Skeptics often confront various challenging situations. One is sophisticated purious knowledge (or SSK – OK, I just made that up). These are elaborate systems that purport to describe some body of knowledge but which are ultimately based on nothing – they are completely disconnected from reality. Astrology is a great example of this. There are several astrological systems that are very complex, include charts and diagrams, and follow a certain internal paradigm or logic and underlying philosophy. None of this prevents astrology from being 100% fantasy. There is no relationship between the positions of the planets and stars and the personalities or fates of humans, and no mechanism by which such a relationship might exist. The problems with systems of SSK is that they can give the powerful illusion of real knowledge. Further, people can become highly invested (in many ways) in such systems making it difficult to abandon them. They can even become institutionalized. Another type of claim that presents a challenge are those for which there is simply no evidence one way or the other. As promoters of science, we like to appeal to high quality scientific evidence to support our positions. When there simply isn’t any science, then we have to resort to arguments of plausibility. These are perfectly legitimate, just not as satisfying. We can also appeal to the very legitimate position that the person making the claim has the burden of proof, especially if they are selling something or making medical claims. But still, saying there is no evidence is not as rhetorically effective as being able to point to evidence that disproves the claim. ...
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 22:46:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015