|
|
|
shank
New Member
Singapore
9 Posts |
 Posted - 06/28/2001 : 08:57:36
|
The hardcore skeptic is an unpleasant person...got an unpleasant personality.
Besides it is counter productive to science. The argument that there is no mathematical proof that violence on TV has bad infleunce on kids. The tobacco lobbys denial of any mathematical linking it and cancer. It is skepticism turned against science
...the many Brit professors who denigrated the Wright brothers for beleiving in 'heavier than air' flight.
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 09:07:12 [Permalink]
|
What is the definition of skeptic that we're working with on this forum, anyway?
quote:
The hardcore skeptic is an unpleasant person...got an unpleasant personality.
Besides it is counter productive to science. The argument that there is no mathematical proof that violence on TV has bad infleunce on kids. The tobacco lobbys denial of any mathematical linking it and cancer. It is skepticism turned against science
...the many Brit professors who denigrated the Wright brothers for beleiving in 'heavier than air' flight.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 09:33:12 [Permalink]
|
Not everybody who refuses to *belive* something is a skeptic in my eyes. (Otherwise those creationists refusing to belive in evolution would be skeptics.)
A Skeptic is somebody who refuses to belive in concepts because of scientific or logical reasons. Somebody who refuses to belive in something because it would shatter his worldview or cost him money and then tries to employ science to proof he is right is no true skeptic. (Not even if he turns out that he is right.)
On the other hands Skeptics are humans, too(at least most of them). They are bound to be wrong sometimes. Not because Skepticism can be wrong but because they made a mistake using it.
The true "Hardcore Skeptic" does not fully belive in anything but his own existence. Most of them decide to play, and treat the rest of the universe, wich might be nothing more than a figment of their imagination, as real. (The others get locked up.)
|
|
|
|
shank
New Member
Singapore
9 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 10:10:07 [Permalink]
|
"...A Skeptic is somebody who refuses to belive in concepts because of scientific or logical reasons..."
I think logical is the right word for the true skeptic.
"Scientific" and "peer reviewed" etc is not always necessarily logical, as in the case of those who ridiculed the Wright Bros for believing in heavier than air flight. The Wright Bros were bicycle mechanics and could not have published any peer reviewed articles I bet.
How does a skeptic explain this: watching violence on TV makes the kids more violent. Yes or no? Logic doesnt say much about this. First hand logic says - yes it makes the kid more violent. But then, is the reverse correct? Showing nice programs on TV makes kids nice. I am confused here.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 10:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Scientific" and "peer reviewed" etc is not always necessarily logical, as in the case of those who ridiculed the Wright Bros for believing in heavier than air flight. The Wright Bros were bicycle mechanics and could not have published any peer reviewed articles I bet.
The Wright brothers are a bad example. Firstly, they didn't "believe" in heavier than air flight, they used data and techniques available from gliders to enable them to postulate that "heavier than air" flight is possible. They designed, engineered, and tested every step of the way. If you peruse their remaining documents, you'll see they were consummate engineers. There was no belief involved.
As for publishing, there was a race for powered flight during that period; sort of like the X-Prize - the first to patent powered flight. That was worth a LOT of money.
You have to remember, the Wright Brothers were operating in secrecy. In many way theirs was a business venture, and they had some serious european contenders. They would have no more published about their work than Bill Gates would have published a technical description about Altair Basic prior to it's release.
As Lars said, a skeptic is a person who understands that the word "belief" can be a homonym for "gullibility".
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - Bozola on 06/28/2001 10:52:59 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 13:03:36 [Permalink]
|
There's nothing wrong with believing, it's just that you should be aware of it when you do it.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 13:07:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How does a skeptic explain this: watching violence on TV makes the kids more violent. Yes or no? Logic doesnt say much about this. First hand logic says - yes it makes the kid more violent. But then, is the reverse correct? Showing nice programs on TV makes kids nice. I am confused here.
Are there any scientific studies that claim this? Are there any that claim the that it doesn't? This is what a Skeptic should use to form an opinion, yes or no.
But you can think about it logically, though of course it doesn't mean you come to the correct conclusion. Logically, you can say, "Advertisers spend billions of dollars, conduct focus groups, and conduct studies to verify that indeed, a beautiful girl in a swimsuit makes their beer sales go up."
Here we have scientific proof that images on the tv can and do affect peoples' buying habits. Why is it such a stretch to think that violence may in fact affect a child's behavior? Of course, there are a million other variables, so I doubt in the end the answer to your question would ever be a simple yes or no.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 13:08:40 [Permalink]
|
True, but there are so many ways to play with the meaning of the words, 'faith' and 'belief' that I pretty much quit using both words. I try to think instead of believe.
It is important, however, to work to recognize false beliefs.
quote:
There's nothing wrong with believing, it's just that you should be aware of it when you do it.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 14:19:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is important, however, to work to recognize false beliefs.
Absolutely!
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 21:30:41 [Permalink]
|
shank:
In other words, you do not like scientific methods which are skeptical to the utmost, and you do not like skeptics (as you say *hard core*). Why are you here, railing out against something (science) and people (skeptics) you obviously do not enjoy and cannot possibly understand?
I have been a skeptic for as long as I can remember (well before three years of age). Science is a skeptical endeavor. If you knew more about science, you would understand more about that. Skepticism can be a very positive experience. And exciting!
ljbrs
*Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public.*
(H.L. Mencken)
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 22:13:32 [Permalink]
|
The concept regarding violence on TV and violence in children is *desensitization* (?).
But taking skepticism v credulity, I'll take skepticism anyday. I agree with Gorgo regarding recognizing false beliefs. *Believing* something to be true does not necessarily make it true.
As for the hardcore skeptic, it really depends upon the individual, as most things do. Otherwise, the classification falls under prejudice.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 22:28:57 [Permalink]
|
right on trish
folks need to distinguish between a gut feeling about something and real objective and reproducable evidence. i think that there may be a correlation between vilence on tv and some children's behavior, but i cannot demonstrate that my opnion is true.
I love your ending.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
[/quote]
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2001 : 23:08:18 [Permalink]
|
I think that the type of skepticism being discussed on this board is a kind of skepticism formed out of scientific inquiry. The "data driven decision making" mantra repeated ad nauseum in corporate culture. The issue is that it is possible to form data driven opinions and still be a victim of fallacious reasoning. A simple example is one who makes a decision based on a questionable correlation (ie. non-orthogonality). The quality of data is just as important, or more so than the amount.
The real hard-core skeptic would be a sort of Neo-Platonist. One who questions any "knowlege" derived from sensory sources. The only "true" knowlege is derived purely by our intellect (ie. mathematics, logic...). In the extreme, one who holds this view could argue that there is no physical reality at all. How's that for a real attention-grabber at a party?
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 00:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
right on trish
hee, hee....thanks....
As for the ending - well - I saw it on a bumper sticker (I like it).
quote:
In the extreme, one who holds this view could argue that there is no physical reality at all.
Your refering to TAESD? (Temporary Association of Empirical Sense Data).
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
