|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2005 : 11:54:19 [Permalink]
|
| Skepticism, like the scientific method, has the benefit of being self correcting over time. If most skeptical individuals believe somthing to be currenlty true, but new evidence arrives telling us that it is actually false, we will change our belief about that thing. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 01/07/2005 11:56:56 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 15:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
...asking the hard questions, searching for answers instead of making them up, and going off what I know instead of what I don't.
I personally don't see anything wrong with that. I considered the possiblity of it being wrong, but I just don't see how it could ever be. This is me being "skeptical of skepticism". Now if you see something wrong with that and I don't, that question would be where I asked for your opinion on the matter.
As for making the theory about your answer, no I didn't. I have no clue who you are or what you are thinking. However, right off the bat from the format of the question, it seems as if you are not a skeptic, or haven't been one for very long. But I won't really know that unless I ask you, now will I? (which is what the question did)
I've tried to answer you the best I could, but I'm not exactly sure what it is you are asking or trying to get at.
quote:
Originally posted by Shacal
And aesthetics? Well I will admit to not having Martha Stewart-quality tastes, but I can appreciate art. Do you really believe that because I won't accept a statement without solid evidence that I am lacking in some ability to understand emotions and comprehend other things on an emotional level?
This has evolved/devolved into three separate lines, I think.
1. Discussion and clarification of my original question -- which certainly does need clarified since I only put this into words the day before I wrote it here (and I wrote it here in order to further clarify it, so thank you)
2. Exploration about what I am or am not (i.e. existentialist, philosopher, skeptic, idiot, troll, whatever) -- (I wouldn't really pin any of those on me except maybe idiot, though I have my savant moments)
3. My views on whether skepticism has an effect on one's ability to experience aesthetic beauty or to inhabit fully emotional moments -- that view is yes, I think skeptics are usually inhibited emotionally and aesthetically, or at least have different experiences.
I'm pretty fascinated by all three of those discussions. I'm utterly new to this forum, though, so I'm not sure what the traditions here are. Should I try tackling all three of these in this topic or split this into three topics?
I'm going to try to stay focused on topic #1 for right now.
A lot got pinned on discussion of Heisenberg, photons, and quantum physics when I was only trying to use that as an example of what I meant by set 2 questions. It obviously wasn't a good example because it caused the conversation to derail into discussion of the specifics of how that example doesn't fit set 2. So I'm on a quest to find a non-paranormal, "wacko" example of what I mean by set 2 in order to show it's not an empty set.
Thanks for your patience,
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 16:20:14 [Permalink]
|
By the way, is there a way that I can know who is an actual skeptic in these forums and who is just someone who posts a lot? Obviously, Dave is a skeptic. But I imagine that given the nature of this forum, those who many of you might deem "nutjobs" also write in these forums.
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 16:33:34 [Permalink]
|
Me, I just post a lot.... Ooo lookit! I done another one! 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 21:13:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So if Chi exists, it has evaded our understanding and examination until now, thus it must be very complicated.
This statement has several unsupported premises. Mainly that something unknown to us currently must be complex. Utter nonsense.
quote:
3. My views on whether skepticism has an effect on one's ability to experience aesthetic beauty or to inhabit fully emotional moments -- that view is yes, I think skeptics are usually inhibited emotionally and aesthetically, or at least have different experiences.
Then you'd be ignorant of what a skeptic is. We simply require evidence for claims made. It should be painfully obvious that statements involving emotion and subjective opinion are not matters for skepticism. For you to claim that I, because I require evidence before I'll believe the "propetual motion" machine you're selling actually works, don't feel emotion and can't appreciate subjective aesthetics.... demonstrates a profound lack of actual knowledge on your part. A lack of knowledge bordering on what I would call willfull ignorance and prejudice.
quote:
A lot got pinned on discussion of Heisenberg, photons, and quantum physics when I was only trying to use that as an example of what I meant by set 2 questions. It obviously wasn't a good example because it caused the conversation to derail into discussion of the specifics of how that example doesn't fit set 2.
It's not a good example because you demonstrate yet another lack of knowledge. I don't pretend to have a great knowledge of quantum physics, but Heisenburg (with the principle of indeterminacy) was stating only that you cannot determine both the position AND momentum of an electron (or other sub-atomic particle). The more accurately you measure one, the less accurately you can know the other. So, if you measure the spin very precicely, you have virtually no idea of where the electron is, and vice-versa. Heisenburg's principle is not usefull outside of the sub-atomic scale where Newtonian physics apply.
quote:
PS - Man... With the nature of the responses I'm receiving, I feel like a skeptic that was dropped into an astrologer's conference.
With your statements to date, especially the unsupported premises and your judgement that "skeptics" are incapable of emotion and apreciation of the aesthetic, combined with your clear ignorance of certain basic concepts.... I believe it would be more appropriate to reverse the order in which you place "skeptic" and "astrologer" in the above statement. Just my opinion of course.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 21:53:29 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to re-arrange your post a bit:quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
I'm pretty fascinated by all three of those discussions. I'm utterly new to this forum, though, so I'm not sure what the traditions here are. Should I try tackling all three of these in this topic or split this into three topics?
We're pretty laid back, here. Do as you will. I'm sure that the rest of us will be able to follow along if you do all three in one thread, though. It might even be appropriate, since all three sprang from your single OP, so they're related to some extent.quote:
3. My views on whether skepticism has an effect on one's ability to experience aesthetic beauty or to inhabit fully emotional moments -- that view is yes, I think skeptics are usually inhibited emotionally and aesthetically, or at least have different experiences.
This is the part that I am most interested in, since you're now making a positive claim. What evidence has led you to the idea that "skeptics are usually inhibited emotionally and aesthetically" (because it should be obvious that everyone has "different experiences" from everyone else)?quote:
2. Exploration about what I am or am not (i.e. existentialist, philosopher, skeptic, idiot, troll, whatever) -- (I wouldn't really pin any of those on me except maybe idiot, though I have my savant moments)
This line of inquiry isn't particularly interesting. What labels we can slap on you will come to light with more of your posts.  quote:
1. Discussion and clarification of my original question -- which certainly does need clarified since I only put this into words the day before I wrote it here (and I wrote it here in order to further clarify it, so thank you)
...
I'm going to try to stay focused on topic #1 for right now.
A lot got pinned on discussion of Heisenberg, photons, and quantum physics when I was only trying to use that as an example of what I meant by set 2 questions. It obviously wasn't a good example because it caused the conversation to derail into discussion of the specifics of how that example doesn't fit set 2. So I'm on a quest to find a non-paranormal, "wacko" example of what I mean by set 2 in order to show it's not an empty set.
Good luck trying. Because the way I see it, now, is that with a well-understood and well-defined statement about a subject, testing the subject will either (A) allow us to better discover the truth value of the statement (we'll never know if it is precisely 1, though), or (B) destroy the subject and leave us forever in the dark about the statement's truth value. In neither case does the statement's truth value itself change.
In another post, you ask:quote:
By the way, is there a way that I can know who is an actual skeptic in these forums and who is just someone who posts a lot? Obviously, Dave is a skeptic. But I imagine that given the nature of this forum, those who many of you might deem "nutjobs" also write in these forums.
Storm is the only person who has posted to this thread for whom there is any question about "skeptical status." Everyone else who has posted here is a skeptic. If you're wondering about other threads, too, I can say without hesitation that verlch is about as far from skepticism as one can get. But we can't do a "who's a skeptic" list for you, as even the best skeptics aren't skeptics 100% of the time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2005 : 22:38:34 [Permalink]
|
| I'm a skeptic. People take a lot for granted as truth or facts that come before them. I work to stop myself from this automatic acceptance and passing on of these truths and facts and look instead to see if there is any evidence supporting or not supporting them. Skepticism is not a negative word though many people seem to equate skepticism with distrust of people. I am not a skeptic of people's worthiness nor truthfulness. I am merely an explorer and scientist and find the best way to discover truth and facts is to seek as much information, experience, and evidence as I can. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 01:35:11 [Permalink]
|
I too, am a skeptic, although I consider that as just another lable. More accuratly, I am terminally curious. If I see a machine that I am not faniliar with, I want to know what it does, how it does it, and why it won't do it better some other way. Thus, I have small patience with bullshit.
Some folks here seem to hate to open links, something I have lamented on a couple of occasions. If the thread is one I am interested and participating in, I open 'em, every one. How else am I to get an accurate picture of what the person is saying? further, I am perfectly willing to research that link. I really don't care whether the reference supports the claim or not. Either way, I've usually found the facts of the matter. But more often than not, if the idol has feet of clay, they will be found more in the reference, rather than the claim.
I enjoy our verlch. Currently, he is in a Hit & Run mode, but when he gets going, he keeps us busy. Hereza link to his introduction to SFN, a most amazing conversation. you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll make popcorn and crack another brew before you finish it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 07:37:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Me, I just post a lot.... Ooo lookit! I done another one!
Me too!
Nah, really. I don't consider myself anything. I'm just terribly curious of things, and I like learning. I want to know things for what they are; if that makes of me a skeptic, so be it. I'm not entitled to say so. Found this site to be an interesting environment where I can learn lots of different things, know people's views from other parts of the world, their opinions, y'know.
Besides, it was linked from Bad Astronomy
Since I'm terribly confused by this post, I've refrained from posting here until the moment. But I've been following it.
[/rant] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 08:13:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Me, I just post a lot.... Ooo lookit! I done another one!
Me too!
Nah, really. I don't consider myself anything. I'm just terribly curious of things, and I like learning. I want to know things for what they are; if that makes of me a skeptic, so be it. I'm not entitled to say so. Found this site to be an interesting environment where I can learn lots of different things, know people's views from other parts of the world, their opinions, y'know.
Besides, it was linked from Bad Astronomy
Since I'm terribly confused by this post, I've refrained from posting here until the moment. But I've been following it.
[/rant]
As have I. All this philersoftycal stuff makes my eyeballs ratttle.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 11:09:39 [Permalink]
|
| I am becoming a skeptic after wondering in the woods of woo-woo. More then that I am curious about things, and trying to get over a tendecy to believe everything. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 17:39:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
So if Chi exists, it has evaded our understanding and examination until now, thus it must be very complicated.
This statement has several unsupported premises. Mainly that something unknown to us currently must be complex. Utter nonsense.
I'm reluctant to enter into this with you, because of the vitriolic nature and dishonest discourse of your responses, which seem to be of a different level of vitriol than the other responses I'm receiving here, but you may end up sparking either thoughts about or examples of my premise that a skeptical mindset has an effect on one's ability to respond aesthetically and emotionally.
Having said that, you're taking my quote out of it's context and assuming I'm saying the converse of what I said. My statement was that "those things that are simple are discovered and examined and understood early in human history and those things that are complicated are understood later." That could be wrong, but it does not say what you are implying that I am saying, that if something is discovered late that it is complicated. It is saying the converse: a complicated subject that depends upon previously discovered knowledge to understand it has to be understood after those a priori subjects are understood. There is no "must" as you incorrectly reinforce.
To ask you a question, do you think (hypothesize, just try it) of all the new fields of science we discover eighty years from now, a larger percentage of those will be more complicated than those fields of science we discovered in the 1920's?
quote:
For you to claim that I, because I require evidence before I'll believe the "propetual motion" machine you're selling actually works, don't feel emotion and can't appreciate subjective aesthetics.... demonstrates a profound lack of actual knowledge on your part. A lack of knowledge bordering on what I would call willfull ignorance and prejudice.
Again, you're demonstrating dishonest discourse here, in two ways. The first dishonesty is that you are trying to reduce to absurdity the statement I made instead of having any interest in helping me explore my hypothesis. Requiring evidence before you believe in a "perpetual motion" machine is not the same as requiring evidence before believing the truth value of everything anyone says. One makes you skeptical in a particular instance (the motion machine), and the other makes you a "skeptic." Having a skeptical side of you that you can curb is different than being someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.
Your second dishonesty is to take my phrase "usually inhibited," which actually was a carefully chosen (though possibly incorrect) word and translating it as, "don't feel emotion and can't appreciate subjective aesthetics." To inhibit means to hold back, to restrain, to keep something in check so to speak, and implies that something is being suppressed or limited, not that it is being eliminated. I meant to imply only that aesthetic or emotional experiences exist that a non-skeptic appreciates more than a skeptic.
quote:
It's not a good example because you demonstrate yet another lack of knowledge.
For one, I admitted it wasn't a good example so you don't have to try to jump up and down on it. Second, I only brought up Heisenberg in
response to the statement, "The effect of examining or measuring something has no effect on the thing being measured or examined," as you can see if you openly read the posts. I was, admittedly, tossing it around as an analogy for my set 2 of the original post, but just tossing it around. If I thought it was an actual example of a member of set 2 I would have used it as an example in the first place.
quote:
With your statements to date, especially the unsupported premises and your judgement that "skeptics" are incapable of emotion and apreciation of the aesthetic, combined with your clear ignorance of certain basic concepts.... I believe it would be more appropriate to reverse the order in which you place "skeptic" and "astrologer" in the above statement. Just my opinion of course.
As Dave has pointed out, I've avoided making a positive claim until my last post, at which he said, "This is the part that I am most interested in, since you're now making a positive claim." Any unsupported premises that have existed so far have existed only in your eagerness to create a vitriolic argument and try to ridicule me.
I am here because I think on the whole your group can help me think through my newly worded thoughts about skeptics. I'm sure you probably are quite capable of critical thought without ridicule, and I'm quite possibly wrong so you don't have to resort to dishonest tactics to prove it. I'd enjoy having you on board to help with the exploration, but if you've already made up your mind, that's your choice. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 17:45:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good luck trying. Because the way I see it, now, is that with a well-understood and well-defined statement about a subject, testing the subject will either (A) allow us to better discover the truth value of the statement (we'll never know if it is precisely 1, though), or (B) destroy the subject and leave us forever in the dark about the statement's truth value. In neither case does the statement's truth value itself change.
Okay, I have an example I'd like to put out there.
Here's a statement with an existing truth value which I think has the possibility of changing with testing.
"My son trusts me."
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
