Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Can Skepticism Blind You to the Truth?


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

If this is in response to my post? I said nothing of faith. I do not have faith, I know my method works, also scientific studies are all over the place regardins the benefits of meditation.

Like i say - my beleif system is more a philosophical and religous.

Regards,

A general challenge to any and all who charge money for their "abilities".

And while I understand WhiteCraneFeathers post, I can't say its a very good way of looking at things. A good thinker doesn't look at something and say "It's magic", they look and say "I don't know, but one day we might". That's what separates (honest) people of science versus people of faith: We will admit we don't know something, but we won't stop investigating. Science doesn't stop at conclusions, it challenges conclusions, thats how we as a species have made progress! With the way technology is progressing, I don't think anyone here can accurately predict just where our knowledge will stop, if it ever does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A general challenge to any and all who charge money for their "abilities".

And while I understand WhiteCraneFeathers post, I can't say its a very good way of looking at things. A good thinker doesn't look at something and say "It's magic", they look and say "I don't know, but one day we might". That's what separates (honest) people of science versus people of faith: We will admit we don't know something, but we won't stop investigating. Science doesn't stop at conclusions, it challenges conclusions, thats how we as a species have made progress! With the way technology is progressing, I don't think anyone here can accurately predict just where our knowledge will stop, if it ever does.

That reminds me of something Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said which I'll paraphrase. 'When science gets something wrong the media will usually say that scientists need to go back to the drawing board. As scientists, we're always at the drawing board.'

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That reminds me of something Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said which I'll paraphrase. 'When science gets something wrong the media will usually say that scientists need to go back to the drawing board. As scientists, we're always at the drawing board.'

Truer words were never spoken... that I can think of at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard for a scientist to be wrong because they always qualify what they say in ways that gets dropped by the press. Thus, "We are getting a strong signal that looks like the presence of a Higgs particle" got transformed into "Higgs particle confirmed."

I think skepticism should be the default. "I'm from Missouri -- show me." The more unlikely an idea seems, the more skepticism should be brought to bear. Also, the desire to believe something should always be seen as a danger signal.

That said, lots of people go through life believing stuff and even spend a lot of money and time on it, and it is all a waste, but so what so long as they are happy. It is when beliefs begin to harm that the skeptic should really take aim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There is no error silly...I was using your very own numerical assumptions. You should study a little scientific history... Yes I already know you have not... Just like know you have not studied the relationship between Qm and relativity or how they relate to Newtonian physics, nor have you read Jung, nor have you even studied basic logic. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but to quote my six year old... "You started it" :( :( :(

Oh that's right... I forgot.. You stop reading when you think you are right, so you won't even get this far. :(

Edited by White Crane Feather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now it's you claiming psychic abilities. :(

I'm not using spirituality for anything. I have not even mentioned it on this thread It is you who lashes at the people you cannot intimidate with ridicule or soundly and maturely discuss the subject matter. Take a very hard look at the way you represent yourself. Who is really angry? Mr.walker and I like to debate subjects. It is not our faults that you have not learned how to debate an issue with sound logic or separate your emotions and opinions from the subject material or previous conversations.

I can't speak for MW, but I participate on the forums because television and pretty much everything else media related is boring. I find it more stimulating to debate people on issues, its also an outlet for my experiences, and probably the only real adult interaction I might get in the day. I spend 90% of my time with children. I suppose that's why it annoys me a little bit more when someone is acting childish here. So be it, we are all free to comment within the rules But make no mistake its no more an anger issue than being annoyed by the preteen on a video game that can't seem to control his foul mouth and name calling.

Lets face it my friend, you are unable to logically debate the issues at hand and know certain people are, so you lash out with ridicule. It's actually not that uncommon. It's actually much like bullying.

I do not see talking with people that have mental problems as any challenging debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have a point if you could present something showing genuine magic. Its not blindness, its facing the reality we live in.

nope.. besides which, I'm not trying to prove magic exists or that skepticism is "perceptionally" better or worse than being a true believer.. You and anyone else reading this would get the point if you or anyone reading this can even for a moment step aside from their ego's and realize that the ego of choosing any side in any conflict or debate instantly blinds them from part of the picture..

hmmmmmm, I think a good analogy might be the difference in perspective between being an actor in a play and being a spectator watching a play.. It's the same show, but perceptional there's no comparison..

That's not skepticism, that's cynicism. A true skeptic examines each case on its own and uses the scientific method to examine the evidence, draw a hypothesis, experiment, adjust the hypothesis as necessary, experiment again, and come to a conclusion. We know this process works, we have the modern world as a result of it, from the insulation in your home to the silicon chips in your computer. The only people who mistake skeptics for cynics are the believers who are constantly disappointed because their beliefs can't stand up to this process.

yep, again, I'll allude back to what I said before.. "Ego has IMO everything to do with it. And Ego always these pokes and prods at our perspective and perceptions as personal attacks.."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope.. besides which, I'm not trying to prove magic exists or that skepticism is "perceptionally" better or worse than being a true believer.. You and anyone else reading this would get the point if you or anyone reading this can even for a moment step aside from their ego's and realize that the ego of choosing any side in any conflict or debate instantly blinds them from part of the picture..

hmmmmmm, I think a good analogy might be the difference in perspective between being an actor in a play and being a spectator watching a play.. It's the same show, but perceptional there's no comparison..

yep, again, I'll allude back to what I said before.. "Ego has IMO everything to do with it. And Ego always these pokes and prods at our perspective and perceptions as personal attacks.."

And in my opinion, ego has nothing to do with it. I simply stand by what has been validated time after time as opposed to whats been shown to be parlor tricks for the last century.

Having an open mind is great, but you still have to keep it in your skull.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is zero ego involved. Seriously. How could I be egotistical about something I have nothing at all to do with, namely, the mechanics of the universe. Also, I know you aren't mocking me (or maybe you ar eby I don't care, I am a Buffalo Bills fan and therefore impervious to insults) and I won't mock you of course, so don't worry about exonerating yourself from violating the rules. I freely accept a healthy debate and any insults thrown at me as you are obviously an intelligent person with strong beliefs.

:lol: Cool, good point..

but the logic isn't about ego controlling what you have nothing to do with, it has everything to do with perception...

And you've used a great example here because I am from New Zealand, and know nothing about Buffalo Bills.. Therefore from my perspective/perception, (if I had an over inflated Ego) they don't exist.. And neither do Buffalo Bill Fans, because, deduced from available logic, if Buffalo Bill's don't exist then their Fan's don't exist either... There.. Point proved in a kind of stupid way...

But... That example is no different to Logical v's Magical thinking.. Both exist.. But by allowing ego to choose a side, we blind ourselves to a greater truth..

Here is the thing, the universe is an amazing place but the rules about how it works were being written down starting in 1644 and Newton was very good at predicting much of what we observe, Einstein came along and described how and why gravity works, not just its effects and the holes left in his theories were filled in by quantum physics. The boson was just proved and so was the Big Bang so we are showing our math and science does an incredible job of describing the most unbelievable of events. It is awe inspiring and the minds that could/can understand it hold me in constant enthrallment and amazement.

Magical thinking, on the other hand, has always been unprovable. Why? I can say with a certainty that everything that magical thinking claimed to be of itself has since been shown to be a provable, repeatable, physical effect of a known theory. Magical thinking, mysticism and everything of that ilk has never disproved a single scientific theory. Never.

So, given the track record and the history of the two, why wouldn't you tend to lean towards the scientific side and if all else fails, then assume the mystic?

Brilliant.. but flawed, and I'm not smart enough to pinpoint the flaws except that the laws of the universe have been around a lot longer than Magical thinking, then Alchemy, Then Science... The momentum of our civilization began with magical thinking, and so rightly deserves some praise and recognition..

Yeah, I've always leaned towards the scientific side, but I practice what you'd probably call the mystic or magical as well.

IMO Magical thinking has got us to where we are today with scientific thinking, so personally I wouldn't so dismissive of magical ideologies.. And as Far as true Skepticism goes, I think people should rely on their own faculties of deduction, and not some pre-determined logic created for them by a so called authority.. Discovery and experience are the most trusted teachers of perception.. Everything else IMO is parroted and flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magic is just technology we don't understand. When I hit the light switch and the light goes on, as far as I'm concerned it may as well be magic. Magic has gotten a bad rep because so often technologies are claimed that don't work. There are also a lot of fraudsters around and they often use tricks and other devices and make outrageous claims in order to get our money. Just remember that if it doesn't work, abandon it; if it does work and you don't understand why, assume that there nevertheless somewhere there is a why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem isn't with the beliefs themselves (most of them), its the attempts to use them as supplements for reality. Not only is this unbelievably irresponsible, but potentially deadly (see the thread I refer to in post #25). If a single psychic, medium, remote viewer, faith healer, or telekinetic stood up to anything more than some good scrutiny, I'd say its something that should be investigated scientifically. That's just simply not the case though.

I'll reiterate: I have no problem with peoples beliefs, I really don't. But for the love of god, when the guy is having a damn stroke, don't dump some crystals on him and call out the demons. Call a damn doctor!

As for science being used for agendas: Of course it'll happen, and often does. The difference being that its usually caught and corrected. Piltdown Man, that ******* who did the study saying vaccines cause autism, etc. all exposed as the charlatans they were.

In some ways some of the other posts you posted reflect my views in particular this:

That's not skepticism, that's cynicism. A true skeptic examines each case on its own and uses the scientific method to examine the evidence, draw a hypothesis, experiment, adjust the hypothesis as necessary, experiment again, and come to a conclusion. We know this process works, we have the modern world as a result of it, from the insulation in your home to the silicon chips in your computer.

But your argument loses traction because there is a difference between a skeptic and a cynic.

The only people who mistake skeptics for cynics are the believers who are constantly disappointed because their beliefs can't stand up to this process.

I consider myself a skeptic and a believer, I urge caution and would rather a person have themselves checked to see if there are medical issues first before jumping to a paranormal conclusions not all are going to take that advice or want that and it's not my problem or my issue if they don't. It's their lives and they have to live them as they see fit not how I want them to live them.

Mabon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see talking with people that have mental problems as any challenging debate.

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is why we call it science. What people like you called devil-magic centuries ago has been disproved over the last few centuries so magic is disappearing from the real world. What confrontation, exactly, have I had with you so I can reacquaint myself with your particular beliefs?

People like me?

Since you seem to have me all figured out then there isn't any reason for me to debate further, is there?

**** this thread, lol.

Edited by Awake2Chaos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there are still unanswered questions about gravity does not mean we don't understand how it works. We may not completely understand why, but we know that there is an attractive force between matter, and we label that force gravity. We understand how it works well enough to do some pretty damn good calculations. As far as the underlined portion, maybe you should actually look into what virtual particles are, and what the uncertainty principle actually is, because you either have no idea what it is, or are greatly misconstruing it. Scientists do not just say "things pop out of nothing" when they are confused, they look for answers when they are confused. That is what makes science great, you look for reasons.

I think maybe you should take your own advice on this one. My speculation that VP might be responsible for space was just an example. There are various theories that VP are carriers of information......No they do say they pop out of nothing I have seen them do it. That doesn't mean that all of them stop looking. It was not me that had a problem with this tendency in scientists I read it from Susskind. He is irritated with the view on the uncertainty principle and thinks just because we don't know something dosnt make in random. Im not sure I agree...but that's the way he felt at least when he was writing "The Cosmic Landscape." I think you are under a very typical misnomer that vacuum energy isn't real. Without it being real there is no such thing as hawking's radiation, the heat death of the universe, or the cassimere effect. Im not confused about anything but you are welcome to explain why you think that.

Not even slightly. So far your point has been, we don't understand gravity completely, therefore science is broken. Which is nonsense.

Not at all...you are missing the point. Science isn't broken at all, its rather effective, but certainly sciencism is not science. Just so we are clear, my point was that we may know that the sun revolves around the earth, but that is only the tip of the iceberg of what's really happening, the majority of which is a mystery to us, so how can you make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of reality.

How is this an accurate analogy? The earth orbits the sun. Fact. Known fact. Has been known for a while. Eggs came from my mothers frying pan, all depends on what you mean when you say "came from". The only way this analogy would work, would be if you tried to redefine the word "orbit".

You have to do no such thing. See above.

I think you need to define what your working definition of the word "truth" is. Empiricism, the scientific method, is the BEST methodology we have for discovering the true nature of reality. If you have a better method, please, share it with us. Make the world a better place. I completely agree that it gives us "rings of knowledge" as you put it. The beautiful thing about science, is it is still investigating. Of course we don't know everything, but we do know a lot. If we knew everything, science would stop.

Yes... I don't see the point of contention here. I think you are trying to defend science as if its being attacked....that's not what is happening. Understanding its limits and faults, which are really human limits and faults is part of the greatness of the method. If science were a man he would frown very heavily on the pedestal it is placed upon.

I don't think you understand what the word logical means. Logical does NOT mean whatever matches your worldview the best. Logic means "of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument." According to the rules of logic, something with demonstrable, repeatable, evidence would be the best thing to believe in. So no, you do not make a logical interpretation.

hahahhahaha I just gave that same argument to someone else on this thread...how funny. It seems I have to put it back on your plate as well. The bolded and red is ABSOLUTELY not a rule of formal logic....You do know that right? I'm not even saying its wrong, but formal logic is formal way to debate issues. and you are still being an apologetic here. You are making broad assumptions about many things.

Logic is the foundation of most philosophical fields. So if we've already established that you don't make logical interpretations, why should we accept your philosophical premises?

Oh, please.....you have only established by your own words that you don't know what formal logic even is even while trying to tell me that I don't. its getting silly. Im shocked that you cant see your own illogical progression here. You jumped from "demonstrable, repeatable, evidence would be the best thing to believe in" as a tenant of formal logic to saying that you established that I don't make logical interpretations.......oh geese this is a logical pig sty if only because you are making it about me and not the arguments.....that's just the beginning.

And no. Stating one premise has authority over another is not dogma. It is a concept of formal argumentation. Your premises need to be justified.

For example, I could lay down the argument:

I am a vulture

Vultures can fly

Therefore, I can fly

That is a perfectly valid argument. However my first premise is untrue, and therefore the argument is not sound. A justification of that premise would be to prove that I am a vulture.

If I were to state this, and you stated:

You are a man

Men cannot fly

Therefore, you cannot fly.

All this is more silliness. You are using logical fallacy in a logical fallacy. The first of many is simply petitio principii. Without even going into your grossly fallacious comparison to you being a vulture to someone else's Philosophical starting point, you are assuming that your position is automatically correct. This is not logic....its severe bias and you don't even cover it up well. In formal logic a logical argument is logical if it progresses from its premise to conclusion with no fallacys. This is completely independent of weather the premise is true or not. Since you are attempting to demonstrate faulty logic, I would expect that you would know this. What is really happening is that you don't agree with the Premise so you are constructing illogical arguments while using logical rhetoric. I have never seen this before... its fascinating that you have not self reflected upon your own progressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no error silly...I was using your very own numerical assumptions. You should study a little scientific history... Yes I already know you have not... Just like know you have not studied the relationship between Qm and relativity or how they relate to Newtonian physics, nor have you read Jung, nor have you even studied basic logic. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but to quote my six year old... "You started it" :( :( :(

Oh that's right... I forgot.. You stop reading when you think you are right, so you won't even get this far. :(

You don't sound harsh, you sound like a six year old. Why don''t you explain the relationship of QM, relativity and Newtonian physiics as you see it, I am sure we will all appreciate your keen insight.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record:

  • Demonstrable and repeatable evidence which provides strong evidence for the conclusion is a premise of Inductive Reasoning, which is considered a Logical Form.
  • Formal Logic is a method of applying an abstract inference rule regarding a given group of subjects. It tends towards the more crystalline constructs of logic and has often been compared to math with words. It has less to do with debating issues and more to do with defining what the issues encompass on a formal level.
  • Informal Logic is logic used in the natural language, particularly in discussion or debate. It contains the known logical fallacies often used in arguments.
  • Heuristic Logic is a biological phenomena similar to muscle memory. It is often confused with general bias. While different types of cognitive bias are a part of heuristic logic, not all heuristic logic is composed of cognitive biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard for a scientist to be wrong because they always qualify what they say in ways that gets dropped by the press. Thus, "We are getting a strong signal that looks like the presence of a Higgs particle" got transformed into "Higgs particle confirmed."

I think skepticism should be the default. "I'm from Missouri -- show me." The more unlikely an idea seems, the more skepticism should be brought to bear. Also, the desire to believe something should always be seen as a danger signal.

That said, lots of people go through life believing stuff and even spend a lot of money and time on it, and it is all a waste, but so what so long as they are happy. It is when beliefs begin to harm that the skeptic should really take aim.

I like your idea that skepticism would be a good default position. Despite my own experiences, that's usually where I stand. Some people have spiritual/religious explanations for what I've experienced, or alien theories, or higher light beings theories, I'm skeptical of all of them. I've done a lot of reading around this, in psychology, human behavior, sociology, religion, philosophy, etc., and I'm happier with the information I got from these sources than any New Age explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think maybe you should take your own advice on this one. My speculation that VP might be responsible for space was just an example. There are various theories that VP are carriers of information......No they do say they pop out of nothing I have seen them do it.

Sure, but they have reasons to believe they pop out of nothing. I wasn't saying that isn't what virtual particles are, you said something along the lines of, they say it pops out of nothing because they have no answer. As of right now, the mathematical models show it behaving that way. Maybe someday we will discover something else, but that doens't mean there is no justification for the modern thought.

That doesn't mean that all of them stop looking.

Glad we agree.

It was not me that had a problem with this tendency in scientists I read it from Susskind. He is irritated with the view on the uncertainty principle and thinks just because we don't know something dosnt make in random. Im not sure I agree...but that's the way he felt at least when he was writing "The Cosmic Landscape." I think you are under a very typical misnomer that vacuum energy isn't real. Without it being real there is no such thing as hawking's radiation, the heat death of the universe, or the cassimere effect. Im not confused about anything but you are welcome to explain why you think that.

When did I say vacuum energy isn't real? I didn't. I also never said you were wrong about how virtual particles function, just the reasoning you gave for why scientists believe that.

Not at all...you are missing the point. Science isn't broken at all, its rather effective, but certainly sciencism is not science. Just so we are clear, my point was that we may know that the sun revolves around the earth, but that is only the tip of the iceberg of what's really happening, the majority of which is a mystery to us, so how can you make all kinds of assumptions about the nature of reality.

Who is making assumptions? We were talking about a specific point, the Earth orbiting the sun. Obviously there is more than that going on in the universe, but that is the sinlg epoint we were talking about. You don't have to talk about everything in the entire universe at once to have a justified belief in some particular thing.

You have to do no such thing. See above.

I have no evidence that the Earth orbits the sun? Or that the eggs came from a frying pan? Not sure what your point here was.

Yes... I don't see the point of contention here. I think you are trying to defend science as if its being attacked....that's not what is happening. Understanding its limits and faults, which are really human limits and faults is part of the greatness of the method. If science were a man he would frown very heavily on the pedestal it is placed upon.

Not sure where you're getting the underlined portion from, how do you know that? Anyway it doesn't matter. Sure science has limits. Science has always had limits. The more we discover the broader science's scope becomes. Our limitations are way beyond the limitations of science 100 years ago, and I firmly believe that as we keep exploring we will keep expanding our limits. I also firmly believe that everything in the universe can be explained through a scientific perspective, whether or not we can explain EVERYTHING right now is irrelevant.

hahahhahaha I just gave that same argument to someone else on this thread...how funny. It seems I have to put it back on your plate as well. The bolded and red is ABSOLUTELY not a rule of formal logic....You do know that right? I'm not even saying its wrong, but formal logic is formal way to debate issues. and you are still being an apologetic here. You are making broad assumptions about many things.

I didn't say it was explicitly a 'rule of logic', but following inductive reasoning which does stem from logic, would lead to a demonstrable repeatable conclusion.

Oh, please.....you have only established by your own words that you don't know what formal logic even is even while trying to tell me that I don't. its getting silly. Im shocked that you cant see your own illogical progression here. You jumped from "demonstrable, repeatable, evidence would be the best thing to believe in" as a tenant of formal logic to saying that you established that I don't make logical interpretations.......oh geese this is a logical pig sty if only because you are making it about me and not the arguments.....that's just the beginning.

Again, i didn't say "demonstrable, repeatable evidence would be the best thing to believe in" was a tenant of logic. I said it stems from logical reasoning.

All this is more silliness. You are using logical fallacy in a logical fallacy. The first of many is simply petitio principii. Without even going into your grossly fallacious comparison to you being a vulture to someone else's Philosophical starting point, you are assuming that your position is automatically correct. This is not logic....its severe bias and you don't even cover it up well. In formal logic a logical argument is logical if it progresses from its premise to conclusion with no fallacys. This is completely independent of weather the premise is true or not. Since you are attempting to demonstrate faulty logic, I would expect that you would know this. What is really happening is that you don't agree with the Premise so you are constructing illogical arguments while using logical rhetoric. I have never seen this before... its fascinating that you have not self reflected upon your own progressions.

...do you understand why I typed that? It was simply to show you that a logical premise can be faulty. Your little critique of my 'argument' is exactly what I was trying to show. When you said earlier that there is no reason to give a logical premise any higher authority than another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I maintain that if someone 400 years ago had believed in modern quantum mechanical theory, they would have had unjustified beliefs. That is to say, sure they would have been right, but there would have been absolutely no way of proving that they were right, and therefore no good reason for believing it. It's all about proof. Why would anyone believe anything you say unless you could prove it? How would you tell reality from fantasy without a means of justification?

Yes, there are things we used to believe were magical and we have proven them to be scientific theories in modern times, and yes, that may mean that one day in the future something we don't have an explanation for could be proven, but so what? Until there is evidence, until there is a reason to believe, you should not believe.

I believe the things I do because of my own personal experience. You can believe another scientists' research, deem it credible, but unless you do the leg work yourself, what are you doing, in essence?

You are taking his word for it....you are giving him your faith that his findings are correct. You guys have been talking about gravity? We know many properties of gravity, but do we really understand it completely?? Have we figured out every single thing it effects, and how it effects it? Time facilitates new technology, new technology creates new modes of observation and record collection, and our understanding of things change with time.

My reason for believing has nothing to do with data someone else collected, but rather on what I've witnessed and seen with my own eyes, at least when it comes to magic-type events.

Yes, it is a threat. Not because I feel insecure about my beliefs, but because the type of thinking that allows unjustified beliefs, the type of irrational, credulous, compartmentalization that leads to believing in magic, can affect other people. Believing in something for no reason can be incredibly dangerous. Do you know how many people have been irreparably damaged by homeopathy? How many people have lost insane amounts of money paying for psychics, tarot readings, etc. There are people who plan out their daily life based on a horoscope reading. That terrifies me. It absolutely terrifies me that we live in a world, where people who can affect my life are building their's upon an unproven basis of reality.

What should terrify you is that we live in a world where people still starve to death, and people kill each other in the name of religion. Not another person's belief in something that you don't deem 'normal' or 'acceptable'.

Everyone has free will to follow homeopathy, or use tarot cards or seers to find their way, and their use of these things has absolutely no effect on you what so ever. There are way worse things in the world to be terrified of....And how would you feel if someone came along and took away your right to chose what type of medicine or prayer or WHATEVER, because all of a sudden a few people spoke out and said..."It scares me." Think about what you are saying....because if I follow your train of thought, then anyone who believes in religion should scare you. Is that really the case?

edit:

Is it really your right as a human being to tell another human being how to live their life? If someone wants to believe in magic, or religion even, who the hell are you to tell them it's not 'right'? The whole stance just seems very self-righteous to me.

Edited by Awake2Chaos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the things I do because of my own personal experience. You can believe another scientists' research, deem it credible, but unless you do the leg work yourself, what are you doing, in essence?

You are taking his word for it....you are giving him your faith that his findings are correct. You guys have been talking about gravity? We know many properties of gravity, but do we really understand it completely?? Have we figured out every single thing it effects, and how it effects it? Time facilitates new technology, new technology creates new modes of observation and record collection, and our understanding of things change with time.

My reason for believing has nothing to do with data someone else collected, but rather on what I've witnessed and seen with my own eyes, at least when it comes to magic-type events.

There's really nothing wrong with that. However, from my own personal experience, I know just how unreliable human perception can be. For example, I know when I'm exhausted I will hallucinate to a degree (usually seeing spiders and the like flicking around at the edges of my peripheral vision), hell just last night while drifting into sleep I saw what I otherwise could have mistaken for a humanoid figure. From a combination of my personal experience and by knowledge base, I concluded it was another trick of my mind and went to sleep.

What should terrify you is that we live in a world where people still starve to death, and people kill each other in the name of religion. Not another person's belief in something that you don't deem 'normal' or 'acceptable'.

Everyone has free will to follow homeopathy, or use tarot cards or seers to find their way, and their use of these things has absolutely no effect on you what so ever. There are way worse things in the world to be terrified of....And how would you feel if someone came along and took away your right to chose what type of medicine or prayer or WHATEVER, because all of a sudden a few people spoke out and said..."It scares me." Think about what you are saying....because if I follow your train of thought, then anyone who believes in religion should scare you. Is that really the case?

edit:

Is it really your right as a human being to tell another human being how to live their life? If someone wants to believe in magic, or religion even, who the hell are you to tell them it's not 'right'? The whole stance just seems very self-righteous to me.

No, nobody has the right to dictate how others should live their lives. What generally gets true skeptics concerned is when people try to substitute such beliefs for what is known to function when nothing indicates such beliefs can actually substitute. Again I point to the thread I linked to in post #25 for such an example. What do think would have happened if the poor sod in that story would have died? Do you think the "healers" personal experience would have stood up in the court of law? Hell no, they'd be charged with fraud and neglect.

I personally have no personal problem with psychics (or mediums and the like) on a whole, for me they are at the worst an interesting way to spend an afternoon (and can certainly liven up a party). My problem comes when you get the *******s who want to charge thousands for a reading at take advantage of people when they're at there most vulnerable, that's a con game in my view. Perhaps I would view it a bit more lightly, but know psychic I've ever met has stood up to scrutiny, especially when I, being something of a showman myself, am well versed in their techniques. I can cold read with the best of them and convince an audience that they saw what I wanted them to see because that's what my career of choice focuses on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Isn't all this detail about what will happen eons from now itself derived from science? If so, this is part of the 'story' we have of the universe and thus I'm not sure why that story will be totally wrong?

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.

I understand your overall point concerning whether science arrives at 'truth' and I think agree with it, although I don't see such a 'complete trust' attitude touted by scientists themselves concerning science itself all that often. I don't agree though that yours or mine or anyone's thinking processes should be privileged above the scientific method, we have abundant evidence to counter that. Yes, science is corruptible by all the factors you listed, but everyone's information evaluation process is subject to cognitive and perceptual biases, lack of understanding of whatever subject, etc, which in my view are even more corrupting; it is precisely one of the strengths of the scientific method that it provides controls for these individual misperceptions and biases. I think implicit in the scientific method is the blending of both the individual and consensus-driven evaluations you are looking for actually, again it's one of its strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magic is just technology we don't understand.

Arthur Clarke :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't sound harsh, you sound like a six year old. Why don''t you explain the relationship of QM, relativity and Newtonian physiics as you see it, I am sure we will all appreciate your keen insight.

FYI that poster knows things you can (probably) only dream of... Its obvious that you're just going with popular opinion, and not doing any thinking/researching yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI that poster knows things you can (probably) only dream of... Its obvious that you're just going with popular opinion, and not doing any thinking/researching yourself

Yeah, I read some of them. Very impressive. :rolleyes:

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.