Skeptic vs. Psychic
Or: Why they're both wrong
Once upon a time, I set out to find enlightenment. It was my religious experimentation phase and this enlightenment stuff sounded great. I'll skip the details, but I learned two things during the journey. One, I'm not getting enlightened anytime soon. Because, Two, I learned the first step on the road to enlightenment, and I can't make it.
The first step on the road to enlightenment is to admit you know nothing.
Thing is, like most people, I'm pretty sure I know stuff. I know gravity works, for example, and that I'm wearing pants. Wait, let me check that last one. ... ... Yeah, pants.
So, how does that relate to skeptics and psychics, you ask. Well, the problem is they both agree that science doesn't know everything, and then come to two completely different, but equally wrong conclusions.
Let's start with the easy target, the psychics. They posit, for example, that remote viewing is possible. Their logic for this goes like this. Science can't explain it. Science admits it doesn't know everything. Science admits that if it can be prove, then they'll accept remote viewing. Therefore, according to the flawed logic of the true believer, If you can't disprove it, and you've admitted you'll accept that it might be possible, then it probably is. They'll pull out the bag of anecdotes, ill-prepared experiments, badly documented "proof", and so on. And say, "Look, it exists, because you can't prove it doesn't". Never mind the fact that science is based on what can be tested, not what can be imagined.
To summarize it, the believer thinks this. You admit you don't know everything. I believe something exists. Therefore I KNOW it exists because you can't prove it doesn't. They haven't made the first step to enlightenment. They KNOW things. It's incredibly difficult to convince a Psychic that something DOESN'T exist, if they "believe" it.
The skeptic is a tougher nut to crack. The skeptic says, simply put, "Prove it." That's it. They believe nothing that isn't proven. The skeptic says, science doesn't know everything, but in any given situation, science has collected a mountain of data that points in, generally, one direction. Therefore, that direction must be correct, or approximately correct. Present an idea, test it, test it, discuss it, test it, and in 10 or 20 years the test will have given you results. The results equal the best truth that can be known right now. Now, this is eminently reasonable. In fact, I happen to fall into this camp. But, it's flawed, not for it's thought process, but for it's attitude. The attitude is that eventually all things can be known. It leads to a stiffness in thought, and unwillingness to accept the new or the improperly understood.
To summarize, the skeptic (note that I never said scientist) thinks this. Science admits it doesn't know everything. But, science knows a great deal and is always learning more. Therefore, I accept what science has proven, and refuse to accept anything science hasn't proven yet. They haven't made the first step to enlightenment. They KNOW that the unproven or unprovable isn't valuable. When science proves it, then it's valuable.
Here's an example, God. God is unprovable. Doesn't even matter which one. Can't prove it. The believer in God believes first, then tries fruitlessly to prove it to the unbeliever. The unbeliever disbelieves first, and can't ever have it proven. Both KNOW the outcome before the argument began, but that doesn't stop the arguing does it. If both had taken the first step to enlightenment, they simply wouldn't argue, because neither would know anything.
Psychics need to UNKNOW their mystical beliefs and look for real proof.
Skeptics need to UNKNOW their fanatical devotion to proof, and examine the value of the unprovable.
Once they do, both will be open to new ideas. Each belief you have closes another door. Know nothing and all the doors are open. Then you can take the next step to enlightenment.
Now, I need to get back to the much more difficult business of UNKNOWING my pants. I'm sure that once I do that, I'll figure out the next step to enlightenment.
Of course, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.
Once upon a time, I set out to find enlightenment. It was my religious experimentation phase and this enlightenment stuff sounded great. I'll skip the details, but I learned two things during the journey. One, I'm not getting enlightened anytime soon. Because, Two, I learned the first step on the road to enlightenment, and I can't make it.
The first step on the road to enlightenment is to admit you know nothing.
Thing is, like most people, I'm pretty sure I know stuff. I know gravity works, for example, and that I'm wearing pants. Wait, let me check that last one. ... ... Yeah, pants.
So, how does that relate to skeptics and psychics, you ask. Well, the problem is they both agree that science doesn't know everything, and then come to two completely different, but equally wrong conclusions.
Let's start with the easy target, the psychics. They posit, for example, that remote viewing is possible. Their logic for this goes like this. Science can't explain it. Science admits it doesn't know everything. Science admits that if it can be prove, then they'll accept remote viewing. Therefore, according to the flawed logic of the true believer, If you can't disprove it, and you've admitted you'll accept that it might be possible, then it probably is. They'll pull out the bag of anecdotes, ill-prepared experiments, badly documented "proof", and so on. And say, "Look, it exists, because you can't prove it doesn't". Never mind the fact that science is based on what can be tested, not what can be imagined.
To summarize it, the believer thinks this. You admit you don't know everything. I believe something exists. Therefore I KNOW it exists because you can't prove it doesn't. They haven't made the first step to enlightenment. They KNOW things. It's incredibly difficult to convince a Psychic that something DOESN'T exist, if they "believe" it.
The skeptic is a tougher nut to crack. The skeptic says, simply put, "Prove it." That's it. They believe nothing that isn't proven. The skeptic says, science doesn't know everything, but in any given situation, science has collected a mountain of data that points in, generally, one direction. Therefore, that direction must be correct, or approximately correct. Present an idea, test it, test it, discuss it, test it, and in 10 or 20 years the test will have given you results. The results equal the best truth that can be known right now. Now, this is eminently reasonable. In fact, I happen to fall into this camp. But, it's flawed, not for it's thought process, but for it's attitude. The attitude is that eventually all things can be known. It leads to a stiffness in thought, and unwillingness to accept the new or the improperly understood.
To summarize, the skeptic (note that I never said scientist) thinks this. Science admits it doesn't know everything. But, science knows a great deal and is always learning more. Therefore, I accept what science has proven, and refuse to accept anything science hasn't proven yet. They haven't made the first step to enlightenment. They KNOW that the unproven or unprovable isn't valuable. When science proves it, then it's valuable.
Here's an example, God. God is unprovable. Doesn't even matter which one. Can't prove it. The believer in God believes first, then tries fruitlessly to prove it to the unbeliever. The unbeliever disbelieves first, and can't ever have it proven. Both KNOW the outcome before the argument began, but that doesn't stop the arguing does it. If both had taken the first step to enlightenment, they simply wouldn't argue, because neither would know anything.
Psychics need to UNKNOW their mystical beliefs and look for real proof.
Skeptics need to UNKNOW their fanatical devotion to proof, and examine the value of the unprovable.
Once they do, both will be open to new ideas. Each belief you have closes another door. Know nothing and all the doors are open. Then you can take the next step to enlightenment.
Now, I need to get back to the much more difficult business of UNKNOWING my pants. I'm sure that once I do that, I'll figure out the next step to enlightenment.
Of course, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.
Glintir |
7/08/2005 08:05:00 AM
|
