Contrary to Lundahl (2022v), I Don’t Think that Skeptics are Always Right, but At Least We Strive to Question All Claims and Avoid Being Gullible
Kevin R. Henke
November 2, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my bolded statement without fully realizing the context and the title of Henke (2022bi), which is “Don’t Trust Everything that was Said in the Enlightenment, the Bible or the 21st Century”:
“So the level of argumentation is "I'm the sceptic, ergo I am right" or "I'm the sceptic, ergo the other guy has no right to use a sceptic argument" ... or? No, he gets even worse than that.”
NO!!! I’m not saying that other skeptics and I are necessarily right. Mr. Lundahl is completely misunderstanding what I meant. I meant that I’m striving to avoid being gullible; that is, all of us should not simply accept that a story happened because it’s in a “historical genre” or that people in the past (i.e., the “earliest known audience”) thought that the story was true (e.g., see the quotations from Lundahl 2022i and Lundahl 2022j and other discussions in Henke 2022bh). I certainly hope that everyone, including Mr. Lundahl, becomes a skeptic and uses skepticism with every claim in science, religion, politics, etc. that they encounter (e.g., Henke 2022dv). We should all be initially skeptical of any past claim, no matter if it comes from the Enlightenment, the Bible or the 21st century. We need to evaluate the external evidence of every claim. That’s the point I was trying to make!