Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JamesThomas

Beleive It Or Not, A Sceptic Is Someone Who:

112 posts in this topic

Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to change the meanings of skeptic to make it anti conspiracy theorists and pro government?

:w00t:

Anyway:

also scep·ti·cism (skĕp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) pron.gif

n.

  • A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.
  • Philosophy.
    1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
    2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
    3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

    [*]Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2

skepticism, scepticism

a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions. See also 312. PHILOSOPHY. — skeptic, n., adj.skeptical, adj.

And:

Skeptics and scepticism

Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?

A word about the distinction between sceptics and skeptics. A generic "sceptic" questions accepted beliefs. In this way, we have "man didn't go to the moon" sceptics. (Some people won't believe anything.) Skeptics are different: they espouse the evidence-based approach – and find the world wanting in many respects.

Scepticism, or skepticism, is neither denialism nor a movement. Based on the Greek skeptomai, which means to think or consider, it usually means doubt or incredulity about particular ideas, or a wider view about the impossibility of having certain knowledge. This uncertainty is a philosophical position, and philosophical scepticism includes attempts to deal with it, through systematic doubt and testing of ideas.

So, let's be clear. In the US you can be a climate skeptic. In the UK you might consider yourself a Skeptic and approach knowledge in a sceptical way. It also appears that it is possible to be a Skeptic and yet not be a sceptic. Hyde's parenthetical "Some people won't believe anything" dismissal of "bad" sceptics suggests very little understanding of what scepticism really means.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/nov/13/history-science

When is a 'skeptic' not a sceptic?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100080560/when-is-a-skeptic-not-a-sceptic/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

You missed my point. I was specifically referring to the conspirators weighing the benefits to the drawbacks - as it touches on them. What method would be better for a conspirator disposing of the steel, in other words.

So with 9/11, there were huge benefits - for very few people, And the many drawbacks are still being felt by the rest of us. That is just fine to them. They reap the rewards by our blood and pain. It isn't a drawback to an evil scumbag

A better idea? What's a better idea for them than huge profits of war?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to change the meanings of skeptic to make it anti conspiracy theorists and pro government?

:w00t:

Anyway:

also scep·ti·cism (skĕp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) pron.gif

n.

  • A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.
  • Philosophy.
    1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
    2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
    3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

  • Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.


Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2

skepticism, scepticism

a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions. See also 312. PHILOSOPHY. — skeptic, n., adj.skeptical, adj.

And:

Skeptics and scepticism

Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?

http://www.guardian....history-science

When is a 'skeptic' not a sceptic?

http://blogs.telegra...-not-a-sceptic/

Skeptic or sceptic is nothing more than two different, acceptable ways to spell it. A skeptic is always a sceptic because they are the exact same thing.

The term skeptic (or sceptic!) has been 'hijacked' by the pro-Government side. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' like James Randi and Michael Shermer are two prime examples of high-profile propagandists. "Skeptic" magazine should be sued for fraudulent labeling. More and more they seem to be popping up.

In every case, they spout nothing but pro-government tripe. So is that just an incredible coincidence, or is it an intentional ploy?

A label to fool people, The 'skeptics' are evidence-based, always seeking out the truth hidden behind the lies. A 'Skeptic' magazine will expose the liars who dare to doubt our honest government! They are given the label of 'conspiracy nuts'.

It's a complete farce.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skeptic or sceptic is nothing more than two different, acceptable ways to spell it. A skeptic is always a sceptic because they are the exact same thing.

The term skeptic (or sceptic!) has been 'hijacked' by the pro-Government side. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' like James Randi and Michael Shermer are two prime examples of high-profile propagandists. "Skeptic" magazine should be sued for fraudulent labeling. More and more they seem to be popping up.

In every case, they spout nothing but pro-government tripe. So is that just an incredible coincidence, or is it an intentional ploy?

A label to fool people, The 'skeptics' are evidence-based, always seeking out the truth hidden behind the lies. A 'Skeptic' magazine will expose the liars who dare to doubt our honest government! They are given the label of 'conspiracy nuts'.

It's a complete farce.

Exactly! It is an illustration of Orwell's notion that if the language and meanings of words can be corrupted, the result is that thought processes follow in being corrupted.

A society conditioned to believe in such silly things as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will EASILY believe any fiction thrown their way, especially if there are pictures, and the fiction is repeated frequently enough. Throw in violence and psychological trauma, and such memories are etched into the public psyche forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the SEC invoked Rule 12(k). That allowed the next day clearance of $240 billion in US securities without the usual rules and procedures regarding identity of those surrendering them.

What does that have to do with 9/11? The Air Force was charged hundreds of dollars for toilet seats but that was no reason to fly airliners into buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with 9/11? The Air Force was charged hundreds of dollars for toilet seats but that was no reason to fly airliners into buildings.

If you were to read the work done by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz you might discover why the invocation of 12(k) had to do with the events of the day. More importantly, the next day, 12 September 2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to read the work done by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz you might discover why the invocation of 12(k) had to do with the events of the day. More importantly, the next day, 12 September 2001

Are they serious?! Ignorance on their part is not helpful when confronted with undeniable facts and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, the founder of the word "skeptic" meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]"

Here are some great quotes from the SCEPCOP site about "skeptics":

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

"The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."

"What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."

"I've never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility."

Edited by WWu777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they serious?! Ignorance on their part is not helpful when confronted with undeniable facts and evidence.

They are way more serious than you are, for sure. And more curious too. And more skeptical of government claims too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are way more serious than you are, for sure. And more curious too. And more skeptical of government claims too.

The cards they've placed on the table have been blown off by the wind of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in your mind Sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in your mind Sky.

How amusing when facts and evidence have already done so!! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.