Chapter 20 Chapter 17 The Marriage of Skepticism and Curiosity

When we are asked to swear in American courts that we will tell "the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth," we are being asked to do the impossible.Apparently the oath is completely beyond our capabilities.Our memory is not immune to errors, and even scientific truths are only approximations.And we're pretty much ignorant of the entire universe.However, perhaps a person's life depends on our testimony.Swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth to the extent we can, is a reasonable request.Without this restrictive phrase, the requirement is absolutely unsatisfactory.But such a limitation, though consistent with human reality, cannot be accepted by any legal system.If everyone told the truth based solely on their own judgment, then indictable or embarrassing facts would be concealed, events would be covered up, crimes would be concealed, responsibility would be evaded, and justice would be denied.Therefore, what the law strives for is an impossible precise standard, and we can only do our best.

In selecting jury members, the court needs to ensure that the verdict is based on the facts.This requires a tremendous effort to remove bias.Courts recognize human flaws.Does the proposed juror have a personal relationship with the district attorney, plaintiff, or defense attorney?What about the judge and other jurors?Do jurors form their opinions from facts laid out in court or from pre-trial propaganda?Do jurors give more or less weight to evidence from the police than evidence from defense witnesses?Was she biased against the ethical leanings of the defense?Did the juror live near the crime scene, thereby compromising her judgment?Does the expert witness have the appropriate scientific background for what she will testify about? (This is often seen against her.) Does she have any relatives or close family members who work in law enforcement or criminal law?Had she herself had an altercation with the police that would have clouded her judgment at trial?Did she have close friends or relatives who were arrested on similar charges?

The American justice system recognizes many factors, such as tendencies, biases, and experiences, that can cloud our judgment or affect our objectivity.Sometimes we don't even realize it ourselves.In criminal trials, the system even goes too far in ensuring that the trial process is immune to the human frailties of those who will decide the guilt or innocence of the accused.Even so, trial procedures have occasionally failed to guarantee impartiality. Why are we always dissatisfied when we ask questions of the natural world, or when we try to make decisions about key questions of politics, economics, religion, and ethics?

If applied consistently, science has many gifts for people.In exchange, science imposes a certain onerous burden: we are told, however uncomfortable we may feel, to look at ourselves and our cultural traditions scientifically and not to accept uncritically what we hear .Overcome our wishful thinking, our egos as much as possible, discard unexamined beliefs, and look at ourselves as they are.Can we sincerely and courageously pursue the study of celestial motion or bacterial genetics wherever it leads us, but declare that the study of matter and the origins of human behavior are "forbidden"?Because the explanatory power of scientific reasoning is so powerful, once you have mastered the art of it you will be eager to apply it everywhere.But in the process of looking deeply at ourselves, we may challenge notions of comfort in the face of a world full of horrors.I realize that some of the discussions in the previous chapters are of this character.

When anthropologists survey the thousands of distinct cultures and races that make up the human family, they are struck by how few traits they share that are always taken for granted, no matter how unusual their societies may be.For example, in some cultures—the Ik people in Uganda being one of them—the Ten Commandments appear to have been systematically and systematically erased.Some societies abandon old people and newborns, others eat their enemies, and others use seashells or pigs or young women as currency.But both strictly forbade incest, both used technology, and almost all believed in otherworldly worlds of gods and spirits—figures of gods and spirits linked to the natural environment in which they lived and the forms of the plants and animals they ate. (Those tribes who believed in a supreme god living in the sky appeared to be the most vicious—such as torturing their enemies. However, this is only a statistical result, and the inner necessary connection has not yet been discovered, although some speculations have arisen naturally.)

In each such society treasures a world of myths and metaphors that coexists with the mundane.People try to unify the two worlds, and the rough border where the two worlds connect is forbidden to be involved and ignored.We separate these two worlds.Some scientists are doing the same, navigating effortlessly between the worlds of skeptical science and credulous religious belief without ignoring a single thing.Of course, the greater the difference between the two worlds, the more disturbed people's undisturbed consciences are. Human life is short and unpredictable. When science can't relieve people's great suffering, it seems cruel to deprive them of the comfort they get through faith.Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts.But we cannot have science piecemeal, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it when we feel threatened, and we are not wise enough to do so.Unless the brain is sealed in a separate airtight chamber, how can one fly a plane, listen to the radio, or inject antibiotics and at the same time think that the earth is only 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarius people are social and friendly? ?

Have I ever heard of a skeptic becoming arrogant and contemptuous of others?certainly.It frustrates me to think that I often even hear that off-putting intonation in my own words.There are human flaws on both sides of the problem.Even when scientific skepticism is applied with care, there can be instances of arrogance, dogma, cruelty, and disregard for the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others.It should be said that some scientists and ardent skeptics use their tools with bluntness and without artifice.Sometimes it seems that skeptical conclusions come first, and arguments are dismissed before the evidence is verified, rather than after.We all value what we believe in.In a way, they are self-explanatory.When someone challenges our belief system on the grounds that it is not well founded, or, like Socrates, simply asks embarrassing questions that we have not considered, or argues for underlying key assumptions that we have discarded, it is It is no longer an intellectual search, but rather a personal attack.

Those scientists who were the first to apotheosize skepticism as the chief virtue of curiosity made it clear that skepticism is a tool rather than an end.René Descartes wrote, I don't try to imitate the skeptic who always pretends to be uncertain, to doubt for doubt's sake; instead, I'm all about being certain, digging away drifts and sand until I reach the rock or clay layer below. In the way skepticism is sometimes applied to matters of public concern, people tend to downplay, belittle, or ignore the fact that proponents of superstition and pseudoscience, whether deceitful or not, have as much truth as skeptics. Emotion, trying to discover how the world works and our possible role in it.In many cases their motivations are aligned with science, and if their culture doesn't equip them with all the tools they need for great quests, let's temper their criticism with kindness, after all, no one is born fully armed of.

Clearly there are limits to the application of skepticism.It is necessary to use some kind of cost-benefit analysis. If mysticism and superstition bring comfort, comfort and hope, and the dangers of such beliefs are correspondingly low, why can't we forgive ourselves?But the problem is complex.Suppose you take a taxi in a big city, and as soon as you sit down, the driver begins to rant about the alleged evil and inferiority of another racial group, knowing that "silence is in favor", should your best response be to remain silent? ?Or are you motivated by a moral duty to argue with him, express your anger, or even get out of the car -- knowing that every silent yes will encourage him to do so next time, and strong dissent will prompt him to do so next time? Think twice?Likewise, if we give too much silent support to mysticism and superstition—even when it seems to be beneficial—we are supporting a climate in which skepticism is considered offensive, science is a nuisance, Rigorous thinking is seen as tedious and out of place.It takes wisdom to strike a prudent balance.

The Council for the Scientific Study of the Paranormal is an organization of scientists, university teachers, magicians, and others who devote their lives to skepticism and investigation of emerging or prevalent pseudosciences.It was founded in 1976 by University at Buffalo philosopher Paul Kertz, and I have been accepted as a member from the beginning.The abbreviation of its name, CSICOP, is pronounced "Sci-Cop" (Science Police)—as if it were an organization of scientists performing police functions.Those exposed by CSICOP's investigations sometimes complain that the committee is hostile to every new idea, that its knee-jerk revelations will reach the point of absurdity, that it is a vigilante organization , a new Inquisition, and so on.

CSICOP is not perfect.In some cases, such criticisms have some merit.But from my point of view, CSICOP fulfills an important social function - as a prestigious organization.Social media can turn to it when they want to hear the other side of a myth, especially when a pseudoscientific claim is deemed newsworthy.Usually (and most of the global news media still is) every levitating guru, alien visiting person, yin and yang communicator and faith healer once in the media spotlight will be unsubstantiated and uncritical treated.There may have been similar claims in TV studios or newspapers and magazines before that proved scandalous and deceitful, yet people seem to have a poor memory for them.Credulity in pseudoscience seems to be second nature to most of the media, and CSI-COP represents a countervailing force, if not quite loud enough. In one of my favorite cartoons, a fortune teller scrutinizes palm prints and sternly concludes, "You're gullible." CSICOP publishes a bimonthly magazine called The Doubtful Inquirer.On the day I received the publication, I took it home from the office to peruse it, wondering what new misconceptions would be revealed.There will always be scams on it that I never thought of.Circles in the Rye!Aliens have come and drawn perfect circles, leaving mathematical messages in the wheat fields! ...who would have thought such a thing would happen?Such an impossibly subtle art form!Or they've come and eviscerated the cows -- massively, systematically.The farmers were annoyed.At first, I was impressed by the creativity of these stories.But then, on more sane reflection, I just see how monotonous and commonplace these reports are.What an unimaginative piece of work: archaic ideas, chauvinism, hopes and fears disguised as facts.Viewed from this point of view, the claim is dubious on the face of it.The only thing they can think of is that aliens did it. ...drawing circles in a wheat field?What a failure of this imagination!In each issue, other aspects of pseudoscience are exposed and critiqued. However, the main shortcoming of the skeptical movement, in my opinion, is its polarization: we fight them - it feels like we have a monopoly on truth; other people who believe all this stupid dogma are morons; You should listen to us; otherwise, you are hopeless.This is unconstructive, it does not spread the message widely, and it dooms the skeptics to a perpetual minority; in light of this, sympathy for the inherently pseudoscientific and superstitious foibles of man may be rejected by more accept. If we understand this, then naturally we will understand the confusion and confusion of those who are abducted, those who dare not leave home without asking the fortune-teller, or those who pin their hopes on the crystal ball from Atlantis. pain.And this sympathy for the same sentiments in the common pursuit also makes science and the scientific method less embarrassing, especially for the young. Many pseudosciences and new age belief systems arose out of dissatisfaction with traditional values ​​and prospects—and thus, a form of skepticism in their own right. (This is also the origin of most religions.) According to David Hayes (in Science and the New Age): Supernatural beliefs and practitioners should not be dismissed simply as fanatics, cranks, and charlatans.Alternative ways of addressing questions about personal meaning, soul, healing, and supernatural experiences are being explored by a multitude of sincere individuals.For skeptics, whose quests are largely based on fantasy, but for the rationalist's goal—to make people realize what seems to the skeptic to be false or inconceivable—revealing is unlikely to be meaningful. A tool for persuasive effect. …Skeptics can take cues from cultural anthropology, develop more maturity by understanding other belief systems from the perspective of those who hold them, and by locating those beliefs in their historical, social, and cultural context skepticism.In this way, the supernatural world may be seen less as a silly turning point toward irrationalism than as a dialect in which segments of society express the contradictions, dilemmas, and personalities they face. When skeptics have a psychological or sociological theory of New Age beliefs, things are pretty simple: supernatural beliefs are a "comfort" for those unable to grasp the reality of an atheistic universe, or say their beliefs are the product of an irresponsible media that discourages critical thinking from the public. ... But Hayes' fair comment immediately degenerates into a complaint: "Skeptical colleagues are undermining the "profession" of a psychiatrist."Skeptics display "a religious fervor in defense of materialist and atheistic worldviews, a flavor of what has been called 'scientific fundamentalism' or 'irrational rationalism''. This is a common, but to me a very incomprehensible - indeed, incomprehensible - complaint.We know a great deal about the existence and properties of matter.If a particular phenomenon is already plausible in terms of matter and energy, why should we assume other—for which there is no good evidence—possibility?And yet the complaint persists: Skeptics won't accept an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage because they're atheistic materialists. In Science and the New Age, skepticism is discussed, but not understood, and certainly not practiced.All sorts of supernaturalistic claims are quoted and skeptics are "destroyed", but you'll never read this book to know how to tell whether New Age and spiritualist claims to knowledge are promising or fallacious.Like a lot of postmodernist writing, it just goes to show how strongly people feel, to what extent their prejudices go. Robert Anton Wilson (in The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Bastion of Science, Phoenix: Falcon Press, 1986 edition) describes the skeptics as "the new Inquisition".But as far as I know, skeptics don't force belief.In fact, on most television documentaries and talk shows, skeptics are treated with indifference and barely air time.All a journal with a circulation of tens of thousands of copies like The Skeptical Inquirer does is criticize certain dogmas and methods—or at best, ridicule them.Followers of New Age religions will not be summoned to criminal court, flogged for imaginativeness, and certainly not burned at the stake, as they were before.Why be afraid of a little criticism?Don't they have an interest in seeing their beliefs stand against all the rebuttals a skeptic can muster? Perhaps there is a one in a hundred chance that the usual pseudoscientific sense of smell, touch, and sight is impossible to perceive, and this idea may prove to be correct.Perhaps some undiscovered reptile left over from the Cretaceous period will indeed be found in Loch Ness or the Republic of Congo in the future; or we will find artifacts of advanced, non-human species from elsewhere in the solar system.At the time of writing this book, there were three propositions in the field of extrasensory perception that, in my opinion, deserved serious study: (1) by thinking alone, a person can (barely) influence a computer's random number generator; (2) Can receive thoughts or images "projected" onto them with moderate sensory loss; (3) Young children sometimes recount details of past lives that have been shown to be accurate, and have no other means than rebirth Know.I present these propositions not because they might be plausible (in fact I disapprove of them), but because they serve as examples of arguments that might be true.The latter three propositions have at least some, though still dubious, experimental support.Of course, maybe I'm wrong. In the mid-1970s an astronomer I admired drafted a solemn statement called "Against Astrology" and asked me to sign it.I disagreed with his wording and ultimately found myself unable to sign it - not because I thought astrology had any validity, but I felt (and still feel) that the tone of the statement was authoritarian. It was critical of astrology The origin of astrology is surrounded by superstition. But the origins of religion, chemistry, medicine, and astronomy are also intertwined with superstition. Here are just four mentioned. The problem is not what occult and incomplete knowledge astrology comes from, the point is Its current plausibility. Then there are speculations about the psychological motivations of those who believe in astrology. These motivations—for example, a sense of powerlessness in a complex, unpredictable world—may explain why Astrology has not been fully investigated by the skeptics it deserves, and its validity has only been dismissed lightly. The statement emphasizes that we can't find any mechanism that might make astrology work, which is certainly a relevant argument, but in itself unprovable.In the first quarter of the 20th century, when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift (now subsumed under plate tectonics) to explain the vast amount of puzzling data in geography and paleontology, (rock The veins and fossils of the minerals seem to extend continuously from South-East America to West Africa; were the two continents once joined, and the Atlantic Ocean new to our planet?) The mechanism of this theory is likewise ignorant .This view was vehemently rejected by all eminent geographers, who were convinced that the continents were fixed, not floating on anything, and therefore could not "drift".Yet the key concept in 20th century geophysics turned out to be plate tectonics.We now know that continental plates do indeed float and "drift" (or rather, are carried by a kind of conveyor belt driven by a giant heat engine inside the Earth).And all these great geographers were wrong.It is erroneous to dismiss pseudoscience on the grounds that it cannot find a working mechanism—although such refutations carry weight if the arguments violate established laws of physics. Many powerful criticisms of astrology can be expressed in the following points: for example, it uses the precession of equinoxes when predicting the "Age of Aquarius", but rejects the precession of equinoxes when using astrological charts for fortune-telling; it ignores atmospheric refraction ; the celestial objects it considers significant are limited to objects visible to the naked eye (known to Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD), while ignoring the large number of new objects discovered since then (using astrology of near-Earth asteroids Where is the technique?).It is obviously inconsistent to require details of the time of birth without regard to the latitude and longitude of the time of birth.Astrology fails tests for identical twins; different astrologers tell fortunes from the same birth information with vastly different results; unexplained correlation between astrological horoscopes and psychological tests like the Minnesota Diverse Personality Assessment . The statement I wish to sign should describe and refute the basic tenets of astrological belief.Such a statement should carry more force than the one actually circulated and published.But astrology, which has been with us for 4,000 years or more, seems more popular today than ever.According to polls, at least 1/4 of Americans "believe" in astrology; 1/3 think sun sign astrology is "scientific"; percentage of school children who believe in astrology increased from 40% in 1978 to 1984 59%.There are perhaps ten times as many astrologers in the United States as there are astronomers; in France there are more astrologers than Roman Catholic priests.The self-righteous dismissal of a bunch of scientists doesn't serve society's needs in the same way that astrology can - no matter how ineffective it may be - science cannot. As I have tried to emphasize, at the heart of science is the balancing of two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, however outlandish and counterintuitive, and an openness to all ideas, new or old. The most ruthlessly skeptical investigation.This is how to separate the deep truth from the extreme fallacy.The combination of creative and skeptical thinking works synergistically to keep the field of research on track, despite a certain tension between these two seemingly contradictory attitudes. Consider this proposition: as I walk straight ahead, time—as measured by my watch or my aging process—slows down; and, in the direction of motion, I shrink; and, I become heavier.Has anyone seen this happen?It's easy to dismiss it immediately.Another proposition: In the entire universe, at all times, matter and antimatter arose out of nothing.The third: At one very special moment, your car automatically passes through the brick wall of your garage, and you find it on the street the next morning.They are all ridiculous!But the first is a proposition of special relativity, and the other two are corollaries of quantum mechanics (they're called vacuum pulsations and barrier tunneling).Whether you like it or not, this is the way the world is.If you insist that it is absurd, you will forever be locked out of some great discovery of the laws that govern the universe. If you just doubt, no new ideas will get you around, and you will never learn anything.You become an eccentric misanthrope who thinks that absurdity rules the world. (Of course, there will be a lot of data to support your opinion.) Since important discoveries at the fringes of science are so rare, experience tends to confirm your complaints.But every now and then a new idea turns out to be relevant, valid and brilliant.If you are too determined and uncompromisingly skeptical, you will miss (or resent) transforming scientific discoveries, and in both cases you are hindering understanding and progress.Mere skepticism is not enough. At the same time, science demands the strongest and most uncompromising skepticism, because most ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to sift the wheat from the chaff is through critical experimentation and analysis.If you're open-minded to the point of blind faith without an iota of skepticism, you won't be able to tell the difference between a promising idea and a worthless one.To uncritically accept every concept, idea, and assumption someone else puts forward is tantamount to knowing nothing.Many ideas are in conflict with each other; only by skeptical investigation can it be discerned that some ideas are indeed better than others. A judicious mixture of these two ways of thinking is the key to scientific success.Good scientists have both ways of thinking.In solitude, talking to themselves, they generate many new ideas and criticize them systematically.Most of these ideas will never be released to the outside world.Only those ideas that pass a rigorous self-filter are released for judgment by the rest of the scientific community. With such stubborn criticism and self-criticism, and appropriate reliance on experimentation, as the arbiter of debates between various hypotheses, many scientists still lack the confidence to speak of their own experiences of wonder when bold ideas are at hand.This is a pity, because it is precisely this rare moment of ecstasy that demystifies and humanizes scientific work. No one can be completely open-minded or doubt everything, we all have to establish a line somewhere.An ancient Chinese proverb advises, "It's better to trust what you have than to trust what you have not", but this comes from a deeply conservative society, where stability is valued more than freedom, and the rulers have huge vested interests that do not want to be challenged.I believe that most scientists will say, "It is better to believe that there is nothing than to believe that there is something".But doing neither is easy.Responsible, comprehensive, rigorous skepticism requires a solid habit of mind that can be mastered by practice and discipline.Credulity—I think a better word here would be "openness" or curiosity—is not easy to do either.If we're really into physics.To open our minds to counter-intuitive ideas of society or any other kind of organization, we have to embrace those ideas.There is no point in accepting claims that we do not understand.Both skepticism and curiosity are skills that need to be honed and practiced.Bringing them into a harmonious marriage in the minds of students should be the basic goal of public education.I would love to see such a family bliss in the media, especially on TV: people really creating fusion - curious, tolerant of every insight, not rejecting anything unless there is a good reason idea.And at the same time, as a second characteristic, the evidence is required to meet strict standards—and these standards should be applied to their cherished views at least as rigorously as they are when they are judged for trying to reject them with impunity.