Skepticism is Learned and Comes with Experience
Kevin R. Henke
November 4, 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 black statement. For now, I’ll just comment on the following bolded red section of Mr. Lundahl’s comments:
“It cannot be biographically in any given person as to all and any claims given by his parents.
The end result of this position is therefore that most people applying it (converts and apostates being two exceptions) will continue believing what the parents taught them, and use that as ground for scepticism against any claim going against it. End of debate, not just this one but every one.
The first reaction to any unusual claim will inevitably be some kind of scepticism. Mild or suspicious, hidden or shown.
But finally, the reason for not believing story A cannot be that it isn't backed up by stories B and C, each of which needs to be backed up by two more stories, since ultimately that would be a reason against believing any story at all, including obliging you to second guess everything you were taught by your parents. The final reason for not believing story A is believing story B instead.
Both I and Henke show this attitude.
I have quoted how Henke shows it : his ultimate reason against Genesis 3 being his belief that "an ancient Earth" (presumably beyond the 7000 + years accorded by Biblical chronology, and presumably very far beyond it, nearly 7 million times beyond it) is not a story, but reality itself. That is exactly how little he realises a very basic reality, that, reality or not reality, Henke learned this precisely as a story.
Now, the two principles where we disagree (when evaluating stories, apart from belief systems) are:
·
o I believe that most people under most circumstances behave like the NYT journalist and like people believing him so that a story presented as historic fact should be believed until there are specific reasons to doubt it;
o Henke believes that journalistic standards of some paper (perhaps NYT, perhaps some other, certainly peer reviewed journals) are an exceptional mild breeeze of sanity in an overall hurricane of human irrationality;
·
o Henke believes that reconstruction by scientific agreed on standards of research is a fairly safe way at arriving at truth, also about the past, even without support from stories;
o I believe that is another example of the trope "history lost and spectacularily recovered" which is, on my view, the real bad thing not to believe, which unfortunately Mormons believed about Golden Plates, some Scientologists (perhaps not lower levels) about Xenu, and Evolutionists about Millions and Billions of Years.
I don't think this adds up to Henke being and me not being the sceptic in this debate. For that matter, it need not add up to me being and Henke not being the sceptic in this debate either.
That's why I think a certain concentration on actual arguments and refraining from ad hominem's like Henke's would be a good idea.
Because, obviously, it was a very grave ad hominem and also a claim of authority on Henke's part, to state, in essence "I am the sceptic between me and HGL, therefore I am the one who can tell what one should be sceptic about."”
Here, Mr. Lundahl is wrong. Our ability to be skeptical is not entirely molded by our parents. To be exact, parental influences may not even be a major factor in how we view political, religious, social and scientific claims, especially if we have formal training in logic and critical thinking. Learning to be skeptical is a never-ending process and comes with experience. Most of us by the time we get into our teens come to recognize that our parents, teachers, politicians, and other authorities are not always right about what they believe, say and do. When we see that individuals are fallible, we automatically begin to doubt their claims in those and other situations. This is the beginning of a child’s training in skepticism. Throughout our lives, we make mistakes and we are not always as skeptical as we should be. Nevertheless, from our mistakes, we learn to be more skeptical and careful.
As part of our training, scientists are further taught to be skeptical of claims and use the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses (e.g., Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20). The Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses also teaches individuals to minimize their biases and to try to not show unwarranted favoritism in their evaluation of hypotheses. Of course, no one is perfectly objective, but at least the procedures are there to minimize biases and maximize objectivity. So, by the time scientists and others go through training, they’re very likely to have left behind many of the political, religious and other dogmas that their parents might have instilled in them.
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.