|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
During my brief encounter with Evolution FairyTale, one of the members called me, "Skeptic!" in the same sense that you might call somebody, "Murderer!" It was plain that he considered skepticism a belief - and an evil one at that. To me it is an opinion and a belief. But I took the intended insult as a compliment. I consider skepticism the natural starting point for any inquiry. First you ask the question; then you look for possible answers; then you ask if the answers are adequate. It's a never-ending process that may get you closer to truth/knowledge but it never gets you "there". Edited by ringo, : Inflated my ego by capitalizing "I".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Why not? ...but I dont want to end the day with a question regarding Gods interaction with me. (See what I did there? There's always a potential question.)
Phat writes:
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.
One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything! Phat writes:
Why? as far as "there" I would define there as being in communion, or walking in the Spirit, if you will. (See above.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
I don't though. Nothing I say here depends on me being real. The "truth" of what I say (if any) doesn't depend on my existence.
Rene Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy because he started at the point where his own thinking proved to him that he existed and was real.You can start there, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
You say The Truth and I say the "truth". In case it isn't already clear, I'm mocking the concept of Ultimate Truth. If there is such a thing as The Truth, it's pretty near certain that you don't know what it is. The Truth was before Abraham, before Jesus, and before you or I. Skepticism is the habit of always asking, "Is that true?" not thinking you alreay have all of the answers. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
Skepticism is the practice of determining whether or not a claim does correspond directly and one-on-one to what actually exists. Without skepticism, there's no way to know if something is "true".
Truth is that which corresponds, directly and one-to-one with what actually Exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
If "Truth" is a black box that we can't unlock, it's worthless.
Whether one knows what is true or not is irrelevent to the existence of Truth. Truth exists in the absence of man, himself. kofh2u writes:
The only way we can know what is real and actually exists is by observing it. An "ideal" of what it might be is worthless.
Truth is the Ideal which corresponds to what is real and actually exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
kofh2u writes:
Yes, but the scientific method can only approach "truth". It can devise an image that resembles reality more and more closely but the image can never be reality. Thus, it makes no difference whether "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth" exists at all. It is irrelevant to our understanding of reality. And all this you ask for was resolved when the Scientific Method was devised in the 18th century.Scientists thens began gathering facts about Reality which everyone (willing to set up the exact same laboratory conditions) would observe. So skepticism is the understanding that Truth, if it even exists, can not be known and therefore we must continuously keep looking for approximate truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Unfortunately, those who claim to have Christ in them are often the poorest images. We need to be skeptical of those claims.
The only way to observe Christ as being real...more than a 3 dimensional concept...is to observe those who claim to have Christ in them. Phat writes:
Yes, there is. It's the difference between looking at your image in the mirror and calling yourself ugly. I suppose there is a huge difference between questioning myself and doubting myself. Honest questioning provides an opportunity for improvement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
No, I'm pointing out that the existence of "Truth" is irrelevant. Only what we can model matters.
You are trying to confuse the existence of Truth with the ability for man to model it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
You make my point. Neanderthal man failed to model the truth. The existence of "Truth" did him no good. ringo writes:
It mattered to Neanderthal man who went extinct because of his inability to see the Truth. Only what we can model matters.That prevented him from adapting to the changing environment. Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
The desire to have a better model.
ringo writes:
What causes us to tweak the model? Skepticism is all about tweaking your model, not thinking you already have the "Truth".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
If the model fits reality better - i.e. predictions made from the model "work" - then the tweaks made it better. Otherwise, we untweak the tweaks.
But how do we know the tweaks make it better? RAZD writes:
I don't think the tweaking is caused by "events" per se. I think it's a natural human behaviour to want to know "more". Random fiddling would hardly be strictly speaking scientific -- what events cause tweaking to be considered? There's a survival advantage in wanting "more" of something - e.g eating more than you need because tomorrow you might not have enough, or hoarding for a time of famine. (Unfortunately, overeating and hoarding have disadvantages too in a situation where resources are practically unlimited.) Wanting more food extrapolates easily to wanting more information. So a trial-and-error approach to getting more information seems natural enough. Science is just a refinement of that trial-and-error method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Nothing "forces" tweaking. That's why models like "God" still exist.
What about "events" that force tweaking, wholesale revision or discarding of the model? RAZD writes:
We're not talking about the scientific process specifically. We're talking about scepticism in general. In the more rigourous form of scepticism, known as science, an objective consensus may "force" major tweaking. Aren't they important in the scientific process? Edited by ringo, : Changed "require" to "force".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Yes.
And yet, technically, in the field of science, does not invalidation of an hypothesis "force" tweaking, wholesale revision or a complete discarding of the model? RAZD writes:
It can be a valid approach but the rigor of science isn't necessarily applicable to every question. There may be some areas where a "Scepticism Lite" approach is more useful.
If that is true\valid in science, then isn't that same approach valid\rational outside science? RAZD writes:
I'm not sure that scepticism is something that can be measured. We can look at something scientifically when there is a significant amount of evidence pointing in one direction or another. However, we can be sceptical even when there is no evidence.
So should we be more or less skeptical of concepts that are in discord with other concepts or evidence, when compared to ones with no (or less) discord?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
I don't like your whole wolf scenario.
We know objectively that wolves exist and we can infer from the villagers' fear of wolves that they exist in the vicinity. The failure to find evidence of a wolf on any particular occasion or series of occasions does not change the fact that wolves do exist in the vicinity. The failure of any or all attempts to find a wolf has no effect on the probability of the next wolf report being accurate.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024