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 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?

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

skepticism is neccesary for sanity.

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.....

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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....

I think this whole carry on with Sheri and the rest of you that felt offended by her in the past, should just remain in the past.....I see where both of you are coming from, but sometimes people do get a bit long in the tooth dwelling on the past. From what I can see, she hasn't grasped how she may have offended you or anyone else (when talking about parenting ect) but you of all people I always would expect you to rise above it, and never allow anyone to make you feel beneath anyone.

I for one wont question your education nor will I question how you raise kids, but I differ from Sheri.....I simply take your word for it true - good mom, educated that's it!! <-- this is how I see you, and I'm willing to bet how others do too.........but why should that matter?? How you feel about yourself is what really matters, not some tom dick or harry on a forum.

TOPIC AT HAND

I believe everyone is skeptical about something

Those that claim to be real skeptics, some don't care to question their own beliefs,it's almost as if they fear putting it to the test

A true Skeptic, will lay their own beliefs on the line, and is willing to put them to the test...as for true believers, that's a different ball game, for a lot seem to fear putting their beliefs to the test, they stick to the status quo run with the rest of the flock!!

I see a lot of skeptics on here that will doubt almost anything, meanwhile chanting - PROOF WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??
Some fail to grasp what the word - 'Faith' means

PA presented a new thread on magic, I told PA I was always skeptical about magic, so I asked if he could share a story. He did, I now question myself, what if he is telling the truth??

Becky you are the only one who has brought up the "PAST!!! Gasp~~" in this thread.


My original post was sincerely a couldn't help chuckle at someone going on and on about her dedication as an educator but spelling it educater....I couldn't help but hear a Gomer Pyle accent when I read it.

Sheri mistook that I was laughing at her self reference and I pointed out that I was only speaking about her spelling habits and poor grammar online which we all KNOW is just how Sheri TYPES not how she communicates off the computer.

So take your lecture to yourself because you made a mountain out of a molehill and derailed the topic.


To the rest of your reply would you clarify if you consider skepticism a method or a position? Do you act as a skeptic or do you expect others to do the work for you and simply take the position of skeptic.

I'm not sure what the point about PA is but it sounds a little like you are calling him a liar? I'm sure that's not what you mean so perhaps you can clarify it.

WOW now it's my turn eh?? When I said I used to be skeptical about magic, I was being honest........I am not going to sit here and just agree with every last story written and ignore my own judgements for the sake of being pounced on (meaning in general)...and NO I wasn't calling PA a liar...did you actually read where I said - so I asked if he could share a story. He did, I now question myself, what if he is telling the truth?? <--it's natural to do this, for if you bothered to read his thread, you will notice that HE TOO questioned it, whether it be real magic or not


WOW for it was you that pounced on sheri for simple spelling errors and rambled on about her classing herself as an educator...I call that GASP trying to derail your own topic!!!


Well jumping on her grammar and spelling really did take this thread for a spin...mountains & molehills?? yea that's how I saw the nit picking

true,
i do feel Geri has a great message it shouldn't matter what anyone thinks, and the internet is no indicator of a person, and spelling on line is not a priority lol who cares,its not worth the time it takes to psot it lol..... it is limited in what it can reveal and what would be the point of pointing out the spelling??? we arent' freinds so maybe she does have a point and is trying to help you.. Geri cares alot esepcially about people getting along so maybe its a lecture worth thinking about...no harm there...

I am not offended by you true or would i be and i would hope that was the same for you.. this is the internet for cripes sake LOL and that has to be kept in perspective....

Why is it that whenever you two are around you take a perfectly good thread and ruin it by turning it into a therapy session?

Is there some need that is not being met in your life?



As to the OP


Lets start again



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 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?

Skepticism is a method, of course, and a skeptic is one who uses that method. It's a method to filter out wrong and/or faulty information in order to sift towards a greater understanding of the world. Same goes for Science.

Great post. But who is the one that does this? Do you rely on other people's information or more specifically systems. For example the argument is made that evolution is FACT. But how much of what is accepted as fact in evolutionary theory is actual proven fact. The argument was made that you can't go back but isn't that the very basis of the evolutionary theory?

Where do you draw the line? I use this as an example of course and would rather discuss the concept of skepticism than debating evolution theory.

What would you say about this?

Don't be soft, girl, that's rubbish

They say God forgives, but not people. I guess I must have done something very naughty, eh? By the way, you did not finish what you were doing, that was only the second layer. Goodnight, Luv

Whaaaaa?

You could say the same for believers...critics??

http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/B/Beatles/Do...Pass-Me-By.html

OK, how did this become a thread about politics, or about whether skepticism itself is right or not?

Skepticism itself is just a tool. The fact that many people who consider themselves skeptics do not use this tool properly and instead just borrow the name to give their hatred, disdain, or lack of intelligence a name is not skepticism's fault... reminds me of how so many people claim to be Christians and yet have only a very vague idea of what that means.

Personally, I think She-ra had a good point about exploring what the difference is between a debunker and a skeptic.

I think they're very different. A debunker to me is an attacker, someone who is so sure of their position that they'll use any dumb argument to win their position.

I think a real skeptic is able to use the skeptical process and still say "I don't know" at the end.

I consider myself a skeptic in a lot of ways.

Skeptics - not only atheists question others beleifs - ask questions or state horrific teachings in religious texts, to understand why someone would wish to follow them. Religion is everywhere, where it does not belong - politics, government, public schoolings and public streets-where it tells all un-believers they're going to hell. It affects everyone, whether you follow the religion, whether you follow another religion or if you do not follow any supernatural being or book.

So I think everyone has a right to question things that tell you how to talk, how to think. Something that tells you when to walk or run.

Just as people who question their government. Religion is no different - if you take away the supernatural aspects and focus on the teachings.

Good job, you used position to describe a skeptic or debunker. That's what the topic is about.

Like I said before, I suppose it can be used in both ways. I've always heard a good dose of skepticism or disbelief is a good thing. Is it possible to use skepticism as a tool or a method, without eventually adopting it as a stance or position? I think Mel is right, in that being able to say "I don't know" is a sign of a skeptic using skepticism as a method rather than a position. Using it as a position almost requires some conclusion, even if it is along the lines of "Based on MY observations or the evidence that I have seen, my conclusion is..."

Of course, before you know it we start labeling people as skeptic or believer, which I think we should try to avoid.

From what I have seen and experienced in my many discussions concerning evolution is that the majority of people involved in the discussions do not either understand the theory, do not understand the science behind the theory, or have some alternate version of the theory. Therefore most of the discussion centers on trying to sort out the apples from the oranges. I think this is the reason why people get frustrated and why the threads often break down into chaos.

As far as the evidence goes, I have found far more evidence FOR evolution than against it, so for me the truth clearly points toward the theory as being correct as far as we can currently deduce.

You are correct in saying that challenging evolution is good science, however you must also be able to offer valid alternative evidence and not just an opinion or a personal belief, and you must actually understand the science behind it. Otherwise you run the risk of not being taken seriously.

Reading this I see that you are taking Skepticism as a position that challenges religion. That's a position not a method.


A method would be sort out what works and what doesn't work in religion and to examine them closely. Not to attack religion as this big evil baddy.

See that to me is taking a position against Religion for emotional and irrational reasons. That is not scientific or logical.

Skepticism is a method, not a position.

It irritates me when I click on different threads and always see people asking "Are you a skeptic or a believer?" as if the word "skeptic" implies that you disbelieve something. That's not what it is at all. Read: Belief and skepticism are not polar opposites!

Skepticism simply means "to doubt". It's the idea that a claim should be subjected to criticism in accordance with scientific method until empirical evidence is provided to support it before being accepted, or otherwise be proven false by observation (falsified).

It's important to draw a line between skeptics and cynics. Skeptics are the ones who maintain neutrality and tackle a claim objectively (as mentioned above), a cynic is one who draws up an argument to support a preconceived belief (i.e. to disregard facts and evidence to try and argue that something isn't real).

Yeah baby........

I'm not sure if I understood the above post right due to my limited resources at hand.

Do we not all rely on other peoples information ? It's a complicated world out there and sorting through all the BS is a MONSTROUS task. We don't all have the means,resources nor the time to do our own experiments. Life is too short and funds are limited. So are my mental capacities they also have a limit. LOL

And what do you mean with systems, I don't understand

And why did you post this topic ? Just curious. Skeptical minds want to know.


Oh by the way I'm a rapist.................of TSQ

True thats exactly what a skeptic does they point out very clearly what isn't working about religion..It seems to be the 'relgious side who gets emotional and sees it in an emotional light...

to point out what isn't working isn't hatred...True, disagreement is actaully a path to resolution...Its anger used in a very productive healthy manner.. See anger used as intended never seeks to harm it seeks to heal to benefit....Its using anger at its highest expression...

If you see your kid ready to do something stupid ( as adults thats what we do we guide based on accrued experinces correct) we know that at 9, 10. 13.... etc.... that a kid is limited in experience not that he will always be...But, in this moment he is ....So we give the data depending on the circumstance, and we tailor our guidance to the understanding of the child...

do we really need to tell an adult that beleifs are harmful, and point out how this is happening ???? well yes,not everyone uses beleifs as tools many are attached to them, and this is noted when one becomes defensive, when one accuses another of hatred, or infers they are blaming .. blah blah..


Free thinking is flexability of ideas with the capacity to be responsive to the changing circumstances, which i observe to be natural to the human....there is a diffence between creating behaviors and creating true understanding....How would we do that ????

I'd say you're wrong Sheri.

What you're describing is cynical, with the intent to debunk. It's a postion with an agenda.

That's not at all what a skeptic is. A skeptic shouldn't have an agenda.

Interesting use of bias MW... right or wrong how relative MW... but this is a whole other line of thinking.....
interesting you just defined religion...