Skepticism’s Double Sided Sword

Using Empirical Arguments to Find Valid Theories (vs. Using Probability to Win Arguments)

Main points:

● By definition, valid empirical theories are always open to:

            1) Continued testing (of predictions)

            2) Validation or refutation thru further factual evidence (measurable data)

            3) Continuous revision

Therefore, by definition, theories that are not open to these two criteria cannot be valid empirical theories. Absence of evidence is not evidence, and appeals to ignorance, though highly persuasive, cannot fully constitute valid arguments; in the absence of evidence proving one way or another, the likely conclusion is a) "I don't know" and b) more testing and the pursuit of further evidence.

 ● A theory becomes a fact when it has been:

            1) Repeatedly tested by a wide variety of sources

            2) Those repeated tests consistently confirm/validate the theory thru increased factual evidence

            3) Revision develops the theory rather than disproves it.

Science itself can be described as this process: the continuous process of testing, attempting to both prove and disprove existing and revising theories by gaining ever greater amounts of physical, factual evidence.

● There is no such thing as absolute certainty in any given argument. Newtonian physics cannot prove with %100 certainty that before the dawn of man apples didn’t fall upward, or that tomorrow apples will not fall upward.

We cannot possibly prove that before the dawn of man or before the advent of written history the earth and universe was governed by the laws of nature (physics, chemistry, biology etc.). However, by definition the laws of physics are immutable; this is the basic ontological premise of science. 

Similarly, by definition, spiritual or religious arguments constitute a philosophical challenge to this basic ontological premise; the basic ontological premise of spirituality is that the laws of physics are mutable and there are truths that exist beyond the pale of these laws, truths that by definition cannot be measured by empiricism because, again, by definition, they cannot be observed and/or tested. The definition of "faith" is largely the willingness to believe in that which cannot possibly be observed and thus measured empirically.

(this is a matter of defining words, not of positing which ontology is superior in all situations; it's certainly possible to "believe in" the value of both, but usually not at the same time, in the same context...this question, however, has challenged and will continue to challenge the greatest thinkers throughout recorded history because again, the answers are beyond the realm of "proof"; the two paradigms define "proof" in separate ways and thus cannot be reconciled)

● One should be consistent when evaluating degrees of certainty; apply the same yardstick to both sides of the argument. Yes, you can always disprove the opposing argument by requiring %100 certainty (%100 evidence with no logic), but this will most likely disprove all other known arguments, including your own.

● One sided arguments are always persuasive. By definition, they are also propaganda and have nothing to do with a valid attempt to locate factual true.

● Logic/deduction alone is inherently incapable of producing valid arguments because valid arguments are largely based on evidence. The greater the evidence, the lesser degree of logic necessary to make probable claims. Therefore, separate out the logic from the evidence.

● It’s easy to shoot holes in any argument by combining only logic and observational selection;

-- this is actually a rhetorical method disguised as empiricism because it is based on logic and not evidence; the debunker does not supply evidence of one’s own and is not accurately representing the knowledge and data readily available to support both sides of the argument.

-- the danger of this is the OJ Trial symptom: there is a vast difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “absolute, %100 certainty”.

● If I can fool you into thinking that I can bend spoons with my mind, man didn’t land on the moon, that the penny that was in my hand actually came out of your ear, or that Big Foot exists, I can convince you that the Jews are responsible for Germany’s downfall and they are genetically inferior to Aryans, or Blacks are genetically inferior to whites, or that my political enemies or people from other countries are witches or aligned with Satan.

● For all of these reasons, consider that claims to truth should be supported with validated, widely and often tested, quantifiable factual evidence.

●●● Skepticism does not mean questioning; skepticism means requiring adequate factual proof to form inferences and withholding judgment on the validity of an argument until such proof can be shown.

● Balance your examination of any and all arguments with large doses of both skepticism and an objective willingness to hear out both sides of the story, regardless of emotional, character and value-oriented appeals: the Lines of Argument will persuade you. However, the degree to which you are willing to be persuaded by these elements of any argument should be based on two things:

1) A full understanding of the available knowledge on the topic; validate the argument based on what you know, not on what you don’t know or what you feel.

2) Conscious choice; know when you are being persuaded by The Lines of Argument ethos, pathos, logos and values.