IAI_Admin OP t1_j6rnx88 wrote
In this talk philosopher Massimo Pigliucci argues twobranches of scepticism that have split in recent history – ethical scepticism and scientific scepticism – should be reunited in an attempt to define a good way of living.
Ethical scepticism, he explains, demands that we either suspend judgment on non evident matters, or act on the basis of probability given available facts. If apparent facts change, or our assessment of facts change, our judgment of the probability that non-evident claims are true should also be updated.
Scientific scepticism, he suggests, means we should demand clarity of definition, consistency of logic and adequacy of evidence for anyclaim made. We must recognise that not everyone is equally equipped to assessevery claim – Pigliucci cites Socrates’ discussion in the Charmides dialogue. Andwe must recognise we have an ethical responsibility to ensure we don’t supporterroneous claims – citing Cicero.
There are consequences for ourselves and others if we accept things such as climate denial or ant-vax movements without properly assessing the foundations of those claims.
Therefore, we have an ethical responsibility to adopt asceptical attitude towards all claims in life. We must recognise knowledge is tentative – the probability of any claims truth is never 0 nor 1 – and be open to revising our judgment in light of new evidence.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6rxdq0 wrote
"There are consequences for ourselves and others if we accept things such as climate denial or ant-vax movements without properly assessing the foundations of those claims."
This quote is interesting considering that both belief in climate change and supporting vaccinations are components of the dominant metanarrative in the Western world, while the quote itself makes it seem that climate denial and anti-vax are the strains of regime approved thinking that need to be scrutinized. This is an odd-inversion of reality. Climate denial and anti-vax are beliefs that are scrutinized by default, as they stand in contrast to the institutionally-supported metanarrative. Are we to be skeptical only of those things that we are allowed to be skeptical of?
EmuChance4523 t1_j6s05qa wrote
No, but anti-vax and climate denial don't have any real foundation in reality, and work with conspiracy theories and religious zealotry and not with evidence and logic on their side.
So, we have an ethical responsibility to evaluate things.
If we go to real scientific theories, we must demand good evidence, definition and consistency in them, and depending on the topic, this is normally provided. The main scientific theories that the scientific community tends to hold, already hold enough evidence and information to be accepted, but the important point there is to also accept that if we found more information and those things need to be discarded, we need to accept that.
ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sd5sb wrote
Which definition of vaccine are you using for your 0/1 antivax take?
EmuChance4523 t1_j6sfd2a wrote
What definition of vaccine do you have that the antivax take is not bs?
If you take any scientific vaccine, this is the answer to the antivax take. It is reasonable to be antivax for example, when the vaccine proposed is the piss vaccine used by crazy cults, but the scientific ones don't have the flaws attacked by the antivax crazies.
This doesn't mean that our scientific methods, or that the process that we used to develop vaccines, or that there isn't corruption in our institutions that we need to fix, but the problems aren't related to what the antivax cults cry.
VitriolicViolet t1_j6v9ii1 wrote
the current modern ones?
the anti-vax movement either focus on A) new shit like the COVID vaccine (its beyond apparent at this stage that its safe) or B) old-ass mercury containing vaccines from the 1930s.
which 'definition' are you using?
i oppose mandatory vaccination on the grounds of inalienable right to bodily autonomy, not some completely inaccurate nonsense about their safety.
[deleted] t1_j6rysch wrote
[deleted]
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6s0wag wrote
It is an inversion of which belief system is socially dominant. All of this is made more interesting considering that climate denial and anti-vax sentiments are both skeptical of their socially dominant counter parts. This is to say nothing of truthfulness or utility of such beliefs, I have not taste of debating the exact details of either case.
Should we be skeptical of that which claims to be skepticism? Most certainly, especially the claims which others posit have passed through the skepticism sniff-test. There seems to be this implicit game of Socratic chicken, in which both parties claim to be the proprietors of true Skepticism and that therefore their truth-claims of the world are factually correct. This easily ends in solipsism in which no claims on reality can be verified.
betaray t1_j6s8qsv wrote
Skepticism isn't just taking the contrarian point of view. As Mr. Pigliucci explains, it's about "taking a look". Which side of the climate change or vaccination debate is actually investigating the claims of that they make?
A great example of this plays out in the Beyond the Curve flat earth documentary. Those attempting to prove the earth is flat are superficially skeptical. They perform experiments that would demonstrate the earth is flat. That's taking a look. However, when the results confirm the earth is round, they don't accept that evidence. Their belief is more fundamental than evidence.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6scvqk wrote
You can find investigations into the topic, into any topic, from any point of view. There are many sources out there. The biggest issue in all of this is the glut of information that we have to process in order to make informed decisions. How much information do we need to imbibe in order to make our value-judgements educated, or seem educated? Educated to whom? Even having knowledge itself isn't enough to compel action, one cannot turn an Is into an Ought. Science is a tool of understanding reality, not for discerning which actions we should take. This depends on our values.
That is the implicit issue with talking about these topics, that these beliefs are bundled together with other beliefs and their corresponding action (or inaction). When we talk about affirming the validity of Climate Change, what does that even mean? To say aloud, "Climate Change is true", what does this change? What does it change to say the opposite?
Take a look at Germany and their mothballing of some of their nuclear power plants in favor of sustainable green energy initiatives. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tightening of oil supplies, Germany has had to burn more fossil fuels to make up for the lack of energy that would have been supplied by these nuclear reactors. I am sure there are other reasons as to why the nuclear reactors were shuttered, but climate change rhetoric was touted when decommissioning them. I would have much rather that energy come from nuclear power plants than from burning fossil fuels, because it is better for the environment and it loosens the grip that Russia has over continental Europe when making foreign policy decisions.
Would someone who affirms the validity of climate change want both the burning of more fossil fuels and a tighter Russian grip over Ukraine? Probably not. But such rhetoric has in part lead to such a thing, and such a thing should be investigated.
betaray t1_j6siyop wrote
Did you watch the video? This is exactly the point brought up by the Socratic dialog about physicians. As the video mentions, Cicero's criteria are a good starting place.
Anthropogenic climate change is true means that human production of CO2 is leading to overall sea level rise, temperature rise, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and ocean acidification. Those are all testable statements, which is an important part those criteria. It's a broad view which a wide range of evidence supports, and those are a couple other elements of the criteria.
Germany had two goals with its power production strategy. To reduce carbon output and to phase out nuclear power. In the wake of Russia's invasion they've had to compromise both goals. They've extended the life of nuclear power plants and increased the amount of carbon they have produced. That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6snsrz wrote
"That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?"
It is not "unfortunate", it was clearly foreseeable circumstance given the both the goals and means which were taken to achieve the goal. This is my contention. I am not contending that climate change is not verifiably true, I am skeptical of the value-judgements made by those who claim to be making decisions with these things in mind.
ButtcoinSanta t1_j6sypok wrote
The good motive and the bad motive occasionally strive for identical outcome. The motive can be selected to fit the narrative
betaray t1_j6t8dkc wrote
I'm not even sure what your objection to the goal of reducing of CO2 emissions that are verifiability causing anthropocentric climate change might be. Your opposition isn't passing Cicero's test of having a specific claim or being internally consistent. A skeptic should reject your claim unless you can provide a testable claim with evidence.
You do make the claim that was a clearly foreseeable outcome. As a skeptic you'd have evidence to support this position. What is your evidence that a limitation of the supply of natural gas was the clearly foreseeable circumstance when this decision was made in 2011?
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6tdipo wrote
Not once did I object to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. I support reducing CO2 emissions. I support it by supporting using nuclear power. But what does "having my support" even do in this matter?
Also, I don't have to pass Cicero's test. I am not beholden to Cicero. You do not have to be beholden to him either.
The circumstances that Germany found itself in 2011 would not extend for the foreseeable future: Pax Americana which allowed for historically low military spending would not extend, uninterrupted supply chain that is predicated upon this Pax Americana would be jeopardized, the severing of energy autonomy (and thus political autonomy) by shuttering nuclear energy makes Germany increasingly susceptible to foreign influence. The resurgence of Russian aggression (which is something both Romney and Trump would derided for highlighting) exposed how fragile these systems upon which such worldviews are predicated. Germany could have shored up its energy and political autonomy by expanding its reliance on nuclear energy.
edit: you have edited your reply 3 times now. I don't even know what I am responding to anymore.
[deleted] t1_j6tf63h wrote
[deleted]
41sa t1_j6t706y wrote
The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?
For better or for worse, these are some of the only laypeople practicing meaningful skepticism about the information they are fed. For the vast majority of people, "science" is synonymous with an appeal to authority that cannot be challenged.
If you are serious about the value of skepticism and strengthening our collective knowledge you should welcome this kind of dissent. I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open. If you're confident in your position you should be ready to steelman its negation.
UMPB t1_j6x6mgk wrote
> I want more intelligent climate skepticism, and I want it out in the open.
I'd accept that, but currently most climate and vaccine "skepticism" is just outright denial and they don't have their own evidence or data to support their claims properly. We don't need to take that seriously because it isn't serious and doesn't stand on its own merits. The onus is on them to present a valid argument for their dissent. Pushing for acceptance of "Skepticism" will be wielded like a weapon to bring people over to outright denial. I think we have an obligation to recognize that some people literally aren't capable of reasoning their way around complex issues or will not be able to understand the technical aspect of evidence required to gain an understanding and then intervene to prevent them from having dangerous thought patterns implanted in them by bad actors.
Live and let live works fine with bad ideas when everyone's motives are neutral but when people want to use these concepts for nefarious purposes they will co opt any amount of acceptance you give them and turn it into part of their brainwashing.
Chode36 t1_j6umgqw wrote
"The irony is unbelievable. How can you make the case for "scientific skepticism" and in the next breath talk about how we cannot accept vaccine and climate skepticism?'
I agree 100%. But for many, if it doesn't fit their narrative then....
In_der_Tat t1_j6w9jsq wrote
>dominant metanarrative in the Western world
>regime approved thinking
> institutionally-supported metanarrative
If it is supposedly dominant or given to you by the authority, it does not necessarily make it more or less amenable to scrutiny because the basis for scepticism is always the question >What are your arguments, and what is your evidence for why I should believe in x, y, or z?
Massimo Pigliucci, being a scientist himself, before dismissing e.g. the denial of climage change, implicitly walks through the next step, a behaviour which constitutes the hallmark of an actual sceptic, namely proportioning one's belief to the evidence (David Hume).
In fact, he echoes Cicero—the person who introduced the term "probability" in Latin in the first place by making a calque out of the corresponding Greek term—by stating that
>Knowledge is assumed to be tentative and probabilistic.
Then he whips out the following Bayesian probability formula:
>P(claim) ~ P(evidence|claim) * P(claim, a priori)
which means: the probability of a given claim is proportional to the product of the probability of seeing the evidence as we observe it given the claim times the probability of the claim working a priori, i.e. according to the sum of all the branches of knowledge (theory).
What, instead, I find troublesome in Pigliucci's presentation is that he dismisses e.g. the quest for access to original papers pertaining to a given scientific discipline—specifically medicine in his example—as a kind of unjustified epistemic trespass or arrogance after quoting a dialogue by Plato's Socrates (which I generalized):
>...can anyone pursue the inquiry into [the sphere of a given branch of knowledge or into a fair test of a given expert of it] unless he has knowledge of [said sphere]?
>No one at all, it would seem, except the [expert] can have this knowledge—and therefore not the wise man. He would have to be [an expert] as well as a wise man.
It is, in my view, troublesome because, if one limits his or her inquiry into personal acquisition of knowledge by means of peer-reviewed scientific publications published on respected scientific journals, then these personal knowledge acquisition attempts do not necessarily constitute an instance of epistemic trespass or arrogance notwithstanding the complexity of the material under scrutiny. On the contrary, such attempts, as I see it, follow the spirit of scepticism and, in any case, should be judged against the possible weakness of arguments from authority which, as scientist Carl Sagan puts it,
>carry little weight
because
>authorities have made mistakes in the past
and
>will do so again in the future.
Indeed,
>Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
In effect, by want of a clearer argument, Pigliucci formulates an unsceptical argument from authority if he outright dismisses as unjustified non-experts' quest for access to original papers published on respected scientific journals.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j6wots7 wrote
Better put than I.
[deleted] t1_j6sh9i7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j6sq4yp wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j6t7r4f wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
PeripateticAlaskan t1_j6sbj6u wrote
A nuance is sometimes teased out between the synonyms fact vs. truth. Facts are those which pass muster on the basis of scientific skepticism as defined here. Truth, however, incorporates concepts that may be vital to who we are or are striving to become, yet by their nature cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. These are often used interchangeably. Yet to the extent there is this distinction of nuance I would contend that Truth, in appropriate forms, must be understood, accepted, and incorporated into our lives. I therefore come down on the side of ethical skepticism.
Mckay001 t1_j6szt6x wrote
The ant vax movement must be stopped.
Stargazer5781 t1_j6t5hjf wrote
This is best achieved by using more precise criticisms. Calling people with legitimate objections to a vaccine anti-vaxxers serves only pharrnaceutical corporate interests, and that behavior has gotten super popular of late. Medical interventions should have clinical trial evidence of benefit exceeding cost in the demographic cohort for which it is recommended, and exceptions should always be permitted depending on the medical needs of the patient.
This was the norm for decades of public health regulation and was a completely uncontroversial position until extremely recently.
cwk84 t1_j6tgnri wrote
I’ve talked to serval anti vaxxers in person and have used logic and explained statistics and they still didn’t want to let go of the conspiracies.
[deleted] t1_j6ujapn wrote
Are these people against vaccination for all conditions or just Covid? These are two distinct groups
SPammingisGood t1_j6th39a wrote
And that's the problem. They don't want to take part in actual scientific/rational discussion. Many are only driven by emotions not by rational objections.
Couch-Dogo t1_j6w7354 wrote
What do you think happens when a new vaccine is created? They go through hundreds of tests and trials before they’re ever made available to the public. This goes for all medical inventions. It’s fine to be skeptical of something new but people have to learn where to draw the line. If there are hundreds of studies and a mountains of proof saying that vaccines are safe and your still skeptical, that’s just being an idiot.
Stargazer5781 t1_j6wmivj wrote
So a few things.
First, "vaccines are safe." In saying this, are you saying that every single vaccine ever created has been approved by regulators and is presently in use? Have you taken any of the HIV vaccines for example? J&J's? Merck's? Are you saying that every single one of those failed vaccines that did not pass clinical trial muster is safe?
Obviously not. So you're saying that every single vaccine that has ever been approved has been completely safe? So you would, in good conscience, tell a pre-menopausal woman that she ought to take one of the adenovirus vector vaccines for COVID? And that there's absolutely no risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia? And more generally, there's never been a Class I or Class II recall of a vaccine in history? Wow, what a revelation! I am so delighted to discover they were all false!
In terms of our present situation of COVID vaccines, my main objections concern the following:
-
Requiring college-aged students to be vaccinated and boosted with mRNA vaccines when they are the cohort most at risk for myocarditis and least at risk from the disease.
-
Adding the COVID vaccines to the infant vaccine schedule when it is still under the auspices of emergency use authorization. If it's to be added to a schedule, it should pass the FDA's normal rigorous testing requirements.
-
Approving the bivalent booster when the only evidence supporting said approval was the generation of antibodies in 8 mice. The mass distribution of any medical product should at least require safety testing and preferably require efficacy testing as well with clinically beneficial endpoints, not the mere validation of a surrogate endpoint.
There are many more objections, but these are the most egregious ones that would have been considered ludicrous even three years ago. And this insanity is not global by the way. In Denmark, for example, the same practice mandated on our college campuses is banned due to the serious, if rare, side-effects among young men. It's also worth noting that the heads of the vaccine division of the FDA, Gruber and Krause, resigned in protest over this issue. Were they being idiots?
There is serious cause for concern here, and I would encourage you to reflect on why you're so certain there is not. I am not particularly worried about vaccines that went through the FDA's rigorous testing and requirements in years past. I am concerned about how our public health apparatus has changed for the worse.
CactusMonkey12 t1_j6u6vuc wrote
Do you know if Pigliucci has a citable manuscript related to this?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments