Are skeptics hypocrites, according to Shermer?

[Whitefire13]

@Seek3R

2) a claim that is either logically impossible or highly unlikely , or (3) a claim for which the evidence is largely anecdotal and uncorroborated."

Don’t forget this in the definition!

My explanation is uncorroborated. I have never been there. I haven’t seen the particular mountains he’s referring to. I can not be under the same “conditions” to see whether my explanation is the explanation … HOWEVER what of the claim?

A guy in the desert. His friends (loose language - NOT him) write the words. So what does it “mean”??? Poetic? Mirage? Drugs? Misspelling? Imagination? God? Most likely “poetic”. Now we have some science using the term or descriptor of “floating”. So what? A shitload of interpreters biased in their presupposition of god link it to divine knowledge. THEY are linking a thing with no evidence in reality to a thing written hundreds of years ago by someone else. It’s funny. BUT they take this very seriously weird

Don’t forget - its the claim in the definition of weird you are using.

Claims need to be evidenced. Level of evidence to the level of claim. My offering alternative explanations doesn’t mean I’m right, BUT it doesn’t mean I’m wrong AND it also provides the need for MORE evidence from them to back their claims.

So no one knows. It has no meaning. It’s like when my boys argue over superhero backstories or “who’s superpower is the best”!!! It’s imaginative speculation of nonsense.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Seek3R

Here’s an example: I believe that the likelihood of this world ending in the next 1 year is highly unlikely.

So, according to Shermer, I’m believing in a weird thing now.

I think there is where you are going off the rails. I don’t think the bold part is accurate.

[Cognostic]

@Seek3R

But aren’t these alternatives equally unlikely? Couldn’t these explanations of a skeptic also be categorized as “weird things”, according to Shermer?

And the point would be… “So, why believe any of them.” You are citing options as if we should believe one over the other and you have completely missed the “skepticism.” You don’t believe any of it until you have facts and evidence. Now, with that said… which seems more likely. Which things are more real? (Reality is demonstrated by facts and evidence that comport with reality.) We have evidence for some alternative ways and nothing that is substantial for the idea that a God done it. Pile on top of that the fact that the verse is so vague it could mean any of the above, or any number of other things, and we simply have no reason to believe any of it; however, we know that natural explanations are more reasonable than supernatural explinations. No supernatural explanation has ever stood against critical inquiry.

[Seek3R]

Thanks everyone, I’ve figured out where I was going wrong.

[Cognostic]

@Seek3R

Thanks everyone, I’ve figured out where I was going wrong

Something else for you to think about that may help you out. “Belief” is not “ALL” or “NOTHING.” Belief is proportioned to match the evidence. I am about as sure as a person can possibly be that I will see the sun in the sky at some point tomorrow. I believe it and would even be willing to put some money on the idea. Is it 100% gaurenteed? Well… no. The sun might blink out for some reason no one ever imagined. It might explode for the same reason. The earth could experience a tectonic shift of massive proportion and find its rotation stopped with all the land mass on the dark side and no hope of a sunrise. A massive volcano, like the Yellostone Volcano, or even the entire Pacific Rim, could explode and blot out the sun for a million years. I could die in my sleep. While if you ask me, “Will we see the sun tomorrow?” I can respond with a, “Most definately, YES.” There will be a day, at some point in time, where that “Yes” response is going to be wrong. Why it will be wrong, I can not even imagine, but I know it is possible for it to be wrong based on the fact that this little ball of rock that we call home, is just not that hospitible when you actually look closely at it.

Belief is justified by its ability to comport with reality. The more outrageous the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be for the claim. Belief can be withheld until there is sufficient evidence to support the claim.

[Seek3R]

Very well explained. Thank you.

However, as Nyar pointed out, I was not having trouble understanding about the concept of belief or evidence.

My only problem was that Michael Shermer considered anything that was “highly unlikely” to be a weird thing. I was blindly believing every single word of his as the ultimate word of truth (well, I now know that it is wrong to approach anyone or anything like that. Everything is open to skepticism, but most importantly, everyone is also open to skepticism, no matter what their authority is).

To reiterate my point, Shermer forgot to distinguish between highly unlikely claims that are ridiculously unreasonable, with no evidence to back them up, and hence weird e.g. aliens exist, vs. claims that are highly unlikely but are very reasonable to believe in e.g. I believe that it is highly unlikely that world war 3 will breakout within the next 30 days. Yet, neither of the highly unlikely claims are impossible.

So, in other words, highly unlikely claims that are completely unreasonable, and hence justified to be labelled as “weird things” and highly unlikely claims that are completely reasonable, and hence not justified to be labelled as “weird things”.

As a conclusion, I thought Michael Shermer is immune to skepticism because he’s a well-known, reputable authority figure and that the likelihood of him being wrong, anywhere in his book, is negligible. (I was wrong, nobody is immune, nobody is perfect, and everyone is bound to make mistakes no matter how good they are at something).

Also, I just realized that I have no idea which skeptic has ever officially defined a “weird thing” in terms of claims. It appears more like the “skeptics” are actually just one, Shermer himself.

[Cognostic]

@Seek3R

I thought Michael Shermer is immune to skepticism

LOL - Not in a million years!

[Sheldon]

@Seek3R

But aren’t these alternatives equally unlikely?

There it is, no one needs an alternative explanation, that’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

@Seek3R

Couldn’t these explanations of a skeptic also be categorized as “weird things”, according to Shermer?

Weird involves the supernatural or other worldly events, so natural explanations might be far fetched, but not weird. At least not in the strict definition of the word. Remember we don’t need to disprove claims. So I wouldn’t even bother looking for alternatives, as speculation is unecessary, and just gives ammunition to theists. If the best they have is unevidenced assumption then I disbelieve it. If they try to claim there is no other explanation then the correct response is so what, as their explanation is still unevidenced assumption.

Remember claims that unevidenced deities using inexplicable magic, are ever a more probable cause than natural phenomena are demonstrably false. Ask them why no one has published their data, and why science hasn’t validated the claim? There is an accepted scientific theory that measures and explains probability.

@Seek3R

we’re all hypocrites because we give equally unlikely alternative explanations for unusual events.

Except I don’t, as I’ve explained here, and elsewhere.

@Seek3R

Here’s another example.

Ok I’m out, as the same rationale applies no matter how many examples you use.

If someone wants me to believe a book has a divine origin, then the burden of proof is entirely theirs to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, I don’t have to disprove it or offer any alternative. If they say otherwise then it’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

[Cognostic]

@Seek3R

we’re all hypocrites because we give equally unlikely alternative explanations for unusual events.

No, “WE” don’t. That is the whole point of developing critical thinking skills. As I said previously… “Rational belief is that which comports with reality.” It can be tested. We certainly all have the potential to be hypocritical and we probably are hypocritical about some things. This is simply the motivation to question our own assumptions or to listen to others when they question our assumptions. That which is real / rational, has no fear of inquiry.

[Seek3R]

@Sheldon, thanks, I really appreciate the explanation!

Weird involves the supernatural or other worldly events, so natural explanations might be far fetched, but not weird. At least not in the strict definition of the word.

Okay, it appears to me that I’m at fault here. I had no idea about the strict/primary definition of the word “weird”. But I was definitely kind of feeling strange to call natural events weird things e.g. believing that it is highly unlikely that the sun will not rise tomorrow. I’m automatically assuming here that it doesn’t apply to man-made events either, like world war 3 starting within the next 30 days.

In that case, I apologize and I must admit that Michael Shermer was right in whatever he said. My limited understanding caused me to generalize the word “weird” to literally everything I could think of as long as it fulfilled the condition of being “highly unlikely”.

Remember we don’t need to disprove claims. So I wouldn’t even bother looking for alternatives, as speculation is unnecessary, and just gives ammunition to theists.

Yep, another problem I realized in my logic. Thanks for pointing it out. When I was talking to Whitefire, I don’t know why but I kept assuming that the Quran actually did mention that mountains float. And then on the basis of that assumption, I was asking him, and thinking by myself, about the potential alternative explanations to how that knowledge ended up in Quran. And then, I was categorizing Whitefire’s and my explanations as “weird things”, as described by Shermer.

However, that knowledge was never there to begin with.

Damn! I knew it was highly unlikely for Michael Shermer to be wrong in what he had written. Thanks!

[Cognostic]

@Seek3R

However, that knowledge was never there to begin with.

This is true of every scientific claim I have ever heard a Muslim make about the Quaran. Well, nearly true. The other thing that happens is that they hold up 'common knowledge" as a miracle. “A fetus looks like chewing gum.” is another verse, Well, how could they know? It’s a scientific miracle. Never mind that they had no supermarkets and about every human being on the planet during the life of Muhammad (assuming he actually lived) had probably butchered an animal or seen an unborn fetus. I can see little wads of chewing gum looking stuff in fertalized eggs. NO MIRACLE HERE!