Talk:Skepticism/Archive1

Shermer
Reading some of Michael Shermer's stuff, he strikes me as a professional skeptic. Not that that is a Bad Thing per se, but he doesn't seem to fully grasp the pseudoscience du jour that he writes about...dismissing it out-of-hand. I like my debunking with a bit more meat on its bones, thank you very much. CЯacke ® 16:56, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Rob, my boy, you've got to read more Shermer...he does his homework. His regular SciAm column is great.--PalMD-yada yada 21:10, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe it's me but his column comes off a bit know-it-ally, but w/o going into detail. There's an old saying, Those who think they know everything are a real pain in the ass for those of us who actually DO. Most of mine's readings of his ARE from SciAm. CЯacke ®
 * Well, I've always found your judgement sound, so I'll buy what you've got to say.--PalMD-yada yada 21:22, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
 * But I'm calling the FBI because you disagreed with me...I'm filing a federal case.--PalMD-yada yada 21:23, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh let me do it, I am getting really good at IC3. 24.141.169.255 21:25, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Theories produce evidence?
The article says: My theory of science may be at fault but I thought that theories produced testable predictions. (OK if these turn out to be true then this is evidence the theory is correct - but if the predictions are not "true then it's evidence the theory is wrong.) Even stranger is the idea that suggestions produce evidence. Isn't this all the wrong way round? Surely we start with evidence and go from there to produce theories and suggestions. I was going to change it to read that - but then I saw that that would throw the subsequent sentence out -as it goes back to evidence. Unless somebody thinks I'm wrong I'll change it later.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Theories and suggestions that produce evidence and are deemed logically coherent are kept, while those that fail this test are rejected - but, very importantly, nothing is ever held above this challenge.
 * Good point, I clarified it. But in the nature of real research, it's often difficult to know whether you start with theory and find evidence or you start with evidence and find a theory. Usually it's a mix of both and it part of a long chain of "idea" > "testing" > "idea" > "testing" that it's a bit chicken and egg. 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The new wording is better.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)