Open-minded Skepticism

Straggler asks:

What happens if we put the question of whether your model is itself valid, through your little model?

Ahah! recursive meta-skepticism!

Turtles all the way down.

Are you suggesting that RAZ's little model is something more than an opinion despite not meeting his own criteria for qualifying as such?

Special pleading....?

Are you suggesting that RAZ's little model is something more than an opinion despite not meeting his own criteria for qualifying as such?

No. He's suggesting there is a pretty neat joke to draw from your observation.

Special pleading....?

No. Turtles.

Straggler writes: What happens if we put the question of whether your model is itself valid, through your little model?

Knowledge isn't a house of cards with an identifiable foundation. It's a geodesic sphere: every piece of validated objective empirical evidence depends on another piece of validated objective empirical evidence. The overall system is only "valid" because it's internally self-consistent. It doesn't rest on anything external.

All sorts of things are internally self consistent but still largely worthless. And the idea that a useful theory of something as complex as knowledge can be expressed in a 4 step flow chart is evidently simplistic drivel.

Straggler writes: All sorts of things are internally self consistent but still largely worthless.

The point is that they're not internally worthless - and sometimes internal is all we have.

Really ... be a skeptic, as long as there is no concrete proof of the subject. In the face of absolute proof, skepticism = "Mary, Mary, quite contrary!"

Since the site is supposed to be about evolution versus creation ... I pose a question. What is the purpose of "God"?
Are we all put on this Earth to prove ourselves worthy to be ... God's friend? Only those who meet his criteria get to sit at his table? Is this the purpose?
I am skeptical.
I believe the purpose of "God" is to give people purpose. Period. Man created "God" so that he sees himself as more than just another animal in the evolutionary chain. Most people cannot conceive the fact that, when the chemical/electrical processes of the brain stop, so do you.
My skepticism fades ... body dies, brain ceases to function ... you cease to exist.

"God" is a creation of man to avoid that conclusion.

Well, yes.

There is the skepticism of the global warming deniers. There is the skepticism of the anti-evolution group. .. or any group that promotes conspiracy theories..they are skeptical of any evidence that does not meet their preconceived notions.

Hi mikechell and welcome to the fray.

Really ... be a skeptic, as long as there is no concrete proof of the subject. In the face of absolute proof, skepticism = "Mary, Mary, quite contrary!"

However, being skeptical of everything, taken to extremes, leaves you with no reason to investigate new things. Thus you need a balance with open-mindedness ... or to put it another way, you need to be skeptical of the skeptic reaction\position as well, and be able to look at the matter from different angles.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

However, being skeptical of everything, taken to extremes, leaves you with no reason to investigate new things.

I thought being skeptical of ideas or theories IS being open minded. If you take everything at face value, THEN you don't investigate options.

Anyway, thank you for the quotation help. I just asked about that on another thread.

And thanks for the welcome.

RAZD writes: you need to be skeptical of the skeptic reaction\position as well, and be able to look at the matter from different angles.

That's a good point. I believe (on nothing but anecdotal evidence) that no one is as objective and skeptical as he thinks he is. We prefer to think that cognitive biases are things that only affect other people's thinking, but we're just as susceptible as anyone else to believing whatever source tells us what we want to hear.

What we believe affects how we define facts and evidence, not the other way around.

What we believe affects how we define facts and evidence, not the other way around.

So, as long as you believe the rock is soft, like a nerf ball, it won't hurt you when it hits you in the head???

The cat's alive !!

mikechell writes: So, as long as you believe the rock is soft, like a nerf ball, it won't hurt you when it hits you in the head??? The cat's alive !!

I prefer to believe everyone here is interested in civil dialogue, mike, but in your case my skepticism is starting to get the better of me.

So, as long as you believe the rock is soft, like a nerf ball, ...

There are rocks that float.

But based on the evidence of past experiences with rocks we can have a certain degree of expectations that -- all things being equal -- that those experiences will be reflected in the present.

However, we could also be observing a never seen before object that looks like a rock ...

... it won't hurt you when it hits you in the head???

You can't be sure until tested.

The cat's alive !!

There is a degree of uncertainty in any observation.

Enjoy

So, as long as you believe the rock is soft, like a nerf ball, it won't hurt you when it hits you in the head??? I prefer to believe everyone here is interested in civil dialogue, mike, but in your case my skepticism is starting to get the better of me.

I wasn't intending to be "uncivil" ... nor was I saying I'd throw a rock at you. I just used that as an example to disagree with the statement,

What we believe affects how we define facts and evidence, not the other way around.

Facts are concrete ... what you believe does not change the facts. Circumstantial evidence might be interpreted incorrectly ... factual evidence cannot, no matter what you believe.
Facts and evidence of facts should change how one believes, if previous beliefs were proven wrong.