Re "The Myth of Consistent Skeptism", Paul Okami wrote: > Leave us not forget Linus Pauling and Vitamin C.
Nor Alfred Russel Wallace and spiritualism: http://tinyurl.com/yttzw5 Not to mention Sir William Crookes, one-time president of the Chemical Society, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Society of Chemical Industry, the British Association, and the Royal Society and spiritualist: http://www.bookrags.com/biography/william-crookes-woi/ http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/icl/heyes/LanthAct/Biogs/Crookes.html Personal confession: I was once prepared to give credence to Uri Geller's spoon bending abilities - as was John Taylor, Professor of Mathematics, Mathematics, Physical Sciences & Engineering, Kings College London: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/ppro/experts/expert/168/printversion April 1976 - Science Digest - John Taylor. - "Uri Geller's Powers Are Genuine" http://66.221.71.68/sdigest.htm 1976 "The Geller Effect and Physics": John G. Taylor - King's College, London http://www.zem.demon.co.uk/ 1980 March/April - Second Look - "The Rise and fall of Uri Geller"/Interview: Why John Taylor Changed His Mind About Uri Geller. [Not available online] Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ ------------------------------------------ Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:36:14 -0400 Author: "Paul Okami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The myth of consistent skepticism > Leave us not forget Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. > > Paul Okami > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:24 PM > Subject: [tips] The myth of consistent skepticism > > > > There's an interesting article in the current (May/June) issue of > > Skeptical Inquirer with the title: "The Myth of Consistent Skepticism: The > > Cautionary Case of Albert Einstein." > > > > The authors, Todd C. Riniolo and Lee Nisbet, conclude: > > > > No one is once and for all a skeptic. Skeptism is an ongoing process, not > > an end to be achieved. It is continually possible to not only backslide > > but to apply our skepticism inconsistently. We are all selective skeptics. > > Ironically, calling ourselves skeptics may make us less skeptical in > > objectively evaluating claims because it may create a false sense of our > > willingness to subject all of our beliefs to the principles of inquiry. > > Self knowledge concerning our limitations is useful in two ways: it > > encourages intellectual humility and honesty and it keeps the daunting > > task of not falling prey to our particular certainties forthrightly in > > view. > > > > The case of Einstein is cautionary in another respect. Too often, we find > > skeptics paying rapt attention to the views of scientific celebrities > > regarding topics to which those celebrities' occupational expertise and > > accomplishments are totally irrelevant. From a logical point of view, what > > a renowned physicist, astronomer, or evolutionary biologist has to say > > about psychology, politics, economics, religion, etc., has no special > > status whatsoever (just like the Hollywood celebrity who speaks out on > > these issues). Scientists' claims regarding these issues must stand on > > their logical and substantive merits alone. Too often, the irrelevancy of > > scientific celebrity is lost on those who (like all of us) love to be told > > what they want to hear, especially by people famous for their intellectual > > accomplishments. Yet, the love of misplaced authority is but another step > > in the direction of obliviousness to our own selective skepticism. > > > > Simply calling ourselves skeptics is no guarantee that we will objectively > > apply the methods of skepticism. Self-awareness that we have limitations > > in expertise combined with built-in biases that hinder our consistent > > application of skepticism may help to minimize our own selective > > skepticism. However, if we ignore our own selective scepticism and > > inconsistently apply the method of scepticism, we run the risk, like > > Einstein, of deluding ourselves in certain areas like the "true believer" > > that every skeptic despises. > > > > Allen Esterson > > Former lecturer, Science Department > > Southwark College, London > > http://www.esterson.org/ --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
