Is Skepticism Ridiculous?

[Ginkgo]

there remains no logically necessary connection between events...

one man's cause...

-Imp

That's true, but we need to be careful not to fall into a psychological explanation for causation. Prior to science, philosophy was full of causation from a subjective perspective. Superstition more so. Such psychological explanations are well documented in the ancient world. A typical example would be an ancient civilization that performs human sacrifice every Spring in order to guarantee the rains arrive on time in order to produce an abundant harvest. From the point of view of the Ancients, actually performing the ceremony causes the rains to arrive. If the rains don't arrive then it is because the Gods are displeased.

In terms of modern science we don't need to know "why" the rains didn't arrive. Science is more interested in causation in terms of "how". We know the "how" in terms of casual relationships that exist because it has something to do with the weather patterns. The warm oceans currents are the cause of Spring rains in this region. If the warm current don't arrive then the rains don't arrive.

However, if you are saying that Hume's fork is still relevant to modern science, then I would have to agree with you on that point.

[uwot]

No need; I have already read your article. It's well written,

Why, thank you.

but has its flaws

Flaws, sir? FLAWS? Oh very well, it's not perfect.

because Greek philosophy was a lot more than about empiricism.

Well even with it's flaws, I did acknowledge that there was at least maths and logic too. The specific point was that the way we do thinking these days, a jumble of those two and empiricism, can be traced directly to the three first schools of pre-Socratic philosophy. Lack of space, and indeed total irrelevance to the thesis, prevented me from mentioning the pluralists and sophists, or indeed any of the post Socrates schools.

Pythagoras, for instance, had a holistic and occultic worldview.

I did mention that he was a cult leader.

He believed in the Harmony of the Sheres and the divine nature of music, and also believed in metempsychosis. The Pythagoreans also performed Orphic rites, and also believed in a divine creator. A few websites can inform you more on this:

Wikipedia, eh?

Another thing is that you did not completely address what I said. I suggest looking into comparative religion and into the ancient world. Here's one good website called Biblioteca Arcana.

Some other time.
The point I make in a lot of other threads is that some people start with a premise, 'god exists', 'there is something called beon' for example, and then spend a great deal of time creating a coherent narrative that supports this premise; it's how astrology, psycho-analysis, religion, racism, sexism and all the tutti-frutti fruit-loopery you can shake a stick at, works. It is a silly way of doing things.
As a badge wearing empiricist, I have to accept that it is possible that:

...the gods of antiquity were named after stars and planets,

I have always assumed it was the other way round. Still do.

[Wyman]

WanderingLands wrote:
...the gods of antiquity were named after stars and planets,

I have always assumed it was the other way round. Still do.

That's priceless.

[Wyman]

there remains no logically necessary connection between events...

one man's cause...

-Imp

That's true, but we need to be careful not to fall into a psychological explanation for causation. Prior to science, philosophy was full of causation from a subjective perspective. Superstition more so. Such psychological explanations are well documented in the ancient world. A typical example would be an ancient civilization that performs human sacrifice every Spring in order to guarantee the rains arrive on time in order to produce an abundant harvest. From the point of view of the Ancients, actually performing the ceremony causes the rains to arrive. If the rains don't arrive then it is because the Gods are displeased.

In terms of modern science we don't need to know "why" the rains didn't arrive. Science is more interested in causation in terms of "how". We know the "how" in terms of casual relationships that exist because it has something to do with the weather patterns. The warm oceans currents are the cause of Spring rains in this region. If the warm current don't arrive then the rains don't arrive.

However, if you are saying that Hume's fork is still relevant to modern science, then I would have to agree with you on that point.

I'm not really impressed with your and uwot's and others' division between 'how' and 'why' explanations. Its seems too semantical. I agree that there is no 'logical necessity' underlying the idea of causation, but it seems at this point in philosophy, especially British/American empiricism, that the whole idea of 'logical necessity' is wrapped up in the idea of 'causation, ' and specifically, Hume's attack on that idea.

Isn't the crux of the distinction between ancient explanations for events (gods and such) and modern explanations - not psychological versus empirical, or subjective versus objective, or why versus how, or logical versus contingent - but useful vs. less useful?

[uwot]

I'm not really impressed with your and uwot's and others' division between 'how' and 'why' explanations.

From my point of view, the division is between 'how/why' and 'what'. 'How' and 'why' are philosophical questions; they don't actually make any difference to 'what'. You can do perfectly good science without how and why, it's debatable how much progress you would make, but the vast majority of jobbing scientists, for all their stirling efforts, make bugger all difference to science. What Kuhn called normal science is a bit dreary.

Isn't the crux of the distinction between ancient explanations for events (gods and such) and modern explanations - not psychological versus empirical, or subjective versus objective, or why versus how, or logical versus contingent - but useful vs. less useful?

'What' happens, is the domain of science. In order for it to be useful, it needs to be controllable; to do that, you need to know how much x you need to effect y; for that you need maths, the more accurate the better. There are some (philosophically naive) scientists who assume that the mathematical models reflect reality. Maybe they do, but it doesn't follow from, for example, the fact that 4D Minkowski spacetime is very useful for explaining General Relativity, that spacetime exists.

[Wyman]

I'm not really impressed with your and uwot's and others' division between 'how' and 'why' explanations.

From my point of view, the division is between 'how/why' and 'what'. 'How' and 'why' are philosophical questions; they don't actually make any difference to 'what'. You can do perfectly good science without how and why, it's debatable how much progress you would make, but the vast majority of jobbing scientists, for all their stirling efforts, make bugger all difference to science. What Kuhn called normal science is a bit dreary.

Isn't the crux of the distinction between ancient explanations for events (gods and such) and modern explanations - not psychological versus empirical, or subjective versus objective, or why versus how, or logical versus contingent - but useful vs. less useful?

'What' happens, is the domain of science. In order for it to be useful, it needs to be controllable; to do that, you need to know how much x you need to effect y; for that you need maths, the more accurate the better. There are some (philosophically naive) scientists who assume that the mathematical models reflect reality. Maybe they do, but it doesn't follow from, for example, the fact that 4D Minkowski spacetime is very useful for explaining General Relativity, that spacetime exists.

But we and the ancients ask things like 'Why does the sun rise in the east every morning'' 'How does rain fall from the sky?' 'Why is the sky blue?' Or more advanced: 'Why do objects move continuously in one direction until acted upon?' 'Why does light move at a constant speed.' 'How does gravity affect an object?'

I see questions like 'What is gravity?' or 'What is light made of?' as equally meaningful questions that scientists attempt to answer. Granted, these are questions in ordinary English and not in technical scientific terminology.

The philosophical point to be made, if any, is that the answers to these questions contain no logical necessity. But neither did ancient explanations. What separates science is the usefulness of its hypotheses and explanations - not their form, and not their psychological origins.

[Ginkgo]

But we and the ancients ask things like 'Why does the sun rise in the east every morning'' 'How does rain fall from the sky?' 'Why is the sky blue?' Or more advanced: 'Why do objects move continuously in one direction until acted upon?' 'Why does light move at a constant speed.' 'How does gravity affect an object?'

I see questions like 'What is gravity?' or 'What is light made of?' as equally meaningful questions that scientists attempt to answer. Granted, these are questions in ordinary English and not in technical scientific terminology.

Overall, I guess it boils down to how we attempt to answer such questions. More importantly, it is probably the answer we come up with that make the difference. In the end science and metaphysical both attempt to answer the question about how the world is. We usually do it using an ontological explanation.

Both science and metaphysics do ontology, but it is the answer that both disciplines come up with turns out to be the important difference. In other words, science and metaphysics posit different entities that exist and the casual relation that exists between such entities.

Scientific ontology posits such things as "the law of gravity". An example of this law might be the effect on objects when subject to acceleration. The important bit is the type of entities proposed and the casual relationship that exists between entities.

The philosophical point to be made, if any, is that the answers to these questions contain no logical necessity. But neither did ancient explanations. What separates science is the usefulness of its hypotheses and explanations - not their form, and not their psychological origins.

I agree that "useful" and "less useful" is not a bad way of putting it. One can perform a rain dance every day of the week until one becomes blue in the face but this ritual will never cause it to rain. On the other hand one can perform the 'ritual' of seeding the clouds with silver iodine. Silver iodine may or may not cause it to rain, but I know where my money would be in terms of possibility.

[uwot]

The philosophical point to be made, if any, is that the answers to these questions contain no logical necessity. But neither did ancient explanations. What separates science is the usefulness of its hypotheses and explanations - not their form, and not their psychological origins.

There is a thick streak of pragmatism, instrumentalism and other ways of expressing the usefulness of science, but it's usefulness is largely down to it ignoring causality and metaphysics in its day to day work. As Newton pointed out, (hypotheses non fingo) it doesn't make any difference to the usefulness of his laws of gravity what you think is causing it.
It doesn't follow from the fact that 4D spacetime is useful, that it exists. There are numerous 'metaphysical' alternatives to General Relativity, if you Google that, you will find plenty that are put forward by reputable scientists, but the fact is that the idea of a subtance that can be 'warped' generates mathematics that can describe the observed behaviour better than any other.
As you know, huge efforts have gone into describing the universe in terms of multiple dimensions, notably in string theory. Personally, I think this is an example of seriously clever people making the same mistake as conspiracy nuts and theists, in that they have started with a premise, ' strings exist' and battered it with heavy duty sums, with, so far, not a lot to show for it.
The thing is, even if some better description of gravity, one that is consistent with QM, is discovered, that will not prove that the premise is true. We can never know that our current theory is a 'true' representation, because (different thread, I know) as I said in Philosophy's Roots and Branches, you simply cannot be sure that a more powerful atom smasher or telescope, or more advanced mathematics won't tell a different story. That will always be true. In the meantime, science gets on with what works best.

[Conde Lucanor]

So basically you say that a mature skeptic avoids all propositions,

Straw man fallacy. No, I didn't say he avoids all propositions, I said he avoids all presuppositions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

pre•sup•pose /ˌprisəˈpoʊz/ v. [not: be + ~-ing], -posed, -pos•ing.

to suppose to be true; take for granted in advance.


proposition /ˌprɒpəˈzɪʃən/ n

a proposal or topic presented for consideration
the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and is capable of being true or false
a statement or theorem, usually containing its proof

----------------------------------------------------------------------

...and yet still clings on to the proposition that everything is material and can be explained by mere empirical science?

No, he doesn't just cling to it blindly, assuming, presupposing that it's true. He starts by assuming that it is not true until proven true. Once it's proven true, then it can be added to our knowledge as a realistic view of something.

If you want to be a true skeptic, I'd say that even the materialist thinking should be brought to as equal question, as materialist science is as much as a belief system, just the same as things like superstition.

No, it is not. We know about the materialistic nature of the world, it's there to be grasped, measured and its laws discovered, discussed and submitted to intense scrutiny to refine, corroborate or even disprove previous hypothesis. That is not a belief system. Blind beliefs of religion and other superstitions cannot stand this scrutiny.

Myths contain a ton of questions and teachings that have carried on into philosophy and existence. For example, many of the myths have developed out of making sense of natural forces,

But the advances of our scientific knowledge allow us to state with overwhelming certainty that what used to make sense to myth (like weather phenomenon being the personification of a divine entity's mood), was utterly nonsense. Myth is ignorance of the true forces behind reality and it is bad for mankind.

There are also teachings and questions which philosophy has carried on, such as the question of divinity, and the teachings of morals and human nature.

With disastrous results for humanity. Only when man began to be "at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life", that is, with the advances of science and secularism, that human progress has been possible.

[WanderingLands]

Straw man fallacy. No, I didn't say he avoids all propositions, I said he avoids all presuppositions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

pre•sup•pose /ˌprisəˈpoʊz/ v. [not: be + ~-ing], -posed, -pos•ing.

to suppose to be true; take for granted in advance.


proposition /ˌprɒpəˈzɪʃən/ n

a proposal or topic presented for consideration
the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and is capable of being true or false
a statement or theorem, usually containing its proof

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry if I said propisition; I did mean to say presupposition. However, it's still nonetheless a belief system, as you have defined it (concerning materialism).

No, it is not. We know about the materialistic nature of the world, it's there to be grasped, measured and its laws discovered, discussed and submitted to intense scrutiny to refine, corroborate or even disprove previous hypothesis. That is not a belief system. Blind beliefs of religion and other superstitions cannot stand this scrutiny.

But there could be more to the Universe than just the material laws, or the idea that's it's all matter. Various research has been done, for example, on consciousness, such as altered states and near-death experiences which are connected to spiritual and religious experiences. Tied into that, I've made a post entitled, "The Emotional Aspect of Spirituality & God" where I have shown articles that showcase the benefits in prayer and meditation.

With a great deal of information that falls away from the materialistic point of view of science, it is quite clear that materialism is just as much of a dogmatic belief system as religion, for the view does not allow other things than matter to be predominant. This has been shown in real life, where the scientific establishment has been long known to simply reject 'dissidents' that do not agree with that world view, or any of the orthodox beliefs that are held in that establishment.

But the advances of our scientific knowledge allow us to state with overwhelming certainty that what used to make sense to myth (like weather phenomenon being the personification of a divine entity's mood), was utterly nonsense. Myth is ignorance of the true forces behind reality and it is bad for mankind.

But there has been research in synthesizing and explaining myths and symbols with research into forces, as propounded in plasma physics and cosmology. There's actually documentaries called, "Symbols of Alien Sky" and "Thunderbolts of the Gods", done by the Thunderbolts Project that does that.

With disastrous results for humanity. Only when man began to be "at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life", that is, with the advances of science and secularism, that human progress has been possible.

"Science" and secularism has brought as much disaters for humanity, just as with religious societies in the past. People are still uneducated (and miseducated), and are now degenerating through being conditioned to materialistic pleasures in mass media. There are many increase of problems in modern secular society, with depression and overall angst in newer generations. There's not really that much "progress" in this society as it is thought, no matter the "advances".

[Conde Lucanor]

Sorry if I said propisition; I did mean to say presupposition. However, it's still nonetheless a belief system, as you have defined it (concerning materialism).

There's a close relation between skepticism and natural, materialistic sciences, but the two must not be confused as the same. Skepticism is about doubt of any assertion and natural science is about assertions of a particular kind. Skepticism is a filtering mechanism, through which materialistic science aims to objective, true knowledge of nature, being compelled to guarantee independent verification of its findings.

If there were presuppositions in a scientific, materialistic, natural view of reality, they would be completely different than presuppositions of common, plain "belief systems". What we could call scientific presuppositions (i.e. the universality and necessity of causal regularities) are substantiated, methodological and preliminary principles, ready to be dismissed as knowledge advances. Religious presuppositions are unsubstantiated, arbitrary, conclusive and dogmatic principles.

The essence of skepticism is to be doubtful at the first encounter with propositional statements about reality, giving room for analysis and research before holding those claims as preliminary truths. Skepticism just holds judgement until there's a good set of logical and/or scientific evidence. When facing propositional statements about reality that cannot be proven on empirical basis, skepticism resorts to logic, which might yield a result in terms of probabilities, without granting complete assurance.

When there's none (logical or empirical), skepticism holds judgement completely: it will not claim that something does not have a cause as being proposed, it will only claim that these statements are just that: hypothetical propositions without proof.

A belief system as that of religion and other naive approaches to reality is completely different: it accepts by blind faith, as they come, propositional statements about reality, out of trust and respect to doctrinal authorities. That's the essence of credulity, not giving room for analysis and research before taking position. Positions are taken before any methodological inquiry, before any proof has been submitted. It also takes the opposite route of the skeptical approach: if something can exist in our rational minds, not only despite of, but because of not having any empirical evidence, it can be regarded as actually existing in reality. A belief system will come with propositional statements of reality like this: "I propose the existence of unicorns in a remote, unknowable, unreachable corner of the universe. Since no one can refute this on empirical evidence, unicorns must exist and any skepticism is ungrounded". Replace unicorns with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulu, Yahve, Allah, Zeus, Odin, a Supreme Energy...whatever comes to your mind, the formula works the same.

But there could be more to the Universe than just the material laws, or the idea that's it's all matter.

And there you go with the believer's formula: there could be unicorns, as well. Or there could be another type of matter and another set of material laws. We can speculate and believe anything we want, but to believe something is not equal to assert something.

Various research has been done, for example, on consciousness, such as altered states and near-death experiences which are connected to spiritual and religious experiences.

Consciousness, from a naturalistic point of view, relates to brain activity. The brain is a physical, biological organ, made of matter, therefore consciousness, as far as we know, is a product of physical, material processes of a biological system. No one has found empirical evidence of a consciousness outside a human brain. Even near-death experiences are described as experiences of flesh and bone individuals, living human beings.

Of consciousness, if presupposed to be a supernatural phenomena, there's nothing that can be said in terms of realism. How would it be possible to adopt a natural, realistic point of view of a supernatural reality, if by defining it as "supernatural" we are also acknowledging that it has to look unrealistic? We would have no grounds to judge if it makes sense, because making sense belongs to the realm of the natural. We are forced to consider such claims as absurd. Unless...it weren't supernatural.

Tied into that, I've made a post entitled, "The Emotional Aspect of Spirituality & God" where I have shown articles that showcase the benefits in prayer and meditation.

I praise your intentions, but I have a clear, realistic understanding that, other than placebo effect, prayer has no effect on external reality.

With a great deal of information that falls away from the materialistic point of view of science, it is quite clear that materialism is just as much of a dogmatic belief system as religion, for the view does not allow other things than matter to be predominant. This has been shown in real life, where the scientific establishment has been long known to simply reject 'dissidents' that do not agree with that world view, or any of the orthodox beliefs that are held in that establishment.

As explained above, this is just your confusion regarding the methodological doubts of science, its naturalistic principles and its capacity to make assertions that can be regardes as objective truths. Religion takes a totally different approach.

But there has been research in synthesizing and explaining myths and symbols with research into forces, as propounded in plasma physics and cosmology. There's actually documentaries called, "Symbols of Alien Sky" and "Thunderbolts of the Gods", done by the Thunderbolts Project that does that.

I'm not too familiar with proponents of these theories, but it seems obvious to me that they just propose alternative cosmological theories within materialistic physics and they insert their astronomical models, highly speculative and hypothetical, into an explanation of cultural events. More than scientific research, it looks like the usual journalistic endeavor (the kind you will find in Von Daniken) that revolves around so called "unsolved mysteries".

"Science" and secularism has brought as much disaters for humanity, just as with religious societies in the past. People are still uneducated (and miseducated), and are now degenerating through being conditioned to materialistic pleasures in mass media. There are many increase of problems in modern secular society, with depression and overall angst in newer generations. There's not really that much "progress" in this society as it is thought, no matter the "advances".

That's a long subject to deal with, but science and technological advances are just instrumental to material progress, they do not pretend to produce by themselves moral or ethical systems. The goals and objectives are to be defined at the levels of society where political and economical power resides. But if we believe that truth-seeking is essential to moral systems as guidance for our actions, we are compelled to use the most powerful instruments of knowledge that can yield a high degree of certainty about the mechanisms of reality. So far, that is only achievable through rational, methodological sciences, which seek for proof and constant revision of their findings. Religion, no matter how good its intentions might be, cannot achieve that, it actually opposes such a methodological approach to reality.

It is perfectly possible to conciliate a humanist dimension with material progress, as current trends of secular humanism advocate, which could also imply that technology be used for peaceful social and cultural development.

[Arising_uk]

Have to say Conde,
I like your thoughts and your writing style.

If you are not a natural English speaker then I'm doubly impressed by your writing.

[artisticsolution]

Wow Conde...that is something coming from arising! Hat off to ya!

[WanderingLands]

There's a close relation between skepticism and natural, materialistic sciences, but the two must not be confused as the same. Skepticism is about doubt of any assertion and natural science is about assertions of a particular kind. Skepticism is a filtering mechanism, through which materialistic science aims to objective, true knowledge of nature, being compelled to guarantee independent verification of its findings.

If there were presuppositions in a scientific, materialistic, natural view of reality, they would be completely different than presuppositions of common, plain "belief systems". What we could call scientific presuppositions (i.e. the universality and necessity of causal regularities) are substantiated, methodological and preliminary principles, ready to be dismissed as knowledge advances. Religious presuppositions are unsubstantiated, arbitrary, conclusive and dogmatic principles.

The essence of skepticism is to be doubtful at the first encounter with propositional statements about reality, giving room for analysis and research before holding those claims as preliminary truths. Skepticism just holds judgement until there's a good set of logical and/or scientific evidence. When facing propositional statements about reality that cannot be proven on empirical basis, skepticism resorts to logic, which might yield a result in terms of probabilities, without granting complete assurance.

When there's none (logical or empirical), skepticism holds judgement completely: it will not claim that something does not have a cause as being proposed, it will only claim that these statements are just that: hypothetical propositions without proof.

A belief system as that of religion and other naive approaches to reality is completely different: it accepts by blind faith, as they come, propositional statements about reality, out of trust and respect to doctrinal authorities. That's the essence of credulity, not giving room for analysis and research before taking position. Positions are taken before any methodological inquiry, before any proof has been submitted. It also takes the opposite route of the skeptical approach: if something can exist in our rational minds, not only despite of, but because of not having any empirical evidence, it can be regarded as actually existing in reality. A belief system will come with propositional statements of reality like this: "I propose the existence of unicorns in a remote, unknowable, unreachable corner of the universe. Since no one can refute this on empirical evidence, unicorns must exist and any skepticism is ungrounded". Replace unicorns with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulu, Yahve, Allah, Zeus, Odin, a Supreme Energy...whatever comes to your mind, the formula works the same.

The issue that I have with what you said is how you (again) a one-sided dichotomy with associating skepticism and open-ended scrutiny with materialism and mere belief and irrationality with religion and spirituality. This is wrong, because there actually can be a coexistence of a skeptic and scientific point of view with the metaphysical and spiritual ideals. Many great knowledge has actually been attained by the spiritual form of science: acupuncture, alchemy, meditation, homeopathy, etc. Along with that, there have been various scientists such as Nikola Tesla, Viktor Schauberger, Goethe, etc., that have came and brought a much broader worldview in science in trying to explain the universe.

And there you go with the believer's formula: there could be unicorns, as well. Or there could be another type of matter and another set of material laws. We can speculate and believe anything we want, but to believe something is not equal to assert something.

I think that it's erroneous to camp it in with the idea of unicorns existing. I also think it's erroneous to call it a believer's formula

Consciousness, from a naturalistic point of view, relates to brain activity. The brain is a physical, biological organ, made of matter, therefore consciousness, as far as we know, is a product of physical, material processes of a biological system. No one has found empirical evidence of a consciousness outside a human brain. Even near-death experiences are described as experiences of flesh and bone individuals, living human beings.

Near-death experiences relate a lot to spiritual and religious experiences, from surrounding contacts to deities or various entities to being in a place that resembles 'heaven' or 'hell'. Even if 'flesh and bone' individuals are experienced, there is no doubt that the individual experiencing near-death not conscious or 'awake'. If anything, these experiences could mean that consciousness may actually exist outside of our bodies; it's just that further research needs to be done on the subject.

Of consciousness, if presupposed to be a supernatural phenomena, there's nothing that can be said in terms of realism. How would it be possible to adopt a natural, realistic point of view of a supernatural reality, if by defining it as "supernatural" we are also acknowledging that it has to look unrealistic? We would have no grounds to judge if it makes sense, because making sense belongs to the realm of the natural. We are forced to consider such claims as absurd. Unless...it weren't supernatural.

Now you are contradicting yourself; you say that skepticism is about questioning things and that science is supposed to be open to being falsified, and yet you are rejecting the possibility of consciousness and supernatural phenomena just because it doesn't fit into the 'realistic' paradigm.

I praise your intentions, but I have a clear, realistic understanding that, other than placebo effect, prayer has no effect on external reality.

Placebo effects are actually being given serious considerations in clinical research, which goes back to how prayer does have beneficial effects on people. Besides that, judging by your one-sentence response, it seems that you did not look at the studies which were included in that post.

I'm not too familiar with proponents of these theories, but it seems obvious to me that they just propose alternative cosmological theories within materialistic physics and they insert their astronomical models, highly speculative and hypothetical, into an explanation of cultural events. More than scientific research, it looks like the usual journalistic endeavor (the kind you will find in Von Daniken) that revolves around so called "unsolved mysteries".

No, there has been scientific research into plasma physics and cosmology, with people like Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven, and there was also research done by Anthony Peratt which shows resemblances in plasma interactions and prehistoric hieroglyphics.







Source: http://www.robertschoch.com/plasma.html

[Conde Lucanor]

Thank you, Arising_uk and Artisticsolution. One of the reasons I hang around this forum is that it's challenging to my limited English skills. Use it, or lose it, they say.