Definition And Explanations

[Emma_Acid]

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Skepticism and spirituality can be consistent. I am an open-minded skeptic and a spiritualist from the evidence (paranormal) skeptically analyzed. It is unfortunate today that in many people's minds the word 'skeptic' and 'atheist-materialist' are practically synonymous.

YAWN. "The evidence doesn't' agree with the way I want the universe to be so I'll kick my toys out the pram". Skeptic and "atheist materialist" (whatever that means) are synonymous because the evidence points to a materialistic universe, not a spiritualistic one. And if you think its the other way round, then you're doing skepticism wrong.

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

because the evidence points to a materialistic universe, not a spiritualistic one.

That's because the difference is 'out there' vs. 'in your head.' Spirituality is a psychological thing. Anything can be 'real' in your head, but that doesn't make it actually real. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

On 25/12/2016 at 4:37 AM, David Henson said:

That raises a lot of questions. Is skepticism a lack of imagination?

In many cases comming up with real explanations for something takes more imagination than being a non-sceptic. Discovering the various natural laws take a lot more imagination than just saying that God(s)/aliens/a wizard did it.

Matt Dilahunty (The atheist experience) have a good definition of what it means to be a sceptic: "I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible."

[eight bits]

Notevery

Quote

Matt Dilahunty (The atheist experience) have a good definition of what it means to be a sceptic: "I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible."

That's trickier than it sounds, though, even if it does sound good, and probably is "pointing in the right direction."

There is something called Receiver Operating Characteristic ("ROC," and searchable), and about ROC, there is a folk theorem (= a heuristic of engineering with no known exceptions, and no known non-magical mechanism by which it could be false). The basic idea is that there is a inevitable trade-off between false positives (believing something that is false) and and false negatives (failing to believe something that is true). You cannot completely avoid both, and at some point, you can't do better on one without doing worse on the other.

If so, then Matt needs to choose: believe as many true things as possible OR believe as few false things as possible OR give up a certain amount on one criterion to gain something on the other.

He will pick the third way. "Believe everything" is the best you can do for believing the true things, and "believe nothing" is the best you can do for avoiding false beliefs. NOBODY wants to achieve perfection on one or the other = everybody trades them off. So, where does Matt set his trade-off point?

It's a hard problem, and there is no objectively "right" policy. "Skeptic" suggests somebody who turns the knob to avoid BS more so than a "believer," somebody who turns the knob the other way not to miss anything important.

Everybody turns the same knob, though.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

He will pick the third way. "Believe everything" is the best you can do for believing the true things, and "believe nothing" is the best you can do for avoiding false beliefs. NOBODY wants to achieve perfection on one or the other = everybody trades them off. So, where does Matt set his trade-off point?

It's a hard problem, and there is no objectively "right" policy. "Skeptic" suggests somebody who turns the knob to avoid BS more so than a "believer," somebody who turns the knob the other way not to miss anything important.

Everybody turns the same knob, though.

My knob's turn range is locked by another gauge though, as I think is the case with many skeptics: the gauge of rationality and empiricism (and IMO, consistency).  My addendum to this trade-off point definition is that I am fine not believing something that turns out to be true if it is entirely rational that I don't based on the state of the evidence and reasoning.  If I read on the internet that someone saw an angel, and my analysis of the argument for the existence of angels shows that there is nothing more than this testimony backing up that proposition, then I'm fine not believing it even if it later turns out to be true.  As a matter of fact I wouldn't really be a skeptic if I believed that, or for example took some other notions to be true based on faith, even if evidence emerges later that shows it was correct.  "How did you get there" is an unstated but implicit and important point in Matt's statement I think.

Even leaving that aside, although there is no concrete objectively 'right' policy I think it's fairly well established objectively, and/or logically, that setting the knob to the extremes does not best get us to our assumed goal:  make as few mistakes as possible in determining the truth value of propositions. Therefore some settings are indeed better than others objectively, assuming what you acknowledged, that no one wants to achieve perfection on just one side of the axis.

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

YAWN. "The evidence doesn't' agree with the way I want the universe to be so I'll kick my toys out the pram". Skeptic and "atheist materialist" (whatever that means) are synonymous because the evidence points to a materialistic universe, not a spiritualistic one. And if you think its the other way round, then you're doing skepticism wrong.

Wow, Ms. Acid. You are a poster picture for the type of close-minded pseudo-Skepticism I was trying to describe. You probably did better with an example than I could have done with words. Why so acidic?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Wow, Ms. Acid. You are a poster picture for the type of close-minded pseudo-Skepticism I was trying to describe. You probably did better with an example than I could have done with words. Why so acidic?

But she is one of my favourite close-minded pseudo-sceptics.

As for her acidity, maybe you should just stick to sugar coating eveything.  

[papageorge1]

28 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

As for her acidity, maybe you should just stick to sugar coating eveything.  

I am not the type that needs things sugar coated. I was just wanting to know the cause of the her high acid content. I guess I probably shouldn't have bothered to ask as I am new here and already know about that type of worldview.

[XenoFish]

It takes a high acidic level to burn through sugar coated nonsense.

[MWoo7]

hahahahahahahahah LOVE THAT ! eeeh I just like humor.

 

Regarding other notes above in this thread::::

Yeah dreams are in my head. Like that sugar coat phrasing/idiom/expressiion/saying bit.

Possibly analogous buttercups and buttermilk synonyms that sour easily, over nothing.
Snowflakes make excellent snowdirfts.
Whiners are exceptional at moving great quantities of air.
I couldn't think of anything for dreams, oh wellz

uhOH! now am I in trouble for butting in. Yeah an argument for something constructive
is good I suppose, but hey, those were well thought out zingers and could possibly come in handy ! : D

.... Speaking of Zingers(came up on several search engines, obviously and EXPERT! HA! ), I like how the script writers for Maggie Smith put in some for her and she promptly delivers!

 

Always reminds me of Nuns, can be the sweetest ! or not.

Dang I was trying to work this one in somehow oh wellzzzz, still a good pic!

[back to earth]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not the type that needs things sugar coated. I was just wanting to know the cause of the her high acid content. I guess I probably shouldn't have bothered to ask as I am new here and already know about that type of worldview.

No ... another type of coating though hmmmmm ?   I bit into one of your coatings  .... it was empty inside .

Edited December 26, 2016 by back to earth

[+Liquid Gardens]

18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Skepticism and spirituality can be consistent. I am an open-minded skeptic and a spiritualist from the evidence (paranormal) skeptically analyzed. 

If your skeptical analysis of the evidence has resulted in your believing in 'spirits', then I'm skeptical of your skeptical analysis.  The typical way to resolve that, skeptic-to-skeptic, is to provide this evidence and explain why it is good evidence for spirits.  If the evidence cannot be provided, such as in the case of it being a personal experience, then that just logically furthers the skepticism of the analysis.

Quote

The popular skeptics of today are really just closed-minded atheists-materialists masquerading as skeptics. A true skeptic or scientist is open-minded but does not accept claims without sufficient evidence. 

What's 'closed-minded' about them?  If they were 'open-minded' like you, they'd do or believe what specifically?  Despite your accusations, I'm not seeing anyone 'masquerading' as a skeptic or that any one is a 'pseudo-skeptic', if that actually even has any meaning.  Your self-description as an 'open-minded skeptic' doesn't really say much, and raises some flags since there are a lot of ways of being open-minded that disqualify one from simultaneously being a skeptic; "I believe some things on faith because I'm open-minded" is not consistent with skepticism pretty much by definition for example.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

It takes a high acidic level to burn through sugar coated nonsense.

Ah, is 'sugar coated nonsense' everything beyond atheistic-materialism (per Ms. Acid)? Things I believe are given acid baths before I form my opinion.

[papageorge1]

12 minutes ago, back to earth said:

.... it was empty inside .

We each are our own judge of that. A true skeptic is skeptical of the skeptics too.

[XenoFish]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Ah, is 'sugar coated nonsense' everything beyond atheistic-materialism (per Ms. Acid)? Things I believe are given acid baths before I form my opinion.

It is not so much the belief that is an issue. It's the validity of that belief and in how it's presented. If you believe that god created everything that's an opinion. If you claim that god did it as if it were an absolute truth that's when we skeptics have issues. I could believe that we we're created by aliens, that's a belief. If I say that yes we are the product of alien intervention, I've got to be able to back that up.

Skepticism is not taking things at face value, but looking beyond. Driven by a desire to have factual knowledge. Not assumptions. God exist as one of two things. Unknowable and indifferent, or personal thus created by believers. 

 

[eight bits]

LG

Oh, I don't doubt that you are the very picture of rationality, empricism and consistency. The issue was narrower, though. A famous skeptic reportedly stated,

"I want to believe as many true things, and as few false things, as possible."

but that just isn't the deal we're offered. The deal is your choice:

to believe as many true things as possible, while shouldering a tolerable burden of false things

OR

to believe as few false things as possible, while maintaining a tolerable prospect of finding out true things

OR

to optimize something else altogether (e.g. the overall number of mistaken positives and negatives),

[papageorge1]

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If your skeptical analysis of the evidence has resulted in your believing in 'spirits', then I'm skeptical of your skeptical analysis.  The typical way to resolve that, skeptic-to-skeptic, is to provide this evidence and explain why it is good evidence for spirits.  If the evidence cannot be provided, such as in the case of it being a personal experience, then that just logically furthers the skepticism of the analysis.

My beliefs are based on 150 years of paranormal inquiries and millions of human experiences judged skeptically.

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's 'closed-minded' about them?  If they were 'open-minded' like you, they'd do or believe what specifically?  

They would believe what open-minded skeptical inquiry leads them to believe. They would not be knee-jerk defenders of atheistic-materialism.

17 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Despite your accusations, I'm not seeing anyone 'masquerading' as a skeptic or that any one is a 'pseudo-skeptic', if that actually even has any meaning.  Your self-description as an 'open-minded skeptic' doesn't really say much, and raises some flags since there are a lot of ways of being open-minded that disqualify one from simultaneously being a skeptic; "I believe some things on faith because I'm open-minded" is not consistent with skepticism pretty much by definition for example.

My spiritualist beliefs are based on evidence and not faith. I believe in the existence of spirits beyond reasonable doubt from the skeptical consideration of the paranormal evidence.

[XenoFish]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My spiritualist beliefs are based on evidence and not faith. I believe in the existence of spirits beyond reasonable doubt from the skeptical consideration of the paranormal evidence.

I would seriously love to see such 'evidence'. 

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It is not so much the belief that is an issue. It's the validity of that belief and in how it's presented. If you believe that god created everything that's an opinion. If you claim that god did it as if it were an absolute truth that's when we skeptics have issues. I could believe that we we're created by aliens, that's a belief. If I say that yes we are the product of alien intervention, I've got to be able to back that up.

Well I start with more down to earth questions than God and his nature. Questions, like can this collected body of paranormal data reasonably be explained by a materialist worldview.

 

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Skepticism is not taking things at face value, but looking beyond. Driven by a desire to have factual knowledge. Not assumptions.

Now that I agree with.

 

13 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

God exist as one of two things. Unknowable and indifferent, or personal thus created by believers. 

A skeptic might ask why could he not be both personal and real (unless assumptions are being made)?

(I believe pantheism is the most reasonable belief just by the way)

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I would seriously love to see such 'evidence'. 

What would you seeing such 'evidence' look like?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

A skeptic might ask why could he not be both personal and real (unless assumptions are being made)?

Because of the sheer arrogance of that notion. Would you be seriously willing to believe that the entire universe even multiverse was made just for you?

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I start with more down to earth questions than God and his nature. Questions, like can this collected body of paranormal data reasonably be explained by a materialist worldview.

I spent a huge chunk of my life exploring the supernatural and paranormal, nothing was able to fully convince we to believe in it. Anecdotal evidence didn't count. Neither did personal experience because we can project our beliefs onto something completely mundane. 

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

What would you seeing such 'evidence' look like?

Like all the other 'evidence' invisible. Because there really isn't any. It's mostly just peoples wishful thinking. 

People who believe in god and in some form of spirituality do so because it's satisfies an emotional need. Maybe it mask an insecurity, compensates for daddy issues by projecting one's desire for approve onto some 'heavenly father figure'. Believing is ghost is probably a produce of one's fear of death. To think that this is something beyond this life because they fear their own death. Thinking demons are out to get them is a product of paranoia, as for being bless, I'd say that is a product of overconfidence.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Because of the sheer arrogance of that notion. Would you be seriously willing to believe that the entire universe even multiverse was made just for you?

You seem to be considering only a narrow view. Could it not be created for every living conscious thing in the universe?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

You seem to be considering only a narrow view. Could it not be created for every living conscious thing in the universe?

You claimed evidence caused you to believe in the paranormal/supernatural. I went the opposite direction. I believed in it then looked for answers, the more I learned the less I believed. I skepticism and doubt increased. Spirituality became emotional compensation. The reason people pray is because they know that deep down they are powerless. It's a form of control or an illusion control. 

[Emmisal]

On 12/25/2016 at 3:33 AM, XenoFish said:

Spirituality is just a product of the imagination. People making emotional connections to imaginary things. 

Well, I think that that comment is merely a product of your own imagination.

10 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

YAWN. "The evidence doesn't' agree with the way I want the universe to be so I'll kick my toys out the pram". Skeptic and "atheist materialist" (whatever that means) are synonymous because the evidence points to a materialistic universe, not a spiritualistic one. And if you think its the other way round, then you're doing skepticism wrong.

So who decides whether someone is doing skepticism right or wrong? You?

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Emmisal said:

Well, I think that that comment is merely a product of your own imagination.

If you can actually repeatable prove that something supernatural or paranormal exist, feel free to change our minds.