|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2005 : 15:20:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can see that one is expected to bring loaded guns here, but I often need to talk something out before I really understand what I think or believe about something. I may intuitively or inductively understand my position, but haven't reasoned it out concretely. But I don't plan on staying home either.
I have experienced the same thing here. A while ago we were discussing whether something could be impossible or everything is possible. I was in the same position as you are now, I didn't really know what I thought. I had intuition about it, but I wasn't really sure.
You have to realize that other people have thought about it and they have their opinions. Now I don't reach a full opinion unless I can back it with reason, and I think it is the same for everyone here.
So when you start to question it, they will start to attack it. Kind of like a bloody fish in a swarm of sharks. What you don't see is them questioning it, but that is only because many already have. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I agree, there are negative responses and I have posted a few negative ones myself. I don't think they do very much good except maybe to vent the fustration and anger of who ever posted it. But try to look past the tone in the post and consider what they are really saying.
Edit:
quote:
Ricky:
Skepticism is not a view on the world.
Is a statement to me, or are you just saying what you see my view as? If it is the second, you are right on the mark. Do you agree? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 01/10/2005 15:22:20 |
 |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 16:16:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Ricky:
Skepticism is not a view on the world.
Is a statement to me, or are you just saying what you see my view as? If it is the second, you are right on the mark. Do you agree?
It's actually a quote from you earlier on. No, I don't agree. I think that skepticism is a view on the world that (a) evidence should be obtained if possible before believing something to be true or false. Skepticism is a view on the world which (b) believes that things should be explained. Skepticism is a view on the world that (c) one shouldn't let contradictions just peaceably coexist in one's mind (or that they can't coexist). Skepticism is a view on the world that (d) claims should be evaluated (and I must add that the degree to which this view rules one's life is a good marker of how deeply skeptical you are). |
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 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 16:29:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Isaiah wrote:
I meant to imply only that aesthetic or emotional experiences exist that a non-skeptic appreciates more than a skeptic.
Welcome Isaiah.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Why would one's level of emotional response to something be predicated on one's desire to determine if something is true? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 18:16:30 [Permalink]
|
To better let you understand who I am and from where my thoughts are coming, I'll step through the Claims List.
Astrology
I think that astrology readings are useful as a medium for Cold Reading.
I think that there may be some relationship between the position of stars and planets and our daily life, but that astrologers have absolutely no clue what that connection is and even if 5% of what they believe is right, they have no idea which 5% that is (and neither do I).
UFOlogy
I have no idea whether Earth has been visited by an intelligent species from another planet, but I do believe that no credible evidence exists for it and that the moment credible evidence presents itself that evidence will be on the front page of most newspapers.
Homeopathy
I think the assumptions homeopathy is based on are ridiculous. I'm not sure whether I feel more sympathy for those who buy homeopathic remedies or those who take the trouble to dilute the solutions in the proper manner.
Spiritualism
I haven't thought about seances too much... would like to keep it that way actually. I do wonder how anyone would know who/what they were really talking to if they could talk to "something else." I'd also wonder how he could tell the difference between being schizophrenic and "hearing spirits." If he admitted he might be schizophrenic but that the voices in his head sometimes said really clever things, I might listen.
Pyramid Power
Doesn't really seem worth the trouble of thinking about.
Astral Projection
I don't know whether this excites the voyeur or the exhibitionist in me, but as long as I don't have to buy anything I'm not going to worry about whether people are actually doing this.
Therapeutic Touch
Would never pay for it.
Channeling
See spiritualism
Angels
Since I don't believe in an underlying benevolence or honesty in the Bible, I think it's silly to hypothesize about them.
Cold Fusion
I'll let physicists debate that one, I don't know. I think if a way to do it is really discovered, it'll be impossible not to hear about it.
Facilitated
Communication
Talking for people/animals/things that can't talk for themselves seems questionable at best.
Tarot Cards
I think that tarot cards are useful as a medium for Cold Reading.
I think that there may be some relationship between any random event (dealing of cards) and any other random event (a biological life), but that people have absolutely no clue what that connection is and even if 5% of what they believe is right, they have no idea which 5% that is (and neither do I).
Scientific Creationism
Seems a waste of time when evolution explains things so well.
Telekinesis
I don't know whether this excites the voyeur or the exhibitionist in me, but as long as I don't have to buy anything I'm not going to worry about whether people are actually doing this.
Remote Viewing
Anyone who actually needs to differentiate between astral projection and remote viewing has too much time on their hands.
The Shroud of Turin
See angels.
Satanic Crime
I don't think I understand what this is, but not really worried about it.
Spontaneous Human
Combustion
Unless the information I glean about it includes how not to have it happen to me, I'm not really too concerned about it.
Palm Reading
I think that palm reading is useful as a medium for Cold Reading.
I think that there may be some relationship between any random event (lines on a hand) and any other random event (a biological life), but that people have absolutely no clue what that connection is and even if 5% of what they believe is right, they have no idea which 5% that is (and neither do I).
Big Foot
I think anyone too worried about the existence of non-existence of Big Foot needs to think more deeply about why it's so important.
Psychic Detectives
I guess this depends on whether I'm the victim or the offender. If I'm the offender, I'd like all of the detectives trying to find me to be "psychic detectives". If the victim, I'll pass.
Ouija
See spiritualism.
Electromagnetic Fields
and Cancer
uninterested.
Reincarnation
Ever notice how many people who make this claim were someone famous in their last incarnation?
Crop Circles
I have no idea whether Earth has been visited by an intelligent species from another planet, but I do believe that no credible evidence exists for it and that the moment credible evidence presents itself that evidence will be on the front page of most newspapers.
Nessie
I think anyone too worried about the existence of non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster needs to think more deeply about why it's so important.
Scientology
I think anyone too worried about the truth of Scientology needs to think more deeply about why it's so important.
Ghosts
I think anyone too worried about the existence of non-existence of ghosts needs to think more deeply about why it's so important.
Weeping Statues
and Paintings
If a statue or painting actually did weep, I think anyone who claims to know why the statue is crying should refer to my answer to facilitated communication.
God
I let myself believe in a god/goddess.
Thought Field Therapy
uninterested
The Bermuda Triangle
I think anyone too worried about the existence of non-existence of the Bermuda Triangle needs to think more deeply about why it's so important.
Crystal Power
Doesn't really seem worth the trouble of thinking about.
Faith Healing
Just a tool for proselytizing
Numerology
I think numerologists have absolutely no clue.
Clairvoyance
See spiritualism.
Levitation
This just seems too easy to prove to be real. I mean, if someone levitated me, I'd believe them.
Psychic Surgery
Wouldn't pay for it.
Demon Possession
see spiritualism.
Near Death Experiences
(the tunnel and the light)
I certainly believe they happen. I think attributing any meaning to the phenomena is a bit presumptious.
Mental Telepathy
see telekinesis
Fortune Telling
I think that crystal balls are probably the most useful as a medium for Cold Reading.
Perpeptual Motion
Machines
I think anyone wanting to create this needs to learn a little more physics. I think if someone with a strong grounding in physics is trying to create such a machine, she should really look more deeply into why it's so important for her.
Psychic Friends
silly
Body Memories
Seems more psychological than biological.
Magnetic Therapy
no interest.
Dowsing
There's a lot of water underground. You have to be right sometimes. Seems harmless but a waste of time.
Medical Intuitive
Wouldn't pay for it.
The 10% Myth
silly
Rebirthing / Breath Regression Therapy
isn't this just a form of meditation? |
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 - 01/10/2005 : 18:35:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Isaiah wrote:
I meant to imply only that aesthetic or emotional experiences exist that a non-skeptic appreciates more than a skeptic.
Welcome Isaiah.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Why would one's level of emotional response to something be predicated on one's desire to determine if something is true?
I think it's a pretty easily proven point. but I'll provide an exaggerated proof.
Follow this link.
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth? |
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:01:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
Do two people, any two people, ever have the same aesthetic and emotional experience? No, each of us differs. That has nothing to do with whether we feel emotions just as much as anyone else, we just feel them in different ways.
Wow. Okay. More power to you, you're more in tune with your emotions than I am then, because honestly, I must say that I think those people are both aesthetically and emotionally appreciating that moment and that image more than I ever, ever, ever could. |
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 - 01/10/2005 : 19:03:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
Do two people, any two people, ever have the same aesthetic and emotional experience? No, each of us differs. That has nothing to do with whether we feel emotions just as much as anyone else, we just feel them in different ways.
I have to ask, though, after such a bold response, could you explain how you were emotionally and aesthetically affected by that warped light on the glass?
[edited to add: Some people in Australia wept after seeing her on a tree trunk... Do you think that would pull some tears from you?] |
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 |
| Edited by - Isaiah on 01/10/2005 19:06:51 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:31:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Isaiah wrote:
I meant to imply only that aesthetic or emotional experiences exist that a non-skeptic appreciates more than a skeptic.
Welcome Isaiah.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Why would one's level of emotional response to something be predicated on one's desire to determine if something is true?
I think it's a pretty easily proven point. but I'll provide an exaggerated proof.
Follow this link.
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
Obviously our beliefs will often affect our emotional response to what we perceive. A scientist may have a strong emotional response upon finding a crucial piece of evidence to back up or refute a theory. It does not follow that non-scientists are emotionally crippled.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:36:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
I have to ask, though, after such a bold response, could you explain how you were emotionally and aesthetically affected by that warped light on the glass?
[edited to add: Some people in Australia wept after seeing her on a tree trunk... Do you think that would pull some tears from you?]
But their response has nothing to do with asthetics. Their reactions are a result of an emotional connection, just as say, you might cry at the birth of your child, but not all children.
Skeptics might be moved to tears over the beauty of a painting or sculpture, even one religious in nature, without having to necessarily agree with the religious convictions the artist labored under.
You seem to be arguing that skeptics are less capable of emotional depth or asthetic appreciation of certain specific things in certain specific circumstances. Well, duh. Different things move different people in different ways, as Ricky said. I would ask you, where is the joy on a Creationist's face at the discovery of a new hominid fossil? It works both ways.
You see, you are far from demonstrating how skeptics emotions and asthetic appreciation are muted in general. Right now I'd have to agree with Dude in that it seems like you simply have a bias against skepticism.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/10/2005 19:38:47 |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:41:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just wanted to carify that the "you cannot determine both the position AND momentum of an electron" just meant at this point in time with our method of detection. It is not saying that it is impossible to do so.
Sorry to derail your thread again Isaiah. Actually I think it is impossible. Uncertainty isn't as peculiar as most people think. Similar relations crop up in every linear wave theory. But I'm trusting my lecturer on that one ...
But back on topic ...
[qupte]I have to ask, though, after such a bold response, could you explain how you were emotionally and aesthetically affected by that warped light on the glass?[/quote]
Emotionally: Annoyance that people think that is some sort of sign from Jesus. Similar to the annoyance felt when people think deities would leave messages burnt into toast or packets of crisps or tree trunks.
Aesthetically: I study physics so I immediately thought of how that was formed and how cool it is that everything fits together nicely. I arguably appreciate that anomaly more than any of the Chirstians sitting in those chairs because I actually know how that may have happened. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:45:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Why would one's level of emotional response to something be predicated on one's desire to determine if something is true?
I think it's a pretty easily proven point. but I'll provide an exaggerated proof.
Follow this link.
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
Do you honestly believe that Protestants would get the same emotional experience in response to that image as Catholics? Satanists? Bhuddists? Jews? Sikhs? (Etc.)
In other words, the difference in emotional experience is not drawn on skeptic v. non-skeptic lines. In this particular case, the "inhibited emotional response" net catches not only skeptics, but many other people, as well. In fact, since there are more non-Catholics in the world than Catholics, you're suggesting that the majority of human beings have an "inhibited" (to some extent ot other) emotional response.
Besides which, do you honestly think that the people sitting in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth would get the same emotional response as the first skeptic to determine the cause of the image? If I remember correctly, he was pretty jazzed when he figured out that the sprinkler system for the plants in front was partially responsible for the image. I'm sure there were some disappointed believers when that news hit the streets.
As far as aesthetics go, I've seen prettier stuff, and I've seen uglier stuff. I like the way it looks, despite the meaning some attribute to it.
And please do discriminate between emotional and aesthetic response, as the two are independent. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 19:52:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Obviously our beliefs will often affect our emotional response to what we perceive. A scientist may have a strong emotional response upon finding a crucial piece of evidence to back up or refute a theory. It does not follow that non-scientists are emotionally crippled.
You're right, but we're not talking about scientists/non-scientists.
If we agree that beliefs will affect our emotional responses to our perceptions, then wouldn't people who had less "beliefs" in general have less of a chance proportionally to have beliefs be a mitigating factor in their emotional response to a situation?
So, here's the question. Do you (and this question is meant for everyone) think that skeptics put up higher barriers to "believing" something than do people who don't use critical thinking as often or suspend it regularly?
Do you think skeptics have less "beliefs" on average than non-critical thinkers?
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 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 20:03:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
Do two people, any two people, ever have the same aesthetic and emotional experience? No, each of us differs. That has nothing to do with whether we feel emotions just as much as anyone else, we just feel them in different ways.
I have to ask, though, after such a bold response, could you explain how you were emotionally and aesthetically affected by that warped light on the glass?
[edited to add: Some people in Australia wept after seeing her on a tree trunk... Do you think that would pull some tears from you?]
This reply is probably going to just be restating what others have said, but since the question was directed at me, I figure why not.
I can not honestly say I feel any emotion when looking at that, unless you call curiosity an emotion. But at the same time, when I read a great argument against Creationists or other woo-woo's, I am overcome with great joy. When I hear any mention of faith healers, I immediately become saddened thinking about all of the people they have killed.
Now do non-skeptics feel these emotions? No, they don't. So using your argument, you would come to the conclusion that only skeptics feel emotions. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
