The Problem with Skeptics

[Randall]

I don't idealize science so much as those are the very ideals of science. There would be the exact need for exactly that. If it were any other area of research, nobody would bother to retract anything.

I'm not so sure about that. If you look, you can probably also find retractions and amendments in history, political science, education, marketing and finance. Outside of mainstream schooling, I know there have been amendments in ufology. Author Timothy Good initially published in his book Beyond Top Secret a segment on the MJ-12 documents, for which he followed up on in Beyond Top Secret explaining that most of them are probably fabrications. Perhaps some other Paracast members with experience in other topics can point to retractions and amendments in other fields.

It's an ironclad testament to the power and influence of peer review and why it's necessary. Unfortunately, since science is the only mode of study that can present proofs effectively, it is the only mode of study in which peer review makes legitimate sense. Naturally, as a result, science is also the only mode of study that has to air its dirty laundry, which means people point at things like this and say, "see?!?"

I'd caution you against making absolutist statements. It will help avoid being labeled as overly biased, or falling victim to being proven wrong with only a single example ... like below.

What I see is that peer review is getting better as time goes on. That means that frauds are finding it harder to stay published. That means the facts are getting harder to muddy. What I see is science in action, cutting the fat and leaving the fact. What other mode of study can display that kind of quality and integrity?

Perhaps ... but I don't know what information you're looking at. What I see is that there are still problems, and according to the articles it doesn't seem to be getting better.

• The article quoted in my last post that says, "A new study finds that fraud in scientific research is growing at a troubling rate."
• Another article here that says, "Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed ... University PR departments encourage exaggerated claims, and hard-pressed authors go along with them ..."
• Another here from 2012 that says: "Money corrupts peer-review process" ...
• I could add link after link after link ... how many more do you really need?

That's why a debate, between us, regarding the supernatural is impossible (though, I think it is impossible for anyone, dealing largely with unknowable factors). I understand your approach to study, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

We're not debating the supernatural ( yet ). We're still establishing the ground rules by discussing the nature of truth, reality, and evidence and how that relates to what measure of belief we should put into anything, supernatural or otherwise. On that issue you've stated you believe that science is the "only mode" that can present proofs effectively. On that point, the counterpoint I made about mathematics was not addressed. Again, it uses no empirical evidence and as such is considered to be at least as philosophical as it is scientific, particularly in geometry, which dates back to the cult of Pythagoras. Philosophy also deals with other kinds of logic. As such it is clear that it can and does present proofs effectively. There is also the legal system, which may or may not rely on science, but still presents proofs effectively. Scientific skeptics would claim that the best evidence in the legal system is scientific evidence, but that isn't always true. Sometimes the scientific evidence is dismissed because it has been proven to have been faulty ( think radar detectors ). But regardless, it still "presents proofs effectively" and has it's own peer review process as well. Therefore science cannot be held up as the "only mode" that can present proofs effectively or displays a similar method of "quality and integrity".

Although it's admirable in that you romanticize the ideals of science by holding it up as a shining example of "quality and integrity" there are problems ( as cited above ). Nevertheless, science as a very valuable tool. Where and when science can be applied, then it should be applied. However when there are insufficient conditions to do it properly, then we need to apply other tools to the task. Surely when you say you disagree, you're not denying that investigation and logical analysis using such things as mathematics, philosophy, history and established scientific facts can advance us toward the truth ... are you?

 

[boomerang]

I am of the school that the only difference between ancient tribal mythologies we would now regard as utter hoke and today's science is degree of sophistication and refinement. World views handed down orally over generations and the most widely respected scientific methods of which we know have a common purpose: they are methods by which to model and manipulate this pesky thing called reality. Western man had come to presume such reality exists outside of our minds, only to have science post- Newton make us ever more cautious in where and how to draw this inner vs outer demarcation.

Does this mean all methods are equal? In terms of ability to make predictions and manipulate "things", apparently not. Trends in human thought, like the process of biological evolution, seem to be toward ever greater complexity. Are currently accepted scientific methods the ultimate in ability to make predictions and manipulate "things"? This may be what we are asking when we talk of evidence for ESP, synchronicities, psychokinesis and other so-called paranormal stuff. Science may be facing the same relinquishment of subject/object control in the macro world as was forced reluctantly upon it by quantum mechanics in the 1930's and 40's. But--it seems foolish to make predictons for this using linear extrapolation and anology. I suspect nature has something more subtle and elusive in mind.

Skepticism is a necessary aspect of any effective methodolgy. But only when it arises from the art of critical thinking. Investigation without critical thinking is like trying to drive city streets without a steering wheel. Results may be momentarily spectacular but ultimately not much progress is achieved.
We could liken skepticism for the sake of spectacle to simply erecting roadblocks to prevent most travel for fear of accidents. Pointless and pretty boring.

And BTW (using the old 'edit' feature) I think Randi is well polished turd.

:endofrant:

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Perhaps ... but I don't know what information you're looking at. What I see is that there are still problems, and according to the articles it doesn't seem to be getting better.

• The article quoted in my last post that says, "A new study finds that fraud in scientific research is growing at a troubling rate."
• Another article here that says, "Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed ... University PR departments encourage exaggerated claims, and hard-pressed authors go along with them ..."
• Another here from 2012 that says: "Money corrupts peer-review process" ...
• I could add link after link after link ... how many more do you really need?

It's all media. As I said before, there is a kind of "pre-review" for being published in journals. That is an easily corrupted system. However, a big part of the reason science journals exist -- which aren't grocery magazines, or some other form of popular media -- is to make the results of studies accessible to the scientific community at large, so that non-biased -- or "actual" -- peer review can take place. That part is not so easy to corrupt.

As the article said, 300 articles have been retracted. They made it past pre-review, but then were eaten alive by legitimate, non-biased peer review. Frauds can't stay published. Getting published, however, enables political and corporate interests to quote your findings in whatever bullshit they want to crank out. That's why the publishing end is corrupted at times. Those people can't control the live community, however, and the garbage they bought into the journals quickly find their way out.

That's part of why I keep asking the people here who keep linking me to magazine and e-zine websites whether or not they've read the actual paper the article references. Generally, if you have even a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter of a paper, you can usually see problems with the findings presented, if something is dubious. Also, if you read the paper itself, you'll typically come across information regarding whether or not it has been retracted.

Papers being retracted isn't news. Everyone who cares knows about it. It's the system at work.

Special interests have always had their fingers in science. What they're after, though, is the ability to quote a study published in a journal. The paper written about the study doesn't have to stay published for them to do that. Bullshit science is dismantled quickly and effectively in the open intellectual market.

That's a big part of why people get irritated when bullshit science gets published, as I previously stated. It's not because they want to maintain a status quo, as suggested, but because they don't want the intellectual waters muddied with special interest bullshit.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

There is also the legal system, which may or may not rely on science, but still presents proofs effectively.

That's not really what I mean when i say that.

The legal system actually presents proofs very poorly, in regards to its fallibility. This is because the legal system isn't a system anchored to the discovery and understanding of reality, but a system anchored in resolving a situation, as quickly as possible, in the manner that presents the least doubt (which doesn't necessarily have to be accurate). The biggest difference is that the legal system is ultimately resolved by subjective opinion -- the lone decision of a judge or a group of laymen. If inaccuracies were disasters, the legal system would be the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic, and science would be a three car fender bender.

If the legal system held itself to the same standards as science (the scientific method) -- incidentally, all of the disciplines you listed do in cases of proof and procedure, including many schools of philosophy, which could then become an argument of semantics -- many cases would never be resolved. It's true that both science and the legal system are searching for the most probable truth, but the methods by which the legal system seeks to discern that probability is massively flawed and highly subjective.

Even in cases of appeals, which you could stretch and compare to the peer-review process, the decision to overturn a ruling rests in the subjective hands of an individual or small group of individuals, and has nothing to do with replicated data, but the subjective interpretation of already subjective matters of law and ethics.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

That's why skeptics don't tend to care when people reference eyewitness testimony and its value in the legal system. The legal system is unimpressive and subjective, when it comes to discerning the probability of truth.

 

[Randall]

The legal system actually presents proofs very poorly, in regards to its fallibility. This is because the legal system isn't a system anchored to the discovery and understanding of reality, but a system anchored in resolving a situation, as quickly as possible, in the manner that presents the least doubt (which doesn't necessarily have to be accurate).

What you're doing is the typical parroting of the scientific skeptic. The flaw in your position is that you are comparing the ideal perfection of science with the flaws of the legal system. However if you were to compare the ideals of the justice system with the ideals of science, they are both most certainly anchored in, "discovery and understanding of reality".

The biggest difference is that the legal system is ultimately resolved by subjective opinion -- the lone decision of a judge or a group of laymen. If inaccuracies were disasters, the legal system would be the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic, and science would be a three car fender bender.

What you're doing is the typical parroting of the scientific skeptic. The flaw in your position is that you are comparing the ideal perfection of science with the flaws of the legal system. However if you were to compare the ideals of the justice system with the ideals of science, they would both be accurate and free of the problems associate with both of them.

That's why skeptics don't tend to care when people reference eyewitness testimony and its value in the legal system. The legal system is unimpressive and subjective, when it comes to discerning the probability of truth.

Skeptics also forget that eyewitness testimony isn't the only tool the justice system has at its disposal, and that often such testimony, coupled with other evidence, can create a very compelling case. Furthermore, when multiple corroborating witnesses are involved, the case is significantly strengthened. This leads us back to the truth that all science is based on probabilities. At some point the probability of all evidence being true can exceed that of material scientific evidence alone.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

If its parroted, it's because it's truth.

Results in science are not composed of one-off decisions made by laymen and judges. The legal system is only that.

A researcher doesn't just make claims based on his interpretation of a scientific principle, he runs literal tests to collect exclusively physical evidence (even if that evidence is the absence of change). Then, other researchers do testing, to ensure that the original fellow made no mistakes, or didn't just straight lie. The results of these tests are weighed against objective principles defined by the physical nature of the universe, not someone subjective interpretation of evidence in addition to those principles.

In a court case, the nature of evidence is determined by a single figure, a judge, based on his subjective interpretation of subjectively composed law and statute. The weighing of the value of this evidence is then handed to a group of laymen to offer a subjective opinion based on their solitary experience in that court room, with this evidence (that they were permitted to see [proper procedure, or subjective interpretation on the part of the sitting judge, etc]), these circumstances, and their own interpretation, and emotional reaction, to testimony, expert opinion, and even how scary they think a guy looks.

That shit does not happen in science. Sorry. That is not a valid argument, especially without explanation. I drew pretty specific lines through each system, none of them were systematically discounted or deconstructed. It's not the duty of the skeptic to deconstruct their own argument, especially when they don't think the presented idea is a good way to do it.

We aren't talking paranormal, here. We're talking science. That can certainly be debated, but it has to be two sided. I draw the lines, very specifically (twice), it is the duty of the other side to deconstruct those ideas, specifically.

 

[Randall]

If its parroted, it's because it's truth.

Unfortunately your view of truth ( as outlined on your Truth thread ) ignores the principles of truth as explored by those who have been contemplating what it means for thousands of years. I can only conclude from this that your view on truth has yet to mature sufficiently enough for your statement above to have any weight. When it does, perhaps you can address the specific issues I raised regarding your exaggeration of science toward its ideals while at the same time exaggerating the flaws of other methods. In particular, are you still denying that the ideals of the justice system are concerned with truth?

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Skeptics also forget that eyewitness testimony isn't the only tool the justice system has at its disposal, and that often such testimony, coupled with other evidence, can create a very compelling case.

The problem that the paranormal as a field has, in the eyes of skeptics like myself, is the significant lack of that other evidence. All evidence for the paranormal is circumstantial at best and nonexistent at worst.

Again, multiple eyewitness testimonies don't strengthen the likelihood for truth in the the scientific method. It's not a parameter that is accepted. It can lead to evidence, but it doesn't bring the probability for likelihood up or down. Statistically, nor does it in the legal system, where it has lead to error.

Science recognizes the inherent fallibility in eyewitness testimony. The Legal system is freer and looser when dealing with that fact.

Burn marks, radioactivity, hair samples, EMF's, photographs, foreign bodies that have earthly explanation, it's all circumstantial at best, fraudulent or nonexistent at worst. It has been proven as such time and time and time again. It's what helped to put my mind where it is, today.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

In particular, are you still denying that the ideals of the justice system are concerned with truth?

They are concerned with a subjective truth, which is why they allow individuals to vote on the nature of a truth. That is childish in every sense.

Science is concerned with objective truth. Nobody votes on science. The universe speaks for itself. As per what we are able, science translates that into the facts, principles and models we use to then define aspects of the universe.

The legal system isn't concerned with what the universe has to say about whether or not John T. Murderer is guilty. The legal system is concerned with what Barbara T. Schoolteacher feels about whether or not John T. Murder is guilty based on her subjective position regarding what shes permitted to know.

So, the legal system is interested in truth, just not the brand of truth I subscribe to.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Further, nobody has been contemplating anything for thousands of years. People just aren't living that long, these days. People mull over information handed down to them from previous generations. In science, though, we can vet that information and retest theories, data, studies, etc, to see if it is, indeed, reality. Thinking really hard about stuff, as it were, just doesn't cut it for some people, and they require physical validation for their own intellectual position.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Finally, I think, as I kind of mentioned in a previous post, that these discussions are starting to divert away from a discussion regarding skeptics and paranormal researchers and into a demand for me to validate the way I perceive reality. That's not a discussion I'm interested in having here.

I actually think we've pretty thoroughly established where everyone is coming from, some of the problems skeptics and researchers have when it comes to communicating, why its difficult for the two sides to have a functional debate (when there is no audience, the audience is one another), and why the two sides have the perceptions they have. There isn't much more to the situation.

We're starting to get into which side has the more valuable perception of reality -- that's an insane discussion, given the very nature of the topic.

That said, my contribution to this particular thread is concluded. I don't have anything else to ad.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

A debate is a formal discussion between two parties in the hopes of convincing the audience they are debating in front of the validity of their respective arguments. The two parties don't have to convince each other of anything. So "believers" and "skeptics" don't have to prove anything to each other they just have to prove it to the audience be it a scientific panel, a government body, or the general public.

Sorry. I meant to comment on this, but it slipped my mind.

When a debate is informal, and there is no actual audience, the two participants are the only audience. That means they have no choice but to begin attempting to convince one another of a new position. It seems to always slide beyond a presentation of take and perception and into somebody defending one of those two things against the other. Neither side is ever going to convince the other, because the two sides have different parameters for evidence, reality and investigation.

That said, an audience of such a formal debate is typically polarized, so you've got the identical problem in that case.

As such, a debate between these two folks, and these two worlds, is impossible. It can only be a disgruntled, rhetorical rumble.

 

[Randall]

The problem that the paranormal as a field has, in the eyes of skeptics like myself, is the significant lack of that other evidence. All evidence for the paranormal is circumstantial at best and nonexistent at worst.

I'm not familiar enough with "all the evidence" to be sure there hasn't been any studies done under controlled conditions, but I suspect that there probably has been.

Again, multiple eyewitness testimonies don't strengthen the likelihood for truth in the the scientific method. It's not a parameter that is accepted. It can lead to evidence, but it doesn't bring the probability for likelihood up or down. Statistically, nor does it in the legal system, where it has lead to error. Science recognizes the inherent fallibility in eyewitness testimony. The Legal system is freer and looser when dealing with that fact.

What you say is internally consistent, but the flaw is that truth isn't restricted only to what the scientific method has to say. I've already pointed that out with examples.

Burn marks, radioactivity, hair samples, EMF's, photographs, foreign bodies that have earthly explanation, it's all circumstantial at best, fraudulent or nonexistent at worst. It has been proven as such time and time and time again. It's what helped to put my mind where it is, today.

There is enough evidence to reasonably claim that a hoax has taken place in some cases, but far from enough to disqualify all reports, and to do so, or make it a policy would be prejudicial.

 

[Randall]

Sorry. I meant to comment on this, but it slipped my mind.
When a debate is informal, and there is no actual audience, the two participants are the only audience. That means they have no choice but to begin attempting to convince one another of a new position. It seems to always slide beyond a presentation of take and perception and into somebody defending one of those two things against the other. Neither side is ever going to convince the other, because the two sides have different parameters for evidence, reality and investigation. That said, an audience of such a formal debate is typically polarized, so you've got the identical problem in that case. As such, a debate between these two folks, and these two worlds, is impossible. It can only be a disgruntled, rhetorical rumble.

It's possible that any discussion can widen the views of all participants. I started out agreeing that science and skepticism are valuable tools and I remain of that view, so my toolbox had as many as yours did to begin with. I've shown that other tools also exist that under certain circumstances can be used where science alone cannot, yet you've rejected them without providing sufficient counterpoint to nullify the points made in favor of them. Therefore your toolbox remains half empty. Why consciously choose to limit your own capacity? I don't understand that.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Haha. As a true final take on this, I'll respond to that.

yet you've rejected them without providing sufficient counterpoint to nullify the points made in favor of them. Therefore your toolbox remains half empty. Why consciously choose to limit your own capacity? I don't understand that.

I never really agreed that your examples of those tools, and the evidence they reveal, are valid. I feel I've explained my position on all of those examples pretty thoroughly -- as thoroughly as I know how, anyway. I try not to attack them, just disagree with them and explain why. I'm not going to explain why i think you shouldn't do what you do -- I'm not insane. You disagree that the things i had to say about these issues were valid; that's fair, to me..

I can accept your disagreement without further pressure. Haha, you seem to be a bit more bulldogish in your approach to that situation. It's as if I'm not allowed to have my position and you appear to challenge my lack of attack on yours.

I feel like that type of a challenge is a request that I justify my position. I'm not down with that. There's a reason I don't ask you to validate statements of that nature. I understand, as I've said, that it's your take. I may ask that you explain a direct attack on the scientific method, or explain any slander of the journals, but that's more a matter of presented fact, not a request that you validate your worldview to some random asshole on the internet (read: me).

I think we had a good conversation. We actually took over the thread, which kind of makes me a little sad. I don't know what more we can cover with the topic.

 

[Randall]

Haha. As a true final take on this, I'll respond to that.

I never really agreed that your examples of those tools, and the evidence they reveal, are valid. I feel I've explained my position on all of those examples pretty thoroughly -- as thoroughly as I know how, anyway. I try not to attack them, just disagree with them and explain why. I'm not going to explain why i think you shouldn't do what you do -- I'm not insane. You disagree that the things i had to say about these issues were valid; that's fair, to me..

I can accept your disagreement without further pressure. Haha, you seem to be a bit more bulldogish in your approach to that situation. It's as if I'm not allowed to have my position and you appear to challenge my lack of attack on yours.

I feel like that type of a challenge is a request that I justify my position. I'm not down with that. There's a reason I don't ask you to validate statements of that nature. I understand, as I've said, that it's your take. I may ask that you explain a direct attack on the scientific method, or explain any slander of the journals, but that's more a matter of presented fact, not a request that you validate your worldview to some random asshole on the internet (read: me).

I think we had a good conversation. We actually took over the thread, which kind of makes me a little sad. I don't know what more we can cover with the topic.

If other people don't want to respond that's their business. Perhaps there are a few who just want to see how this plays out. Or maybe nobody else cares. That doesn't mean what we're discussing doesn't have value. What I don't understand is how you make any claim to have sufficient reason not to agree with the examples provided, particularly on philosophical logic, which has given rise to mathematics and provided us with such things as geometry and statistics. The issue of truth may be pure philosophy, but it is essential to our understanding of reality, so again, simply stating that you disagree with accepted philosophical principles is not a rational counterpoint. Why do that? Is it just for the sake of being skeptical? That is about the only reason I can fathom.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

Philosophy had its place. It led to the physical mediums that we use to power science, like mathematics and critical thinking. Just because something led to something valuable doesn't mean that it has perpetual value in and of itself. The steam engine led to the combustion engine, but the steam engine is mostly used in novelty, today. As a functioning base for reasoning, I think philosophy is a steam engine; science, and all the components of the method, are the combustion engine it led to. Science is also capable of advancing itself, given the very nature of the field.

I agree with the philosophical principles that have evolved into the scientific method. I see no reason to agree with any principle simply because it is "accepted" by phantom people who are not in the field making the advancements that improve our lives and enhance our knowledge. I don't see any reason to be where the puck has been, I want to pay attention to where the puck is going.

Hopefully that's good enough explanation for why I think the way that I think; haha, barring any accusations in the direction that I have just not yet reached the intellectual maturity, regarding my own perceptions, necessary to blossom into the Bodhi of reason that others in the forums may perceive themselves to be.

All I can tell you is what I think and how I think it. We are moving these conversations beyond curious inquiry into serious inquisition. We just don't agree, man. It can happen.

 

[Randall]

Philosophy had its place. It led to the physical mediums that we use to power science, like mathematics and critical thinking. Just because something led to something valuable doesn't mean that it has perpetual value in and of itself. The steam engine led to the combustion engine, but the steam engine is mostly used in novelty, today. As a functioning base for reasoning, I think philosophy is a steam engine; science, and all the components of the method, are the combustion engine it led to. Science is also capable of advancing itself, given the very nature of the field.

I agree with the philosophical principles that have evolved into the scientific method. I see no reason to agree with any principle simply because it is "accepted" by phantom people who are not in the field making the advancements that improve our lives and enhance our knowledge. I don't see any reason to be where the puck has been, I want to pay attention to where the puck is going.

Hopefully that's good enough explanation for why I think the way that I think; haha, barring any accusations in the direction that I have just not yet reached the intellectual maturity, regarding my own perceptions, necessary to blossom into the Bodhi of reason that others in the forums may perceive themselves to be.

All I can tell you is what I think and how I think it. We are moving these conversations beyond curious inquiry into serious inquisition. We just don't agree, man. It can happen.

Your logic is faulty. Philosophy is not simply a thing like a steam engine. It's is principle or system that can be applied to the analysis of new and varied problems. It's not unlike the point made in the Critical Thinking video I posted earlier.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument." ( Wikipedia ).​

Also, your intellectual maturity isn't at issue. Clearly you are capable. The issue is one of maturing your knowledge and understanding of the concepts we've been discussing. The reason that I say that is because you don't find them relevant to the discussion, and as a rationale for that position you simply state that you disagree ( without further counterpoint on the particular examples given ). Speaking for myself, there was a time when I didn't have a cohesive understanding of how all these things weave together. I was no less intelligent then than I am now, but it takes time to wrap one's head around these concepts. It seems easy on the surface, but it's deceptively complex. So rather than boxing it up as a "disagreement" and forgetting about it, why not give yourself the option? Leave philosophy and critical thinking in your toolbox. In your spare time take the time to contemplate them, and perhaps you may find that at some point in your investigations, they come in handy.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The issue is one of maturing your knowledge and understanding of the concepts we've been discussing. The reason that I say that is because you don't find them relevant to the discussion, and as a rationale for that position you simply state that you disagree ( without further counterpoint on the particular examples given )

That's just not true. The problem is that you disagree with my rationale, so it is classified as having never been presented. This is further complicated when some of your questions, while possibly good natured in intent, are completely structured in such a way that it would have to be assumed that i A) consent to your dismissal of my rationale, and B) completely conform to your way of thinking. Neither of those things ever takes place, making advancement in the discussion difficult.

I have explained, in three different ways throughout the course of this and two other threads, that I do not think that critical thinking, outside the realms of the scientific method that can restrain it in a positive way, is a valuable tool for investigating the universe. It then follows that I would have massive problems with the non-science-based schools of philosophy, especially those that predate the protocol for the method, as devices for discerning truth, reality, or facts about the universe. You reference some of these throughout these threads. It should be easy to understand that, given the positions that have been heavily explained to you, I don't value these things as methodology for truth seeking.

Using theoretical quantum physics as a device to explain elements of large body physics is fundamentally inappropriate. Unless you are proposing to have discovered the unifying theory, you can't do that and expect someone not to say "that doesn't work." No further explanation is required when matters are self evident.

As far as the whole philosophy thing goes, I'll tell you what I told the only philosophy professor I had at Kent:

When it comes to matters of the advancement of knowledge and our understanding of the universe, it's best to stay cutting edge. I'm unimpressed by people who sit around thinking about complicated problems and more impressed by the people with their feet on the ground actually solving them. The fact is, philosophy gave birth to pragmatism and then became irrelevant. Pragmatism gave way to the modern scientific method, and real advancement began to take place in regards to our knowledge of the state of the physical universe (reality).

Most modern philosophers are actually armchair scientists who use studies and data from scientific and psychiatric journals to focus their contemplations. The ones who dwell on abstractions like the metaphysical nature of a consciousness are dealing in untestable, unknowable, unprovable matters that aren't interesting to me, as they present nothing that can ever be registered as fact or legitimate knowledge (to me).

I have explained, over and over, why contemplation, perception, reason, common sense, critical thinking and personal experience are weak devices for the seeking of truth, though some of them, when constrained within the scientific method, have a place. You seem to think that by disagreeing with this that you have stricken it from the record of our conversation, but you most assuredly haven't.

Your suggestion that my rationale has gone unexplained is just plain untrue. You just don't like the explanations.