Skeptics R4 Teapots

   There's a worrying new trend in today's skeptical blogging, podcasting and even in skeptical conversation. The skeptical movement is something I profoundly care about (I won't say "passionately" - people oversue that word far too much. I am committed to skepticism but I do not wish to lick its nipples) but it is being encouraged over a philosophical cliff; whether it is being led by the nose or pushed up the ass I cannot say - maybe you can help.

   The problem is exemplified by the Pod Delusion badge "Russell's Teapot".

   The Pod Delusion is a wonderful skeptical podcast edited and presented by James O'Malley - a man who, although his delivery in early episodes suggested mild autism, has grown into a confident wit and a guide through the emergent skeptical scene. The problem is not him. It's the badge. The badge with the damn teapot.

   I'm not going to stand on a chair at the next Skeptics In The Pub meeting yelling, "I actually studied Philosophy; I outrank you!" for two reasons. 1) there are people with far better and more profound qualifications than I in the room and 2) I am actually one of the dumbest people in that room and that includes a 16 year old boy in that list of cleverer buggers. What I will say is that a strict course of Philosophical study - examining the propositions of humanity's cleverest people and working out why they were wrong - gives you decent analytical skills.

   (not the bogus analytical skills asked for in job applications ..."If I were Freddie Kreuger and I developed anal fissures I would use my analytical skills and realise that taking my glove off before I wiped my arse would probably help" ... "Congratulations. Have a headset and a cubicle")

   As I was saying... I can't help noticing something that happens when people become skeptics. They escape the dogma and conditioning of religion and/or the Daily Mail. Hooray. One less moron in the world. I think ... did you feel that? I think the world actually got a little lighter. So Skeptic Joe reads a few Dawkins books, listens to some podcasts, reads a few blogs. He hears that "undisprovable hypotheses are scientifically worthless" and of Russell's teapot.

   From wikipedia...

   "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

   Suddenly everything is a teapot. The self is a delusion. The mind is merely a bi-product of electrical impulses. Emotions are nothing but deterministic responses, devoid of meaning. Guilt, innocence or justice are abstract and pointless.

   "Look at me," shouts Joe, "I'm an electrical flesh machine racing to oblivion. That's right, I believe in materialism and nothing else. Aren't I brave? The void awaits me. I'm so grown up. Somebody should make a film about me now."

   - sigh - 

   I'm sure you're not like this but maybe you know somebody who is. Skeptics should not be so dismissive, surely. Here is where many immeasurable things differ from God or the teapot.

   They affect the world.

   There are things that unequivocally exist that affect our material universe without being material themselves. Mathematics or geometric principles, for example. Can you find a principle? Or some maths? Can you bring it to me on a bed of lettuce? No. No, you can't.

   What about things like subatomic particles? Are we actually looking at and measuring the particle itself? I'm pretty sure we're measuring only its effects in certain conditions (technically true of everything but that's a semantic debate for another time). Weirder still are purely theoretical things like solid objects with more than three dimensions or the square root of minus one. Both impossible things in out universe but both are (apparently) used in equations and formulae to practical effect.

   My point is that we shouldn't dismiss ideas of different "planes of existence" as just simplistic nonsense. To say a concept or a law or a mind may have existence doesn't mean it's hovering around nearby, only visible in infra-red, leaving ectoplasm behind it. I want to discuss ideas with skeptics precisely because so many bad ideas will have been automatically discarded but a couple of metaphorical babies may have been thrown with all that religious bathwater. I worry that most people wearing the badge of skepticism are also wearing that bloody teapot badge and not entirely getting Russell's point (or at least what I take his point to be). If Russell were a simple materialist his books would have been very different.

   Shorter. Much shorter.

   If I recall correctly he enjoyed raging debates about semantics and meaning and the entire history of Philosophy. That's a whole lot of immaterial, immeasurable ... stuff. The point about his teapot is that in the proposition he points out that he is prepared to redefine it to avoid being proved wrong. That is what makes it absurd and a waste of time.

   I am right and I know I am. Feel free to point out where you think I may have gone wrong (and I'll go back and edit the text. Ha ha! You'll never disprove my ... oh bugger).