|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2001 : 01:02:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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?
Please, let's not. Already went through that phase when I was 12.
Thereafter I have realized that everything is a figment of my imagination. I just wish I had a better imagination 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 02:58:19 [Permalink]
|
Statistics can be very useful for finding out if Smoking causes cancer.
Skepticism to me means using the scientific method to reject bullshit (that term is too mild for some of them) beliefs and find ones that are close to the truth.
That means that those who think evolution occured at not skeptic, those that think no one ever went to the moon are not skeptics and those who claim global warming isn't happening are also not skeptics as there is quite a lot of evidence against their viewpoints and not much for their viewpoints.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2001 : 05:28:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Statistics can be very useful for finding out if Smoking causes cancer.
I agree with the rest of your post, but statistics are relatively useless to find causal relationships. They can only help in discovering corelations. You need to combine statistics with other tools if you want to find causal connections.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 03:28:50 [Permalink]
|
Correlation does not equal causuatation.
But Correlation when there is cause plausability does imply likelyness.
Particulary when there is a large amount of evidence and different stuides using diferent methodologies point to the same conclusion.
Add simliar control groups in which do not show the same effects and its as good as proven for me (and anyone who follows the scientific method).
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 19:01:38 [Permalink]
|
A skeptic is nothing more than someone who will not hold any specific belief. Once you hold a certain belief, reguardless of how you come to it, you are no longer a skeptic. The dictionary defines is as "One who habitually questions matters generally accepted." I think I believe this is right. I am not a skeptic, I just enjoy observing them.
Jim |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:04:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A skeptic is nothing more than someone who will not hold any specific belief. Once you hold a certain belief, reguardless of how you come to it, you are no longer a skeptic. The dictionary defines is as "One who habitually questions matters generally accepted." I think I believe this is right. I am not a skeptic, I just enjoy observing them.
Hmm, not necessarily. What you're defining is actually philosophical skepticism. As opposed to ordinary skepticism. I'll let Dr. Carrol explain: http://www.skepdic.com/skepticism.html
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Couldn't this just be a matter of opinion? I personally don't mind that definition. Is there some problem with it? Admittedly, it is a rather brief sort of definition, but I think it does basically explain what a skeptic is.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:31:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is there some problem with it?
The part about "someone who will not hold any specific belief" I have a problem with. If the evidence is sufficient for something, I will most certainly believe in it. Saying someone will not hold a belief strikes me as the "it's impossible to know anything" type of Classical or Original Skeptic.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:35:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"One who habitually questions matters generally accepted."
I think this definition also holds for conspiracy theorists. My definition would be one who seeks the truth regarding matters genrally accepted.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 22:01:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My definition would be one who seeks the truth regarding matters genrally accepted.
What a brain-fart! I just realized that I restated the definition given. Never mind.
I still think that the definition fits conspiracy theorists though.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 23:16:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree with the rest of your post, but statistics are relatively useless to find causal relationships. They can only help in discovering corelations. You need to combine statistics with other tools if you want to find causal connections.
I'll agree with you here. There was a study done in NYC (I'd have to find the stats....) that we used in a logic class. Seems that the increase in the sale of ice cream correlated with an increase in the number of rapes in the city. Does this mean that rapists buy more ice cream? NO. This was an indirect correlary. The connecting correlation for both was an increase in temperature.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 05:29:26 [Permalink]
|
Definitions of a sceptic:
I think there are several different concepts lumped together under the same name.
On one end there is philosophical skepticism (with it's most extreme form solipsism).
On the other and is the folk usage, that just means not beliving in something or not being convinced by something (including people who are skeptical towards evolution).
We should probably consider ourselves somewhere in the middle, since both extremes are rather impractical for everyday use.
quote:
"One who habitually questions matters generally accepted."
My problem with this definition is the generally accepted part. A true skeptic should not be influenced by the popularity of a theory.
A better definition would be:
"One who habitually questions matters regardless wether they are generally accepted or not."
The problem with statistics ain't in the statistics themselves, but rather in the publics failure to understand it's basic concepts. Statistics are not "lies" but people who are not trained to read them can be made to belive a lot of thing that the statistics don say.
|
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 07:05:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Definitions of a sceptic:
I think there are several different concepts lumped together under the same name.
On one end there is philosophical skepticism (with it's most extreme form solipsism).
On the other and is the folk usage, that just means not beliving in something or not being convinced by something (including people who are skeptical towards evolution).
This is a very useful distinction, and I suspect that the kind of skeptic referred to generally in freethinking circles is someone who is neither a radical idealist (skeptical about everything) nor just being doubtful about something.
I would propose that freethinking skeptics are not willing to foreclose on knowledge. They are therefore intimately aware of the limitations of human understanding, and are extremely careful in their approaches to inquire about the truth.
What this presupposes is a close allegiance with the idea of falsifiability: that useful statements are those which have some way of being proven to be in error (I suspect also that this description is incomplete, but may serve as a seed to more comprehensive formats).
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 07:50:49 [Permalink]
|
Long, but good: http://www.skeptic.com/manifesto.html
There's a commercial running (or has just ran recently) that mentions 'skeptics', when in truth what the kid who is narrarating is describing are 'cynics' (it's some car commercial, not important to my point, but just incase you're curious). This is probably the most misunderstood distinction in society at large.
I'm a skeptic, not a cynic!
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 21:09:50 [Permalink]
|
I am a hardcore skeptic -- in that there is little anybody can say to change that aspect of my nature. I will listen to any and all ideas, but that is as far as it goes. If the ideas are excellent (in my opinion), then I will incorporate them into my system of ideas. If not, then not.
ljbrs
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
