111 replies to this topic

[Corp]

I'm getting less a "skepticism is weakening" vibe and more a "people aren't agreeing with me" vibe. It doesn't matter if a theory is from the mainstream or some guy who wears a cat for a hat, skepticism can correctly be applied to both.

[Hasina]

Corp, on 05 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm getting less a "skepticism is weakening" vibe and more a "people aren't agreeing with me" vibe. It doesn't matter if a theory is from the mainstream or some guy who wears a cat for a hat, skepticism can correctly be applied to both.

Hey! I'm not a guy! Wait.. You were making a general statement about cats as hats... Anyway... I agree. Anyone who disagrees and argues against a certain viewpoint is a skeptic of that view, simple.

Edited by Hasina, 05 October 2012 - 06:26 PM.

[Obviousman]

Hasina, on 05 October 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

Anyone who disagrees and argues against a certain viewpoint is a skeptic of that view, simple.

No, they are an opponent of that view. A skeptic examines the facts and deduces what is either proven, more likely, etc. For instance, ESP. An opponent of the view that ESP exists will say that ESP is rubbish.

A skeptic will say something like that there has been little or no credible evidence for the existance of ESP, that under controlled conditions ESP has failed to manifiest itself however it may exist... just that no-one has yet been able to prove it.

[lightly]

skeptical  is just another word for doubtful .    skeptic is not some grandiose title... it simply means a person has doubts... *about something.. or is not easily convinced


skeptical |ˈskeptikəl| ( Brit. sceptical)
adjective
1 not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations : the public were deeply skeptical about some of the proposals.
2 Philosophy relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

Edited by lightly, 06 October 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Nice description of why hardly anybody takes anything you say seriously.

They may not take me seriously, but they sure like to talk about what I post about.    Sometimes Kluge & MID post pages of vitriol in response to my posts.

Orwell noted that if the language can be corrupted, what follows naturally is that thought processes are then corrupted.

So today, after 11 years of story telling in the Goebbels tradition, men calling themselves skeptics believe the most outrageous story ever told, and told to them by a government well known for its mendacity.

Yes, corrupt the language.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

They may not take me seriously, but they sure like to talk about what I post about.    Sometimes Kluge & MID post pages of vitriol in response to my posts.

Careful, that could be construed as an admission of trolling....

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons, 06 October 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[hacktorp]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 06 October 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Careful, that could be construed as an admission of trolling....

I sure hope you're kidding...BR's posts are always thoughtful and well-stated.  The same can't be said for many of those who cast stones his way, unfortunately.

Perhaps a better word to use would have been 'mis-construed'.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

hacktorp, on 06 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I sure hope you're kidding...BR's posts are always thoughtful and well-stated.  The same can't be said for many of those who cast stones his way, unfortunately.

Perhaps a better word to use would have been 'mis-construed'.

No, I meant what I said. If a person is being deliberately disruptive or posting just to cause a reaction, then that by definition is trolling. Period.

[JamesThomas]

Liquid Gardens, on 05 October 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Hmmm, maybe I'm not getting it but that seems contradictory.  If they trust the mainstream the way I think you mean it then they're not skeptics, almost by definition; maybe you mean 'self-proclaimed skeptics'.  And sometimes people don't trust the mainstream, they agree with the mainstream, because some of what constitutes the mainstream is, well, factual.



True, and in that respect they'd be skeptical.  A key part of being a skeptic though is to apply that same level of skepticism, or even better more, to their own beliefs and conclusions; on that front there are definitely some CTs who come up short.

Actually I think you are getting it. It seems everything is upside down. At least that's way it seems to be within my small group of associates and friends. The people who say they are a "skeptic", almost 100% of the time agree with the mainstream press and the government on an issue. It's the "conspiracy" "nut jobs", like me who question authority and the mass prevailing beliefs. According to basic definitions, it should be the other way around, shouldn't it? Or have I just wigged-out...and am seeing things that are not here?

[Anonymous User]

Skeptic is a meaningless label in my eyes, the people that call themselves one make it sound like a job. It makes skepticism sound extreme, because it implies that you're supposed to be skeptical of absolutely everything whether is be things actually worth of skepticism, the paranormal, ect or totally ridicules things like doubt whether or not the sun will rise.  I see skepticism as a practice that should be carried out and demonstrated in situations where it should be applied, not a silly fashion statement. IMO.

Edited by Thomas J, 06 October 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 06 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

No, I meant what I said. If a person is being deliberately disruptive or posting just to cause a reaction, then that by definition is trolling. Period.

Thanks for the kind words Hacktorp.

The vast majority of my posts here at UM are with good people who are courteous and receive the same.  I enjoy posting here because of that.

I do not mean to disrupt anything at all.  Some posters are less courteous than others.  Some posts are less courteous than others.  

We're here to discuss opinions.  Nobody can control the personalities of others, here on the internet.

[the L]

JamesThomas, on 04 October 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:
1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?

Good observation mate. Can I use it as signature?

[Babe Ruth]

The modern connotation of the word is rather an example of Orwell's observation that if the language can be corrupted, the logical result is a corruption of the thought processes.

There is a comical quality to it--men who believe outlandish government stories describe themselves as being skeptics.

[JGirl]

i'm skeptical of the definition of skeptical.

[JGirl]

Corp, on 05 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm getting less a "skepticism is weakening" vibe and more a "people aren't agreeing with me" vibe. It doesn't matter if a theory is from the mainstream or some guy who wears a cat for a hat, skepticism can correctly be applied to both.

how about a gal who wears a cat for a hat?