face of what we might consider reasonable or our general sense of the words ie, the connotation.  

This loophole seems more fully fleshed out when you realize that the second defination reads very much like the revered "scientific method".  If this is true then by defination all scientists are skeptics when using the scientific method, but do they and should they question that method.3  We know of cases where "science" has "changed" its collective mind based upon new data.  But when the data was there all the time we speak of bias in collecting or filtering the data. Now we see cases where our current administration has been involved in editing "scientific reports"  to make the conclusions more ambigious.  I recall being a teenager (hard enough) and thinking that with all the scientific advancements the world will be a very different place by the time I get out of college.  Sadly it was not so.  I had changed though. I realized that politics and economics rules not science.  

There is almost nothing so strong as a vested interest (except perhaps s*x and motherhood which may be other aspects of the same thing).  How many times since have I faced a customer and said that you may have a serious (read expensive) problem here only to see them quake and make up reasons and observations why it cannot be true.  We sometimes deny (read be skeptical) because it would be trouble we don't want or expensive or we would be "inconvienced".  See objections of how expensive it would be or what else we could do with the money or all the other priorities and you will see someone confusing a conclusion with a response.  This is why some will be almost religious in their skecticism.  

Additionally, people make up their minds based upon their experience.  Not everyone is an intellectual.  For many people who are good, kind and skillful, abstract thinking tends to be a rather small portion of that experience.  How are you going to convince a mother that her asthmatic child would not be better off with cleaner air.  ...Or the large corporation that all those little corporate outlets (gas stations) collectively take up a lot of room, sometimes leak fuel into the ground and are really a pain in the neck for drivers to have to stop at.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  There are others like methane and I was reading in another post about water vapor but it is a central and fairly convincing argument that when CO2 levels rise its effects will also increase.  That is in the absence of some mitigating effect (like say all that melting ice is evaporating and is cooling the atmosphere.  (till it runs out))  But I haven't heard of anything to suggest a countering effect that is equally as reasonable.  I am ready to listen.  Am I skeptical? Can I move in Rainbow?

The advocates can be just as bad though.  There are some who enjoy having a power over others and that power can be knowledge or a point of view with all the arguments.  Emphsizing how DANGEROUS the situation is or what extreme measures we must NOW go through is like a parent putting a child who is afraid of the dark in a closet until they stop crying.  It might work, but what torcher and at what cost.  It will be hard enough to simply point out what  great new things we can do... you won't ever have to go to a gas station again, You can SELL power to the utility company...  That car can be a lot less expensive because you can attach a generator when you need to go for a long trip instead of carrying that heavy load all the time....You only need to come in for service once every 100,000 miles.  People think your bionX assisted velomobile is really cool.  The sky is so much cleaner you can almost see the offshore windfarm, "can you see it, can you?  I see it!"

Answer 3

Dr Blob has spoken for me on this one, and quite well I might add. In the next ten years, based on the course we are still on the obvious results of AGW will be beyond denial... sad but true. We lack a critical mass to make enough of a change to not pass the point of no return. Then we go from prevention and minor reclamation to mitigation and living with the consequences.

How ever, I could be wrong, and in that scenario I would still have no regrets for the actions I have already taken to lead by example and stand in a place of integrity with my actions and life style. I am debt free, my straw bale house is energy self sufficient and I have a $500.00 credit from the grid, I collect rain water and use a composting toilet, this weekend my wife and I will erect a 26' geodesic growing dome to grow our own food 365 days a year, we compost, we recycle and we ride our bikes. Sure, all these things are labor intensive, but at age 52 I could mop the floor with most of you wimps.

So if the worst case scenario kicks in, don't come looking for sanctuary in my neck of the woods because you called it wrong.

Answer 4

If they don't swallow AGW hook, line, and sinker, many AGW zealots call them 'deniers' (as in Holocaust deniers) or 'flat-earthers' or 'paid shills for Big Oil'.

Of course, that presumes that AGW proponents are willing to consider that *they* may be wrong. I have yet to meet one that was.

If AGW is real, why were temperatures dropping from the late 1930's through the 1970's as industrial emissions were increasing tremendously?

What caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? It certainly wasn't industrial emissions or SUVs.

Answer 5

Dana,

I agree with your definition of a skeptic.

Answer 6

What should a skeptic do to factor in the possibility they might be wrong?  Very simple.  Adopt the precautionary principle.  

Sound arguments have been made over and over that show how mitigation now will actually improve the economy in the future (it's called a capitol investment) so there is no reason not to do it.

The reason they cannot accept this is because they are not skeptics.  

This is a strong line of reasoning Dana, thank you.  

The appropriate label is denier or denialist.  In the face of the overwhelming evidence, skeptic is not appropriate.  

What should I do to factor in the possibility that I might be wrong?  Advocate for solutions that are justifiable for their own sake.  

For example - Moving from fossil fuels to alternative fuels is the correct thing to do on every level.  Environmentally, socially, economically, you name it.  Let the oil companies do it and keep making money, I don't care.  Once we do this energy will cost nothing but to maintain the infrastructure and will be pollution free!  

I long for the day when I can walk to the store again and not choke from car exhaust.  The last time I could was over 30 years ago.  Yeah, the exhaust is cleaner but now there are 100x more cars.  

A solar electric grid and electric cars would solve the problem.  No more oil spills.  No more toxic chemicals from the manufacture of gasoline.  No more contaminated groundwater from MTBE.  No more noise from internal combustion engines.  No more used motor oil to dispose of.  No more sending wads of money to unstable governments.  No more global warming (oops, bad word)  contribution from transportation.  

Yeah, the Indians and Chinese will overrun all our improvements in less than 20 years, but so what?  We could lead by example.  

And when we are off oil and coal and they are stuck we will have a tremendous competitive advantage.  The Europeans are doing this now.

The list goes on and on but that is not relevant to them because they are not genuine scientific skeptics, they are dogmatic denialists.

edit:

Every bit of empirical evidence we have shows the earth is not sick, it is dying.  The precautionary principle applies.

Answer 7

I agree completely,  I may be wrong.

The world may have truly never come out of the last ice age yet,  we may still be there.  Or perhaps the last ice age never really occurred, and its always been this warm.

Now answer this.   Have YOU ever considered that YOU might be wrong and what the results would be.  First, jobs, millions lost.  Second the earth will continue to warm  and with every one banking on your scientist plain  to fix it, we may end up in deep water mighten we?

but of course scientist can never be wrong.   Even back in the early 20's when they all Einstein included thought the Universe was eternal.  That it never had a starting point.  That was until Hubble showed them the truth.

Answer 8

Is it wrong to believe the data?

Without even including the 1998 El-Nino, RSS and UAH show a 6 year continual decline in globally averaged mid troposphere temperatures, how long can this trend continue, until AGW advocates admit that our understanding of climate is limited, and the surface measurements are flawed.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

How do you think this graph will look next year when NOAA completes their summary of 2008 and includes the huge drop in globally averaged temperatures.

.

.

Answer 9

I was one of the skeptics to answer, and I considered the fact I may be wrong concerning the influence of CO2 as a GHG in my answer.  

I am unwilling, however, to entertain the notion my DATA may be wrong.  Sunspot activity is well documented, and highly accurate.  Historic climate change is reasonably beyond doubt as well, being supported by many different methods of measurement.  It is the same data, in fact, AGW proponents use to support THEIR claim.  I can only conclude solar activity and climate change are unquestionably linked, making solar activity (or some cosmic force applied to both the Earth and the Sun) the cause of our current warming trend, as the trend fails to distinguish itself as an anomaly from past climate changes or solar activity.

Edit:  And the appropriate label would be "opponent" as opposed to "proponent".  Pretty standard stuff here...surprised you're having such difficulty with it.

Answer 10

I view it as adynaton, your perspective caters to a litotes extreme.

Answer 11

That was truly a sight to behold.  Since the responses were off-topic to the question, they were classic "troll" repsonses:

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_tr...

"A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention of wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.

Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for effect.

Trolls are motivated by a desire for attention by people and can't or won't acquire it in a productive manner."

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

It's simply a cheap tactic to avoid and disrupt rational discussion on the topic of global warming.  The value and usefullness of Yahoo Answers is severely undermined by that sort of activity.

To answer the question, here's a definition of "skeptic":

"a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s...

In other words, a skeptic would be equally skeptical of information from all sides of this discussion.  I see few if any skeptics among the people who generously identify themselves as skeptics here, since their skepticism is entirely focused on supporting their fixed view and no critical examination or thought is applied to the information they offer or the sources it comes from.

Answer 12

I have an open mind.  I used to believe in AGW and answered questions here defending it.  Having an open mind was what led me to find out what a scam it is that's just being used as a political tool that will ruin, restrict, and diminish the lives of many.  

You know we already have electric cars that work really well and are a lot faster than regular cars (they were on the streets and the demand exceeded the supply)--yet you claim we don't have the technology yet.  Which means you're just part of the scam and you're not really interested in improving the environment and air quality.

Answer 13

Dana----- you are absolutely correct.

Now for a bit of unabashed SELF-promotion! :)

I have started a second blog at  www.neighborsgo.com . This site is owned by the Dallas Morning News -- many of the blog comments appear on the letters to the editor(editorial) section of the paper-------- several of my Astronomy articles & light pollution articles have already been printed------- SO I have created another blog _---separate from Astronomy called "Energy NOW!" at:

http://www.neighborsgo.com/blog/boatman2  (notice the 2)-- Yahoo Answers folks are coordinately invited to contribute to the blog-- it is NOT strictly a GW blog but more of a political and economic blog covering the energy issues facing us today. (However GW can be discussed if it has to do with Energy policy or economics.) You must register to post-- but it is free -- this is a Dallas Morning News web site.

Dana--- sorry for trying to hijack your question-- but I agree with your statement------- NON-flexible thinking is very BAD.

Answer 14

Take a deep breath Dana.

Are you skeptical about global warming being the end of the world?  B/c it sounds like YOU lack an open mind.  You are only open to immediate drastic action.

What would have to happen for YOU to become skeptical of AGW.  You seem to think you already have all the answers and anything still unexplained (much! according to Hansen) is just boring details.

You might benefit from Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

The earth isn't sick - but you just might be.

Answer 15

Nope!  I'm not wrong.  I'm 100% sure of myself.  You erred here in mentioning that most scientific experts have concluded us skeptical deniers are wrong.  These are the 'alarmists' only, in a much larger and broader scientific world that looks upon them with pity and disdain.  Their weak attempts at grasping for self-importance has driven them to madness and lying.  Most of them are failures in their respective scientific genres and were hired to promote the leftist agendas.  They all accepted for financial gain.  None of them have the ability to recognize true scientific measures.  If they did they wouldn't be where they are.

Answer 16

By definition, those who are genuinely open-minded but not convinced may be called "skeptics."  We seem to have very few of those here in the YA community.

Those who go around claiming global warming is a hoax should be called deniers, or just trolls.

Answer 17

So do you consider that you might ne wrong? I doubt it.

Answer 18

There is always a chance of being wrong.  I can tell you a million  reasons why you should believe in Plate Tectonics but there is always a small doubt.  Some theories are more proven than others.