Spiritual Blogs

Scientific Skepticism is what I may term it as 'Randism' in (dis)honor of his skeptic, James Randi. There are, however a couple of people with a similar mindset, including the owners of sites such as 'skeptic dictionary', 'rational wiki' and sometimes even Wikipedia itself acts as an output not for truth but for a new whisky dubbed 'scientific skepticism'.Wikipedia define 'scientific skepticism' as:SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICISM: the critique of claims that are not suppoted by facts while promoting claims that are supported by facts.Good! One might wonder what issue I might have with such! It sounds like a good practice! However, there is a subtle catch. Just what is the meaning of this word: 'FACT'? This is exactly where the whole batle ground is!

FACT: A phenomena that actually happens.

In the proper definition of 'fact', there is no provision for knowledge, beleif, nobel prizes, 'scientific community', concensus, evidence etc. This is the major point that 'scientific skepticism' miss! The earth, for instance, did not become round when a gang of idiots voted for a 'round earth' and begun to puplish it in books. Rather, it was and it is and it will remain a fact or a myth whether we beleive it or not! If the earth was round, then the flat earthers at then were morons even if all the available evidence at then pointed that the earth was flat! This is a point that no 'Randi' would love to hear! It is however, an humble acceptance of our limited knowledge. It is humiliating to many to just answer a question by 'we don't know'. They device several way rounds to acknowledging ignorance. One of them is the 'kicking the burden of proof'.

WHY IT IS A BAD IDEA TO CRITIQUE UNOTHORDOX IDEAS AND NOT QUESTION STATUS QUO1.)SCIENCE ACTUALY NEVER PROOF ANYTHING

'Proof' is an utter misnormer! Aside from the fact that scientists INFERE with their minds and then lable it 'proof', a 'science fact' as used by the 'skeptic' is just nothing but what a group of people termed 'scientists' think that it is true. So it ultimately reduces to mere OPINION!! Developing unquestioning attitude to this latter group of people tantamounts to just a change in priesthood! Farthermore, the justification of existance of this group is completely groundless. Who in this world ever said there are such people who 'knows better'?

2.)SCIENCE IS JUST A DEFINITION!

Infact, the 'skeptic' operates on even a wrong notion of 'science' which equates it with 'scientific method'. This method was concocted by philosophers with no justification whatsoever! The philosopher shoves off by fiat what he THINKS should not be in this folder termed 'science'. This throws away a lot of claims a priori without any investigation just because 'they are not science'.So what can we say of the 'skeptic' now hunting these other claims that are thrown out a priori because, as claimed, 'they lack evidence'? By a simple word: moronic! We are not suppose to fund telepathy research because 'that is not science' and we should also critique it because "no scientist with credence researches on such 'magical thinking'". This is circular reasoning, otherwise termed question begging.

3.)SCIENTISTS USE FALLACIOUS REASONING

Scientists decides by pure fiat when to use logic, when to make an assumption and when to demand empirical fact! This is possible because 'science' enjoys two contradictory definitions! It is said to be evidence based and also 'not concerned with truth by just the best explanation'. This is stupid!Often, when someone with unorthodoxed idea INFERE using evidence, the 'scientist' counteract it with proper usage of LOGIC. He points out that the proponent is making a fallacious reasoning and that the conclution realy doesn't follow from the premises. True, BUT WHAT CONCLUSION IN SCIENCE EVER FOLLOW FROM PREMISES? When you use the same critique to an establishment 'truth', he shoves it off with the escuse: 'after all science is not about truth but making reasonable conclusion from the best available evidence'!

4.)SCIENCE DOES NOT SELF CORRECT

Perharps this is the stupidest of all the myths: that a group of humans can, holus bolus morph from the usual reluctance to self criticism, dogmatism tendency etc and become perfect reffarees of knowledge by merely aquiring a new lable: 'scientist'! Nope! Science is just another human institution ameanable to everything that bedevils a human.When you aske the 'skeptic' why he doesn't critique 'science', he takes you on some rounds which eventualy land you the much parroted without thinking claim: 'science can correct itself'. So the skeptic leaves some ghost out there termed 'science' to correct itself and then go correcting everyone else who does not bow to this ghost. But then when you exermine each one in the club of 'science', he is bussy critisizing anything not found in the box of 'science' and leaving 'science' to correct itself! So what is this 'science' which is never criticized by its members but which can nevertheless correct itself? It is just yet another illusion! It is an idol that some fanatics of 'perfect knowledge' have erected it to worship!At the root of failure of science to autoselfcorrect lies on the fact that it is an employment. You can be kicked out from the club any time! So you have to weigh between your job and 'truth'. So you see? A 'scientist' is someone who beleive in xyz by pure definition! If you don't beleive in big bang, then you are not a scientist. But also, 'most scienists beleive in big bang'. Again, the 'scientists' encages in circular reasoning and Scotsman fallacies!

5.)SCIENCE IS POSITIVISM, WHICH IS JUST YET ANOTHER PHILOSOPHY

Science boast that it uses evidence. But what is 'evidence' if not just an input to our senses? Who said that this reflects truth about 'outer world'? When using your eyes, you are just using nothing but a section of your brain termed 'visual cortex'. When using introspection, you are just using a more complex part of your brain termed 'celebral cortex'. So trusting only your eyes involves axing out a more profound, sophisticated machinary that you have! You do that by just pure fiat! Nobody said that the input to our senses reflects truth more than introspection and when we use reasoning, it becomes apparent that sensual knowledge is ultimately flawed, incomplete and quite useless in things to do with deep understanding!

REASONS TO EMBRACE UNORTHODOXED IDEAS

Healthy and far more difficult task is a skepticism towards 'well established' and often extreemly complicated ideas! This is the dancing place of the true heroes of our society: pointing out subtle flaws right comming out from the pulpit, and not some obscur, already wounded 'charlatans' who often have very simple claims that everyone can understand and see its possible short commings.The most dangerous interlectual erors are those done at the highest level because this is where almost no one can suspect erors to come from.

SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICS ARE REALY NOT THINKING

The lable 'skeptic' at times brings a picture of someone intelligent, not subjectible to gullibility and considers facts carefully to ensure that they don't contain flaws before beleiving them. Otherwise, he must declare from the roof with loudest voice that people are buying into baseless speculations. But do this happen in scientific skepticism? Obviously not! The body that emits the most voluminous claims is science itself! This mean that if we are to fit into the folder of the 'less gullible', we should be always standing next to a scientists with a metalic, thorny club in our hands, ready to see if our scientist might be stealthly mixing wine with snake oil and then we releas the club on the head. Clearly, this mean that the most sensible skeptic must be those skeptical to the mainstream science itself! There is no much need to critique a charlatan. Charlatans, astrologers, christians etc have been here for millions of years and they make the same same claims that everyone knows and everyone is aware of all the counter arguments against them.