Skepticism examined

[truethat]

http://www.realityspoken.com/skeptic.htm

This article and recent conversations I have had with people online have made me really think about what it means to be a skeptic.

I see all sorts of people who claim they are "skeptics" only to see that they treat Skepticism like its the same as cynicism. In the article above it states a very important thing:

"What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.”

What I've noticed on this site for example is that some of the most strident "so called" skeptics, will make claims that they run from when true skeptics bring the information to the table and it turns out the "skeptic" was wrong. They are not interested in being confronted with reality or the truth. They rather react as if being a skeptic, is the same as being a doubter or one who challenges religion specifically. And while that is one of the definitions of skepticism, its a weaker and less intelligent one in my book.

Another example of the "sacred cow" mentioned in the article is the way in which anyone who is skeptical about evolution, (meaning that they want to see it examined more carefully and are not swayed by supposition and theory) is regarded as a fool. Is this not in direct opposition of the scientific method?

Are you a skeptic that simply challenges the status quo? Or are you a true thinker? Would you be willing to put your own beliefs to the test. Or do you view being a skeptic as being skeptical about everything everyone else has to say and sure of what you believe?

Do you consider being a skeptic a position or a method?

What say you?

[Neognosis]

Would you be willing to put your own beliefs to the test.

Certainly. However, there would be no point as I realize that my beliefs in God, Christ, and naturalism are UNDEFENDABLE, ILLOGICAL, AND UNSCIENTIFIC. Therefore, they can NOT be sucessfully defended, as there is no proof for anything that I BELIEVE.

That is why they are my BELIEFS and not FACTS.

Once a belief can be proven through expermentation and observation, it is not a belief, it becomes a fact.

Another example of the "sacred cow" mentioned in the article is the way in which anyone who is skeptical about evolution, (meaning that they want to see it examined more carefully and are not swayed by supposition and theory) is regarded as a fool. Is this not in direct opposition of the scientific method?

No. Experimentation and observation have PROVEN that evolution happens. EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. EVOLUTION IS A FACT. We can observe evolution happening, and have done so. The only theory about evolution is that we can not observe a past event, so we can not prove conclusively that evolution occurred in the past. All of our credible evidence lends itself to that theory, however.

So when someone doubts or is skeptical about evolution, it is my experience that they usually fall into one of two camps:

1- Ignorance or misunderstanding of the science

2- Under the influence of a religion that can not accept evolution

You can not understand the science and evidence and continue to see evolution as doubtful.

[Cimber]

Another example of the "sacred cow" mentioned in the article is the way in which anyone who is skeptical about evolution, (meaning that they want to see it examined more carefully and are not swayed by supposition and theory) is regarded as a fool. Is this not in direct opposition of the scientific method?

Half the people on this board don't even understand the mechanisms involved in evolution, and I find it is my duty as a scientist to get the correct information to the general public. Anyone who wants to see evolution examined more carefully doesn't understand the sheer amount of research that is involved in it. They should take it upon themselves to examine the evidence either first hand or through the appropriate source. That means don't go to a pro-creationist website or pro-evolution website i.e. Talk origins to get your information. Read it directly from a scientific paper or talk to a college professor.

[LittleIrishVampiress]

thing is though...i don't see evolution as proving 'God' isn't real, or 'God' as proving evolution to be false.

all evolution does is explain why the world is the way it is. i don't see why a religious person would have any problems with it. i mean, science just doesn't have anything to do with 'faith'...this clash between the two is so unnecessary.

to be fair, one must know not to take the bible so literally. you can't really say that the beginning of man-kind was really 'adam and eve' and expect this belief to be taken seriously. they are stories with morals, told in a way for people of those times to understand. you can still believe in 'God' and his message, yet know to regard the stories of the bible as simply being a way to get that message across, and not actual fact.

[eqgumby]

*snip*

Do you consider being a skeptic a position or a method?

What say you?

Interesting question. I never thought about it really, and now that I look at it, you could approach a subject from either perspective.

When I look at paranormal (ghost) stuff, I lean towards the methodology of skepticism, but when I look at religion, I suppose I behave more like skepticism is a position. I'll have to think about that the next time I post or read something I am generally skeptical about. Am I taking a position, or applying a method?

Good post true.

[Cimber]

thing is though...i don't see evolution as proving 'God' isn't real, or 'God' as proving evolution to be false.

all evolution does is explain why the world is the way it is. i don't see why a religious person would have any problems with it. i mean, science just doesn't have anything to do with 'faith'...this clash between the two is so unnecessary.

to be fair, one must know not to take the bible so literally. you can't really say that the beginning of man-kind was really 'adam and eve' and expect this belief to be taken seriously. they are stories with morals, told in a way for people of those times to understand. you can still believe in 'God' and his message, yet know to regard the stories of the bible as simply being a way to get that message across, and not actual fact.

Your absolutely right Vampiress, evolution and belief in god answer two different questions.

[Shaftsbury]

I consider skepticism and freethinking, as tools that I use to mold my personal beliefs.

As far as I'm concerned it is natural to have some skepticism when approaching new or opposing ideas. However there comes a point where

the amount of evidence for or against an argument reaches beyond a reasonable doubt, at this point logic would dictate that you side with the evidence.

If you argue against the evidence beyond that point I would no longer consider you skeptical.

Edited for spelling.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Shaftsbury

[Skim Milky]

skepticism is neccesary for sanity.

[+Sherapy]

what is a deep thinker ???(skeptic), what an excellent inquiry, as an educater this is in our curriculum now much is devoted to this subject then once was we see that the system is dumbing people down and the wave of the future is to teach how to think not what to think. anymore.......thank goodness..LOL

so what is a thinker????? A thinker is one who genuinely 'explores' ideas.One who loves exploring ideas. One who doesn't limit their mental flexability by dogmatic constructs, and has the capacity to be responsive to changing circumstances, change is life, and the core of any idea is subject to change as it is natural ..

"perspectives change the essence of things do not, the reality of things reside in their essences, not in their appearances." this is very platonic ..

take 'god' for example its a term used when we have no access to a model and Kant pointed out in the world of appearnces we have no access to models....

a deep understanding of mathematics is important if not crucial, to a quality thinker IMO....

Imo, I would say few really understand what thinking is it goes beyond the fad of the day 'one is a true thinker because he excepts anothers beleifs almost anyone can do this the trick is can he challenge his own ideas, does he understand the theoretical construction of an idea, what it means how it came to be and how it is implemented.... , does he understand that reason requires context.....whats bias, whats reliable data??? How do we reason with thought how do we move to complex levels of thought?/

Logic is not a map of how the brain works as many think...So what is logic????

how about 'common sense' a most misunderstood axiom........

understanding expertise what does it mean???? etc etc...

so to ask what kind of thinker you are is deeply profound if one is really genuinely asking.....

[momentarylapseofreason]

I feel skepticism is sorely lacking . Especially in our country.

We are the most gullible and superstitious country in the western world (or so they say)

Is this cool or what ?

I think everything should be scrutinised. Maybe my skepticism is insecurity in disguise ?

I encourage open- minded skepticism in my children. Question everything.

Won't get fooled again - by The Who-This song is playing in my head now since you asked this question

It's a method and a position for me. At some point I changed the way I think and time will tell what outcome this has for me and then again MAYBE NOT

I'm skeptical of my skepticism .....moohaha

Edited September 18, 2007 by momentarylapseofreason

[truethat]

I find it interesting how people have chosen to answer this. I'm not sure what politics has to do with the original post.

I also find it cute that Sheri refers to herself as a devoted "educater" I'm sorry but that did make me chuckle even if I am used to her way of writer.

But I'm also interested in the way the objective questioning of evolution is pooh poohed.

But overall I think the posts are going in the right direction and I encourage more!

[+Sherapy]

I find it interesting how people have chosen to answer this. I'm not sure what politics has to do with the original post.

I also find it cute that Sheri refers to herself as a devoted "educater" I'm sorry but that did make me chuckle even if I am used to her way of writer.

But I'm also interested in the way the objective questioning of evolution is pooh poohed.

But overall I think the posts are going in the right direction and I encourage more!

The movement in education is now teaching kids to think the new curriculums are built on this theorectical concept...I said education is devoting itself to this....I am a devoted, adoring mother

[truethat]

Yeah but its hard to take you seriously as a devoted educator when you can't even spell the word educator correctly and make huge spelling mistakes and mistakes in grammar in the midst of quoting Kant. Its mildly amusing. No harm intended. I just had to chuckle.

[She-ra]

thing is though...i don't see evolution as proving 'God' isn't real, or 'God' as proving evolution to be false.

all evolution does is explain why the world is the way it is. i don't see why a religious person would have any problems with it. i mean, science just doesn't have anything to do with 'faith'...this clash between the two is so unnecessary.

to be fair, one must know not to take the bible so literally. you can't really say that the beginning of man-kind was really 'adam and eve' and expect this belief to be taken seriously. they are stories with morals, told in a way for people of those times to understand. you can still believe in 'God' and his message, yet know to regard the stories of the bible as simply being a way to get that message across, and not actual fact.

Yes LIV I agree with your simile here. Good one.

I also believe in debunking certain claims.

Where would that fall under the skeptic/cynical umbrella? I do not believe everything I see, hear or read unless I see valid proof. I guess that's where I sometimes waiver. My valid proof may not be someone else's valid proof. Hmmmm, quite interesting.

I'd love to hear what other's have to say. Jody

[Skim Milky]

anyone gullable enough to just "believe" something without proof, well, thats just dumb.

but i dont have any proof to back that up so.....

[Beckys_Mom]

The movement in education is now teaching kids to think the new curriculums are built on this theorectical concept...I said education is devoting itself to this....I am a devoted, adoring mother

I admire you for taking out so much time and effort to educate your son Sheri, and I have no doubt in my mind if you are a loving mom or not. As for how you spell certain words, who cares, as long as you get your message across...it's just the internet for petes sake, no one cares!!

PS never let anyone try and drag you down

[Beckys_Mom]

Yeah but its hard to take you seriously as a devoted educator when you can't even spell the word educator correctly and make huge spelling mistakes and mistakes in grammar in the midst of quoting Kant. Its mildly amusing. No harm intended. I just had to chuckle.

I chuckled at this post...amazing way to put someone down and then laugh it off...the highest form of wit?? now that's a chuckle if ever I saw one

Edited September 18, 2007 by Beckys_Mom

[+Sherapy]

anyone gullable enough to just "believe" something without proof, well, thats just dumb.

but i dont have any proof to back that up so.....

actually skim, many call this common sense... and will go as so far as to accuse another of being lacking in it....... anything that is common is ignorant indeed lol .......It has become an addiction to accept things on no authority, or reliable data what-so-ever...some still call it education .. or learning...you have to make yourself impaired it is natural to question, to think ,to be driven by curiousity. to explore new ideas etc...... some systems actually have come up with ways to limit and impair the ability to think ....our educational system is one etc...

[truethat]

I chuckled at this post...amazing way to put someone down and then laugh it off...the highest form of wit?? now that's a chuckle if ever I saw one

Yes many of us agree with you on this sentiment BM that to mock someone and then chuckle it off with (((HUGS))) and chortles is not the highest form of wit.

We are all used to Sheri's posting style, so this was a sincere comment of mine but I don't expect you to recognize the sincerity.

Anyway back to the topic at hand, skepticism method or position?

[Skim Milky]

whats sensible about just eating up what your given? i mean, ill give someone the benifit of the doubt. i assume that when i read a textbook, precautions have been made to assure its accuracy. this may not allways be the case.

[truethat]

Skim milky you seem to suggest that skepticism is a position to you, not something you do but something you think?

[Skim Milky]

Skim milky you seem to suggest that skepticism is a position to you, not something you do but something you think?

well i feel, at least for me anyways, that skeptisicm is kind of a reflex. something instinctive.

[truethat]

What do you do about the reflex?

See expecting others to use the method for your position is a tad lazy if you know what I mean? If you are skeptical follow it through.

Sheri suggests this is natural in people until it is worked out of them by the education system. You seem to be proving her point.

[libra II]

Being a skeptic does not mean that you do not hope. And I certainly do hope. Good luck to us all

[+Sherapy]

I admire you for taking out so much time and effort to educate your son Sheri, and I have no doubt in my mind if you are a loving mom or not. As for how you spell certain words, who cares, as long as you get your message across...it's just the internet for petes sake, no one cares!!

PS never let anyone try and drag you down

Thanks sis, for your very kind words and loving support, its freinds as you who inspire my journey and remind me of the beauty in the world, i am not easily rattled as you know sis....I am not gonna worry about my spelling with all i do LOL....

i think true meant that devotion is a religious ocncept and found it funny I'd use it....