Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 271 (690968)
02-18-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
02-18-2013 7:56 AM


What Is Crazy?
Straggler writes:
With regard to answers/claims that pertain to any reality that exists external to one's own mind - No. Probably not.
What did you have in mind?
We have another topic on the subject of craziness. What does being crazy really look like?
Also have you watched my video where I talk about "inside and outside"?

Inside & Outside- Broadcast your self LIVE
Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle
Edited by Phat, : added video

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 7:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 7:53 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 47 of 271 (690972)
02-18-2013 3:18 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 7:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


(1)
Message 48 of 271 (690988)
02-18-2013 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Eli
02-18-2013 3:15 AM


Re: Evidence
The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth."
It clearly and literally says that the earth was made "in the beginning."
Again, your reading comorehension is terrible here.
The Bibke does NOT say that the Earth was "made."
It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED.
Every formless star and planet was void of a solid geometrical shapes, but all matter that is here today was CREATED then, in that instant.
To support the comprehension of this verse, were see that the Sun, itself, was "made" time keeper over the Solar Clock at some point in the story.
The Sun had always been there "from the beginning," it was "made" the authority iver earth time much later in the story.
The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE the authority over the circadian Earth Time as soon as had life appeared in the late Archean or 3rd duration of the geological rock formation:
Gen. 1:14 And God, (The First Cause), said, Let there be (Sidereal Time), lights in the firmament of the heaven, (for the reason) to divide the (12 hour) day from the (12 hour) night; and let them be for (the purpose of) signs, (astronomical, symbolic references),\[B\] and for (the purpose to designate) times, (the four seasons), and for (the 24 hour period to be called) days, (the "day" of 24 hours as distinguished from the days of long Eras), and years (of 365 day):
Strong's Concordance
Transliteration:`asah = made [H6213] =
made: [asah = appoint, ordain, institute]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 3:15 AM Eli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2013 12:13 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 70 by Eli, posted 02-20-2013 8:44 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 271 (690992)
02-18-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Eli
02-18-2013 4:31 AM


no moving for me
Certainly appears to be moving to me.
I've looked at for a while, even stared just off to the side and I cannot get any sensation of movement - it just looks garish, stationary and garish, however I look at it.
There are probably better examples of optical delusions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Eli, posted 02-18-2013 4:31 AM Eli has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dogmafood, posted 02-19-2013 7:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2013 8:26 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 271 (690993)
02-18-2013 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
02-18-2013 5:42 AM


still not moving
It isn't actually moving but approx 98% of human beings will perceive it as moving. ...
Interesting. Perhaps those 2% that don't see it moving are better trained at observation ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 5:42 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 51 of 271 (690995)
02-18-2013 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
02-18-2013 3:18 PM


Pragmatism
Certainly skeptics should question the validity of such an approach....
Ultimately I think you'll find that skepticism becomes part of pragmatism.
It is justified on the basis that a questioning and lacking-belief approach demonstrably yields practical results and makes relentless adherence to pointless superstition unnecessary.
Someone who was entirely unskeptical or genuinely agnostic with regard to every conceivable un-evidenced scenario (there might be brain damage inducing ethereal elephants congregating in my garden or there might not, I have no way of deciding either way) would spend their entire existence in a sort of Pascals wager state of avoidance of the terrible consequences of non-belief (going to hell, having brain damaged children etc. etc.)
Pragmatically speaking skepticism is necessary.
Like Dr A said everyone is a skeptic but some people make subjective exceptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2013 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 271 (690997)
02-18-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
02-18-2013 5:25 AM


Re: Too far already? Yep ... amusing
Conversely when confronted by an evidentially unsupported but unfalsifiable proposition your approach to skepticism demands either: ... be given equal credence ...
Equality is a false paradigm and is typical of Faux Noise blatherings and poor thinking.
Curiously, I don't need to give either claim credence, pro or con, rather I can wait (not holding my breath) for evidence pro or con before needing to apply any credence to either.
You should remember this from last go-round.
And you, as an atheist, should be able to understand half of this.
Consilient with reality.
What is reality?
How do you know?
Because, in the specific case of ethereal elephants, if too many congregate in one place their inaudible trumpeting causes long term brain damage to small children.
Only when it's too late and my children grow into brain damaged adults. So do you think I should evacuate my children from my house just in case there are a congregation of ethereal elephants in my garden? Or do you (skeptically?) think this unevidenced proposition not something remotely worth worrying about?
Ah, I see you have chosen your normal approach:
my Message 32:
What would be the more productive use of your time:
  1. Loudly proclaim to all around you that it is "Highly likely to be incorrect and only fools would pursue it"
  2. Assist in investigating to see whether or not it is correct
  3. Wait for more information before developing an opinion.
It appears you've chosen "A" while I will still take "C" ...
You realize, I hope, that your opinion is not based on any empirical evidence in this regard and thus you should be skeptical of it, according to your precepts above ... or is this a special pleading?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 5:25 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 8:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 271 (690998)
02-18-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
02-18-2013 2:55 PM


Re: What Is Crazy?
Yeah I've seen the other thread and I've decided to stay out of it. I think Crazy is an emotive and oft misused word. I think many people (most? maybe even all?) hold some views that can be considered eccentric and that "crazy" is in many ways a culturally relative term. I'd reserve it for those who are so distanced from reality as to be effectively unable to function in the real world rather than those who say things I consider idiotic on a debate board where I expect to ardently disagree with people anyway.
So - No I don't think you are crazy. I think you share a culturally widespread delusion and that you seek to justify it through various mental contortions. I think that most others who share your delusion are too lazy or apathetic to explore their belief in the way that you do and that it is mildly admirable that you at least think about these things where many avoid such questioning.
But primarily I just think you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 02-18-2013 2:55 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 271 (691001)
02-18-2013 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
02-18-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep ... amusing
No normal person would sit there without comment or action and allow small children to incur brain damage if this was a remotely realistic possibility would they? If this scenario was remotely likely it would demand action wouldn't it?
On the basis that you wouldn't risk brain damage to small children simply to score points in an internet debate I can only conclude that your lack of concern, despite long-winded assertions regarding things being unproven and whatnot, is because to all practical intents and purposes you are as skeptical of the brain-damage-inducing-congregation-of-ethereal-elephants-in-my-garden as I am.
If you consider this scenario a remotely realistic possibility why aren't you more concerned regarding the potential brain damage being induced in small children?
Straggler writes:
Are all world views equally consistent with reality or are some more so than others? How do you determine which are more consilient with reality and which are less?
RAZD writes:
What is reality? How do you know?
Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? In order to explore this let's consider someone who has a radically different world view to either you or I and who thus takes a radically different approach to knowledge.
Consider hypothetical Bob. Bob works under the assumption that empirical evidence is designed to deceive. That scientific conclusions are those of weak minded fools too embroiled in the deception to see the wood for the trees. Instead Bob relies on a sacred text and divine revelation in order to gain access to the truths of reality.
According to his method of knowing the Earth is about 1,000 years old. According to his method of knowing the empirical evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old was put there to deceive and cannot be trusted.
Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view?
Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion?
How do we decide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 7:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 10:51 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 271 (691006)
02-18-2013 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
02-18-2013 8:33 PM


Re: Too far already? Yep ... amusing
No normal person would sit there without comment or action and allow small children to incur brain damage if this was a remotely realistic possibility would they? If this scenario was remotely likely it would demand action wouldn't it?
On the basis that you wouldn't risk brain damage to small children simply to score points in an internet debate I can only conclude that your lack of concern, despite long-winded assertions regarding things being unproven and whatnot, is because to all practical intents and purposes you are as skeptical of the brain-damage-inducing-congregation-of-ethereal-elephants-in-my-garden as I am.
If you consider this scenario a remotely realistic possibility why aren't you more concerned regarding the potential brain damage being induced in small children?
So you continue with (A) Loudly proclaim to all around you that it is "Highly likely to be incorrect and only fools would pursue it"
What do you consider more rational behavior:
  1. a person standing in their garden loudly proclaiming that "There are no ethereal elephants inaudible trumpeting in my garden" ... or
  2. a person standing in their garden loudly proclaiming that "There are ethereal elephants inaudible trumpeting in my garden" ... or
  3. a person standing in their garden smiling politely at people passing ...
Curiously I would find both A and B positions bizarre if not delusional.
Well that is the crux of the matter isn't it? ...
And yet you didn't answer it.
... In order to explore this let's consider someone who has a radically different world view to either you or I and who thus takes a radically different approach to knowledge.
Consider hypothetical Bob. Bob works under the assumption that empirical evidence is designed to deceive. That scientific conclusions are those of weak minded fools too embroiled in the deception to see the wood for the trees. Instead Bob relies on a sacred text and divine revelation in order to gain access to the truths of reality.
According to his method of knowing the Earth is about 1,000 years old. According to his method of knowing the empirical evidence that says that the Earth is billions of years old was put there to deceive and cannot be trusted.
More word games, instead of answering the question.
Is Bob's world view equally as valid as a more scientific world view?
Amusingly, I am pretty sure that he would think it was more valid, otherwise he wouldn't behave the way he does.(1)
Is Bob's conclusion regarding the age of the Earth more or less likely to be correct than the scientific conclusion?
And I already asked you (Message 32):
OK. But is every world view equally correct or are some more correct than others?
What does "more correct" mean -- that they are more consilient with your views?
To which you replied "Consilient with reality."
Now when I ask what is reality, you seem to be saying that reality is "more correct" -- making a circular argument rather than answering the question.
So are you going to answer this time or evade and wheedle around the issue with smoke screens and more word games?
How do we decide?
Indeed ... how does Hypothetical Bob decide?
Enjoy
(1) - actually his name was Hans and he believed the world was flat, but that was years ago and on another board.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2013 8:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 02-20-2013 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 56 of 271 (691015)
02-19-2013 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-18-2013 7:24 PM


Re: no moving for me
There are probably better examples of optical delusions.
How about the illusion that the sun goes around the earth? Or the illusion that there are solid things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 7:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 57 of 271 (691017)
02-19-2013 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
02-18-2013 7:24 PM


Re: no moving for me
The surfaces of the tables are the same shape and size.
Print it out, cut it up and compare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2013 7:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 58 of 271 (691024)
02-19-2013 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Phat
02-18-2013 7:51 AM


Re: Wikipedia
Phat writes:
...but I dont want to end the day with a question regarding Gods interaction with me.
Why not?
(See what I did there? There's always a potential question.)
Phat writes:
One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything!
It's funny how some of those cliches are a mirror to the speaker. In fact, it's just the opposite. If you're not skeptical, you're the one who falls for everything.
Phat writes:
as far as "there" I would define there as being in communion, or walking in the Spirit, if you will.
Why?
(See above.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 02-18-2013 7:51 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 03-01-2013 10:16 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 271 (691030)
02-19-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by kofh2u
02-18-2013 7:03 PM


Re: Evidence
It says the Heavens and Earth were CREATED.
Every formless star and planet was void of a solid geometrical shapes, but all matter that is here today was CREATED then, in that instant.
Not according to scientists.
But in any case, if that was true, the passage might as well read: "In the beginning God created the Apple Macintosh", and you could still read it in such a way as to interpret it as being true. This is not a tribute to the wisdom of the Bible, but to your ability to read anything however you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by kofh2u, posted 02-18-2013 7:03 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 60 of 271 (691035)
02-19-2013 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by kofh2u
02-16-2013 8:40 PM


Re: Evidence
That is what makes this writing appear on face value as divinely revealed.
Or, an advanced race of aliens, posing as a supreme being decided to play a little joke and implanted the thoughts into those sheep farmers who would then write the books of the bible....
Or Apollo, bored with his life on Olympus, decided to pose as the one true supreme being while the other Olympic Gods were busy playing poker...
Or, we look at the historical context of these writing and find out that many of the writings accepted into today's bible are unremarkably similar to previous myths and stories from other religions. That these other myths and stories were contemporaneous or previous to the writings of the people who wrote the bible and parts of the bible are just plagiarized stories.
In any case, we use skepticism to help lead us to the most likely story, and remember the axiom, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," while continuing our search for evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kofh2u, posted 02-16-2013 8:40 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024