Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Skepticism!

2,446 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I can't disagree with that, fair point, I guess it's just that I don't know the extent this is prevalent among skeptics.  As you say it's more a symptom of just being human no matter the other groupings they belong to, and I haven't seen that it's any worse a problem within the group 'skeptics'.  I guess we could say that it's particularly noteworthy for skeptics who may be seem to be more hypocritical for letting emotions/ego/bias color their reasoning while accusing their opponents of the same thing, but if hypocrisy or inconsistency is considered a problem the prevalence of that in skeptics I think is again dwarfed by the extent of inconsistencies in theists/paranormalists/etc.

Agreed, 'lack of good evidence' is a judgment term but I think it's one you somewhat implicitly agree with to a minor extent given what I've quoted.  It's questionable how much need there is to even append 'but that is just my judgment' to propositions that are not lacking in good evidence. I would never say, 'the cumulative weight of the quantity, quality, and consistency of evidence favors the idea that the diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution and genetics', and then append 'but that's just my judgment' to it; it's a fact, an overwhelming one, the only thing it needs appended is a period.  

Just curious also, doesn't "You might consider that you are basing your beliefs about a vast universe with an untold number of beings and experiences on a sample size of '1' being. Is that wise?" also apply to what I've just quoted from you above?

would you or would you not agree that everything you know of the supernatural in its many forms (i include alien visiting earth etc) are just via stories that you either believe or you do not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

It isn't logical thinking to be skeptical about something, when all the facts are not in hand.

 

 

what are you talking about= you can't produce any facts- go away:sleepy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

It isn't logical thinking to be skeptical about something, when all the facts are not in hand.

And it wouldn't be logical thinking to be skeptical about anything, if all the facts were in hand.

I sense your model is a wee bit biased against skepticism.

Lol.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 minutes ago, Podo said:

Yeah but we didn't do it, so clearly it did take too much imagination. Roundness of the Earth is not a new piece of knowledge, but we certainly didn't know it 10k years ago.

What's your point, though? You're clearly fishing for something, but I can't figure out what it is. Are you opposed to testing knowledge and going with the most logical and provable conclusion? I think we all know the answer, but it'll be more fun if you say it yourself.

 

How can knowledge be tested when it isn't known yet?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

go away

 

I'll be right over. :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

How can knowledge be tested when it isn't known yet?

 

 

are you drinking floor cleaner again?:wacko:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And it wouldn't be logical thinking to be skeptical about anything, if all the facts were in hand.

 

And at what point can it be determined that all the facts are in hand?

What if there are more facts that aren't in hand?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

That's because the point of the thread is to ask why people believe, rather than what people believe?

yep

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

are you drinking floor cleaner again?:wacko:

 

Did Einstein test Newton's facts?

Or did he test facts that were not known yet?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 

There are things that are true that cannot be established to be true via testing and evidence.

 

 

who establishes these things to be the truth here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

who establishes these things to be the truth here?

 

You.

But not if you're skeptical. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
Just now, Will Due said:

 

You.

 

 

no, you said there are things that are true= like what? give me an example of something that is true that can't be established to be true via testing and evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
45 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Just curious also, doesn't "You might consider that you are basing your beliefs about a vast universe with an untold number of beings and experiences on a sample size of '1' being. Is that wise?" also apply to what I've just quoted from you above?

I don't think that applies to me, The person I was referring to was only considering his own experiences with the paranormal. I consider everyone's opinions and experiences before forming my personal opinion. 

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Dejarma said:

no, you said there are things that are true= like what? give me an example of something that is true that can't be established to be true via testing and evidence?

 

Were there ever things that were true but could not be established to be true via testing and evidence in the past?

Do you think we've run out of these things that are true but can't be established to be true via testing and evidence today or anytime in the future?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Were there ever things that were true but could not be established to be true via testing and evidence in the past?

Do you think we've run out of these things that are true but can't be established to be true via testing and evidence today or anytime in the future?

 

 

don't answer a question with a question, silly boy!

answer my question in post #62  can you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
12 minutes ago, Will Due said:

And at what point can it be determined that all the facts are in hand?

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

Heads non-skepticism wins, tails skepticism loses.

Your argument is flawed, you cannot rehabilitate your defective argument by saying that is also difficult to implement.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
21 minutes ago, Will Due said:

How can knowledge be tested when it isn't known yet?

You do the best you can with what you've got. The ancients didn't have the ability to test the reality of Earth's shape, until they did. We draw the most logical conclusions about our surroundings based on the tools at our disposal. It isn't about absolute truth, it's about drawing logical conclusions in light of the evidence. That evidence changes is precisely why things need to be viewed with skepticism.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, eight bits said:

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

Heads non-skepticism wins, tails skepticism loses.

Your argument is flawed, you cannot rehabilitate your defective argument by saying that is also difficult to implement.

 

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"?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
12 minutes ago, Podo said:

You do the best you can with what you've got. The ancients didn't have the ability to test the reality of Earth's shape, until they did. We draw the most logical conclusions about our surroundings based on the tools at our disposal. It isn't about absolute truth, it's about drawing logical conclusions in light of the evidence. That evidence changes is precisely why things need to be viewed with skepticism.

 

Skepticism has its place. But it stifles progress when it lacks enough imagination to go out looking for more evidence. 

Albert Einstein was skeptical of Isaac Newton. But that did not stop him from going in search of the facts that weren't known yet about light and gravity.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

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"?

 

 

yeah, new facts mean something in a court of law- of course, they do!!!

but your way of thinking/ your perception of what's going on around you/ what you 'believe' does not produce any new facts IN FACT it does not produce any at all:rolleyes:

you are funny- please carry on typing;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

yeah, new facts mean something in a court of law- of course, they do!!!

but your way of thinking/ your perception of what's going on around you/ what you 'believe' does not produce any new facts IN FACT it does not produce any at all:rolleyes:

you are funny- please carry on typing;)

 

See that's why dany started this thread. So we can discuss the skeptics' way of thinking.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

See that's why dany started this thread. So we can discuss the skeptics' way of thinking.

 

 

answer my question in post #62 

Edited by Dejarma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
10 hours ago, danydandan said:

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

To me, the definition of skeptical means not accepting claims without verification or evidence to back it up. That is the thumbnail version.

But it isn't as cut & dried as it may appear. My level of skepticism will rise or fall based on a number of factors such as probability and trustworthiness of the claimant. For example, I live in an area where bear, deer, and coyotes are common. If someone claims they saw one of them wander through their front yard, I would be very apt to believe them.

The more outlandish the claim, the higher my level of incredulity, so yes, I consider myself to be a skeptical minded person.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
3 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Yeah, but 99% of the time, I am right.

Hey, I'm not going to argue with a gorilla! :lol: 

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah and those individuals who believe in the possibility of the paranormal haven't learned enough. It sickens me. It's like an intellectual step back. Might as well just be a superstitious knuckle dragger.

Sometimes your ignorance and arrogance is just jaw dropping! * shakes head in disbelief *

53 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I've actually done stuff. You haven't so your opinions mean absolutely nothing. 

What?! Firstly, I have always had my doubts as to you actually having 'done stuff', and secondly, you are so narrow minded and blinkered that just about anybody's opinions have more substance to them than yours.

46 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you couldn't be more wrong!

a real skeptic expresses doubt via logical thinking & any facts to hand!==nothing more, nothing less!? what are you waffling on about!?

this is where people like your good self get confused:

you feel someone like me (a skeptic) just types for the sake of it without thinking first:sleepy:

I feel this attitude is why dan felt a need to start this topic...............

That might be your definition of a sceptic, but scepticism means 'to doubt'. No waffle. You don't have the slightest idea of what I feel. It's possible that this topic has not turned out as Dan hoped .........

19 minutes ago, eight bits said:

And it wouldn't be logical thinking to be skeptical about anything, if all the facts were in hand.

I sense your model is a wee bit biased against skepticism.

Lol.

The point is, we can never be sure whether we've got all the facts or not. We may think we have ..... no new facts may have come to light for hundreds of years ..... but that doesn't mean there aren't some just waiting to be discovered. That's why I never like to rule anything out, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely it seems at this moment in time.  

11 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

who establishes these things to be the truth here?

Humans like to think they are the ones who establish truths, which is laughable because all we really do is have a snapshot of partial knowledge at any given moment in time.

Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that you are very young and immature and that is the reason you are repeatedly rude to people. Doesn't excuse your rudeness though.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
7 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

There's no need to be alarmed when phenomena appear 'magical' to us ..... science hasn't got all the answers yet! :D

True, science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean we get to insert magical thinking to fill in the gaps.

If, for example, I get in my car, turn the key and it won't start, should I assume that gremlins are at work? Or could there be a more rational, mechanical issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.