Can Skepticism Blind You to the Truth?

[Merc14]

Can skepticism blind one from the truth??

hell yes!!!!!

But so can being a true believer blind someone from the truth..

IMO it all comes down to perspective, and being fully in charge of your own perceptions.. (believe it or not, most people are slaves to their perceptions.)

IMO anyone who lay claim to being skeptic or spiritually enlightened are kidding themselves and blinding and binding themselves to a fixed perspective that is incapable of seeing any truth. Instead of standing back and viewing subjects and situations from a neutral perspective they attack subjects with a fixed bias of passive or aggressive energy because their perceptions are screwed over by the Ego of being one or the other..

A skeptic does not believe in magic. Period. It isn't a matter of ego it is a matter of knowing that magical things do not exist. If something appears to be of magical origin a skeptic doesn't assume it is magic, he assumes he doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand it at this time and seeks out those who can explain it or attains the knowledge himself. There is an answer to whatever the thing is but it wil not reside in the world of magic. The skeptic accepts this theory because in all of the world's history, all things perceived to be magic were eventually shown to be caused by natural, explainable and repeatable forces that could be described scientifcally. Quantum entanglement appears to be magic but we know it isn't right?

The levitating bowl in the OP's example is a perfect illustration of the magical fraud. A magical event caused by electromagnetic means in order to perpetrate a fraud on the audience.. The creator and ringmaster was a trusted figure outwardly supportive of scientific theory who willfully fooled the audience in order to elicit a desired response. Happens everyday in the faith healer's tent. The results were two of the group had ego problems, the "skeptic" who said the bowl never moved and the FTB who saw a column of smoke that just was not there.

One would assume that the rest acted as expected since they weren't mentioned. The skeptics saw the bowl move and went about debunking the obvious fraud by disassembling the table and finding the electromagnet. The believers shook their heads knowingly while the skeptics took the table apart and when shown the device by the skeptics, walked away saying that doesn't prove anything.

Which of these two groups is blinded by ego? That is what skeptics are forced to deal with.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Merc14

[White Crane Feather]

And science acts on those changes. Science isn't bogged down by dogma. It doesn't have to go through men in pointy hats, or consult "sacred" texts. More than I can say for so many die hard believers who will fall for any deception so long as it plays into their beliefs.

I disagree. That is what science is supposed to do. There is no dogma in science itself anymore than there is dogma in nature, but there certainly is dogma in scientific and skeptical communities. It's a pretty thought to think that skeptics and scientists are soooooo noble to be immune to these things and the uber awesome nature of the scientific process is soonooo perfect that the truth will eventually come out.

"Science" does not equal consensus of a community of people. The word is thrown around far to often to represent the view of philosophical physicalism and empiricism when in fact it's simply a process that is effective yet not infallible.

[Merc14]

I disagree. That is what science is supposed to do. There is no dogma in science itself anymore than there is dogma in nature, but there certainly is dogma in scientific and skeptical communities. It's a pretty thought to think that skeptics and scientists are soooooo noble to be immune to these things and the uber awesome nature of the scientific process is soonooo perfect that the truth will eventually come out.

"Science" does not equal consensus of a community of people. The word is thrown around far to often to represent the view of philosophical physicalism and empiricism when in fact it's simply a process that is effective yet not infallible.

Nothing is infallible but the scientific process is at least somewhat impartial and based on disproving rather than proving a theory. If it survives the process it is accepted but still may be displaced by a better theory down the road. It striives to get it right. I see no such process in the believer community. If you say you saw it, it exists. Period, end of conversation and if challenged, the challenger is dismissed as blind to the mystical. How absurd. There is no viable comparison between the two processes here that I can see?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Merc14

[White Crane Feather]

And science acts on those changes. Science isn't bogged down by dogma. It doesn't have to go through men in pointy hats, or consult "sacred" texts. More than I can say for so many die hard believers who will fall for any deception so long as it plays into their beliefs.

Sorry one more thing here.

The problem of course is that we know we cannot have all the information, maybe not even be able to scratch the surface. While we can achieve a measure of knowledge from what we can know, the rest remains hidden. This ultimately makes any claims of reality likely to be totally and completely wrong. It's the difference between the fool and the foolish jackass. ( Dan Millman)

[J. K.]

Nothing is infallible but the scientific process is at least somewhat impartial and based on disproving rather than proving a theory. If it survives the process it is accepted but still may be displaced by a better theory down the road. It striives to get it right. I see no such process in the believer community. If you say you saw it, it exists. Period, end of conversation and if challenged, the challenger is dismissed as blind to the mystical. How absurd. There is no viable comparison between the two processes here that I can see?

There actually is an observation/testing process that occurs. For example, Bob believes that every sickness and disease can be healed by prayer. Jim believes that God doesn't heal on demand. Both Bob and Jim are skeptical of each other's belief, based on each one's perception of what he has observed.

[Merc14]

There actually is an observation/testing process that occurs. For example, Bob believes that every sickness and disease can be healed by prayer. Jim believes that God doesn't heal on demand. Both Bob and Jim are skeptical of each other's belief, based on each one's perception of what he has observed.

Jim treats his massive bacterial infection with amoxycillin and is better by Friday; Bob treats his massive bacterial infection with prayer and dies in terrible pain late Friday night asking the lord what happened. If this is the outcome 96% of the time, what would be your conclusion?

[White Crane Feather]

Nothing is infallible but the scientific process is at least somewhat impartial and based on disproving rather than proving a theory. If it survives the process it is accepted but still may be displaced by a better theory down the road. It striives to get it right. I see no such process in the believer community. If you say you saw it, it exists. Period, end of conversation and if challenged, the challenger is dismissed as blind to the mystical. How absurd. There is no viable comparison between the two processes here that I can see?

Observation is one of the first steps in the process. There is a big difference between believing what someone says they saw and telling them "no you didn't."

I can't argue with you about blind faith fundamentalism... Non of that is rational. But despite the claim otherwise philosophical materialism/physicalism does not have a monopoly on fundamental reality.

In fact while the concept that leading theories can change dramatically is good, the fact that they probably will makes me entirely skeptical that any of them are actually right. Which ultimately makes the entire "scientific" view by and large totally wrong. I only have 75 years or so of life, why on earth would I totally hang my hat and Deni what i see and learn for myself on a concept of reality that know is tremendously likely to be totally and completely wrong.

Empiricism tells a story ( many times a conflicted story based on consensus driven facts). It's like a path of real bread crumbs leading to the witches house but blown by the wind to get that way. Without all the information the story is complete fiction. It might be a factual driven story but its just as wrong as a made up one.

Eons from now our galaxy will still exist after colliding with M82 ( I think). It will stand alone in a sea of darkness because space will have expanded all other galaxies beyond the speed of light horizon. If mankind evolved during this epoch, there would be no Inflation theory, no cosmic back ground radiation ( it will have cooled tremendously by then), and virtually only intergalactic cosmology. The story we will have of the universe will be totally and utterly wrong. In place of what we have now would be another story based on fact but yet still a fiction.

I am a logical thinking person, billions of years if evolution has given me a dam good system of evaluating information. While not infallible, I néed dam good reason to think its not working. Completely Trusting a system that I know is likely completely wrong most of the time, subject to economic manipulation, group dynamics, and interpretation by its very trial and error nature over the one nature gave me seems wholly irresponsible. At best a blend of the two.

You might like the book " The undiscovered Self" Carl Jung.

[J. K.]

Jim treats his massive bacterial infection with amoxycillin and is better by Friday; Bob treats his massive bacterial infection with prayer and dies in terrible pain late Friday night asking the lord what happened. If this is the outcome 96% of the time, what would be your conclusion?

In this particular scenario, my belief falls in line with Jim. God is not a cosmic genie who grants wishes, and He is not insulted by the use of medicine. I was pointing out that there is indeed a process of observation and conclusion that occurs within the context of religion.

[Hideout]

All possible evidence maybe, but evidence paints a picture not necessarily the truth.

Are you seriously telling me that for any given phenomenon, you aren't going to believe the explanation that has the most evidence? Then by what criteria do you choose what is real? Whatever makes you feel better? How do you ever know what is real and what isn't?

[White Crane Feather]

Are you seriously telling me that for any given phenomenon, you aren't going to believe the explanation that has the most evidence? Then by what criteria do you choose what is real? Whatever makes you feel better? How do you ever know what is real and what isn't?

That wholly depends on how much evidence. Yes the earth orbits the sun. But what's causing that orbit? Gravity? Well what the hell is that? Curvature of space? Ok, what exactly is curving? .... ? And why is mass curving it? Higgs bosons gives it mass ( maybe), but how is the sun affecting the earth? What is space? Virtual particles transferring information? Maybe... then the boson somehow causes an angled refraction of information carried by virtual particles slightly to words it but decreasing in strength as the energy density between it lessons ( farther away). If we now have a basis for what space is based on virtual particles, where do they come from? The uncertainty principal.... Yeah but do they really just pop out of nothing because of natural instability? I doubt it. Scientists simply say things pop out of nothing when they are perplexed where to even begin to look for where it comes from.

Do you see my point? Saying the earth rotates rotates around the sun is like saying the eggs you ate for breakfast came from your mamas frying pan. It's true... Sort of... But not either. Simply accepting that eggs come from frying pans isn't science. At best empiricism gives us concentric rings of knowledge, but believing that last ring is "the truth" is completely fallacious. So no... I don't simply accept what has the most "evidence", like everyone else I look at the evidence and make a logical interpretation. I understand that these interpretations usually come from a philosophical premiss. Accepting that one premiss has authority over another is simply dogma.

[Merc14]

In this particular scenario, my belief falls in line with Jim. God is not a cosmic genie who grants wishes, and He is not insulted by the use of medicine. I was pointing out that there is indeed a process of observation and conclusion that occurs within the context of religion.

I

f two pwople observe a physical event and have completely different views of how that physical event was created then there are only two options, both are wrong or one is right and teh other is wrong. Your initial statement left open the possibility that both are right and whn teh question is "Was that magical or physical?" only one answer can be correct..

[Merc14]

In fact while the concept that leading theories can change dramatically is good, the fact that they probably will makes me entirely skeptical that any of them are actually right. Which ultimately makes the entire "scientific" view by and large totally wrong. I only have 75 years or so of life, why on earth would I totally hang my hat and Deni what i see and learn for myself on a concept of reality that know is tremendously likely to be totally and completely wrong.

The heart of your argument is the above and it is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a lie and poor logic. You start by saying it is good that some theories can change. Good, that is the heart of the scientifc method no? It is down hill from there, however, when we read this "the fact that they probably will makes me entirely skeptical that any of them are actually right". Huh? Theories are always being adjusted but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong because of that change, it means they got 90% of the science right and a new method of observation has added 5% to that knowledge and changed 2% of what we thought before. You, however, equate any change with complete faiure. Yikes. It gets worse though doesn't it.

After this mistake you make the completely illogical leap that since theories change over time, the entire "scientific" view is by and large totally wrong. Wow! Utterly ridiculous statement. The discovery of quantum physics didn't mean that Newtonian physics was completely wrong. In fact, Newtonian physics explains perfectly 99% of what we observe in the known universe but in your world, since Newtonian physics didn't describe everything possible in physics, it is completely incorrect. You sound like the grand inquisitor barking at a heretic in the 15th century with that mindset.

After this mess of logic, you reach your ultimate objective that since science has been proven to be completely wrong you are better off using your own five (six?) senses, evolved over "billions of years" (your words) to decipher the mysteries. Here we have gone from the grand inquisitor to the stone age in one fell swoop, where, drum roll please, mysticism enjoyed its heyday. Congratulations, you found a place where there was no science and man looked up in terror at the night sky and saw magic everywhere.

the fact that you are pushing this illogical mess on the internet through a powerful computer while staring at an LCD screen means scientific theory works. This fact alone rebuts your entire argument above. I don't think for a minute you believe your argument yourself so double shame on you for posting it.

You might like the book " The undiscovered Self" Carl Jung.

Dr. Jung, who considered himself a scientist, would be very disappointed in the above tortured and self serving logic.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Merc14

[J. K.]

I

f two pwople observe a physical event and have completely different views of how that physical event was created then there are only two options, both are wrong or one is right and teh other is wrong. Your initial statement left open the possibility that both are right and whn teh question is "Was that magical or physical?" only one answer can be correct..

Perhaps I misunderstood what you had said in this comment:

Nothing is infallible but the scientific process is at least somewhat impartial and based on disproving rather than proving a theory. If it survives the process it is accepted but still may be displaced by a better theory down the road. It striives to get it right. I see no such process in the believer community.

My answer was intended to communicate that the process of observation and conclusion does exist in the believer community.

Edited March 25, 2014 by J. K.

[DecoNoir]

My answer was intended to communicate that the process of observation and conclusion does exist in the believer community.

I would very much like to see this in action, if you have the means.

[Merc14]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you had said in this comment:

Nothing is infallible but the scientific process is at least somewhat impartial and based on disproving rather than proving a theory. If it survives the process it is accepted but still may be displaced by a better theory down the road. It striives to get it right. I see no such process in the believer community.

My answer was intended to communicate that the process of observation and conclusion does exist in the believer community.

Like DecoNoir, I too would like to see it in action. You gave the example above above of Bob and Jim both postulating radically different ideas on healing and, I guess, consider that a process. It isn't, it is two belief systems and only one can be right. The process would be injecting 200 people with an aggressive bacterial infection and then turning 100 over to Bob and 100 over to Jim and seeing who has more "patients" walking around in two weeks. If they both have 80 survivors then I have a problem, if one has 99 survivors and the other has 3, then you have a problem.

An orb is either dust being illuminated by a flash or a spirit being visiting its ancestors. I can prove the dust mote orb but so far no one has proven the spirit being orb. I have read various reasons for thei lack of proof including impenetrable jungles, overly sensitive tribes, sacred rituals, "I see them all the time but never have a camera during the day, just at night." and various and sundry other excuses. So what am I to think?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Merc14

[White Crane Feather]

The heart of your argument is the above and it is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a lie and poor logic. You start by saying it is good that some theories can change. Good, that is the heart of the scientifc method no? It is down hill from there, however, when we read this "the fact that they probably will makes me entirely skeptical that any of them are actually right". Huh? Theories are always being adjusted but that doesn't mean they are completely wrong because of that change, it means they got 90% of the science right and a new method of observation has added 5% to that knowledge and changed 2% of what we thought before. You, however, equate any change with complete faiure. Yikes. It gets worse though doesn't it.

After this mistake you make the completely illogical leap that since theories change over time, the entire "scientific" view is by and large totally wrong. Wow! Utterly ridiculous statement. The discovery of quantum physics didn't mean that Newtonian physics was completely wrong. In fact, Newtonian physics explains perfectly 99% of what we observe in the known universe but in your world, since Newtonian physics didn't describe everything possible in physics, it is completely incorrect. You sound like the grand inquisitor barking at a heretic in the 15th century with that mindset.

After this mess of logic, you reach your ultimate objective that since science has been proven to be completely wrong you are better off using your own five (six?) senses, evolved over "billions of years" (your words) to decipher the mysteries. Here we have gone from the grand inquisitor to the stone age in one fell swoop, where, drum roll please, mysticism enjoyed its heyday. Congratulations, you found a place where there was no science and man looked up in terror at the night sky and saw magic everywhere.

the fact that you are pushing this illogical mess on the internet through a powerful computer while staring at an LCD screen means scientific theory works. This fact alone rebuts your entire argument above. I don't think for a minute you believe your argument yourself so double shame on you for posting it.

Dr. Jung, who considered himself a scientist, would be very disappointed in the above tortured and self serving logic.

How can you write all of that drivel loaded with straw men, red herrings, and flat out accusations and still claim to be using logic and judging my logic is beyond me for sure. But since logical arguments stick with the arguments themselves:

Why don't you compound your 2% changes over time. Try 36 times

Yes after compounding 36 times using your own number you would have well over a 100% change. That is totally wrong. But like I mentioned in an earlier post its not that description is wrong only the mechanism. "Concentric rings of knowledge". This is why Newtonian physics works so well. It accurately describes nature, it dosnt exsplain it. Relativity is a better description of macro physics. Quantum mechanics certainly is not a refinement on either, this shows that you have concept of the relationship between the two. QM and relativity are completely irreconcilable at the moment unless you you are a candidate for the Nobel prize and can tell me how. QM is the physics of the small Relativity the physics of the large. There is an interface somewhere but nobody knows how and where. And its completely different, so it dosnt matter how useful newtonian physics is... its wrong plain and simple. Its akin to your stonage fellas being able to acuratly predict what part of the island dosnt get swamped during tsunamis based on their oral traditions about the world tree and the water spirits fighting. This is where people that argue like you miss the boat completely. This is why i laugh when pseudo skeptics think their creative explanations are scientific.

My little iPhone I'm using right now is not a result of explanation.... It's a result of description. The very Idea that because my iPhone works because of physicalist philosophy is simpley preposterous.

You might try at least try to use actual logically constructed arguments when claiming another's lak of logic. It's just silly to even whatch logical fallacies used in nearly the same sentence claiming somone else's "mess of logic". It dosnt demonstrate critical thinking, it highlights and reinforces my points about people simply following sciencism. It actually dont like to bring up logical rhetoric, but it seems I am forced to half the time because people like yourself don't seem to know what it actually is and throw around the term based on your own perceptions and definitions. Huge problem don't you think?

Jung would agree with me totally, how do I know this, because much of my take on matter comes straight from his influence on my thinking. He wrote extensively about the marginalization of the individual and the fixation of accepting averages as absolute truths. You may have known this if you actually read his material. Not that it's perfect, of course, but I find it particularly revealing that your insinuations of superior logic ends with a massive assumption of jungs positions on these matters and how it relates to me.

Jung was a scientists and thinker ---- my view of science is this---- I disagree with white crane feather---- jungs view must be more like mine. :(

Probably haveing never read my sugestion all I can do is shake a shameful finger your way.

Me thinks one should actually know what logic is and constitutes before throwing out accusations on its use.

That's just me though.

[Merc14]

How can you write all of that drivel loaded with straw men, red herrings, and flat out accusations and still claim to be using logic and judging my logic is beyond me for sure. But since logical arguments stick with the arguments themselves:

Why don't you compound your 2% changes over time. Try 36 times

Yes after compounding 36 times using your own number you would have well over a 100% change. That is totally wrong.

I quit reading after the above. You aren't serious with this are you? I will allow you to think about the math involved and start over.

[J. K.]

Like DecoNoir, I too would like to see it in action. You gave the example above above of Bob and Jim both postulating radically different ideas on healing and, I guess, consider that a process. It isn't, it is two belief systems and only one can be right. The process would be injecting 200 people with an aggressive bacterial infection and then turning 100 over to Bob and 100 over to Jim and seeing who has more "patients" walking around in two weeks. If they both have 80 survivors then I have a problem, if one has 99 survivors and the other has 3, then you have a problem.

An orb is either dust being illuminated by a flash or a spirit being visiting its ancestors. I can prove the dust mote orb but so far no one has proven the spirit being orb. I have read various reasons for thei lack of proof including impenetrable jungles, overly sensitive tribes, sacred rituals, "I see them all the time but never have a camera during the day, just at night." and various and sundry other excuses. So what am I to think?

Well, I would be with you on the subject of orbs. As you have observed yourself, they are explainable as being dust.

Considering Bob and Jim, the process is how they arrived at their "understanding" of healing in the first place. Each one made observations and drew conclusions about what they considered to be the truth. As you said, they can't both be right at the same time, so one of them is wrong.

Let me see if I can demonstrate the process with this illustration. There is a phenomenon called "holy laughter" which occurs in certain churches. Those churches would consider it to be evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit. I (and others) used a process to determine whether or not I could consider it to be a legitimate or a false phenomenon. First, I determine whether or not holy laughter is found in Scripture. It is not mentioned. Then I determine if the phenomenon falls within the mandate of "discipling nations." Discipling is helping one mature in Christian growth. Holy laughter doesn't appear to enable growth, so it fails that test. Finally, I determine whether or not the phenomenon "glorifies Jesus." (Think about the Kennedy Center Honors; it's the same idea.) Holy laughter does not draw attention to Jesus and His attributes; instead, it draws much attention to the laugher. So, I have applied three different tests to determine whether or not the phenomenon is valid. It did not pass the tests, therefore I consider holy laughter to be invalid as an experience to be sought. That is an example of how I would use a process in the context of a belief system.

[White Crane Feather]

I quit reading after the above. You aren't serious with this are you? I will allow you to think about the math involved and start over.

I expected as much, and it fits well with the title of the OP

Edited March 25, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[DecoNoir]

I expected as much.

I'm sorry but where has belief in the supernatural benefited anybody? Other than the wallets of psychics and healers of course.

[White Crane Feather]

I'm sorry but where has belief in the supernatural benefited anybody? Other than the wallets of psychics and healers of course.

First off there is nothing "supernatural" only that which is not understood yet.. But you are holding your examples up as straw men against more traditional spiritualities that have massive impacts on the lives of people and probably may actually be an evolved trait in human beings, hence we may actually owe our very existence to the belief in things "supernatural" weather real or imagined. And that's not even to mentioned the group cohesion and division of labour benefits often associated with religions and spiritualities.

[regeneratia]

We all make decisions based on personal experience that cloud our judgement before entering a situation.

But I cry 'no fair' on this experiment...

I think that people have the capacity to influence the energies around them. Lynn McTaggart is proving this. Obviously space and time are not an item regarding this movement of collective energy.

[Mikko-kun]

This seems more like cynicism than skepticism. Like Merc said, a true skeptic would say the bowl moved but would then try to find out how it moved.

Yes... but wouldn't most sceptics try to find out how it moved in terms of currently accepted physics laws like magnetism & gravity etc, and avoid taking seriously anything else unless they were provided a 1000-page essay thing of the alternate theory approved by an international science committee or such?

I dont want to mean this as an insult, but please show me wrong in a case where sceptic changed their mind. Not directed to anyone in particular here. More edit: oh yeah, there's Sakari at least. Maybe he's an exception though?

Edited March 25, 2014 by Mikko-kun

[Mikko-kun]

Can skepticism blind one from the truth??

hell yes!!!!!

But so can being a true believer blind someone from the truth..

IMO it all comes down to perspective, and being fully in charge of your own perceptions.. (believe it or not, most people are slaves to their perceptions.)

IMO anyone who lay claim to being skeptic or spiritually enlightened are kidding themselves and blinding and binding themselves to a fixed perspective that is incapable of seeing any truth. Instead of standing back and viewing subjects and situations from a neutral perspective they attack subjects with a fixed bias of passive or aggressive energy because their perceptions are screwed over by the Ego of being one or the other..

Those who can see their own bias see the most, in my view. And that can be hard. You can pick such easy biases like believing to something very sketchy and shaky both in feeling and rationale, or by being overly sceptical towards anything in that area because nobody's shown you the ultimate undeniable utterly convincing proof. But bias is more than that, bias is to not see beyond ourselves and yet think "this is it, this is the thing".

My bias has been clinginess, and holding on to myself and fear of losing myself. Losing an inner part of myself, to things like drugs or profoundly "false" views or even to close-and-dear relationships. It's probably a bias that's always ready to overtake me if I let myself become lazy, but at least I've seen it, and some other biases. It makes me shake to my bones, both of relief and of the fearlike emotion of newfound experience, because it's like being a baby in a cruel new world, except that I got 30 years of life-experience and self-study under my belt and the past experiences give reassurance which I can use to climb up the easier way. It's the fear I'd lose myself to anything, not that I'd actually lose, and that I'd be oblivious of that hesitation (or more like an invisible wall to myself) and let it keep hindering me. The moment I realised it (like water), the moment it shook me and cleared my eyes on a lot of things, though it just made things more clear, most likely not ultimately clear at all.

Questioning yourself is both healthy and hearttaking. And we're driven towards it all the time, because we all want to discover more, one way or another. And that's the ultimate way, to see things in a different light. Dont take words of anyone else, try it yourself.

[Merc14]

I expected as much, and it fits well with the title of the OP

Here is a hint, if a theory answers 90% of the question, you can make 100 changes and those changes will only effect that final 10% or some fraction of it, the rest of teh theory is sound. "Compounded 36 times equals 100%. Oy Vey. The fact that I offered you a chance to correct your error and all you could come up with was a snide remark speaks volumes re. the subject of this thread.