Skepticism!

[XenoFish]

Apply this to the paranormal and supernatural. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by XenoFish
Better link

[danydandan]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Skepticism means to question. Might be a good idea to get this shut down. You know the Walker discussion won't stop.

If it doesn't I'll request it closed due general off-topic comments. 

[Will Due]

44 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I think you're losing sight of why the rules are what they are, in the situation which you yourself brought up.

Legal action is about BOTH what the facts are AND what to do about them, here and now. If there is nothing that can be done about the facts, then indeed, in your fortune-cookie-timeless words, "what difference does it make?" Like many other folks, courts are busy, and there are other factual situations about which something can be done. That may not be "skepticism," but it is wisdom.

The legal arena isn't going to be a winner for you. If for no other reason, then yes, the point of a lawsuit is to be decisive, to act on the best estimate of what's true based on what facts are known at the current time, and then move on.

The more usual situation for the skeptic is in some ways the opposite: of course, act on the best estimate of what's true based on what facts are known at the time, but if more facts arrive, then use them to know more and act better next time. Oh, and while you're waiting, don't mix rational expectation with hope (e.g. God is a friend whom we haven't met yet, and we're gonna live forever with him, our loved ones, and all things bright and beautiful, unless when we meet him, he sends us to Hell).

 

 

Fact is "what difference does it make" are your words.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Will Due

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, Dejarma said:

it has nothing to do with proving anything!! a fact is a fact, period!!!

humour me here please= can you do me the honour of answering a very basic question:

does Australia exist, is it real= yes or no?

Already answered.  Yes it exists.

i know because I live in it 

Ps the definition of a fact is that it is  theoretically capable of being proven true Thus it has EVERYTHING to do with proof 

facts have objective rather than subjective existence 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Guys this has gone miles off topic. It your not going to discuss skepticism specifically b***** off. 

I asked a simple question, I'd rather not turn this into a MrWalker vs the World Thread. If it continues I'll ask for it to be shut down. 

All I asked was a simple enough question, what does skepticism mean to you. 

You are of course entitled to do what you like with your thread, but the evolution of the topic here relates  directly to the nature of skepticism, because skepticism can't logically exist in the presence of  knowledge, proofs, and evidences.

ie scepticism requires an element of doubt, for it to reasonably exist. 

If we can't agree on what constitutes a fact or something provable,  and what is opinion or subjective,  then we certainly cannot agree on the nature of scepticism. 

As stated, for me, there are things i know and things i do not know. I am neither gullible nor sceptical about unknowns , suspending  both active belief, and disbelief about unknowns   until i know

Ie almost anything is possible, but there are varying orders of probability.  

[danydandan]

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You are of course entitled to do what you like with your thread, but the evolution of the topic here relates  directly to the nature of skepticism, because skepticism can't logically exist in the presence of  knowledge, proofs, and evidences.

ie scepticism requires an element of doubt, for it to reasonably exist. 

If we can't agree on what constitutes a fact or something provable,  and what is opinion or subjective,  then we certainly cannot agree on the nature of scepticism. 

As stated, for me, there are things i know and things i do not know. I am neither gullible nor sceptical about unknowns , suspending  both active belief, and disbelief about unknowns   until i know

Ie almost anything is possible, but there are varying orders of probability.  

What are you going on about the whole scientific method is based on doubt, specifically being sceptical about what being observed. That's why it must be unbiased, objective and repeatable. Thus logically your saying we should abandon the whole scientific method? 

Philosophical scepticism is based on different principles, I'm not going to get into it. Scientific scepticism is based on knowledge that we derived from the first principles and the last 400 years of science knowledge. Simple. 

This thread isn't about what you or define as evidence or prove. The premise of the thread is to explore the metacognition of individuals. Specifically relating to how they evaluate claims, their own beliefs and views. 

If you can not stick to that premise please don't veer the thread off-topic. Obviously you are well entitled to give your method of evaluation, or whatever the hell you want, but your or anyone elses definition of fact or whatever isn't what's being discussed.

Edited December 1, 2018 by danydandan

[eight bits]

41 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Fact is "what difference does it make" are your words.

But not my catch-phrase. In post 66, I asked you,

Quote

What difference does it make to the "logical structure" of your fortune-cookie argument?

which, does it really need to be said?, you never have answered nor mooted by withdrawing the bogus argument. The first appearance of the phrase in the context of motivating a court's action in a legal proceeding was yours, at post 68,

Quote

So in a court of law when new facts enter into the logical conclusion of guilt or innocence, there isn't anything to implement on appeal because "what difference does it make"?

There was no logical relationship between my question and yours, I didn't connect the two uses. I still don't. Your phrasing of why a court of appeals might well decline to reopen some cases when "new evidence" surfaces is entirely your own, and has nothing to do with the fool's bet you had earlier offered skeptics and to which I objected.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, joc said:

Sounds like a huge contradiction pg.  What is it that you 'believe' without using blind faith?  God? Aliens? Ghosts?  

I believe in God (in the nondual sense, a separate discussion), aliens and ghosts based on my best assessment of everything and, yes, without any blind faith. The full assessment of  al the evidence and argumentation from all sides leads me to believe it is more reasonable than not to believe in these things.

1 hour ago, joc said:

 

Basically I am skeptical about any claim made that goes against the Laws of Physics.  Consider the universe as infinite (even though it isn't) ....  the Laws of Physics apply throughout it all.  If the truth of  That  is Universal...wouldn't  That  then be the actual Law of God? (if there were such a thing)

 

 

You might want to consider that most of the universe is not directly detectable (so-called dark matter), and physics learns new things every day. At this point we can still observe and experience things physics in 2018 can not yet explain. 

1 hour ago, joc said:

 

I only form my views according to whether it is Reality based.

 

On that point we are the same.

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

But not my catch-phrase. In post 66, I asked you,

which, does it really need to be said?, you never have answered nor mooted by withdrawing the bogus argument. The first appearance of the phrase in the context of motivating a court's action in a legal proceeding was yours, at post 68,

There was no logical relationship between my question and yours, I didn't connect the two uses. I still don't. Your phrasing of why a court of appeals might well decline to reopen some cases when "new evidence" surfaces is entirely your own, and has nothing to do with the fool's bet you had earlier offered skeptics and to which I objected.

 

So when you asked "what difference does it make" you were implying that new facts, when or if they may become known in the future, are irrelevant. Did you not?

 

 

[Guyver]

On 11/30/2018 at 3:59 AM, danydandan said:

 

The word skeptical is not scary nor depressing nor cynical nor contrary. It's just a logical and scientific based approach to evaluating certain claims made. 

Edit: Perhaps I should have asked. What does skepticism mean to you? Would you define yourself as a skeptical minded individual?

In general, threads don’t stay on topic here.  This particular thread will be especially difficult to keep on topic because the topic itself is so limiting.  I mean no offense to Dan, but there’s just not that much to discuss.....and nothing to debate.  Unless we get down to debating things that skeptical people don’t accept.....like God, gods, ghosts spirits, the afterlife and such.

To me, skepticism is a word, an idea, a practice, and a belief.  I’m generally skeptical about things because life has burned me so many times that I’ve learned to abandon hope in certain ways.  Anyway, I tend to adopt skepticism as a mindset, because I don’t generally believe things any more, and I like the comfort of security when it comes to the scientific approach to things because it seems more reliable and trustworthy in many ways.

Yet, science doesn’t cover everything so there’s plenty for me to still question.  FWIW.

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

In general, threads don’t stay on topic here.  This particular thread will be especially difficult to keep on topic because the topic itself is so limiting.  I mean no offense to Dan, but there’s just not that much to discuss.....and nothing to debate.  Unless we get down to debating things that skeptical people don’t accept.....like God, gods, ghosts spirits, the afterlife and such.

To me, skepticism is a word, an idea, a practice, and a belief.  I’m generally skeptical about things because life has burned me so many times that I’ve learned to abandon hope in certain ways.  Anyway, I tend to adopt skepticism as a mindset, because I don’t generally believe things any more, and I like the comfort of security when it comes to the scientific approach to things because it seems more reliable and trustworthy in many ways.

Yet, science doesn’t cover everything so there’s plenty for me to still question.  FWIW.

It's limited in scope for the reason of hopefully staying on topic. 

You and most others were able to do it, why can't others? 

May I ask what's your method of evaluation for things, regardless of what they are of course. Initially I thought you were describing cynicism not scepticism, but I'm undecided because I don't know if your cynical or sceptical about everything. You don't seem to be. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by danydandan

[Jodie.Lynne]

18 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 I’m generally skeptical about things because life has burned me so many times that I’ve learned to abandon hope in certain ways.

I think you are describing cynicism, not skepticism.

[+joc]

46 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe in God (in the nondual sense, a separate discussion), aliens and ghosts based on my best assessment of everything and, yes, without any blind faith. The full assessment of  al the evidence and argumentation from all sides leads me to believe it is more reasonable than not to believe in these things.

You might want to consider that most of the universe is not directly detectable (so-called dark matter), and physics learns new things every day. At this point we can still observe and experience things physics in 2018 can not yet explain. 

On that point we are the same.

1. There is no evidence of aliens, ghosts or gods.

2. We learn new things...but the Laws of Physics remain the same.  In fact, it is because of such knowledge that we do learn new things.

3. You are a skeptic of the truth.  I am a skeptic of the false.

 

 

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, joc said:

1. There is no evidence of aliens, ghosts or gods.

2. We learn new things...but the Laws of Physics remain the same.  In fact, it is because of such knowledge that we do learn new things.

3. You are a skeptic of the truth.  I am a skeptic of the false.

 

 

Nothing positive will come of us repeating the same debate again. For the sake of this thread, Carry On.

[+joc]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Nothing positive will come of us repeating the same debate again. For the sake of this thread, Carry On.

Not debating... just stating.

People are skeptical for reasons.  Things not jiving with what they 'believe' is one reason.

That is why it is important to understand the Foundation of Physics that the truth is built on...

I am a Missouri Skeptic...

...show me the alien's body

...show me the bigfoot's body

...show me 'God'

 

 

[papageorge1]

41 minutes ago, joc said:

Not debating... just stating.

People are skeptical for reasons.  Things not jiving with what they 'believe' is one reason.

That is why it is important to understand the Foundation of Physics that the truth is built on...

I am a Missouri Skeptic...

...show me the alien's body

...show me the bigfoot's body

...show me 'God'

 

 

The Higgs Boson was believed to exist by many physicists before it was officially found. Before the 'find' wouldn't a Missouri Skeptic have said they do not exist?

[+joc]

20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The Higgs Boson was believed to exist by many physicists before it was officially found. Before the 'find' wouldn't a Missouri Skeptic have said they do not exist?

That is quite frankly, a really absurd analogy.  Do I really have to point out why?

[danydandan]

29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The Higgs Boson was believed to exist by many physicists before it was officially found. Before the 'find' wouldn't a Missouri Skeptic have said they do not exist?

For someone who says they have method of evaluating claims, that analogy is kinda absurd. 

Edit: Joc beat me to it.

Edited December 1, 2018 by danydandan

[XenoFish]

The thing about beliefs is that if they can be tested then their might be something to them. However 3 questionable successes out of a 1000 attempts doesn't mean anything really. A major problem with any and all paranormal claims is repeatability. Without that, claims mean absolutely nothing. Just because someone saw a ghost doesn't mean they saw a ghost. Any number of things can account for such a sighting. Yet believers tend to ignore that. Only seeking information to further reinforce their belief. When you put it to the test enough, eventually, there's nothing to believe in. 

The magician/occultist used to be a scientist of the mind. Their grimoires were basically experiment logs. Keeping a record of the time, date, mood, moon phase, ritual done and a daily journal after the ritual was complete. In order to look back and see each step that lead to whatever they wished to manifest. This is the introspect form of magick. Not much different from a modern scientist using the scientific method.

 

[papageorge1]

18 minutes ago, danydandan said:

For someone who says they have method of evaluating claims, that analogy is kinda absurd. 

Edit: Joc beat me to it.

Where did I claim a method beyond just evaluating everything from all sides and forming my best judgment?

re: @joc comment on my analogy

Actually the analogy works but it shows moving in tiny increments is something that mainstream science can be comfortable with. The main difference is they are often not comfortable with more revolutionary hypotheses. 

[danydandan]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Where did I claim a method beyond just evaluating everything from all sides and forming my best judgment?

re: @joc comment on my analogy

Actually the analogy works but it shows moving in tiny increments is something that mainstream science can be comfortable with. The main difference is they are often not comfortable with more revolutionary hypotheses. 

That's the method I'm taking about. As far as I recall I can't remember reading any in our field saying the Higgs Boson is/was definitely a thing until it was observed. However it's effects have always never been in question, it's had massive amounts of supported and suggestive evidence.

I think that was true 200 years ago, but I don't think it's true these days thankfully. Like the idea that Newton was infallible held scientific research back for generations unfortunately. But that had more to do with nationalism than science, thankfully our scientific community learns from it's mistakes. 

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

thankfully our scientific community learns from it's mistakes. 

On that I disagree strongly. I believe there is still a sorry bias against revolutionary ideas in fields like Consciousness and the Paranormal when they seem to threaten the prevailing materialist paradigm of reality. 

[danydandan]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

On that I disagree strongly. I believe there is still a sorry bias against revolutionary ideas in fields like Consciousness and the Paranormal when they seem to threaten the prevailing materialist paradigm of reality. 

If there was substantial evidence to support or suggest that the Consciousness is independent of our brains it would obviously be accepted, unfortunately it's an untestable hypothesis thus isn't something scientists should bother researching until such a time it becomes testable. You could infer if a Learning Machine developed consciousness it would suggest that consciousness is confined to the structure it's confined to. Other than systematically killing people I can't see another way to test the hypothesis.

Paranormal is a wide ranging term. So I can't comment. But the same applies evidence=acceptance. I do appreciate that there are people who just dismiss everything without consideration due to biasness but that happens in everything. But again thats not scepticism, that cynicism.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I do appreciate that there are people who just dismiss everything without consideration due to biasness but that happens in everything. But again thats not scepticism, that cynicism.

There is a point dany where the lack of evidence can only lead to "no" rather than some agnostic stance. The problem with the paranormal is repeatability. Either it happens or it doesn't. If it does happen where is the actual realness of it. 

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There is a point dany where the lack of evidence can only lead to "no" rather than some agnostic stance. The problem with the paranormal is repeatability. Either it happens or it doesn't. If it does happen where is the actual realness of it. 

I agree. 

People don't realise that we are all capable of hyber agency detection, pareidolia, change blindness, inattentional blindness, our preception is constructed, our memories are constructed which makes them susceptible to being fused, confabulated, contaminated, personalised and distorted. Not to mention every time you remember that memory is constructed again, so each time it's constructed it's susceptible to all if the above. So the likelihood of our memories of events being one hundred percent true is unlikely. Not only are you remembering what you see, your remembering what you heard, you attach emotion to it, your sense of being in the memory. Humility is required when saying my I remember something.