Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 4 votes

Can Skepticism Blind You to the Truth?

arthur ellison belief skepticism truth blind disbelief

  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#16    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 25 March 2014 - 06:43 AM

The experiment seems rather short, and therefore very inconclusive.

If they wanted to make this point, why not just Quote Lord Kelvin on the Wright Brothers? He said heavier than air flight was impossible yet examples in nature were all around him. Birds somehow seem to have escaped his attention, as such, one can only deduce that his head was so far into the books that he did not notice the world around him. And then 8 years later, the Wright Brothers used the very science he used to postulate his preposterous notion to prove him wrong.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#17    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 March 2014 - 07:51 AM

View Postdavros of skaro, on 25 March 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:



I have a can next to my computer for you, and Mr Walker to show me the validity of claims you two made in the past.So far I only get ignored, or received excuses.

As for my opinion, you have only shown to me that you use spirituality to hide anger issues.

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 wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#18    DecoNoir

DecoNoir

    The Entertainer

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Imaginaerum

  • ... The Aristocrats.

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:12 AM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 25 March 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

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

Just because its not the "truth" you want doesn't mean its not the truth.

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.

#19    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:35 AM

View PostDecoNoir, on 25 March 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:



Just because its not the "truth" you want doesn't mean its not the truth.
Indeed. And just because some limited evidence points to a specific conclusion dosnt mean that that conclusion will be right if all the facts were known. In fact limited information practically guarantees even the best factual conclusion will be wrong. Especially when dealing with ultimate ends.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 25 March 2014 - 08:36 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#20    DecoNoir

DecoNoir

    The Entertainer

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Imaginaerum

  • ... The Aristocrats.

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:40 AM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 25 March 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Indeed. And just because some limited evidence points to a specific conclusion dosnt mean that that conclusion will be right if all the facts were known. In fact limited information practically guarantees even the best factual conclusion will be wrong. Especially when dealing with ultimate ends.

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 reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.

#21    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:42 AM

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..

Edited by Professor T, 25 March 2014 - 08:48 AM.


#22    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 25 March 2014 - 08:55 AM

View PostDecoNoir, on 25 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

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.

:lol:
Science has replaced men in pointy hats and sacred texts with men in white coats and principles of scientific methods that's fought with equal passion.. There's no comparison, both are the same from a neutral perspective..

Let's just face it.. perspective is sacred ground in science and religion. fight all you want.. you'll get nowhere..

Edited by Professor T, 25 March 2014 - 08:56 AM.


#23    DecoNoir

DecoNoir

    The Entertainer

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Imaginaerum

  • ... The Aristocrats.

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:01 AM

View PostProfessor T, on 25 March 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

:lol:
Science has replaced men in pointy hats and sacred texts with men in white coats and principles of scientific methods that's fought with equal passion.. There's no comparison, both are the same from a neutral perspective..

Let's just face it.. perspective is sacred ground in science and religion. fight all you want.. you'll get nowhere..

Things going for the scientific method: internal combustion, nuclear fusion, antibiotics, flight, forensics, robotics, basically the entire modern world including this lovely website you are a member of.

What does the supernatural have? Religious intolerance, and a bunch of cold readers (if your that lucky).

The only people who would possible equate the numerous aspects of science and all that humanity has gained from it are those who don't understand it. From that perspective, I can see why it might come off as "magic".

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.

#24    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:09 AM

View PostDecoNoir, on 25 March 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Things going for the scientific method: internal combustion, nuclear fusion, antibiotics, flight, forensics, robotics, basically the entire modern world including this lovely website you are a member of.

What does the supernatural have? Religious intolerance, and a bunch of cold readers (if your that lucky).

The only people who would possible equate the numerous aspects of science and all that humanity has gained from it are those who don't understand it. From that perspective, I can see why it might come off as "magic".

Thanks... :tu:
Point made...

View PostProfessor T, on 25 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

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..



#25    DecoNoir

DecoNoir

    The Entertainer

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Imaginaerum

  • ... The Aristocrats.

Posted 25 March 2014 - 09:15 AM

Hate to put someone on the spot, but this ties in with our lovely little conversation here:

http://www.unexplain...possession&st=0

A few post in you can see an account by a self professed believer (putting it lightly) in the supernatural, and what happens? By their own account, they were absolutely useless! How does one expect to be taken seriously at all when this is what that belief amounts to?

The evolutionary theory went through many phases, starting with Darwin's own crude "survival of the fittest and natural selection" until decades later when the discovery of DNA and genetics gave us a mechanism to explain the transfer of traits from generation to generation. Science, in all its myriad branches, is subject to review, to change, and if something is proven wrong, its run through the mill, under strict standards, again until we come to truth.

Believers of the supernatural have no system, not even cohesion. Stick three "psychics" with the same customer and you'll get three different responses. Who's right? If the customer is wary and has any sort of acting skill, they can feed them any sort of sob story and the "psychic" will be none the wiser.

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.

#26    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,383 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:13 PM

View PostProfessor T, on 25 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

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 by Merc14, 25 March 2014 - 01:15 PM.

Nice midterms democrats.  As Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#27    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:49 PM

View PostDecoNoir, on 25 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:



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.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#28    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,383 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:56 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 25 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

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 by Merc14, 25 March 2014 - 01:59 PM.

Nice midterms democrats.  As Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#29    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 25 March 2014 - 01:59 PM

View PostDecoNoir, on 25 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:



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)

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#30    J. K.

J. K.

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined:09 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 25 March 2014 - 02:08 PM

View PostMerc14, on 25 March 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

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.

One's reality is another's nightmare.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users