More on Scepticism
I could spend many days writing about the absurd antics of so-called 'sceptics'. The reason why they would make such a good target is that one of my aims of these writings is to get people to think more clearly. Whether people agree with my opinions is not important. What is important is that people think through issues and, if they do form an opinion, it is based on a rational picture of the situation. If there are contradictions in views these should at least be acknowledged. Many people who purport to be sceptics can be extremely irrational when defending their own pet views, or attacking the views of others.
What passes for science nowadays is more akin to a religion. Around 1513, Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This is considered to be the first development in science as a method of discovery rather than religion. The sceptics see themselves as the guardians of this way of thinking. In fact none of the sceptics that I have had personal contact with understood even the basic ideas of the philosophy of science. I've heard sceptics remark that science must be correct because they use peer review. This is rubbish. How can you "…investigate claims of pseudoscientific, paranormal and similarly anomalous phenomena from a responsible, scientific point of view", (to quote the Australian Skeptics [their spelling] home page) if you don't understand what science is?
The reason that Copernicus was seen as such a threat to the church wasn't simply because his opinions differed from the established theocracy, but was because if his ideas were accepted then the existence of the established theocracy was threatened. If he had said that their interpretation of the bible was incorrect his views could probably have been accommodated, he could even have been welcomed as a theological visionary, but by questioning their methods he was threatening their rule. A similar situation exists when people question so-called scientific orthodoxy. Often this is not scientific in the real sense of the word; it is simply the opinions of people who call themselves scientists.
Scientists say that the background to a good scientist is the ability to question. Why then are they so critical of people who, for example, question whether the USA really did land on the moon? Now leaving aside for a moment whether you agree with their views, surely this kind of questioning should be encouraged by true scientists?
Most people would be familiar with some of the tactics used by bullies. One
of them is the rhetorical question, for example "Hey four-eyes, why do you wear
glasses?" This is not a serious question. If the kid was to reply "well actually
it's because I'm short sighted and I need the glasses to see things a distance
away", I don't think the bully would be satisfied. Many times I've debated with
sceptics (something I'm loath to do nowadays as it's such a pointless activity),
and been subject to the bully question. For example, "If God is so powerful
then why does He need us to pray to him?" When I was first asked this by a sceptic
I started to give a rational answer, until I eventually realised that I was
like the boy talking about his glasses. I was simply setting myself up for ridicule.
If you look at any of the sceptics web sites where they ridicule UFOs, crop
circles or any other non-conforming view you find them riddled with bully questions.
This isn't to say that these views are necessarily correct, it's simply that
they should be taken seriously and questioned intelligently.
