I used to be a recalcitrant skeptic

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There was a time, long time ago, in which I believed in woo. I wanted to adhere to things like reincarnation, immortal souls, unknown mental "forces" and that kind of things.

Later, I learned that the world was more important than my beliefs, and so I spent a great amount of time reading books regarding philosophy and science, discussing with others, joining philosophical groups to discuss (mostly analytic philosophy) and even working at a lab doing some brain research. I was a recalcitrant skeptic, almost laughing about wooism at every opportunity. It was ok, for a time.

But later I understood something I was not prepared to. That "knowledge" is nothing but an opinion. Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. I realized then that even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.

You see, all we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real" (this would mean that we can have "objective opinions", which is an absurd).

So, I ceased to be such a skeptic. I hope a day will come in which I will be able to open my eyes, and just marvel at the chance of being here. No questions asked.

[Ladewig]

There are certain things that anger me. I am just enlightened enough to know that through concerted effort, I could fully embrace the idea that I can choose which things anger me and which things don't. Right now, I am angry at con artists like James Van Praag and Sylvia Browne who prey on emotionally vulnerable people. I am not prepared to give up that anger.

[MWare]

Are you sure recalcitrant is the word you want to use here?

[Dogdoctor]

There are opinions that have scientific studies supporting them and those which don't.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Right now, I am angry at con artists like James Van Praag and Sylvia Browne who prey on emotionally vulnerable people. I am not prepared to give up that anger.

Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.

And I'm not saying that I believe in an afterlife, nor that if, confronted, I wouldn't tell those people why their belief is a whole lot less probable than its opposite.

We skeptics are like paladins wanting to rescue people who is comfortable where they are. Maybe they don't need us at all.

Oh, and no, I'm not saying that we should let creationists to eradicate evolution from schools, nor critical thinking! Just that maybe we don't have to "rescue" people who is comfortable believing whatever they choose to believe, or want to believe.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you sure recalcitrant is the word you want to use here?

Well, I wanted to make emphasis on how hard core I was, but maybe it was a poor choice.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There are opinions that have scientific studies supporting them and those which don't.

Granted. And there are opinions which were validated by science that now are discarded as absurd or invalid. There are others that are mere assumptions, no matter how well the studies/observations are correlated to them.

I already say it, some opinions are correlated and some others not, but they will never cease to be mere opinions (as opposed to "knowledge"). It is amazing to realize how few and how little are our certainties.

[Dedicated]

This is why choosing our words and stating our message is so important.

Randi, for example, has been very clear about his message. He has never stated that psychic powers are not possible, he leaves that possibility open, instead he is saying no person has proven it currently. He has challenged specific people to prove it..they have not.

I think you are trying to suggest that the skeptic community thinks they know all the answers. I don't think that is the case at all. Instead, I think the skeptic community asks the right questions, and does a good job of stating the CURRENT truths. I think that is the minimum we should try to attain as a society.

[Dogdoctor]

Granted. And there are opinions which were validated by science that now are discarded as absurd or invalid. There are others that are mere assumptions, no matter how well the studies/observations are correlated to them.

I already say it, some opinions are correlated and some others not, but they will never cease to be mere opinions (as opposed to "knowledge"). It is amazing to realize how few and how little are our certainties.

Exactly the reason to require more than opinion.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think you are trying to suggest that the skeptic community thinks they know all the answers. I don't think that is the case at all. Instead, I think the skeptic community asks the right questions, and does a good job of stating the CURRENT truths. I think that is the minimum we should try to attain as a society.

I don't know about the community, if such a thing exists, ;) but I'm sure lots of its individuals think that way. Just look around and you will find several members who sport a somehow naive arrogance.

A true skeptic, on the other hand, behave like you say, he/she doesn't simply deny anything, nor approves it, no matter who is the "authority" behind any assertion.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Exactly the reason to require more than opinion.

What would be that? There is "something" objective, there is "something" subjective. I believe in the end those two are just only one, other than that, I "know" nothing. Now, make no mistake, I do believe a lot of things. :)

[Gr8wight]

Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.

Say you wanted to buy a neato, nifty, new High Definition Television set. Say I spent a significant amount of time with you, educating you about High Definition television signals and HDTV equipment. Say you made a decision to buy a new HDTV setup from me at a high price. More expensive than you had seen advertised elsewhere, and significantly above your original budget for the purchase. Say I delivered to your home a shiny new HDTV, HD cable box, and HD DVD player, along with all the requisite wiring and accessories, connected everything, placed the remote control in your hand, collected your money, and bid you "good watching." Say you watched this new TV system for several weeks, perfectly contented with your purchase, until your next door neighbour dropped over for a beer, and saw it. And say, just for the sake of argument, your next door neighbour said, "dude, that's not HDTV. That looks like crap! Come next door and look at mine." And say you went next door, and your neighbour showed you his system, for which he had paid less than half what you paid, and say it was dramatically better. Mind blowingly better. And say you did some follow up research and discovered that I had sold you a bunch of several year old, non-HDTV, completely substandard equipment, and charged you top dollar. You had not gotten what you paid your top dollar for. in fact, I had completely lied about what I had sold you. What's wrong with that, seriously?

I'm glad to hear that nobody would be angry at me on your behalf. After all, if it hadn't been for your neighbour popping your bubble, you would have gone on being perfectly happy with your purchase. Right?

[Kopji]

I guess I see it differently.

Something that describes a 'skeptic' is not whether or not we all hold opinions and if they are right or wrong, but how can we live and think in a manner that allows us to ask new and better questions. It seems difficult to deny that some questions are better than others, and that even the provisional answers we decide on have better results than others.

We ask a question.
We look at the answers.
We use those answers to ask a better question.

Learning to ask better questions represents a kind of true knowledge. The characters on this computer screen did not come from voicing random opinions of equal weight.

The simple metaphor I keep in mind for skeptics is that of being a pioneer. People like Randi and Sylvia are a bit like wagon train guides, they exist as temporary leaders that guide or warn but they would just have different destinations in mind for the traveler.

I suppose that any leader can be perceived as arrogant, and any of us could be. But claiming arrogance seems like a distraction from asking a better question - are they leading a good direction?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm glad to hear that nobody would be angry at me on your behalf. After all, if it hadn't been for your neighbour popping your bubble, you would have gone on being perfectly happy with your purchase. Right?

Your example is flawed, but I will attempt to rescue the ideas, please correct me if you feel I'm wrong.

1) There are some certainties in the world. (HD TVs offer better image than regular tvs)

2) There are tools to let us differentiate between those certainties (lets call them true beliefs) and some false beliefs. (You can be presented with facts regarding resolution and other variables)

3) Let's say that false beliefs cause damage to those who believe in them. (You have paid for obsolete technolog)

4) Some people are here to deceive others. (you evil) ;)

Now. I will translate those points to what Im trying to say.

1*) There are correlations between what we feel/believe and what happens.

2*) There are tools to let us differentiate between those correlations IN RELATION to our cosmovision or point of view.

3*) Some beliefs damage those who believe in them, but the line between "false" and "true" beliefs is thin and always moving.

4*) Yes, and also people who actually believe what they are doing is right. And, thankfully, some skeptics around to challenge those who do want to deceive on purpose ;)

[Dogdoctor]

What would be that? There is "something" objective, there is "something" subjective. I believe in the end those two are just only one, other than that, I "know" nothing. Now, make no mistake, I do believe a lot of things. :)

Something that is testable and tested rather than just an opinion.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I suppose that any leader can be perceived as arrogant, and any of us could be. But claiming arrogance seems like a distraction from asking a better question - are they leading a good direction?

Good post, thanks. Asking the right questions, yes, thats very intelligent, and yes, skepticism is one of the tools we need to do that. But we also need a cosmovision, or point of view, that allows us to ask those questions. And that allows us to believe they are the right questions ;)

As for the leaders. Yes, I believe that we skeptics are Alpha people, this is, by definition, leaders. Some of us don't like to push others in any direction (most of the time) some others do. Its a matter of preference and, maybe, being angry, like Ladewig :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Something that is testable and tested rather than just an opinion.

Yes. Like gravity. Now, problem is. What is gravity? Yes, we know its there, we know some of its effects, but we have no idea of what it is... a force? a distortion of something else? are gravitons real or just convenient constructs?

We have a word for it, whatever that is, and that (and some mathematics) suffice for somehow trivial tasks (like calculating orbits), but everything else is an opinion.

[Dogdoctor]

Yes. Like gravity. Now, problem is. What is gravity? Yes, we know its there, we know some of its effects, but we have no idea of what it is... a force? a distortion of something else? are gravitons real or just convenient constructs?

We have a word for it, whatever that is, and that (and some mathematics) suffice for somehow trivial tasks (like calculating orbits), but everything else is an opinion.

So science doesn't understrand gravity as well as you would like them to. So what?

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh.. another woo, turned skeptic, turned "enlightened woo."

BORING.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So science doesn't understrand gravity as well as you would like them to. So what?

That's it, now, regarding your point of view, you can begin to grasp what is happening, or not.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ahh.. another woo, turned skeptic, turned "enlightened woo."

BORING.

Yep, recalcitrant, exactly like that.

Oh, and calm down you born skeptic, materialist and (let me guess) entertaining dude!

[fls]

I notice that there tends to be an assumption that, wherever you* are, others are one or more steps behind, maybe in the process of catching up.

It is much more useful and interesting (this is, of course, just my opinion) to consider that you have been lapped.

Linda

*used in the most general way

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I notice that there tends to be an assumption that, wherever you* are, others are one or more steps behind, maybe in the process of catching up.

It is much more useful and interesting (this is, of course, just my opinion) to consider that you have been lapped.

Linda

*used in the most general way

Sorry, whats "being lapped" in this context? English is not my first language. That said, is funny you mention it, because that's the exact impression skeptics cause on others. That's why skepticism is seen like "harsh" to most "woos". Maybe, just maybe, we skeptics need to relax and stop pushing others around.

Now, I have been in the forum for a while, and I know perfectly that there are very intelligent people around. But, sadly, the forum also have a number of "fanboys" (and girls too but I have not read the term "fangirls") who just use skepticism as a platform to show others that they are "superior" or "more intelligent" because they are not "woos". Yeah, right.

So, please do not take my comments out of context. There are WONDERFUL people around, and I'm a skeptic myself. Maybe even a hard core skeptic... the only thing is that I don't "push" my skepticism to people who might be better believing whatever they choosed to believe.

[Gr8wight]

Your example is flawed, but I will attempt to rescue the ideas, please correct me if you feel I'm wrong.

1) There are some certainties in the world. (HD TVs offer better image than regular tvs)

2) There are tools to let us differentiate between those certainties (lets call them true beliefs) and some false beliefs. (You can be presented with facts regarding resolution and other variables)

3) Let's say that false beliefs cause damage to those who believe in them. (You have paid for obsolete technolog)

4) Some people are here to deceive others. (you evil) ;)

Now. I will translate those points to what Im trying to say.

1*) There are correlations between what we feel/believe and what happens.

2*) There are tools to let us differentiate between those correlations IN RELATION to our cosmovision or point of view.

3*) Some beliefs damage those who believe in them, but the line between "false" and "true" beliefs is thin and always moving.

4*) Yes, and also people who actually believe what they are doing is right. And, thankfully, some skeptics around to challenge those who do want to deceive on purpose ;)

Well, I disagree with you, and here's why.

In your example, the person who believed they had spoken to their deceased relative via an expensive "psychic" was happy, so you cry, "no harm, no foul."

In my example, you were perfectly happy with your new, expensive entertainment system, so I cry, "no harm, no foul."

But wait! Your neighbour points out to you that I had deceived you. Now there is a perceived foul. If your neighbour had never enlightened you, you might have lived out the rest of your life happy with your over-priced, under-performing gadgetry. Who's the villain here, me, or your neighbour?

Just because your neighbour had an easier time pointing out your error to you than a skeptic might have pointing out the believer-in-psychics' error to him or her doesn't make the crime any less serious. In both instances a person has been defrauded out of a significant amount of money. Neither person has actually received the goods they paid for. If all psychics performed for free, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about them. It's the money changing hands that bothers me.

[PixyMisa]

The English language contains any number of simple words and phrases that could concisely and precisely describe the inanity of the opening post. Alas, this forum forbids most of them.

So instead I'll point your attention to Asimov's classic essay The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm), and merely note in passing that you, Bodhi Dharma Zen, are talking absolute tripe.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In both instances a person has been defrauded out of a significant amount of money. Neither person has actually received the goods they paid for. If all psychics performed for free, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about them. It's the money changing hands that bothers me.

I do understand where are you coming from. I used to see it exactly the same way. Some person believes in an afterlife. Everything he/she knows about the world (more correctly, believes about the world) is coherent with the notion of souls surviving the body. This person will pay money to anybody who allows him/she to talk with their gone relatives.

Now, note that he/she pays not because its being deceived, but because everything he/she KNOWS tells him that he/she is right. There are immortal souls and one can speak with them using the appropriate methods.

Now, somebody tells them that they are wrong, that it is absurd to believe that there are things like souls surviving the body, that their subjectivity is their brain and that when the body dies the person dies.

Thats a lot of information to process. Furthermore, I will argue that it would be not taken as information, but merely will point out that the person telling him/she that is a poor materialist, who has lost faith and maybe is angry with god.

Of course there are souls, and god made us immortal. Science can't tell what happens after dead so it is possible that we survive anyway... and so on.

Now, your efforts, and I'm right with you on this one, should be focused on the people who deceives others and make them pay for smoking mirrors. I agree with you. What I question is the harm done to the one who believes and buy what you (and maybe me) will call "crap". They act according to what they believe (the same as everyone else) and, maybe, in time, when presented by evidence they might think different. But thats up to them, not us.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The English language contains any number of simple words

Ahh... the good old PixyMisa :) still angry with me? those discussions with you fighting to defend materialism were certainly fun. And thanks for the reading, Asimov is always interesting.

[PixyMisa]

Angry? No.

You're just talking tripe, is all.

[PixyMisa]

Now, your efforts, and I'm right with you on this one, should be focused on the people who deceives others and make them pay for smoking mirrors. I agree with you. What I question is the harm done to the one who believes and buy what you (and maybe me) will call "crap". They act according to what they believe (the same as everyone else) and, maybe, in time, when presented by evidence they might think different. But thats up to them, not us.
So if I were to frame you for a murder you didn't commit, and people believed me, and you were arrested, tried, and executed... Hey, no harm, no foul. They acted according to what they believed. The same as everyone else.

[Dogdoctor]

That's it, now, regarding your point of view, you can begin to grasp what is happening, or not.

By your definition or mine? If by mine I see no problems with scientific knowledge. However I do see problems with those who judge that all opinons are equal.

[maccy]

I don't see how it is useful to talk in abstracts about knowledge and opinion.

Can you give a specific example of an area where we cannot rely upon an evidence based conclusion? Where all the options are just opinions?

The evidence suggests, for example, that Sylvia Browne is often wrong about the fate of people who have disappeared. It seems to me that anybody who is thinking about consulting her should know this (and consulting her is very expensive).

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So if I were to frame you for a murder you didn't commit, and people believed me, and you were arrested, tried, and executed... Hey, no harm, no foul. They acted according to what they believed. The same as everyone else.

There you go, we can talk after all. ;) (that about tripes is not nice, let me tell you). So, are you telling me here that the system doesn't work? Because, you are right, what you mention has happened, and will continue to happen, unless people in general learns critical thinking.

(as a side note, IF my lawyer was a critical thinker, and I would make sure he was, no matter how hard you tried you would never succeed, because we would expose you with hard core facts and manipulate jury's emotions to focus on facts and nothing else :))

Yes, the world behaves in that way, people, in general, will just believe whatever someone with authority imposes to them. Do I like it? Certainly not. Can I do something about it, yes, push critical thinking when I consider it appropriate.

In your example, yes, there are harm (again, relative to our own beliefs), and I'm with you in that something needs to be done. So, yes, thank you for pointing it out. Now, please note that my examples are "softer", its not the same to believe in a psychic than to being accused of something you didn't do.

So, yes, sometimes I will let my relative or friend to continue to believe in immortal souls. It might be better for them to believe that than to be pushed to a world without hope (in that sense).

Heck, we ALL live deluded, yes, even hard core skeptics.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

By your definition or mine? If by mine I see no problems with scientific knowledge. However I do see problems with those who judge that all opinons are equal.

Thanks, I prefer this to the "so what" kind of answers :) I also see no problems whatsoever with scientific endeavours, yes, for everyday life I also use the phrase "scientific knowledge" but I use it with a grain of salt.

Now, if you see what Im saying, right from the opening post, I'm separating practical stances from its underlying ground. Like in the example of gravity, it is one thing to abstract it as a series of rules, even giving it a mathematical form, and another very different to define it as being "X" or "Y". We don't know what it is, furthermore, we can't know, but that doesn't stop us to understand its behavior.

Regarding opinions, and still talking about gravity, it is irrelevant if I believe it is a force or it is a spacetime distortion. We still can predict an eclipse, and thats what matters. Both opinions are equal in that sense. It is an epistemological problem (and just at that level are judged to be equal).

[maccy]

So, yes, sometimes I will let my relative or friend to continue to believe in immortal souls. It might be better for them to believe that than to be pushed to a world without hope (in that sense).

But you would agree that this is a belief without supporting evidence?

And to what extent would you allow them to apply their belief in souls to other people?

If someone bombs and abortion clinic, for example, is that justified on the basis that abortionists are mass murderers of unborn souls? Or, in a milder sense, does a state have the right to make abortion (or the morning after pill, or IUDs) illegal on the basis that embryos and foetuses have souls? Or should the morality of the issue be left to the individual?

Likewise, if someone argues against embryonic stem cell research on the basis that the embryos have souls, shouldn't they have to provide some evidence that there is such a thing as a soul? Surely an individual belief is insufficient in this case?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Can you give a specific example of an area where we cannot rely upon an evidence based conclusion? Where all the options are just opinions?

The evidence suggests, for example, that Sylvia Browne is often wrong about the fate of people who have disappeared. It seems to me that anybody who is thinking about consulting her should know this (and consulting her is very expensive).

Regarding the opinions I just gave an example in my last post. :)

As for Browne. Yes, people should know, but will that stop them for thinking... "maybe she will get it right WITH ME, after all, lots of people believe in her, so she must be real".

Sometimes, facts are not enough. We would have to change their cosmo-vision, and that is, sometimes, very unlikely.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But you would agree that this is a belief without supporting evidence?

Of course, there is exactly ZERO evidence, for you, and for me. But the point is, there is enough evidence FOR THEM. That's the only reason they continue to believe in such things. Now, I can point them to evidence that contradicts their "evidence", in order to expose that they have none, but this would be in relation to another framework.

Now, traditionally (at least for some of the hard core skeptics of the forum) that framework would be the materialistic one. The only true one, so to speak. But in all reality I don't know anything about souls, but also anything about what consciousness is. I know its somehow related to the brain, there are strong correlations, but thats about it, I don't have a clue on what it is, whats more, I don't know if we can even define it properly to begin with.

So, given that I don't know really better answers, I can only point to them the weakeness of their belief system, I can't offer them a superior one, because I'm full of doubts.

And to what extent would you allow them to apply their belief in souls to other people?

Depends on the context. For example, I have a daughter, and she will grow in a critical thinking environment.

Likewise, if someone argues against embryonic stem cell research on the basis that the embryos have souls, shouldn't they have to provide some evidence that there is such a thing as a soul? Surely an individual belief is insufficient in this case?

Problem is, and Voltaire did a phenomenal job here, that they believe they know what souls are, and we can just point them to evidence regarding the plausibility of such a thing existing in the known world. We can't prove there are no souls. Well I can't.

[maccy]

Thanks, I prefer this to the "so what" kind of answers :) I also see no problems whatsoever with scientific endeavours, yes, for everyday life I also use the phrase "scientific knowledge" but I use it with a grain of salt.

Now, if you see what Im saying, right from the opening post, I'm separating practical stances from its underlying ground. Like in the example of gravity, it is one thing to abstract it as a series of rules, even giving it a mathematical form, and another very different to define it as being "X" or "Y". We don't know what it is, furthermore, we can't know, but that doesn't stop us to understand its behavior.

Regarding opinions, and still talking about gravity, it is irrelevant if I believe it is a force or it is a spacetime distortion. We still can predict an eclipse, and thats what matters. Both opinions are equal in that sense. It is an epistemological problem (and just at that level are judged to be equal).

I think this is nothing more than sophistry. What is the meaningful difference between the effects of gravity and what gravity essentially might be? How does this establish an equivalence between what we know from evidence and what some people believe irrespective of evidence?

If somebody came up with something that they claimed was an exception to gravity as we currently understand it then I would ask for evidence of that. If someone were to make the point that we can currently only speculate about the relationship between gravity and the other forces in the universe, I would agree with them. Likewise, I would say that it is correct to describe the graviton as a hypothetical particle. Again, I would ask for evidence if the definite existence of gravitons was put forward as a theory.

Just because our knowledge is limited, it doesn't invalidate it. Skepticism is entirely compatible with uncertainty.

Regarding the opinions I just gave an example in my last post. :)

See above

As for Browne. Yes, people should know, but will that stop them for thinking... "maybe she will get it right WITH ME, after all, lots of people believe in her, so she must be real".

Sometimes, facts are not enough. We would have to change their cosmo-vision, and that is, sometimes, very unlikely.

What do you mean by cosmo-vision?

Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to test Sylvia Browne's claims because people might believe her anyway? That we shouldn't make people aware of her success rate or of the techniques of cold reading? That we shouldn't doubt?

As sceptics that's all we can do. We can't force people to believe anything.

To be more specific, what is it that sceptics are currently doing that they shouldn't do?

What, for example, is wrong with http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/ ? Why shouldn't people have access to this information?

Not all beliefs are equal, valid beliefs are supported by evidence and it makes sense examine the evidence rigorously.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

FIRST and FOR ALL.

I have NOTHING against skeptics, I'm a hard core skeptic myself. I hope this is clear. I have the sensation that some of the readers have this impression about me being "something else". Well, no, I'm as skeptic as you are. What I'm not is a "hardcore materialist", but that doesn't belong to this thread (and I think it is what is causing confusion?).

I think this is nothing more than sophistry. What is the meaningful difference between the effects of gravity and what gravity essentially might be? How does this establish an equivalence between what we know from evidence and what some people believe irrespective of evidence?

Sophistry, interesting. Why? I'm talking about epistemology, and, by definition, it deals with the nature of what we call knowledge. In every day life we take for granted lots of stuff, and we behave as if we knew, for sure, things that are merely ideas or opinions. Other than that, I believe and support about the same things that you do. Like science above psychics and astrologers.

If somebody came up with something that they claimed was an exception to gravity as we currently understand it then I would ask for evidence of that. If someone were to make the point that we can currently only speculate about the relationship between gravity and the other forces in the universe, I would agree with them. Likewise, I would say that it is correct to describe the graviton as a hypothetical particle. Again, I would ask for evidence if the definite existence of gravitons was put forward as a theory.

Exactly the same as I do. I see no problem whatsoever.

Just because our knowledge is limited, it doesn't invalidate it. Skepticism is entirely compatible with uncertainty.

Ah yes, of course! But if you read the forum some skeptics are not really skeptics, but hard core materialists (to put a label, and I know it could be open to discussion) that believe they are being skeptics when they are just fans of a particular way of explaining the world. Those are the ones who talk like if they knew, and everyone else was an idiot.

What do you mean by cosmo-vision?

Their theoretical framework. Everyone of us have one.

Are you saying that we shouldn't attempt to test Sylvia Browne's claims because people might believe her anyway? That we shouldn't make people aware of her success rate or of the techniques of cold reading? That we shouldn't doubt?

No. NO! By all means! What makes you wonder? By all means let's put to the test everybody who believes he/she can do something that doesn't fit in the current (scientific) theoretical framework!

As sceptics that's all we can do. We can't force people to believe anything. To be more specific, what is it that sceptics are currently doing that they shouldn't do?

You, and others, can (and will) do whatever you want, why do you ask me? I have nothing against skepticisim, I just question the "absolute certainity" attitude that some self proclaimed skeptics have.

What, for example, is wrong with http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/ ? Why shouldn't people have access to this information?

See above.

Not all beliefs are equal, valid beliefs are supported by evidence and it makes sense examine the evidence rigorously.

But I HAVE SAID THAT SINCE THE OP (sorry for the caps)! Let me quote me :D :

"You see, all we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real" (this would mean that we can have "objective opinions", which is an absurd)."

[Dogdoctor]

Thanks, I prefer this to the "so what" kind of answers :) I also see no problems whatsoever with scientific endeavours, yes, for everyday life I also use the phrase "scientific knowledge" but I use it with a grain of salt.

Now, if you see what Im saying, right from the opening post, I'm separating practical stances from its underlying ground. Like in the example of gravity, it is one thing to abstract it as a series of rules, even giving it a mathematical form, and another very different to define it as being "X" or "Y". We don't know what it is, furthermore, we can't know, but that doesn't stop us to understand its behavior.

Regarding opinions, and still talking about gravity, it is irrelevant if I believe it is a force or it is a spacetime distortion. We still can predict an eclipse, and thats what matters. Both opinions are equal in that sense. It is an epistemological problem (and just at that level are judged to be equal).

I think Einstein predicted gravity waves. They either exist or not. As far as I know they haven't been proved nor has an alternative been found so far. We will likely understand something about this in the future but it doesn't disappear with our lack of understanding exactly what it is however not understanding gravity does hinder our understanding of the world. You can believe gravity is a force emanating from the butt cheeks of a monkey and no one can prove you wrong however you cannot demonstrate it to be so or even a good reason why it might be so. This however doesn't change what gravity is since it exists and all we are trying to do is understand it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think Einstein predicted gravity waves. They either exist or not.

I believe that that is an oversimplification. Take for example, atoms. Do they exist or not? (What do we mean by "exist" anyway) Are they concrete structures, like really tiny balls that have this particles in the center and electrons surrounding them? Or are they more like theoretical constructs that allow us to make all kind of predictions (with an astonishing success I might add).

So, atoms, waves and particles, and even gravity waves are conceptual constructs (like trees, but that could be complicated). Sure, they are extremely useful, but at some point, straight (mundane) questions as "does that exist or not" are rendered absurd.

Some physics were bold about this: "either it is a particle or a wave". But no, it is both, it is none.

Now, make no mistake. I'm not an idealist. That, whatever it is, is "something" and that something its beyond our subjectivity. Its the noumena, but we can only talk, and see, and think, about the phenomena. Every concept (every opinion) is just an intricate label for the phenomenal experience of every thing we will never know.

[Dogdoctor]

Why so worrid about what we will never know? There is much we do know. The world is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not rotate around the earth.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Why so worrid about what we will never know? There is much we do know. The world is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not rotate around the earth.

It is complicated. The ramifications reach the very structure of language. But yes, in everyday life, we all know a whole of a lot stuff. :)

Still, and just to clarify, the earth is not flat, yet it is. It is not round, yet it is. Its more a complex fractal yet it is not. Words can't define, much less encompass all what it is. Oh, and the earth goes around the sun is as real, accurate and true as that the sun goes around the earth. It is just matter of your frame of reference. ;)

[fls]

Sorry, whats "being lapped" in this context?

Mostly that it's reasonable to judge others as "recalcitrant".

English is not my first language. That said, is funny you mention it, because that's the exact impression skeptics cause on others. That's why skepticism is seen like "harsh" to most "woos". Maybe, just maybe, we skeptics need to relax and stop pushing others around.

Now, I have been in the forum for a while, and I know perfectly that there are very intelligent people around. But, sadly, the forum also have a number of "fanboys" (and girls too but I have not read the term "fangirls") who just use skepticism as a platform to show others that they are "superior" or "more intelligent" because they are not "woos". Yeah, right.

So, please do not take my comments out of context. There are WONDERFUL people around, and I'm a skeptic myself. Maybe even a hard core skeptic... the only thing is that I don't "push" my skepticism to people who might be better believing whatever they choosed to believe.

I still don't understand why you feel the need to say this.

Linda

[Matteo Martini]

Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.


As they pay for that.
They get exploited

[maccy]

It is complicated. The ramifications reach the very structure of language. But yes, in everyday life, we all know a whole of a lot stuff. :)

Still, and just to clarify, the earth is not flat, yet it is. It is not round, yet it is. Its more a complex fractal yet it is not. Words can't define, much less encompass all what it is. Oh, and the earth goes around the sun is as real, accurate and true as that the sun goes around the earth. It is just matter of your frame of reference. ;)

Nonsense. All ideas are not equivalent.

I thought you agreed that a while back.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

As they pay for that.
They get exploited

I do not deny that, just stating that, maybe, thats all they need, at least some of them and for some time. If you can't offer them the comfort of an afterlife, maybe they will not be interested in anything you say.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nonsense. All ideas are not equivalent.

I thought you agreed that a while back.

Huh? Who said they are equivalent????

An answer is just valid in some frame, but not another. Newton's laws work, unless you approach the speed of light or deal with a really big mass. We treat the universe as being Newtonian or relativistic in the appropriate context. We use astrophysics or quantum mechanics, in the right context. You take your girlfriend to see the sunset, not the earth turning and the apparent movement of the sun below the horizon.

Contexts, contexts.

[Silentknight]

If beliefs were just beliefs, then I would have no problem leaving them alone or giving them all the respect they wanted. The problem is that it's not just people's beliefs about reality, but what they want to do with them as a result. This often includes beliefs based on insufficient evidence about medicine, physics, and cosmology, where people make claims of absolute certainty on things that even scientists don't claim to know.

As I mentioned in the "Skepticism can lose friends" thread, a particular instance where I felt I had to speak up was when someone professed belief that faith healing had cured her terminal illness. Do you see the problem with that claim? People have died as a result of this belief and what they have done with it. Compare it to this story (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004041765_transfusion29m.html) of the 14-year old boy who refused blood transfusions in his fight against leukemia, based on his religious beliefs, and died. Compare it to this story (http://www.dailytidings.com/2007/0210/stories/0210_cancer.php) of the family that turned to psychic healers to remove their daughter's brain tumor. When a new growth appeared, the fraud claimed it was "new brain cells growing."

The point is, stupid beliefs are not always harmless, and people don't just harm themselves with these beliefs. If you're going to say that this is a matter of picking one's battles, I would agree.

[PixyMisa]

There you go, we can talk after all. ;) (that about tripes is not nice, let me tell you). So, are you telling me here that the system doesn't work?
No, that is not what I am telling you.

Because, you are right, what you mention has happened, and will continue to happen, unless people in general learns critical thinking.
Why do they need to learn critical thinking? As you say, they are just acting on what they believe. I thought you didn't have a problem with that?

(as a side note, IF my lawyer was a critical thinker, and I would make sure he was, no matter how hard you tried you would never succeed, because we would expose you with hard core facts and manipulate jury's emotions to focus on facts and nothing else :))
I bribed your lawyer.

Yes, the world behaves in that way, people, in general, will just believe whatever someone with authority imposes to them.
This is hardly the point.

Do I like it? Certainly not. Can I do something about it, yes, push critical thinking when I consider it appropriate.
Only when you consider it appropriate? And when is that exactly?

In your example, yes, there are harm (again, relative to our own beliefs), and I'm with you in that something needs to be done. So, yes, thank you for pointing it out. Now, please note that my examples are "softer", its not the same to believe in a psychic than to being accused of something you didn't do.
Yes, it is the same.

Let's suppose a psychic tells you that she can contact your lost child, and just needs, oh, all of your money, your house, your car. And is lying the whole time. Broke and despondent, you commit suicide. Hey, no harm, you were just acting according to what you believed. And so was she, except that she believes that there's one born every minute...

Or let's suppose that you believe that you can fly, and your doctor believes that you need regular doses of chlorpromazine. One of these beliefs will allow you to return to everyday life; the other will leave a nasty stain on the pavement. But they're equally valid, because in both cases, people are just acting according to what they believe, right?

Right?

[PixyMisa]

I believe that that is an oversimplification. Take for example, atoms.
Okay.

Do they exist or not?
Yes.

(What do we mean by "exist" anyway)
Starting from Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum, that which exists is whatever can interact with our consciousness. Atoms do this; in fact, the activity of atoms demonstrably generates our consciousness in the first place.

Are they concrete structures, like really tiny balls that have this particles in the center and electrons surrounding them?
No.

Or are they more like theoretical constructs that allow us to make all kind of predictions (with an astonishing success I might add).
No.

Atoms are real objects like you and me. Exactly as real as you and me, because were are no more than big bunches of atoms all stuck together.

The sole difference being that one atom is just one atom.

So, atoms, waves and particles, and even gravity waves are conceptual constructs (like trees, but that could be complicated).
There is a conceptual construct of the atom. There are also actual, physical atoms. Exactly the same again as people.

Sure, they are extremely useful, but at some point, straight (mundane) questions as "does that exist or not" are rendered absurd.
No.

Some physics were bold about this: "either it is a particle or a wave". But no, it is both, it is none.
Here's the thing, BDZ. It is what it does. Anything that exists is described by its behaviour. There is no "essence", just interactions. We can describe subatomic particles using wave theory or particle theory, but if the answers come out the same then it's the same thing. (And if the answers come out different, one of the theories is wrong.)

Now, make no mistake. I'm not an idealist. That, whatever it is, is "something" and that something its beyond our subjectivity. Its the noumena, but we can only talk, and see, and think, about the phenomena. Every concept (every opinion) is just an intricate label for the phenomenal experience of every thing we will never know.
Then you're an idealist.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If beliefs were just beliefs, then I would have no problem leaving them alone or giving them all the respect they wanted. The problem is that it's not just people's beliefs about reality, but what they want to do with them as a result. This often includes beliefs based on insufficient evidence about medicine, physics, and cosmology, where people make claims of absolute certainty on things that even scientists don't claim to know.

We all make decisions, on an everyday basis, that lack the "sufficient evidence". Doctors do it all the time, they will give you a prescription based on their beliefs and experience, and sometimes the results of their decisions put in danger your health, or even kill you.

Yes, I do believe more in "scientific" medicine than in any kind of "alternative" medicine. A lot more, but I also realize that there are areas in which no one knows anything. Sometimes, a person will heal with no apparent reason, sometimes he/she will die in the hospital from something that wasn't that serious (like appendicitis).

Now, you raise good points, and yes, most of the time people who rely on "alternative" practices do a lot worse than with regular medicine. But the subject is complex, its all I want to say.

The point is, stupid beliefs are not always harmless, and people don't just harm themselves with these beliefs. If you're going to say that this is a matter of picking one's battles, I would agree.

I have been trying to say that the whole thread, but apparently some people like to interpret my words as absolutes ;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

One of these beliefs will allow you to return to everyday life; the other will leave a nasty stain on the pavement. But they're equally valid, because in both cases, people are just acting according to what they believe, right?

Let's see. I say that opinions are more or less correlated with objective data. This means, correct me if I'm wrong, that there can't be something as two opposite opinions that are equally valid. Now, sometimes, an opinion is valid in certain context, but not in another. And their utility lie in knowing this fact and stop pretending you have "universal truths".

So, I wonder, do you read what I'm saying or just pick up here and there words and phrases that match what you are trying to fight?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Starting from Descartes' Cogito, ergo sum, that which exists is whatever can interact with our consciousness. Atoms do this; in fact, the activity of atoms demonstrably generates our consciousness in the first place.

So, who is the idealist here ;) I would say that something exists outside our consciousness, and that there is also consciousness, and that I don't have a clue on what are both. Furthermore, but this would lead us to a terrain you won't like; the answer might not be in language.

As for the "demonstrably generate consciousness"... yeah, right... I would be delighted on reading your explanation about how, maybe you can even present me a working model of your hypothesis?

Atoms are real objects like you and me. Exactly as real as you and me, because were are no more than big bunches of atoms all stuck together.

No. Not at all. "Real objects"? No. By any means, atoms are at the boundary between what you can call existence. Its constituents come in and out of existence in ways we simply can't understand. One thing is "an atom" a theoretical stance that allow us to make predictions, and another very different what we perceive (feel, smell and touch). Yes, we can argue that we are made by atoms, its very reasonable, but thats about it.

The sole difference being that one atom is just one atom.

I'm not even sure someone has ever proposed that an atom can exists isolated from the rest of the universe. I don't believe that the notion makes sense at all.

There is a conceptual construct of the atom. There are also actual, physical atoms. Exactly the same again as people.

No. Atoms are constructs that allow us to explain a variety of things, not actual "things".

Anything that exists is described by its behavior.

Wow, yes! I almost agree. I would change to "can ONLY be described by deducting theories from its behavior"

There is no "essence", just interactions.

Yes! WOW, exactly my thinking...

oh, but wait!

HUH? I thought you said they were physical, you know... "real objects".

The PixyMisa I remember was a hard core materialist. Are you changing your ideas? Do atoms have an "essence", in particular, are they physical? or do we see the result of the experiments and build, FROM THEM, theoretical frameworks that allow us to explain/predict observations?

We can describe subatomic particles using wave theory or particle theory, but if the answers come out the same then it's the same thing. (And if the answers come out different, one of the theories is wrong.)

And if both can accurately predict phenomena then both are correct? Well, both quantum mechanics and general relativity are correct.. yet, they are incompatible. So, are they correct.. or no? Again... this sort of thinking is just an oversimplification.

[thaiboxerken]

I have a name for people who believe things that contradict each other. That name is Moron.

[Cardelitre]

As for the "demonstrably generate consciousness"... yeah, right... I would be delighted on reading your explanation about how, maybe you can even present me a working model of your hypothesis?
I would suggest the reading of Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett on this subject, he has a very enlightening way to describe the consciousness arising from physical processes...

(I still can't post links, so you will have to google it yourselves, sorry...)

[Gr8wight]

I do understand where are you coming from. I used to see it exactly the same way. Some person believes in an afterlife. Everything he/she knows about the world (more correctly, believes about the world) is coherent with the notion of souls surviving the body. This person will pay money to anybody who allows him/she to talk with their gone relatives.

Now, note that he/she pays not because its being deceived, but because everything he/she KNOWS tells him that he/she is right. There are immortal souls and one can speak with them using the appropriate methods.

Now, somebody tells them that they are wrong, that it is absurd to believe that there are things like souls surviving the body, that their subjectivity is their brain and that when the body dies the person dies.

Thats a lot of information to process. Furthermore, I will argue that it would be not taken as information, but merely will point out that the person telling him/she that is a poor materialist, who has lost faith and maybe is angry with god.

Of course there are souls, and god made us immortal. Science can't tell what happens after dead so it is possible that we survive anyway... and so on.

Now, your efforts, and I'm right with you on this one, should be focused on the people who deceives others and make them pay for smoking mirrors. I agree with you. What I question is the harm done to the one who believes and buy what you (and maybe me) will call "crap". They act according to what they believe (the same as everyone else) and, maybe, in time, when presented by evidence they might think different. But thats up to them, not us.

I am not saying that a person's loved ones do not survive their death. Truly, as you state, that is impossible for me, or anyone else, to aver with confidence. I am saying, however, with a high degree of confidence, that the psychic is not in contact with those loved ones.

As they pay for that.
They get exploited

I do not deny that, just stating that, maybe, thats all they need, at least some of them and for some time. If you can't offer them the comfort of an afterlife, maybe they will not be interested in anything you say.

Sure, just like you were comforted by your shiny new electronics system before you understood that you had been swindled. But 'time will out' as they say. One day, the person who derived comfort from the swindling psychic may come to an understanding that they have been taken. Are they going to say, "oh well, it's what I needed at the time?" I doubt it. I think they're going to say, "give me my damn seven hundred bucks back." Don't you think that if we can save them the seven hundred bucks up front, we are doing them a service?

Oh, I forgot. You think there might be something to this whole "psychic" thing.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I would suggest the reading of Consciousness Explained by Daniel C. Dennett on this subject

Well, its an old book. A lot of discussion has been dedicated to it (I'm not sure in here, but in some mailing lists I belong to) and no, it is not "explained". :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am not saying that a person's loved ones do not survive their death. Truly, as you state, that is impossible for me, or anyone else, to aver with confidence. I am saying, however, with a high degree of confidence, that the psychic is not in contact with those loved ones.

And we agree completely. I think that this is the answer a true skeptic would give. Now I also see that this forum is full with materialists who like to believe they know all the answers. For me is simple, a skeptic will doubt and will present you with the lack of evidence or current misunderstandings in any area, a materialist, on the other hand, will simply "know" (basically) everything.

Sure, just like you were comforted by your shiny new electronics system before you understood that you had been swindled. But 'time will out' as they say. One day, the person who derived comfort from the swindling psychic may come to an understanding that they have been taken. Are they going to say, "oh well, it's what I needed at the time?" I doubt it. I think they're going to say, "give me my damn seven hundred bucks back." Don't you think that if we can save them the seven hundred bucks up front, we are doing them a service?

I have stated that people who deceive others should be confronted, I have doubts regarding trying to "adoctrinate" every person who believes in ghosts, psychics or their woo of choice.

People tends to believe about the same time and again, changes are slow. The one who paid 700 for the "reading" will not understand your point of view, nor your reasons, nor the available facts, in half an hour of exposure to skepticism or critical thinking.

The transition is slow, it needs a change in all his/her cosmo-vision (theoretical framework), and that is not an easy task. So, most of the time, by the time he/she realizes that the reading was a mistake, it wouldn't matter anymore.

Oh, I forgot. You think there might be something to this whole "psychic" thing.

If thats a question the answer is no. I believe psychics are deluded, when they are sincere, or like to take advantage on others, if they know they can't do what they say they do. Now, note that I said "I believe", everything I know points to that conclusion, but thats about it.

[PixyMisa]

So, who is the idealist here ;) I would say that something exists outside our consciousness, and that there is also consciousness, and that I don't have a clue on what are both.
Well, that's you.

As for the "demonstrably generate consciousness"... yeah, right... I would be delighted on reading your explanation about how, maybe you can even present me a working model of your hypothesis?
Are you suggesting that brains don't generate consciousness? I'm not claiming we know all the details of how this happens, though we have a good idea of this and an immense body of experimental and observational data. I'm merely pointing out that any claim that it doesn't happen is proof that the claimant has lost any connection with reality.

No. Not at all. "Real objects"? No. By any means, atoms are at the boundary between what you can call existence.
Not even slightly.

We are made of atoms. Either atoms exist, or we don't. It's as simple as that.

Your choice.

Its constituents come in and out of existence in ways we simply can't understand.
Again, this isn't remotely true, but this is a scientific rather than philosophical question. Quantum mechanics is a very well-tested and exceptionally successful theory, and it tells us just how these constituents behave.

If you don't like the results of quantum mechanics, or you can't do the math, or you just don't know what it means, that's your problem.

One thing is "an atom" a theoretical stance that allow us to make predictions, and another very different what we perceive (feel, smell and touch).
In what way are these different?

Yes, we can argue that we are made by atoms, its very reasonable, but thats about it.
Again, this is utter tripe.

We are made of atoms. We know the structure and behaviour of those atoms. The atoms are assembled into molecules, and we have a very extensive knowledge of how the atoms combine into those molecules and how the molecules interact to form our cells, and how those cells work together in our organs. From quantum mechanics to psychology we have an unbroken - incomplete, but unbroken - chain of scientific understanding.

I'm not even sure someone has ever proposed that an atom can exists isolated from the rest of the universe. I don't believe that the notion makes sense at all.
Yes, I agree with that.

No. Atoms are constructs that allow us to explain a variety of things, not actual "things".
If atoms are not things, then the things we use them to explain... Aren't things. You can't have it both ways.

Wow, yes! I almost agree. I would change to "can ONLY be described by deducting theories from its behavior"
And I would not. You can describe behaviour perfectly well without a theory.

Yes! WOW, exactly my thinking...

oh, but wait!

HUH? I thought you said they were physical, you know... "real objects".
Indeed.

The PixyMisa I remember was a hard core materialist.
Yes.

Are you changing your ideas? Do atoms have an "essence", in particular, are they physical?
What did I just say? There is no "essence". That's an idealist concept.

A thing is what it does.

There is no "essence", no "ideal". The rejection of that notion is the foundation of materialism. Everything that exists, interacts, and we can understand all that exists from those interactions. Where there is no interaction, there is no "there".

or do we see the result of the experiments and build, FROM THEM, theoretical frameworks that allow us to explain/predict observations?
We do this. But it is unclear why you think this is connected to the previous question.

And if both can accurately predict phenomena then both are correct?
Yes - within their boundaries.

Well, both quantum mechanics and general relativity are correct.
No they're not "correct", in any absolute sense. They are extremely successful in their own domains. They produce verifiable and accurate predictions. Both are used in modern-day engineering.

yet, they are incompatible.
Yes, in some respects they are incompatible.

So, are they correct.. or no? Again... this sort of thinking is just an oversimplification.
If you know it's an oversimplification, why did you bring it up?

[PixyMisa]

Let's see. I say that opinions are more or less correlated with objective data. This means, correct me if I'm wrong, that there can't be something as two opposite opinions that are equally valid.
Agreed.

Now, sometimes, an opinion is valid in certain context, but not in another. And their utility lie in knowing this fact and stop pretending you have "universal truths".
Nope. You've just contradicted yourself. Either there's objective data, or there isn't. If your opinion matches objective data, then it's not only an opinion, but also a fact. If it doesn't then it's false.

And facts are funny things. They don't change depending on circumstances. You can reinterpret them, you can discover that what you thought was a fact was not... But the facts don't change.

So, I wonder, do you read what I'm saying or just pick up here and there words and phrases that match what you are trying to fight?
I just don't like tripe.

You said that "All we have are opinions." This is untrue. We also have inductive logic, the ability to test our ideas, and a Universe that will kill us if we value our opinions over fact.

We have, in a word, Science.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I will rephrase my stance, so those who want to prove that I'm wrong, or just want to have a sane discussion ;) are clear in what I want to say (discussing here helps me to put it in words, which is not always an easy task).

1) All we have are beliefs, in the sense of "knowledge open to improvements" instead of "real" knowledge (the whole and only truth, the last word, absolute knowledge, whatever you like to call it).

2) Beliefs are based on theoretical frameworks (world views, cosmo-visions, cognitive stances). You can't have a clear belief unless its based on one. Lets draw a mini picture of two theoretical frameworks (note that they are just an oversimplified models); a) materialists believe that everything in the universe is material, nothing immaterial exists, even by definition. b) spiritualists believe that what animates a body is a immaterial soul, that lives independently of the organism (a material body).

3) Sometimes (I would say most of the time) our theoretical frameworks are unfinished. they are like vast nets with holes on it (we might be unaware of some). When confronted by something that can't be explained by it we first try to repair it, as it is difficult to change it (its changing ourself, in a way).

3) Beliefs can (and should) be contrasted with facts. What constitutes "a fact" depends on the theoretical frame of reference, but still it can be defined as "that what is beyond opinions" (oversimplification again, I have noted that some of the posters like to take words by the letter, like Pixy).

3) Contrasting, correlating beliefs with facts its how we get confidence in our theoretical framework (or makes us doubt it and think in changing it). And its a difficult, often slow process.

Is that better? Are "detractors" (even thaiboxerken who has just spit emotional babbling) happy now? (in the sense of knowing what I'm trying to tell). Thanks.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Are you suggesting that brains don't generate consciousness? I'm not claiming we know all the details of how this happens, though we have a good idea...

There you go. Was that difficult? All I say is that there is a strong correlation between brain activity and some of the variables that we ascribe to consciousness, and that correlation does not imply causality. Note that I'm NOT saying that consciousness is "immaterial" or that there are something like "souls". Now, unless someone can present a working model, heck, even a good definition about what consciousness is, I believe thats all we can say (there is a clear correlation).

As for your other remarks, Pixy you speak a lot, and please excuse me but I have the impression that you don't say a lot. Reading your posts is like reading 101 courses at school. Sorry, but it is not interesting.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nope. You've just contradicted yourself. Either there's objective data, or there isn't. If your opinion matches objective data, then it's not only an opinion, but also a fact. If it doesn't then it's false.

Pixy Pixy, you don't understand something, yet, I contradicted myself? sure.

And facts are funny things. They don't change depending on circumstances. You can reinterpret them, you can discover that what you thought was a fact was not... But the facts don't change.

Whats the shape of the coast?

You said that "All we have are opinions." This is untrue. We also have inductive logic, the ability to test our ideas, and a Universe that will kill us if we value our opinions over fact.

We have, in a word, Science.

I said, read again, we have opinions, not absolute knowledge. Science, BTW, is NOT a body of beliefs, but a set of tools. I would add, the best set of tools to contrast/correlate opinion with facts. Pixy, thank you for reading and commenting my posts, but can I please ask you to read the whole arguments before saying anything?, you just appear to be reading phrase by phrase and looking for anything that sparks your (now known) "such a tripe!" attitude.

[Matteo Martini]

I do not deny that, just stating that, maybe, thats all they need, at least some of them and for some time. If you can't offer them the comfort of an afterlife, maybe they will not be interested in anything you say.

Yes, but sometimes they pay a lot of money for that.
That is the only problem.
If they were offered the possibility of talking with their daed grand ma for 50USD, that would not be a great problem, for me.
But, if the current rate is 700USD, that is a problem for me.

That said, I invite you to take notice that, in this forum, there are the "extremists" of skepticism, beware..

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, but sometimes they pay a lot of money for that.
That is the only problem.

And there are also people who overpay for basically everything you can name. So, scams are everywhere not only in woos territory. Scams are part of the human nature, so to speak. Now, there are some believers who honestly think they are doing a service. And people who is willing to pay for that service. Sure, for you and for me such "services" do not deliver what is promised... but, what if the one who buys it is comfortable with the answers? Maybe such person would feel awful if they "knew" different... this is, that there is nothing that can survive the body. This people pays for comfort, and they will not get it if they become skeptics.

Now it is VERY different when both parties believe it, but in any case... if the medium starts to have doubts about what he/she is doing.. and continue to do it (because maybe its their way of living) is it really different from another individual who sells a clearly inferior product at a premium price.. and can't stop doing it, even knowing that what others sell is better?

That said, I invite you to take notice that, in this forum, there are the "extremists" of skepticism, beware..

HEHE I know what you mean!!! And its precisely another point of my little rants.. :) some self assumed "skeptics" are as woo as the ones they attack for a hobby!

[NeilC]

But later I understood something I was not prepared to. That "knowledge" is nothing but an opinion. Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. I realized then that even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.



"Nothing but"? That implies that skeptics and believers in the sort of supernatural things you mentioned are equivalent. Yet one group asks for convincing evidence and the others do not.

Evidence based thinking is hugely successful in so many obvious ways, not least the output of science. Can you say the same of the other side?


You see, all we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real" (this would mean that we can have "objective opinions", which is an absurd).

So, I ceased to be such a skeptic. I hope a day will come in which I will be able to open my eyes, and just marvel at the chance of being here. No questions asked.

Not sure exactly what you are saying. Yes we all have opinions. Some are more informed than others. Some people's opinions about some things are entirely accurate whilst others are entirely incorrect. Some people form opinions carefully. Some are most careless.

How does the existence of opinions change anything? Why would it make you less likely to question information put in front of you and and use evidence based thinking to weigh it?

Skeptics are well aware of the questions epistomology throws up. It is of course hard to be sure of any knowledge other than "I think therefore I am" and some would argue about that. Yet I don't see how this changes anything. We could all be living in a computer simulation. So should we all stop bothering to use our brains at all? It's like saying we can't be sure of no dying overnight so why bother to plan or save?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Nothing but"? That implies that skeptics and believers in the sort of supernatural things you mentioned are equivalent. Yet one group asks for convincing evidence and the others do not.

The point (and I advice you to read my last couple of posts regarding my position so you can see it clearer) is that both are believers. And no, I'm not saying that asking for evidence is not a good thing, but I have learned that "convincing evidence" is not as as straightforward concept as it appears to be at first sight.

Evidence based thinking is hugely successful in so many obvious ways, not least the output of science. Can you say the same of the other side?

Read again, I have explicitly said that right from the OP.

Not sure exactly what you are saying. Yes we all have opinions. Some are more informed than others. Some people's opinions about some things are entirely accurate whilst others are entirely incorrect. Some people form opinions carefully. Some are most careless.

What do you mean by "entirely accurate"? Would you say that there is something like "objective opinions"?

How does the existence of opinions change anything? Why would it make you less likely to question information put in front of you and and use evidence based thinking to weigh it?

Again, please read my last post regarding my standing. (No. 64)

Skeptics are well aware of the questions epistomology throws up. It is of course hard to be sure of any knowledge other than "I think therefore I am" and some would argue about that. Yet I don't see how this changes anything. We could all be living in a computer simulation. So should we all stop bothering to use our brains at all? It's like saying we can't be sure of no dying overnight so why bother to plan or save?

Are you including everyone who call himself "skeptic" in this category? I can assure you that some of the "skeptics" on this forum are simply believers hiding in the word to try to appear as rational people. Not everyone of course, there are lots of highly intelligent people too ;) I'm glad you can see some of the epistemic problems associated to what we call "knowledge". Yes we could be living in a computer simulation, and no, who says you shouldn't bother?

[Linda777NJ]

Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.



If it were simply the case of speaking to a dead loved one or mundane things such as "when I am gonna meet a man?" I could care less about that.

When people like Shawn Hornbeck's parents are told by the likes of Sylvia Browne that their missing son is dead and offer clues to the perpetrator it should be a crime. Preying on the vulnerable during a tragic crisis should be a crime.

When money, time and valuable resources are spent searching in areas where one of these fruitloops claim evidence exists ....it should be a crime.

FRAUD is a crime. Psychics are FRAUDS!

[Rasmus55]

To make a guess, I would say that Bodhi is no lapsed skeptic, has never been a skeptic, and really has just been a woo believer all along. He's one of those people who see coincidences and everyday occurences as profound messages from the alleged divine.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If it were simply the case of speaking to a dead loved one or mundane things such as "when I am gonna meet a man?" I could care less about that.

When people like Shawn Hornbeck's parents are told by the likes of Sylvia Browne that their missing son is dead and offer clues to the perpetrator it should be a crime. Preying on the vulnerable during a tragic crisis should be a crime.

When money, time and valuable resources are spent searching in areas where one of these fruitloops claim evidence exists ....it should be a crime.

FRAUD is a crime. Psychics are FRAUDS!

Some psychics seriously believe they are right, as their believers. Some of them (believers) feel good by having a piece of "something" that they would not be able to obtain if they believed that when the brain dies the "soul" is gone too. Thats what Im talking about, of course I believe scams should be treated as that. I have never said the contrary, yet, some of you keep bringing this kind of samples to the table ;)

I agree, praying on the vulnerable to get money from them (or recognition) is not nice.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To make a guess, I would say that Bodhi is no lapsed skeptic, has never been a skeptic, and really has just been a woo believer all along. He's one of those people who see coincidences and everyday occurences as profound messages from the alleged divine.

Lol, and that's supposed to upset me? You would be dead wrong. Take sometime to read my posts since I joined this community, before stating nonsense... be a good skeptic!

[Ron_Tomkins]

There was a time, long time ago, in which I believed in woo. I wanted to adhere to things like reincarnation, immortal souls, unknown mental "forces" and that kind of things.

Later, I learned that the world was more important than my beliefs, and so I spent a great amount of time reading books regarding philosophy and science, discussing with others, joining philosophical groups to discuss (mostly analytic philosophy) and even working at a lab doing some brain research. I was a recalcitrant skeptic, almost laughing about wooism at every opportunity. It was ok, for a time.

But later I understood something I was not prepared to. That "knowledge" is nothing but an opinion. Nobody in the world knows, really knows, anything. We all live and do things based on our beliefs. I realized then that even "hard core skeptics" are nothing but believers.

You see, all we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real" (this would mean that we can have "objective opinions", which is an absurd).

So, I ceased to be such a skeptic. I hope a day will come in which I will be able to open my eyes, and just marvel at the chance of being here. No questions asked.



Skepticism is a mindset and a decision. Not everyone adopts it in the same way. I´m sure a lot of people end up making a Religion out of skepticism and Gods out of James Randi, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Other people don´t. What you speak of is a balance which is necessary in everything. We have both the analytical and the intuitive side. They need each other. The intuitive side can do wonders with the ground support that the analytical side provides it with and viceversa. There are things in life that can only be understood merely from an analytical point of view (like math). There are things that can be understood merely from an intuitive and emotional connection (such as love and emotional issues). Some things could use a little bit of both.

There´s no need to "give up skepticism" if you don´t "join it" in the first place. Skepticism is a tool that can be used with everything, but that doesn´t mean that it should actually be used with everything. It is not a cult (although to many people I´m sure it is). We take umerous things for granted: That we will not get mugged when we turn the corner, that the food we ordered at the diner is healthy, that we will take a nap for only one hour and nothing more.... Our lives cannot operate if we don´t allow ourselves some of these permissions.

[Rasmus55]

Some psychics seriously believe they are right, as their believers. Some of them (believers) feel good by having a piece of "something" that they would not be able to obtain if they believed that when the brain dies the "soul" is gone too. Thats what Im talking about, of course I believe scams should be treated as that. I have never said the contrary, yet, some of you keep bringing this kind of samples to the table ;)

I agree, praying on the vulnerable to get money from them (or recognition) is not nice.

How do you know exactly that "some psychics seriously believe they are right...?" That would require you to be able to see into the minds of these psychics and actually know what they think or believe. If you can do that, you should apply for the JREF prize. Meanwhile, just because a psychic says he believes in his nonesense does not mean he does; for instance, John Edward is a believer, do you think he is credible? Why or why not? There is far more empircal evidence for fraud and lying amongst the psychics than anything else. By the way, I was only guessing that you were never a skeptic; and I took that guess from your responses. You do not at all strike me as someone who has ever been a skeptic.

[tsig]

And there are also people who overpay for basically everything you can name. So, scams are everywhere not only in woos territory. Scams are part of the human nature, so to speak. Now, there are some believers who honestly think they are doing a service. And people who is willing to pay for that service. Sure, for you and for me such "services" do not deliver what is promised... but, what if the one who buys it is comfortable with the answers? Maybe such person would feel awful if they "knew" different... this is, that there is nothing that can survive the body. This people pays for comfort, and they will not get it if they become skeptics.

Now it is VERY different when both parties believe it, but in any case... if the medium starts to have doubts about what he/she is doing.. and continue to do it (because maybe its their way of living) is it really different from another individual who sells a clearly inferior product at a premium price.. and can't stop doing it, even knowing that what others sell is better?



HEHE I know what you mean!!! And its precisely another point of my little rants.. :) some self assumed "skeptics" are as woo as the ones they attack for a hobby!

Such an enlightened being as yourself must have some pearls of wisdom for us "self assumed" skeptics.

Say on.

[Rasmus55]

Skepticism is a mindset and a decision. Not everyone adopts it in the same way. I´m sure a lot of people end up making a Religion out of skepticism and Gods out of James Randi, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Other people don´t. What you speak of is a balance which is necessary in everything. We have both the analytical and the intuitive side. They need each other. The intuitive side can do wonders with the ground support that the analytical side provides it with and viceversa. There are things in life that can only be understood merely from an analytical point of view (like math). There are things that can be understood merely from an intuitive and emotional connection (such as love and emotional issues). Some things could use a little bit of both.

There´s no need to "give up skepticism" if you don´t "join it" in the first place. Skepticism is a tool that can be used with everything, but that doesn´t mean that it should actually be used with everything. It is not a cult (although to many people I´m sure it is). We take umerous things for granted: That we will not get mugged when we turn the corner, that the food we ordered at the diner is healthy, that we will take a nap for only one hour and nothing more.... Our lives cannot operate if we don´t allow ourselves some of these permissions.

Actually, are you sure there is such a thing as "love"? Perhaps there is only just one response; self-interest at all times. All emotional contexts might be viewed in just that light, in which case what we think of as "love" really doesn't exist at all. And what about the "intuitive" side? What exactly can be understood from the intuitive side as you put it? I also know (primarly from an area's reputation and news reporting) that if I travel in a given location, I might be well served to be on my guard for muggers when I turn the corner. I never take for granted that the food I ordered at a restaurant or purchased from the grocer is healthy. In fact, I have no idea whether it is and, if I look at the package, I often find it is not (if the information contained therein is true). Some of the purpose of consumer protection legislation is to allow for credible presumptions to be made, but we might all be surprised at how often these presumptions can be wrong. To me, skepticsm means always doubting until a certain threshold of proof is reached or credibilty is established in some way. What that threshold is will vary and is hard to quantify, but I never trust in my everday life; particularly while driving down the road, walking a street at night in a major city, etc...

[tsig]

Lol, and that's supposed to upset me? You would be dead wrong. Take sometime to read my posts since I joined this community, before stating nonsense... be a good skeptic!

How high the horse, how small the rider.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Skepticism is a mindset and a decision. Not everyone adopts it in the same way.

Well, I think it is a misunderstanding, please allow me to explain. If you doubt you are a skeptic, but if you have strong opinions on several subjects you are not. For instance, materialists are not skeptics, they just believe a particular world view instead of another. In a sense, you can't chose to be a skeptic, you learn to think critically and skepticism is the result.

I´m sure a lot of people end up making a Religion out of skepticism and Gods out of James Randi, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Other people don´t.

Not sure about that, but I have seen some members to make ostentation about their "skeptical" position when they are just believers of some sort. Funny thing is that they are usually the ones who get really upset at anything that smells (to them) as woo. Their emotional connection shows (to me) that they are still fighting what they used to be, at a personal level.

There are things in life that can only be understood merely from an analytical point of view (like math). There are things that can be understood merely from an intuitive and emotional connection (such as love and emotional issues). Some things could use a little bit of both.

Couldn't agree more. Life could be a chemical reaction, yet, that doesn't change the strong feelings instantiated by, say, art. Who cares if it is an "immaterial" thing or a "material" thing? And no, I'm not saying there are such thing as "immaterial things". ;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

By the way, I was only guessing that you were never a skeptic; and I took that guess from your responses. You do not at all strike me as someone who has ever been a skeptic.

It is funny to see how you simply assume that I'm this or that. In contrast another post you claim that:

To me, skepticsm means always doubting until a certain threshold of proof is reached or credibilty is established in some way. What that threshold is will vary and is hard to quantify, but I never trust in my everday life;

Nice definition, still you fail to do it, you have just assumed something without further investigating. That's not being skeptic at all. Now, please take sometime to read some of my posts, you will then see (and will be able to prove) that I'm "this" or "that".

I like argumentations, not void emotional statements, so if you can argue please read the post No. 61 and delight yourself proving that I'm a woo :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Say on.

Posts like yours are, exactly, what make me doubt about the skepticism of some members on this forum... Come on, throw me some arguments instead of posting your rants which are designed to try to provoke an emotional response. It's simply boring. Read, then give me some arguments, or go directly to the next thread. :)

[Ron_Tomkins]

Actually, are you sure there is such a thing as "love"? Perhaps there is only just one response; self-interest at all times. All emotional contexts might be viewed in just that light, in which case what we think of as "love" really doesn't exist at all. And what about the "intuitive" side? What exactly can be understood from the intuitive side as you put it? I also know (primarly from an area's reputation and news reporting) that if I travel in a given location, I might be well served to be on my guard for muggers when I turn the corner. I never take for granted that the food I ordered at a restaurant or purchased from the grocer is healthy. In fact, I have no idea whether it is and, if I look at the package, I often find it is not (if the information contained therein is true). Some of the purpose of consumer protection legislation is to allow for credible presumptions to be made, but we might all be surprised at how often these presumptions can be wrong. To me, skepticsm means always doubting until a certain threshold of proof is reached or credibilty is established in some way. What that threshold is will vary and is hard to quantify, but I never trust in my everday life; particularly while driving down the road, walking a street at night in a major city, etc...



No, I'm with you on that: I don't claim knowing what "love" is. Your concept of being a "self interest" feeling is something that's completely possible and sometimes I really feel that's what it is in some cases. Also, don't take my examples too literally. Perhaps you in particular never take for granted that the food you ordered is healthy... but you still consume it without running a molecular test to see if it's organically healthy. It's just an example. The thing is: we can't prove everything that happens around us. If we had to go through that process for every single phenomena in our lives, we would go insane.

[Matteo Martini]

And there are also people who overpay for basically everything you can name. So, scams are everywhere not only in woos territory. Scams are part of the human nature, so to speak. Now, there are some believers who honestly think they are doing a service. And people who is willing to pay for that service. Sure, for you and for me such "services" do not deliver what is promised... but, what if the one who buys it is comfortable with the answers? Maybe such person would feel awful if they "knew" different... this is, that there is nothing that can survive the body. This people pays for comfort, and they will not get it if they become skeptics.

Now it is VERY different when both parties believe it, but in any case... if the medium starts to have doubts about what he/she is doing.. and continue to do it (because maybe its their way of living) is it really different from another individual who sells a clearly inferior product at a premium price.. and can't stop doing it, even knowing that what others sell is better?


Scams are everywhere, but do not think a person who has just lost a loved one and is desperate about this loss is particuarly vulnerable to scams, and, therefore, should be protected?


HEHE I know what you mean!!! And its precisely another point of my little rants.. :) some self assumed "skeptics" are as woo as the ones they attack for a hobby!

Agreed

[schlitt]

Bodhi Dharma Zen, you claim to be a "hardcore skeptic", what exactly is it that you do to acheive this status?


Also, in your "clarification", your logic is contradictory.

You say:
1) All we have are beliefs, in the sense of "knowledge open to improvements" instead of "real" knowledge (the whole and only truth, the last word, absolute knowledge, whatever you like to call it).

Then you say:
3) Beliefs can (and should) be contrasted with facts. What constitutes "a fact" depends on the theoretical frame of reference, but still it can be defined as "that what is beyond opinions" (oversimplification again, I have noted that some of the posters like to take words by the letter, like Pixy).

If all we have are beliefs based on opinions, how can anything ever be considered as fact?
Are the some people who are able to to transcend this "all we have are beliefs" status, and affirm things as facts for humanity to adhere to?

How does something stop being an opinion if point number 1 is true?


You argument appears to be fluid and non cohesive.

[Hawk one]

schlitt: I find his arguments to be nothing but apologism for letting frauds keep on frauding. And it sickens me.

[tsig]

Posts like yours are, exactly, what make me doubt about the skepticism of some members on this forum... Come on, throw me some arguments instead of posting your rants which are designed to try to provoke an emotional response. It's simply boring. Read, then give me some arguments, or go directly to the next thread. :)

If my post caused you to doubt anything then it worked. Why this thing with arguments? Is your god proved in words? If so why English?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

TO ALL THE FIGHTERS.

I do not believe in gods, souls, psychics, chamans, immaterial things, ghosts, UFOs with little green visitors, big foots, nessies, religions, mental "powers", predictions (other than scientific ones), astrology and etc etc that are handled like "woo" in this forum.

GOT IT???

That said, I do not take science as a body of knowledge, like some self assumed "skeptics" take it, hiding in it and opposing their "knowledge" to "woos". Science is a set of tools, nothing more, nothing less, and it is the best set of tools to get our facts straight.

Some of you need to READ and understand what someone else is trying to say before accusing him/her of wooism, thats showing respect, something that some of you simply lack.

Of course, most members of JREF are what can be called "good" skeptics, in the sense that they understand that skepticism is about doubting and the proper use of critical thinking. Skeptics are not deniers, they just like to ask for the evidences.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Bodhi Dharma Zen, you claim to be a "hardcore skeptic", what exactly is it that you do to acheive this status?

So, you like labels or it is a rhetorical question? the term is somehow explained in my last post. A skeptic doubts, not denies a priory anything that doesn't fit in his world-view. I don't think that's difficult to understand. Some self called skeptics in the forum are deniers, not skeptics. That's all.

Also, in your "clarification", your logic is contradictory.

It is not.

You say:
1) All we have are beliefs, in the sense of "knowledge open to improvements" instead of "real" knowledge (the whole and only truth, the last word, absolute knowledge, whatever you like to call it).

Then you say:
3) Beliefs can (and should) be contrasted with facts. What constitutes "a fact" depends on the theoretical frame of reference, but still it can be defined as "that what is beyond opinions" (oversimplification again, I have noted that some of the posters like to take words by the letter, like Pixy).

If all we have are beliefs based on opinions, how can anything ever be considered as fact?
Are the some people who are able to to transcend this "all we have are beliefs" status, and affirm things as facts for humanity to adhere to?

Huh?? What's the difference between opinions and beliefs??? Facts are beyond beliefs, I believe you can buy that, so what's the problem here. No one can have anything but a belief. I believe that the sun is going to be out tomorrow, sure, I can explain to you why and that we can be pretty confident about it, but it would just be a belief nonetheless. Does this represent a problem to you?

How does something stop being an opinion if point number 1 is true?

For everyday use, lots of things, in a deeper sense (epistemic) Never.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

schlitt: I find his arguments to be nothing but apologism for letting frauds keep on frauding. And it sickens me.

WOW.

Have you overpaid for anything? Countless of frauds, some little, some bigger, are committed EVERY DAY by lots of people... not only woos. Guess you are sick of the world then, and please do not include me here. I have EXPLICITLY said that open frauds should be prosecuted. Read again the thread... or you can always go to throw in the bathroom because you just overpaid for almost you have bought in your life.

[Linda777NJ]

Some psychics seriously believe they are right, as their believers. Some of them (believers) feel good by having a piece of "something" that they would not be able to obtain if they believed that when the brain dies the "soul" is gone too. Thats what Im talking about, of course I believe scams should be treated as that. I have never said the contrary, yet, some of you keep bringing this kind of samples to the table ;)

I agree, praying on the vulnerable to get money from them (or recognition) is not nice.


For a long time I was actually a envious of famous psychics. I was pondering how *I* could cash in and it sure did sound like fun! If there's a sucker born every minute and there's two to take em...I wanted to be one of the takers. But then I realized something........... I had a conscience.

Then I was thinking, if I really had psychic powers and could help people find missing children, predict the future, speak to the dead or whatever. I surely, wouldn't be wasting my time on cruise ships, Vegas or Montel Williams. Not me! I would be out actually finding those kids or warning people or channeling the greatest minds in history. I'd support myself by hitting the lottery a few times over the years. I also would jump at the chance to take the Million Dollar Challenge!

but that's just me

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

For a long time I was actually a envious of famous psychics. I was pondering how *I* could cash in and it sure did sound like fun! If there's a sucker born every minute and there's two to take em...I wanted to be one of the takers. But then I realized something........... I had a conscience.

Then I was thinking, if I really had psychic powers and could help people find missing children, predict the future, speak to the dead or whatever. I surely, wouldn't be wasting my time on cruise ships, Vegas or Montel Williams. Not me! I would be out actually finding those kids or warning people or channeling the greatest minds in history. I'd support myself by hitting the lottery a few times over the years. I also would jump at the chance to take the Million Dollar Challenge!

but that's just me

Hmm, not just you. There are countless of people who believe they actually have those powers! They are seriously convinced that they can (and do) channel old civilization kings, or even beings from other planets. Of course, there are also people who honestly believe in what they say.

Now, we don't know who of them (psychics) are mere scum and which seriously believe in their powers, I agree in that those who take advantage from others should be stopped. Still, if my aunt beliefs that my uncle is in heaven, and she is comfortable believing it, what good would it be for her if I shouted in her face that she is stupid for believing such a nonsense?

Now, in a way my point is that some self called skeptics seriously believe lots of things, for example, in the past they were SURE that flying was impossible for man. Or maybe in our days they seriously believe that consciousness have been explained. Well, I believe that they are not skeptics but believers, the only reason for not treat them the same as silvia brown could be that they do not charge for telling you nonsense, but then again some psychics do not receive money for their "services".

[schlitt]

So, you like labels or it is a rhetorical question? the term is somehow explained in my last post. A skeptic doubts, not denies a priory anything that doesn't fit in his world-view. I don't think that's difficult to understand. Some self called skeptics in the forum are deniers, not skeptics. That's all.


So then, if you are merely applying a methodology to reach your "nothing more than opinion beliefs", how does one become "hardcore", when applying this methology?
Or are you taking a stance as a disbeliever of certain things, as the term would suggest. This would surely contradict your purported open mind to the validity of everything.







Huh?? What's the difference between opinions and beliefs??? Facts are beyond beliefs, I believe you can buy that, so what's the problem here. No one can have anything but a belief. I believe that the sun is going to be out tomorrow, sure, I can explain to you why and that we can be pretty confident about it, but it would just be a belief nonetheless. Does this represent a problem to you?


If no one can ever find anything out further than the level of opinion. How does something become a fact?

Surely all facts must just be well evidenced opinions going by your logic?

You claim your "belief" which is merely an opinion, must be contrasted with facts. How is this possible if all things are really just opinions?
furthermore, since you claim all opinions have inherent relative correctness, then why should we listen to science, or anyone for that matter?
Everyone's opinion is equally valid, therefore none is.

I know you do not agree with the last two sentences i wrote, however a lot of what you have been saying amounts to these conclusions, then you change the position in subsequent posts, then change back. Hence why i said your argument appears fluid and non cohesive.




For everyday use, lots of things, in a deeper sense (epistemic) Never.

So, your point #1 is wrong, we can use logic to find absolute truths?

[schlitt]

I have EXPLICITLY said that open frauds should be prosecuted.


Yet you also said this:

Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.


Once again, your postion changes from thread to thread, without a coherent theme tying them together. Small wonder you are facing so much opposition to your statements. You are going to have to try harder if you are going to prove your assertion that we are all lowly close minded skeptics, and you are the only enlightened one.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and ask questions.

So then, if you are merely applying a methodology to reach your "nothing more than opinion beliefs", how does one become "hardcore", when applying this methology?

Why do you have to take my words to the letter? When someone says he is a skeptic, yet he/she simply deny everything that doesn't fit his world-view... I say he/she is NOT an skeptic. IN THIS SENSE (context my friend) I'm a "hardcore" skeptic, because I do not deny, a priori, anything, I just ask for evidence when claims are made. A true skeptic makes less noise for you? Do you reckon that someone who has already make his mind is not a skeptic, no matter how hard he try do convince you about it? Why does this touch so many sensibilities around here!

Or are you taking a stance as a disbeliever of certain things, as the term would suggest. This would surely contradict your purported open mind to the validity of everything.

Oops, and WHO exactly said ANYTHING about the validity of everything???

I hope you understand that resorting to any kind of strawman is lame.

If no one can ever find anything out further than the level of opinion. How does something become a fact?

Strawman again??? I have EXPLICITLY said, several times, that opinions (beliefs) should be contrasted with facts. Facts are outside beliefs. Facts are objective, beliefs are subjective. Is there something you don't understand here?

Surely all facts must just be well evidenced opinions going by your logic?

Strawman, where did I said that.

You claim your "belief" which is merely an opinion, must be contrasted with facts. How is this possible if all things are really just opinions?
furthermore, since you claim all opinions have inherent relative correctness, then why should we listen to science, or anyone for that matter?
Everyone's opinion is equally valid, therefore none is.

I started to answer you believing you were posing good questions, and we could have a nice debate. But all I see is that you have not grasped what I have been saying. Things in the world are opinions? That the suns sets every day and that the earth turns itself are both valid opinions, based on facts. Their meaning varies according to the context in which those concepts are used, but the facts remain the same.

Please show us where have I claimed that "all opinions are relatively correct"? I have explicitly said that science, this is proper methodologies to study facts, are necessary to separate correct beliefs from incorrect ones. You are obviously neglecting to read whatever doesn't fit your view about my thinking.

I know you do not agree with the last two sentences i wrote, however a lot of what you have been saying amounts to these conclusions, then you change the position in subsequent posts, then change back. Hence why i said your argument appears fluid and non cohesive.

No. The fact that you are unable to see it demonstrates that you don't understand. Now, it might be my fault, I reckon, because of two facts. 1) English is not my first language and 2) I am, sometimes, arrogant. Apologies for that.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You are going to have to try harder if you are going to prove your assertion that we are all lowly close minded skeptics, and you are the only enlightened one.

You ALL? another strawman. Some members of this forum are closed minded materialists, NOT skeptics, but thankfully there are also lots of true skeptics, which will just ask for evidence, without the need to discharge frustrations at every woo that appears in their view.

[schlitt]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and ask questions.



You're welcome.


Why do you have to take my words to the letter?


If you have written something in a way that can be easily miscontrued, then perhaps it is your failing, not the person who miscontrues.


When someone says he is a skeptic, yet he/she simply deny everything that doesn't fit his world-view... I say he/she is NOT an skeptic. IN THIS SENSE (context my friend) I'm a "hardcore" skeptic, because I do not deny, a priori, anything, I just ask for evidence when claims are made. A true skeptic makes less noise for you? Do you reckon that someone who has already make his mind is not a skeptic, no matter how hard he try do convince you about it? Why does this touch so many sensibilities around here!


Your status as "hardcore", allows you to be impartial? Good for you.
I would suggest there are many people here who apply skeptical methodology properly, without bias.
Applying a label to stress your skepticism would usually imply you do something differently from the usual definition.


Oops, and WHO exactly said ANYTHING about the validity of everything???


You imply this multiple times, here are a few quotes from the first page in this thread alone.


You see, all we have are opinions. Some of them can be tested against the objectivity ("that" what is beyond subjectivity), and some of them can't. Opinions are useful in that way, correlating better with the evidence (when we know what we are looking for), but in no way they can be ascribed as "more real" (this would mean that we can have "objective opinions", which is an absurd).


I already say it, some opinions are correlated and some others not, but they will never cease to be mere opinions (as opposed to "knowledge").


A true skeptic, on the other hand, behave like you say, he/she doesn't simply deny anything, nor approves it, no matter who is the "authority" behind any assertion.


What would be that? There is "something" objective, there is "something" subjective. I believe in the end those two are just only one, other than that, I "know" nothing. Now, make no mistake, I do believe a lot of things.


You constantly allude to the claim that skeptics should never be sure of there stance, and everything is just opinion. If this were the case, there could be no knowable truths, and this is not the case.


I hope you understand that resorting to any kind of strawman is lame.


I hope you understand that understanding the absurd implications of a statement, and drawing attention to the absurdity, is not a strawman.
What is lame is you not understanding the full ramifications of the nonsense you are spouting.


Strawman again??? I have EXPLICITLY said, several times, that opinions (beliefs) should be contrasted with facts. Facts are outside beliefs. Facts are objective, beliefs are subjective. Is there something you don't understand here?


Once again, showing the implications of you claim is not a strawman. And you still have not answered my question. If all we have are opinions, how can something ever be established as more than opinion and be solidified as a fact?


Strawman, where did I said that.


You didn't, i am asking a question. One that within your flawed logic, does not have a suitable answer.



I started to answer you believing you were posing good questions, and we could have a nice debate. But all I see is that you have not grasped what I have been saying. Things in the world are opinions? That the suns sets every day and that the earth turns itself are both valid opinions, based on facts. Their meaning varies according to the context in which those concepts are used, but the facts remain the same.


Actually, it seems you do not understand the logical conclusions of what you write.
You say something like "That the suns sets every day and that the earth turns itself are both valid opinions, based on facts.", which itself is contradictory, since if everything is merely opinion, there are no facts.


Please show us where have I claimed that "all opinions are relatively correct"? I have explicitly said that science, this is proper methodologies to study facts, are necessary to separate correct beliefs from incorrect ones. You are obviously neglecting to read whatever doesn't fit your view about my thinking.


Yes, you have said that, among other things which contradict this.
See the earlier examples of your quotes i provided. And again, your statement does not make sense in the context of what you are saying as a whole.


No. The fact that you are unable to see it demonstrates that you don't understand. Now, it might be my fault, I reckon, because of two facts. 1) English is not my first language and 2) I am, sometimes, arrogant. Apologies for that.


This may be the case. You seem to be facing an uphill battle against people who seem to be understanding your viewpoint in much the same way I am.

[schlitt]

You ALL? another strawman. Some members of this forum are closed minded materialists, NOT skeptics, but thankfully there are also lots of true skeptics, which will just ask for evidence, without the need to discharge frustrations at every woo that appears in their view.

Not a strawman, you imply that many people here are wrong in their stance as skeptics. This is the whole purpose of your post. You are a long way from proving this. And your discontiguous style of logically fragmented argument is not helping.

Oh, and you did not comment on the glaring contradiction i brought up.

You said:



I have EXPLICITLY said that open frauds should be prosecuted.


Yet you also said this:


Why are you angry at them? Is the people receiving something? Maybe what they want? What can you offer them? Say somebody wants to talk with his dead mother. Say he/she finds comfort believing in life after death. Whats wrong with that, seriously.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you have written something in a way that can be easily miscontrued, then perhaps it is your failing, not the person who miscontrues.

Agreed. And there is also another possibility, it taken like that by some people, mostly those who don't agree with some of what I have said, and then taken out of context so it can be proved "wrong". Not that this is what you are doing, I appreciate the time you take for answering point by point. :)

I would suggest there are many people here who apply skeptical methodology properly, without bias. Applying a label to stress your skepticism would usually imply you do something differently from the usual definition.

If the usual definition is "someone who doubts and exercise critical thinking" we agree, but you have to reckon that some materialists take the flag of skepticism and pretend they are skeptics. As for those many people who are really skeptics, well, of course, I have said that myself on several occasions.

You constantly allude to the claim that skeptics should never be sure of there stance, and everything is just opinion. If this were the case, there could be no knowable truths, and this is not the case.

Mm again. Truths are relative to world-views. There are no "universal truths", "final knowledge" or whatever you like to call them. A particular knowledge is valuable in relative terms, and that's how the world is, it is not something I have made up.

Let me ask you, what is the shape of a coast?

I hope you understand that understanding the absurd implications of a statement, and drawing attention to the absurdity, is not a strawman.
What is lame is you not understanding the full ramifications of the nonsense you are spouting.

You have failed to prove such implications, I believe you are reading me with some bias, maybe because you cataloged my as a woo in a first approach. You have taken pieces of my argument and you have draw your conclusions from them. Now, granted, I have some trouble explaining myself in English, but I do my best in trying to put everything as clear as I can.

Once again, showing the implications of you claim is not a strawman. And you still have not answered my question. If all we have are opinions, how can something ever be established as more than opinion and be solidified as a fact?

I have answered, read the post #61.

Actually, it seems you do not understand the logical conclusions of what you write. You say something like "That the suns sets every day and that the earth turns itself are both valid opinions, based on facts.", which itself is contradictory, since if everything is merely opinion, there are no facts.

It is contradictory IF AND ONLY IF YOU ASSUME there is just one universal truth! valid from every point of view. Can't you see that?

[Matteo Martini]

Yet you also said this:


Once again, your postion changes from thread to thread, without a coherent theme tying them together. Small wonder you are facing so much opposition to your statements. You are going to have to try harder if you are going to prove your assertion that we are all lowly close minded skeptics, and you are the only enlightened one.

The two statements of BDZ are not necessarily inconsistent between them

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Not a strawman, you imply that many people here are wrong in their stance as skeptics. This is the whole purpose of your post.

No. I openly say that some self called skeptics are not skeptics. I have said that everyone of us have only beliefs in the end (woos and skeptics) and that we can only contrast our beliefs against facts in relation to our world-view.

This is why some people will continue to believe in souls no matter how hard you try them to understand your point of view, and seeing the evidence using your glasses (so to speak). Please read my post 61 for clarification.

As for the examples you bring to the table. Rephrasing. If someone asks for money in exchange for some services knowing such services are a scam, this people should be prosecuted. Now, if someone doesn't ask for money, firmly believe that he/she can contact immaterial souls, and someone desperately need to believe that his loved ones are still "alive", who am I to shout them that they are stupid for believing in such things?

There is a difference.

[Matteo Martini]

No. I openly say that some self called skeptics are not skeptics. I have said that everyone of us have only beliefs in the end (woos and skeptics) and that we can only contrast our beliefs against facts in relation to our world-view.

This is why some people will continue to believe in souls no matter how hard you try them to understand your point of view, and seeing the evidence using your glasses (so to speak). Please read my post 61 for clarification.

As for the examples you bring to the table. Rephrasing. If someone asks for money in exchange for some services knowing such services are a scam, this people should be prosecuted. Now, if someone doesn't ask for money, firmly believe that he/she can contact immaterial souls, and someone desperately need to believe that his loved ones are still "alive", who am I to shout them that they are stupid for believing in such things?

There is a difference.

BDZ, while I agree with what you have written above, I would like to ask you if you think that Sylvia Browne and people like her should be prosecuted.
That is..
How do you know if a person who is asking for money "knowing such services are a scam"?

[schlitt]

Agreed. And there is also another possibility, it taken like that by some people, mostly those who don't agree with some of what I have said, and then taken out of context so it can be proved "wrong". Not that this is what you are doing, I appreciate the time you take for answering point by point. :)


Your third option implies a devious strategy. One that i would not be fond of employing, and which could easily be proven wrong, since it is distorting the truth.



If the usual definition is "someone who doubts and exercise critical thinking" we agree, but you have to reckon that some materialists take the flag of skepticism and pretend they are skeptics. As for those many people who are really skeptics, well, of course, I have said that myself on several occasions.


How do you know materialists are not correct? Yours is just opinon, as is theres. Perhaps it is you who is pretending to be a skeptic?
Since the truth is relative, you are just as wrong as those you deride.



Mm again. Truths are relative to world-views. There are no "universal truths", "final knowledge" or whatever you like to call them. A particular knowledge is valuable in relative terms, and that's how the world is, it is not something I have made up.


You are illustrating my point here, and contradicting what you said a few posts ago:


Oops, and WHO exactly said ANYTHING about the validity of everything???


and

Please show us where have I claimed that "all opinions are relatively correct"? I have explicitly said that science, this is proper methodologies to study facts, are necessary to separate correct beliefs from incorrect ones. You are obviously neglecting to read whatever doesn't fit your view about my thinking.


Your stance is logically inconsistent.


Let me ask you, what is the shape of a coast?


It is the shape of the coast you are refering to. Which coast would that be, and what terms do you want to define "shape" by?


You have failed to prove such implications, I believe you are reading me with some bias, maybe because you cataloged my as a woo in a first approach. You have taken pieces of my argument and you have draw your conclusions from them. Now, granted, I have some trouble explaining myself in English, but I do my best in trying to put everything as clear as I can.


I am not reading you with bias, i am merely commenting on what seems to be logical flaws in your argument.
I agree with you in the sense that people can become too militant in their skepticism. However i do not go along with the notion that there can be no absolute truths. Different perception of truths doe not change the underlying construct of the truth.


I have answered, read the post #61.

That post does not answer the question, because the post itself is contradictory. (point 1 contradicts point 3). The discoverer of any fact, would merely be stating his opinion if we follow your logic. Thus, no facts, just opinion.


It is contradictory IF AND ONLY IF YOU ASSUME there is just one universal truth! valid from every point of view. Can't you see that?

Surely you must see that there can be universal truths, and it is the perception that can either be right or wrong.
Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Somethings they are nearly right, and sometimes they are nearly wrong. Not all ideas are equally valid.

[schlitt]

The two statements of BDZ are not necessarily inconsistent between them

How so?

Yes, i can see many different ways to reconcile and explain away the inconsistencies, but on the surface, and most applicably to what we know happens in reality, they are inconsistent.

[hammegk]

How do you know materialists are not correct?
No one knows that, nor does BDZ claim to.

What do you think? That's the question.

I read him as saying that one who claims that materialism is the only correct view is no longer a skeptic.

[schlitt]

No. I openly say that some self called skeptics are not skeptics. I have said that everyone of us have only beliefs in the end (woos and skeptics) and that we can only contrast our beliefs against facts in relation to our world-view.


This seems to imply there can be objective truths to learn if we contrast beliefs vs facts? Or at least seemingly objective to the person.
Do you think that different perceptions invalidate unbiased factual data?


This is why some people will continue to believe in souls no matter how hard you try them to understand your point of view, and seeing the evidence using your glasses (so to speak). Please read my post 61 for clarification.


So does this make souls valid, or are they wrong?

If you make an assertion either way, it is just your opinion correct?

But if you contrast the varying opinions against fact, you may be able to tell which opinion is correct? - Yes? this contradicts your whole point that one can never fully know, and everything is just opinion.

You are going around in circles with your logic and never reaching a meaningful conclusion. You claim different things at different times, they just don't match up.

It seems to me you points come be summed up as:
You have the one true skeptical methodology, many others do not. Your opinions are the most valid due to the fact you contrast them vs fact, and Advaita Vedanta is the best philosophy.

Yep, a straw man, sue me ;)


As for the examples you bring to the table. Rephrasing. If someone asks for money in exchange for some services knowing such services are a scam, this people should be prosecuted. Now, if someone doesn't ask for money, firmly believe that he/she can contact immaterial souls, and someone desperately need to believe that his loved ones are still "alive", who am I to shout them that they are stupid for believing in such things?

There is a difference.


Firstly, how often do you think this happens in reality contrasted with those who do charge?

Secondly, in both situations the person having the reading is being deceived. Just because there is no money involved does not make deception right.

How do you know that the happiness the person gains from being deceived will last? You do not.
Is it not a better course of action to make sure deception does not happen, and happiness can be sought through means that do not have the potential to crumble and result in disillusionment?

[schlitt]

No one knows that, nor does BDZ claim to.

What do you think? That's the question.

I read him as saying that one who claims that materialism is the only correct view is no longer a skeptic.

What would be the point in weighing up data and facts if nothing could ever be defined as being true or false.
We are able to assign probability of correctness using logic, reason and evidence.

A lot of skeptics would state materialism is the most likely explanation, few way say it is "the only" explanation.

[hammegk]

A lot of skeptics would state materialism is the most likely explanation, few way say it is "the only" explanation.
If not "the only" explanation, what philosophical position would that be, if not dualism?

[schlitt]

What philosophical position would that be, if not dualism?

No, it would be simply taking the position that seems the most likely, while being open to the suggestion that new evidence may come to light which could alter the probability of what is deemed correct.

[NeilC]

The point (and I advice you to read my last couple of posts regarding my position so you can see it clearer) is that both are believers. And no, I'm not saying that asking for evidence is not a good thing, but I have learned that "convincing evidence" is not as as straightforward concept as it appears to be at first sight.



Read again, I have explicitly said that right from the OP.

What do you mean by "entirely accurate"? Would you say that there is something like "objective opinions"?

Again, please read my last post regarding my standing. (No. 64)

Are you including everyone who call himself "skeptic" in this category? I can assure you that some of the "skeptics" on this forum are simply believers hiding in the word to try to appear as rational people. Not everyone of course, there are lots of highly intelligent people too ;) I'm glad you can see some of the epistemic problems associated to what we call "knowledge". Yes we could be living in a computer simulation, and no, who says you shouldn't bother?

I read 64 and it doesn't illuminate. It just repeats your view that completely object knowledge is impossible. This doesn't address my point.

I can't speak for other skeptics and I'm not sure you can either. I'm addressing your OP which appears to me to be saying this: "Everything is a belief / opinion even if you think it's absolute, objective knowledge. Therefore since everthing is belief we ought be open to believing almost anything". Is that what you are saying? If not exactly what are you saying?

My point is that we already know that, it's obvious. So we just carry on learning and measusing using the methods that we know to work. When these methods have produced testable and useful results over and over again we consider them to be valuable and point to universal truths (as much as we can know anything). Those methods, which are in keeping with general skepticism, are evidence based and not equivalent to woo thinking. Therefore woos and skeptics are not equivalent.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I read 64 and it doesn't illuminate. It just repeats your view that completely object knowledge is impossible. This doesn't address my point.

I apology, it was not 64 but 61, I just couldn't edit it when I realized it. That said, No 61 does illuminate, but still I thank you all because I believe I understand now what is causing the conflicts, I believe it is my inability to properly express my thinking in English.

I can't speak for other skeptics and I'm not sure you can either. I'm addressing your OP which appears to me to be saying this: "Everything is a belief / opinion even if you think it's absolute, objective knowledge. Therefore since everthing is belief we ought be open to believing almost anything". Is that what you are saying?

NOT AT ALL!!! All I say is that I understand better now why some people are so reticent to change their beliefs. And that beliefs are logically consistent only in relation to a particular world-view. And that there are different world-views.

If not exactly what are you saying?

I do state that completely objective knowledge is impossible, BUT I DO NOT STATE THAT every belief have the same weight. Some beliefs (and it is clearly stated in post 61) are more correlated with facts than others. Cristal clear to me that this says that not all knowledge is the same.

My point is that we already know that, it's obvious. So we just carry on learning and measusing using the methods that we know to work. When these methods have produced testable and useful results over and over again we consider them to be valuable and point to universal truths (as much as we can know anything). Those methods, which are in keeping with general skepticism, are evidence based and not equivalent to woo thinking. Therefore woos and skeptics are not equivalent.

Agreed! Who has said the contrary? Ok, I might be able to explain it using a different approach. First, let me clear things up

1) All we have are beliefs (both skeptics or woos)

2) Still... Not every belief weights the same

3) We can differentiate among them because of their relative fidelity to facts, or by their being better correlated with facts (Newton's vs Einsteins for example) (another example would be souls as the center of personality or brains serving the same purpose)

4) Skeptics and woo are equivalent IN THE SENSE THAT we all share beliefs, NOT IN THE SENSE THAT what they believe have the same relative weight (or correctness)

5) Now the tricky part (one that was implied in my previous posts but not openly said) Some beliefs are based on world-views that explain a lot more stuff than others, their validity resides on that. Let's think on world-views as concentric circles. A small one can explain just a few of the facts around, a bigger circle catches more facts, and so on.

Currently, the wider circle we have is based on the knowledge (beliefs) that we can get using scientific methods. We can explain a lot of stuff if we assume certain world-view. To my knowledge, some forms of physicalism (not to be confused with materialism) have accommodated a great amount of facts under the same explicative rules, still, there are still lots of stuff outside its explicative power, so, the best we can do is remain skeptics and not embrace any world-view as final and definitive. There, I hope its clearer now.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ, while I agree with what you have written above, I would like to ask you if you think that Sylvia Browne and people like her should be prosecuted.
That is..
How do you know if a person who is asking for money "knowing such services are a scam"?

Good question, sadly, I do not know the answer. :( I just speak from an ethical perspective. Still I believe that psychics should never ask for money in return for their "favors". But then again, I also consider a crime that we are charged to get health services.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How do you know materialists are not correct? Yours is just opinon, as is theres. Perhaps it is you who is pretending to be a skeptic?
Since the truth is relative, you are just as wrong as those you deride.

Simply, their model can't explain some very relevant things in the world. A new, wider model is needed now, so anyone sticking to it is a believer and not a skeptic.

Your stance is logically inconsistent.

It is not, you just have not (yet) seen all its implications.

It is the shape of the coast you are refering to. Which coast would that be, and what terms do you want to define "shape" by?

THERE! YOU HAVE IT NOW! :) To be able to tell the shape of a thing first we most have to deal with what kind of thing its "a shape", we need to have a world-view that is compatible with certain shapes and start from that. Now, is there a "REAL SHAPE" or everything we use to determine it will be permeated by what we are? Say, for example, that we only know some basic shapes (you know, rectangles, squares and such). We would then be forced to say that the shape of certain coast is "rectangular". But is it REALLY rectangular? What if, later, somebody develops fractal geometry and states that the shape of the very same coast is a complex quadratic fractal?


I am not reading you with bias, i am merely commenting on what seems to be logical flaws in your argument.
I agree with you in the sense that people can become too militant in their skepticism. However i do not go along with the notion that there can be no absolute truths. Different perception of truths doe not change the underlying construct of the truth.

Thanks for that, "seem to be logical flaws" now we are talking ;) I believe it is my inability to proper express myself in English, or maybe (like my wife says) that I take for granted that people will deduce the same implications from my comments as I do. According to her, I'm not communicative.

I stand firm in that we can't have any "absolute truths", all knowledge is relative and only valid as long as it is correlated with some fact (or set of facts). Lets get back to the coast. How long is it? (its an important question, please answer it) I presume you will say that it measures a precise, objective quantity, that it is not open for discussion.

That post does not answer the question, because the post itself is contradictory. (point 1 contradicts point 3). The discoverer of any fact, would merely be stating his opinion if we follow your logic. Thus, no facts, just opinion.

No it doesn't. Please read my post to NeilC right above, I believe it can be more explicative. And, again, facts are outside opinions. They are objective and real, opinions, on the other hand, are subjective and relative.

Surely you must see that there can be universal truths, and it is the perception that can either be right or wrong.
Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Somethings they are nearly right, and sometimes they are nearly wrong. Not all ideas are equally valid.

In my view, your "universal truths" are nothing but beliefs that are better correlated with observations, with facts, but still relative to certain world-view and not necessary valid outside it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I read him as saying that one who claims that materialism is the only correct view is no longer a skeptic.

Exactly Martillo!!, thanks for putting it in other words, that sometimes help. :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What would be the point in weighing up data and facts if nothing could ever be defined as being true or false.
We are able to assign probability of correctness using logic, reason and evidence.

But lots of things can be defined as true or false IN DETERMINATE CONTEXTS, if we do not forget that we are ok. Whats more, I believe you illustrate perfect with your last sentence! Assign probability sounds fine, but from that to jumping to say that it is ABSOLUTELY true or false (in an epistemic way) there is a long way.

A lot of skeptics would state materialism is the most likely explanation, few way say it is "the only" explanation.

An evolution from materialism gets my vote (physicalism) but I reckon that it still have its limitations. As for the only few will say it is the only explanation, well, more than few IMO, and these tend to be the most recalcitrant of all "skeptics" (remembering here that they are not longer skeptics, no matter if they want to believe they are).

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This seems to imply there can be objective truths to learn if we contrast beliefs vs facts? Or at least seemingly objective to the person.
Do you think that different perceptions invalidate unbiased factual data?

Huh, No. You still don't understand. "Objective truths" is an oxymoron! There are degrees of correlation between beliefs and facts. There is nothing, even by definition! that approaches to be something like "unbiased factual data". A photography contains the photographer.

But if you contrast the varying opinions against fact, you may be able to tell which opinion is correct? - Yes? this contradicts your whole point that one can never fully know, and everything is just opinion.

No. There is a difference between "matching better with observations" and an opinion being "correct". And when you understand the implications of this, you are able to see why we can't fully know anything. Crystal clear.

It seems to me you points come be summed up as:
You have the one true skeptical methodology, many others do not. Your opinions are the most valid due to the fact you contrast them vs fact, and Advaita Vedanta is the best philosophy.

Yep, a straw man, sue me ;)

Not me, skeptics in general. Its not "the one true" but one that works giving priority to critical thinking instead of "known truths". Many others do not (some insist in believing they are a skeptics when they are just dogmatic materialists). They are not "MY" opinions and yes, some form of Advaita Vedanta is the best philosophy out there (for me this is).

[schlitt]

Simply, their model can't explain some very relevant things in the world. A new, wider model is needed now, so anyone sticking to it is a believer and not a skeptic.



Im sorry but what you say here is yet again contradictory.

Look at what you said earlier which contradicts this:

A true skeptic, on the other hand, behave like you say, he/she doesn't simply deny anything, nor approves it, no matter who is the "authority" behind any assertion.


You assert that materialism is wrong, and therefore contradict where you state a true skeptic should not deny anything.


It is not, you just have not (yet) seen all its implications.


I'm waiting :)
I can see the points that you are attempting to make. You are simply trying to tell us we need to eliminate bias. This is correct, however you are displaying a large amount of bias yourself, and therefore your post seems hugely hypocritical to a lot of readers.


THERE! YOU HAVE IT NOW! :)

Now? This has been my stock standard response to these asinine "How long is a piece of string", type questions for years.



To be able to tell the shape of a thing first we most have to deal with what kind of thing its "a shape", we need to have a world-view that is compatible with certain shapes and start from that. Now, is there a "REAL SHAPE" or everything we use to determine it will be permeated by what we are? Say, for example, that we only know some basic shapes (you know, rectangles, squares and such). We would then be forced to say that the shape of certain coast is "rectangular". But is it REALLY rectangular? What if, later, somebody develops fractal geometry and states that the shape of the very same coast is a complex quadratic fractal?


Close, but you are missing the main point. If the coast you are defining exists, it DOES have a shape. That shape is measurable, and constant (at any one particular moment in time). There are many ways to define and percieve the shape, but these all spring from it's true form. There is a universal truth regarding the shape of the coast, and that is the coasts shape itself. Defining the shape in different terms through different world views has no bearing on the coast and its shape. If you defined it in english, german, polish you would use different words and perceptions, but you could all be correct. Perceptions of something vary among people, yes, but there is still a constant truth, and people may have a perception which incorrectly interprets the truth, misses data about the truth, or be unaware of the truth altogether.



Thanks for that, "seem to be logical flaws" now we are talking ;) I believe it is my inability to proper express myself in English, or maybe (like my wife says) that I take for granted that people will deduce the same implications from my comments as I do. According to her, I'm not communicative.


Your english is fine. I think it is your logic that needs work. ;)


I stand firm in that we can't have any "absolute truths", all knowledge is relative and only valid as long as it is correlated with some fact (or set of facts). Lets get back to the coast. How long is it? (its an important question, please answer it) I presume you will say that it measures a precise, objective quantity, that it is not open for discussion.


You say we cannot have truths and things need to be contrasted against facts. What is a fact?

Again, there are truths. Forget about decriptions or perceptions, the thing itself which you would define, that is the truth. Or the properties of something which determine its actions, that is the truth. The result of an interaction, that is a truth.
Some people are unable to perceive the ramifications of reality and form perceptions they believe are the truth, but are infact wrong.
Others are able to form a perception with aligns with the real truth more closely. Neither of these have a bearing on what is the truth.



No it doesn't. Please read my post to NeilC right above, I believe it can be more explicative. And, again, facts are outside opinions. They are objective and real, opinions, on the other hand, are subjective and relative.


OK, I agree mostly with your clarification in that post.
What is your point though? It seems to my you are simply illustrating why skeptics and people who seek knowledge will have a more correct weighting (as you put it) with their opinions? This is obvious is it not?


In my view, your "universal truths" are nothing but beliefs that are better correlated with observations, with facts, but still relative to certain world-view and not necessary valid outside it.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree here. I do not believe that because something can be percieved differently means that it is not objectively constant.

[schlitt]

But lots of things can be defined as true or false IN DETERMINATE CONTEXTS

Yes, but only through logic, reason and non biased critical thinking will you acheive a correct way of realizing this.


, if we do not forget that we are ok. Whats more, I believe you illustrate perfect with your last sentence!


Why thankyou. ;)


Assign probability sounds fine, but from that to jumping to say that it is ABSOLUTELY true or false (in an epistemic way) there is a long way.

I agree.



An evolution from materialism gets my vote (physicalism) but I reckon that it still have its limitations. As for the only few will say it is the only explanation, well, more than few IMO, and these tend to be the most recalcitrant of all "skeptics" (remembering here that they are not longer skeptics, no matter if they want to believe they are).

Ok, you are entitled to your opinion. Some people may claim to know 100%, but i think most reasonable people here would state more diplomatically that "with current scientific knowledge, it is the best option" with most of their viewpoints.
Unfortunately woo folk often display none of the charateristics we would consider important for forming a belief which can be given a high probability chance of being correct. They often do not care about gaining knowledge, and contrasting with fact, they simply believe what they want because it satisfies their desire.

[schlitt]

Huh, No. You still don't understand. "Objective truths" is an oxymoron! There are degrees of correlation between beliefs and facts. There is nothing, even by definition! that approaches to be something like "unbiased factual data". A photography contains the photographer.


Er, yes i do understand.
How we define something does not effect the something itself. Errors arise in definition and perception, this does not alter the objective state of what is being defined.



No. There is a difference between "matching better with observations" and an opinion being "correct". And when you understand the implications of this, you are able to see why we can't fully know anything. Crystal clear.


You have opinions that match what is verifiable, and those that do not. One is more correct than the other.
You are lapsing back to the nonsensical stance of complete relative correctness.


Not me, skeptics in general. Its not "the one true" but one that works giving priority to critical thinking instead of "known truths". Many others do not (some insist in believing they are a skeptics when they are just dogmatic materialists). They are not "MY" opinions and yes, some form of Advaita Vedanta is the best philosophy out there (for me this is).

OK, i can along with this except for one thing.
For you to presume Advaita Vedanta is more correct than materialism you either need to contradict everything you have written in this post (and think you know the 100% truth, which is apparently unknowable), or, and most likely, you believe your ability to contrast your knowledge against fact is better than those who believe materialism is the likely explanation.

[hammegk]

No, it would be simply taking the position that seems the most likely, while being open to the suggestion that new evidence may come to light which could alter the probability of what is deemed correct.
You seem to have ignored "the only" criteria and "materialism"(or "physicalism"; to me no difference).

[schlitt]

You seem to have ignored "the only" criteria and "materialism".

Can you rephrase that? you are not making sense.

Let me expand my statement to see if i can make it easier for you to understand;

If a skeptic states they believe materialism is correct, they should simply be taking the position that materialism seems the most likely explanation, while being open to the suggestion that new evidence may come to light which could alter the probability of what is deemed correct. They would not state that materialism can be the only explanation, just that it is currently the best, with current scientific knowledge.

[hammegk]

I understand perfectly your belief. I'm trying to discover if you understand what your belief logically entails.

I have no problem agreeing that materialism/physicalism is a valid and defensible choice, so to speak, of worldview. You first problem is deciding what part of physicalism offers any hope of a "choice" on your part.

[schlitt]

I understand perfectly your belief. I'm trying to discover if you understand what your belief logically entails.

I have no problem agreeing that materialism/physicalism is a valid and defensible choice, so to speak, of worldview. You first problem is deciding what part of physicalism offers any hope of a "choice" on your part.

HUH?! OK, back up the truck.

My belief? I have not anywhere in this thread stated my belief.
Please refrain from being presumptuous.

If you are trying to steer this into a free will argument, i am not biting.

[hammegk]

My belief? I have not anywhere in this thread stated my belief.
Please refrain from being presumptuous.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have a coherent and logical worldview to defend; from what I've seen of your posts that position would be physicalism.

My mistake.


If you are trying to steer this into a free will argument, i am not biting.
Your choice, so to speak. :)

[schlitt]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have a coherent and logical worldview to defend; from what I've seen of your posts that position would be physicalism.

My mistake.


Fair enough. But we are discussing BDZ's opinions here, not mine. :)

[Matteo Martini]

Good question, sadly, I do not know the answer.

OK


I just speak from an ethical perspective. Still I believe that psychics should never ask for money in return for their "favors".

And, if they do?
What do we do?
Should that be considered as legal?
Illegal?


But then again, I also consider a crime that we are charged to get health services.

You have to get money somewhere
That is questionable, and in many countries the state covers much of the costs of health services, but taxes citizens more.

[hammegk]

Fair enough. But we are discussing BDZ's opinions here, not mine. :)
Indeed. Since you don't seem to understand his opinions, I was trying to be helpful. And intend to continue to do so. ;)

[schlitt]

Indeed. Since you don't seem to understand his opinions, I was trying to be helpful. And intend to continue to do so. ;)

I understand his opinions perfectly. I happen to think that some of what he has said is contradictory, as do many others who have posted in this thread.

Soon plumjam and mayday will be along to side with you too.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Look at what you said earlier which contradicts this:

You assert that materialism is wrong, and therefore contradict where you state a true skeptic should not deny anything.

Please STOP playing STRAWMANS, you have failed to prove, over and over that there is any contradiction, yet you insist. You see contradictions because you change the meaning of my arguments, take just a piece of them (the one that, according to you is flawed) or put words in my mouth that have never been there.

For example, I have NEVER assert that materialism is "wrong" THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. This is sad, because you are intelligent. Please stop putting words and concepts that are not mine and argue against them.


I can see the points that you are attempting to make. You are simply trying to tell us we need to eliminate bias. This is correct, however you are displaying a large amount of bias yourself, and therefore your post seems hugely hypocritical to a lot of readers.

Than doG you can see the points, but I still feel that you don't get them because you don't see the big picture, only phrase by phrase (don't commit the error of pixymisa). "A lot of readers" right, you, pixy and maybe two others... don't seem like a bunch to me ;)

Now? This has been my stock standard response to these asinine "How long is a piece of string", type questions for years.

Still, you failed to answer my question. How long is a determinate coast? More to the point, does this question have just one possible correct answer???

Close, but you are missing the main point. If the coast you are defining exists, it DOES have a shape. That shape is measurable, and constant (at any one particular moment in time). There are many ways to define and percieve the shape, but these all spring from it's true form. There is a universal truth regarding the shape of the coast, and that is the coasts shape itself. Defining the shape in different terms through different world views has no bearing on the coast and its shape. If you defined it in english, german, polish you would use different words and perceptions, but you could all be correct. Perceptions of something vary among people, yes, but there is still a constant truth, and people may have a perception which incorrectly interprets the truth, misses data about the truth, or be unaware of the truth altogether.

Nope, you are the one missing the point and who keeps accusing me!!! A "true form" is an absurd statement, later you confirm this (but hey, I will not accuse you of being contradictory or hypocrite ;)) There is no "TRUTH" there are correlations between models and facts. To put it in another way, there are maps and there is the territory, no matter how accurate you think is your map... it is not the territory, it can't be and it will never be. So simple.


Your english is fine. I think it is your logic that needs work. ;)

No it is not, I tend to be much more eloquent when I know enough words.

Again, there are truths. Forget about decriptions or perceptions, the thing itself which you would define, that is the truth. Or the properties of something which determine its actions, that is the truth. The result of an interaction, that is a truth.
Some people are unable to perceive the ramifications of reality and form perceptions they believe are the truth, but are infact wrong.
Others are able to form a perception with aligns with the real truth more closely. Neither of these have a bearing on what is the truth.

No. There are perceptions, observations. We deduce the existence of something objective (beyond perceptions) and we have created elaborated maps that apparently resemble that objective "stuff" (whatever it is). Here is where Advaita starts to fit, but I will not go there, way to complex. The "thing itself" as you put it, can be called the noumena, but we can only access to the phenomena, it is from this last that we attempt to grasp the noumena, but all we can have is certain degree of correlation between our models and our observations (phenomena). That which is beyond is "untouchable" so to speak. It takes a great leap of faith to presume that we know what it is. Whats more, that we can know.

OK, I agree mostly with your clarification in that post.
What is your point though? It seems to my you are simply illustrating why skeptics and people who seek knowledge will have a more correct weighting (as you put it) with their opinions? This is obvious is it not?

Ahh there you go... finally. Wow, it took its time, but then again you could have grasped it before if I were better with my wording. It it was obvious, why were you trying to fight with me?

Well, we will have to agree to disagree here. I do not believe that because something can be percieved differently means that it is not objectively constant.

Wording again, it can remain objectively constant, but if we perceive it different our concepts regarding "it" can lead us to different conclusions, even to different theories. Theories then give us world-views, and those can be pervasive and difficult to change. Think in a necker cube.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, but only through logic, reason and non biased critical thinking will you acheive a correct way of realizing this...

... Why thankyou. ;)

... I agree.


... Ok, you are entitled to your opinion. Some people may claim to know 100%, but i think most reasonable people here would state more diplomatically that "with current scientific knowledge, it is the best option" with most of their viewpoints.

YES! As I said, it took some time but I'm glad that now you can see things clearly. Of course you agree, you have to because there were no contradictions. You just needed to read all and understand the context.

Unfortunately woo folk often display none of the charateristics we would consider important for forming a belief which can be given a high probability chance of being correct. They often do not care about gaining knowledge, and contrasting with fact, they simply believe what they want because it satisfies their desire.

Partially agree. Here is the thing, world-views are complex, and their pervasiveness difficult to break. So, I would not go as far as to say that they believe because that satisfies a desire. Some believe because, from their world-view, what they believe its "absolutely correct", "completely obvious" and that "it is stupid to think otherwise".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And, if they do? What do we do? Should that be considered as legal? Illegal?

You have to get money somewhere
That is questionable, and in many countries the state covers much of the costs of health services, but taxes citizens more.

Difficult questions, specially when ethics is a difficult topic (to me), besides those are more legal questions than philosophical ones. How can something be illegal if you can't prove its damaging the buyer?

On the other hand, they will say the same, that they are entitled to "earn a life" and that if someones pays them for their services then its ok.

Again, I'm not the right person to answer this. Every case is different and I can only deal with people who is close to me.

JUST TO CLARIFY, no I'm not saying that it is good for me that they charge for their "services".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Indeed. Since you don't seem to understand his opinions, I was trying to be helpful. And intend to continue to do so. ;)

:)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I understand his opinions perfectly. I happen to think that some of what he has said is contradictory, as do many others who have posted in this thread.

No you don't. :) but we have advanced a lot. Still, now I'm confused. You agreed with me a couple of posts ago.. and now you are still trying to convince yourself about "my contradictions". Hmm, strawman itching?

[schlitt]

Please STOP playing STRAWMANS, you have failed to prove, over and over that there is any contradiction, yet you insist. You see contradictions because you change the meaning of my arguments, take just a piece of them (the one that, according to you is flawed) or put words in my mouth that have never been there.


For example, I have NEVER assert that materialism is "wrong" THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS. This is sad, because you are intelligent. Please stop putting words and concepts that are not mine and argue against them.


You need to stop giving me so much straw to play with. ;)

Look, you are not blatantly saying "materialism is wrong" but you heartily imply it.

E.g:

Simply, their model can't explain some very relevant things in the world. A new, wider model is needed now, so anyone sticking to it is a believer and not a skeptic.

for someone to say this, and then imply they are open to the possibility of everything...

A true skeptic, on the other hand, behave like you say, he/she doesn't simply deny anything, nor approves it, no matter who is the "authority" behind any assertion.


...is contradictory i am afraid.

The problem with this thread is you are not recognizing how arrogant your position is. You are implying that others need to be more open minded, and not believe they know the truth, but you are doing exactly that, by claiming you know materialism is a flawed concept.

As you know, sometimes people are wrong, and sometimes they are right. You are entitled to your opinion, but please spare us the arrogance.


Than doG you can see the points, but I still feel that you don't get them because you don't see the big picture, only phrase by phrase (don't commit the error of pixymisa). "A lot of readers" right, you, pixy and maybe two others... don't seem like a bunch to me ;)


Dude, I understand your points;

The frame of reference everyone has is unique to them. The way they interperet information, and subsequently make conclusions varies between world views, and since every context cannot be known by a single person, objective evaluation is not really possible.
There are however things which stand up to independent verification, and have corroborated evidence, these are facts. People should contrast their conclusions vs these facts to see if their conclusion in their frame of reference is logically compatible with these facts.
skepticism is the methodology which allows us to do this, and eliminate bias, yet at the end of the day, our opinions are still formed in a subjective manner, so to have 100% confidence in them would be foolish.

Now I am sure there are other subtle relating matters, but that is the gyst of it, correct?

I agree with the majority of which you are saying, however i think you are taking the relativity ascpect too far, and in doing so contradicting some of your more stronger opinions. Some people are stupid, and have stupid points of view, this is inescapable. However, through scientific methodology and skepticism we are able to be more confident that our viewpoints are correct, because there is empirical ways to verify this, that are repeatable, and independantly corroborated.


Still, you failed to answer my question. How long is a determinate coast? More to the point, does this question have just one possible correct answer???


Like i said, it is simply as long as it is.
To recieve a meaningful answer you need to define that terms that would be meaningful to you.



Nope, you are the one missing the point and who keeps accusing me!!! A "true form" is an absurd statement, later you confirm this (but hey, I will not accuse you of being contradictory or hypocrite ;)) There is no "TRUTH" there are correlations between models and facts. To put it in another way, there are maps and there is the territory, no matter how accurate you think is your map... it is not the territory, it can't be and it will never be. So simple.


You are still looking at this through the perspective of perception. Forget that for a second, there is a truth, and the truth is the object/system itself. You define the terms you want to percieve if from and go from there. If your measurements/parameters are accurate within the terms you have defined for meaning, then your data/conclusion is true. The truth of the object/system can become obscured in this process, and the process is subjective, however the underlying truth is not.




No it is not, I tend to be much more eloquent when I know enough words.


Fair enough, although you seem to have a pretty good command of the english language to me.


No. There are perceptions, observations. We deduce the existence of something objective (beyond perceptions) and we have created elaborated maps that apparently resemble that objective "stuff" (whatever it is). Here is where Advaita starts to fit, but I will not go there, way to complex. The "thing itself" as you put it, can be called the noumena, but we can only access to the phenomena, it is from this last that we attempt to grasp the noumena, but all we can have is certain degree of correlation between our models and our observations (phenomena). That which is beyond is "untouchable" so to speak. It takes a great leap of faith to presume that we know what it is. Whats more, that we can know.


This is mostly correct, but even with our limited way of defining everything through subjective perception, there can be a right and wrong. Right and wrong within the system that one operates in, and draws perspective from. The right and wrong relates to the percieved goal for the participants within the sytem, and in this sense, their can be absolute truths that will either align with the end goal or not. These things exist apart from our definitions, it is on our terms they are defined.



Ahh there you go... finally. Wow, it took its time, but then again you could have grasped it before if I were better with my wording. It it was obvious, why were you trying to fight with me?


Your argument has been progressing throught the post, your previous posts contained contradictions that you have clarified in that particular post, and that post appears free of contradictions. Whether you have rectified cognitive dissonance through added information due to the points people have been bringing up or not, I am not sure. ;)



Wording again, it can remain objectively constant, but if we perceive it different our concepts regarding "it" can lead us to different conclusions, even to different theories. Theories then give us world-views, and those can be pervasive and difficult to change. Think in a necker cube.

I agree. Which is why skepticism and science are important tools.

[schlitt]

No you don't. :) but we have advanced a lot. Still, now I'm confused. You agreed with me a couple of posts ago.. and now you are still trying to convince yourself about "my contradictions". Hmm, strawman itching?

Your clarifications have been mostly logically consistent. ;)

[schlitt]

Partially agree. Here is the thing, world-views are complex, and their pervasiveness difficult to break. So, I would not go as far as to say that they believe because that satisfies a desire. Some believe because, from their world-view, what they believe its "absolutely correct", "completely obvious" and that "it is stupid to think otherwise".


Yes, and this is their failing, correct?
For them to be wrong, there needs to be an objectively verifiable truth they are denying, or else we fall back into the relativity trap again.

[NeilC]

Agreed! Who has said the contrary? Ok, I might be able to explain it using a different approach. First, let me clear things up

1) All we have are beliefs (both skeptics or woos)

2) Still... Not every belief weights the same

3) We can differentiate among them because of their relative fidelity to facts, or by their being better correlated with facts (Newton's vs Einsteins for example) (another example would be souls as the center of personality or brains serving the same purpose)

4) Skeptics and woo are equivalent IN THE SENSE THAT we all share beliefs, NOT IN THE SENSE THAT what they believe have the same relative weight (or correctness)

5) Now the tricky part (one that was implied in my previous posts but not openly said) Some beliefs are based on world-views that explain a lot more stuff than others, their validity resides on that. Let's think on world-views as concentric circles. A small one can explain just a few of the facts around, a bigger circle catches more facts, and so on.

Currently, the wider circle we have is based on the knowledge (beliefs) that we can get using scientific methods. We can explain a lot of stuff if we assume certain world-view. To my knowledge, some forms of physicalism (not to be confused with materialism) have accommodated a great amount of facts under the same explicative rules, still, there are still lots of stuff outside its explicative power, so, the best we can do is remain skeptics and not embrace any world-view as final and definitive. There, I hope its clearer now.

Yes it is. I must say this is not materially the same as the stated views in your OP but there you go.

So essentially your argument boils down to this: science is great but it doesn't explain everything?

[hammegk]

So essentially your argument boils down to this: science is great but it doesn't explain everything?
That's a valid part of BDZ's position as I understand it, and one that a logical physicalist/materialist must deny.

The interesting part of ones' choice of that position is that, apriori, one has declared at 100% certainty the alternate choice of monism, we could call it idealism, is wrong. Logical corollaries for the avowed physicalist/materialist include: god cannot exist and free will cannot exist.

Johnson did better job kicking job a rock while ignoring the consequences.


My apologies to those who will see this endpoint as a derail.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Look, you are not blatantly saying "materialism is wrong" but you heartily imply it.

I never said it, and I don't imply it. Let me tell what I do believe openly, materialism is limited, it can't deal with forces, information states, meanings, consciousness (heck it can't even define it properly) wave/particle relationships, some consequences of quantum mechanics, and so on. So there you go, it is a limited world-view. Not wrong. Ok?

The problem with this thread is you are not recognizing how arrogant your position is. You are implying that others need to be more open minded, and not believe they know the truth, but you are doing exactly that, by claiming you know materialism is a flawed concept.

Re reading the OP I see that you are right here. I have said it later, still, my style do sounds arrogant. Apologies for that. On the other hand, I already draw the "concentric circles" representation regarding world-views, that coupled with my asseveration regarding materialism as incomplete should suffice to clear things.

Dude, I understand your points;

The frame of reference everyone has is unique to them. The way they interperet information, and subsequently make conclusions varies between world views, and since every context cannot be known by a single person, objective evaluation is not really possible.
There are however things which stand up to independent verification, and have corroborated evidence, these are facts. People should contrast their conclusions vs these facts to see if their conclusion in their frame of reference is logically compatible with these facts.
skepticism is the methodology which allows us to do this, and eliminate bias, yet at the end of the day, our opinions are still formed in a subjective manner, so to have 100% confidence in them would be foolish.

Now I am sure there are other subtle relating matters, but that is the gyst of it, correct?

YES! YES! :) There, you found a better way to explain what I'm trying to say... being native (my guess) helps one to use the words in more appropriate ways.

I agree with the majority of which you are saying, however i think you are taking the relativity ascpect too far, and in doing so contradicting some of your more stronger opinions. Some people are stupid, and have stupid points of view, this is inescapable. However, through scientific methodology and skepticism we are able to be more confident that our viewpoints are correct, because there is empirical ways to verify this, that are repeatable, and independantly corroborated.

There are no contradictions, it is just that I sometimes begin with the conclusion and not the premises (which I simply assume are self evident).

I have said right from the OP that we can be more confident about our points if our beliefs are contrasted with the evidence, so I believe it is the arrogance of the exposition what clouds things, that and my inability to express it in a "folding out" way.

Like i said, it is simply as long as it is.
To recieve a meaningful answer you need to define that terms that would be meaningful to you.

Say, can you measure a coast in meters? Will the measure be objective and true, no matter your subjective point of view? In a sense it is rhetorical, because you say you understand that 100% confidence is foolish (contrary to what you were defending at first), but nevertheless I would like to read your answer.

You are still looking at this through the perspective of perception. Forget that for a second, there is a truth, and the truth is the object/system itself. You define the terms you want to percieve if from and go from there. If your measurements/parameters are accurate within the terms you have defined for meaning, then your data/conclusion is true. The truth of the object/system can become obscured in this process, and the process is subjective, however the underlying truth is not.

Ok, then forget all about the rhetorical question, now it is a real question :)

This is mostly correct, but even with our limited way of defining everything through subjective perception, there can be a right and wrong. Right and wrong within the system that one operates in, and draws perspective from. The right and wrong relates to the percieved goal for the participants within the sytem, and in this sense, their can be absolute truths that will either align with the end goal or not. These things exist apart from our definitions, it is on our terms they are defined.

I will take your last phrase as a start point. I believe that is a misunderstanding. We elaborate maps of actual facts, not things. A "thing" is a construct, like an atom, that let us deal with a set of perceptions and even allows us to make predictions. But thats it. There can't be truths outside our models, there are correlations (or lack of) between our models and actual facts. Now, something tricky "more or less correlated" its not synonymous with "more or less true", because you either have the truth or you have a lie.

Your argument has been progressing throught the post, your previous posts contained contradictions that you have clarified in that particular post, and that post appears free of contradictions. Whether you have rectified cognitive dissonance through added information due to the points people have been bringing up or not, I am not sure. ;)

Nope, and I hope that is clear, all the elements of my argument are righ there from the OP, but I presented them in a lousy way, assuming that the implications and the premises were crystal clear and easily deduced from the conclusion.

Still, as you point out, I have to thank you all for helping me to express myself in a clearer way. This is like working on a paper (in a minute way of course) and submitting it for discussion to intelligent people before sending it for a peer review.

I agree. Which is why skepticism and science are important tools.

Agreed.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes, and this is their failing, correct?
For them to be wrong, there needs to be an objectively verifiable truth they are denying, or else we fall back into the relativity trap again.

More than failing, it exposes their limitations. I agree in that, sometimes, they should be exposed to the limitations of their explicative model, if they see the inconsistencies, sometimes, they will jump to the next "concentric circle" or world-view. But this is a difficult task. Not everybody can perform the quantum leap.

In another words, they are not strictly "wrong" it is simply that their model lacks explicative power when other variables are thrown to the mix. Now PLEASE NOTE that this is correct at an epistemological level. In the "every day level" yes, they could be accused of "being wrong", but this view is flawed (limited) IMO. :)

Say some market analyst believes that a particular stock is going up, based on some variables and according to his experience. Some other believes that the very same stock is going down. Is one of them correct and the other wrong?

Well, tricky question. Lets assume that the stock went up. Was the one "predicting it" correct all the time? Did he merely guessed the outcome? Or his model correlated better with the available facts? Hard to tell, the stock market is an hyper complex area, just as the world as a whole ;)

We should be happy with small certainties here and there, still it is interesting to see how we (humans) need somehow to "be right" (so I understand your point), we need to believe that our model works because it is true. It give us a solid ground point to start building things.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yes it is. I must say this is not materially the same as the stated views in your OP but there you go.

It is the same, but better explained. Please read my answer to schlitt.

So essentially your argument boils down to this: science is great but it doesn't explain everything?

No no, not at all. First of all, science is a set of tools, it can't explain anything. For that purpose we need world-views, theoretical frameworks. These are the things that explain, and the best tool (set of tools) we have to improve (and sometimes change) our theoretical frameworks is science.

So, rephrasing, what I do say is that our theoretical frameworks are more or less correlated to actual facts, and have a limited explicative power. I also said that we can understand them as concentric circles, some of them really small, with poor explicative power, and some of them that deal with far more variables and ergo their relative explicative power is a lot better. We can make better predictions if our models can deal with more variables. Thats all.

[Matteo Martini]

Difficult questions, specially when ethics is a difficult topic (to me), besides those are more legal questions than philosophical ones. How can something be illegal if you can't prove its damaging the buyer?

On the other hand, they will say the same, that they are entitled to "earn a life" and that if someones pays them for their services then its ok.

Again, I'm not the right person to answer this. Every case is different and I can only deal with people who is close to me.

JUST TO CLARIFY, no I'm not saying that it is good for me that they charge for their "services".

At least, you could have a law that makes the customer sign a statement where there is written that there is no proof whatsoever that you are really talking with your granmother/grandfather

[NeilC]

No no, not at all. First of all, science is a set of tools, it can't explain anything. For that purpose we need world-views, theoretical frameworks. These are the things that explain, and the best tool (set of tools) we have to improve (and sometimes change) our theoretical frameworks is science.

So, rephrasing, what I do say is that our theoretical frameworks are more or less correlated to actual facts, and have a limited explicative power. I also said that we can understand them as concentric circles, some of them really small, with poor explicative power, and some of them that deal with far more variables and ergo their relative explicative power is a lot better. We can make better predictions if our models can deal with more variables. Thats all.

So are you saying that germ theory does not explain why people get ill from infectious diseases? I'm clearly missing your point because I'd say that there is an example of science explaining something.

Please can you explain precisely what is meant by "theoretical framework" and "world-view". Please don't refer me to a previous post since I've already read the thread and I'm still not entirely sure.

Why are their circles concentric? Is it not possible for one of these frameworks to overlap?

I still don't understand how this explains your OP where you state you are no longer a skeptic because of of these ideas and appear to imply that you again believe in the list of "woo" things mentioned.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

At least, you could have a law that makes the customer sign a statement where there is written that there is no proof whatsoever that you are really talking with your granmother/grandfather

That would be nice. Maybe JREF should push that kind of law.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So are you saying that germ theory does not explain why people get ill from infectious diseases? I'm clearly missing your point because I'd say that there is an example of science explaining something.

The results of particular experiments answer questions elaborated by its methodology, but such questions depend on a particular standing point (or world-view).

Please can you explain precisely what is meant by "theoretical framework" and "world-view". Please don't refer me to a previous post since I've already read the thread and I'm still not entirely sure.

Fair enough. I will use standard definitions:

WORLD-VIEW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)

"A world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung ([ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook". It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook. (Compare with ideology)."

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (couldn't find it as a concept in Wiki, still, here is a good definition: http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm)

"A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts, like a theory but not necessarily so well worked-out. A theoretical framework guides your research, determining what things you will measure, and what statistical relationships you will look for.

Theoretical frameworks are obviously critical in deductive, theory-testing sorts of studies (see Kinds of Research for more information). In those kinds of studies, the theoretical framework must be very specific and well-thought out."

I hope those two definitions clearly illustrate the concepts.

Why are their circles concentric? Is it not possible for one of these frameworks to overlap?

Thanks for this, yes, absolutely. What I post here in the forum is a continually evolving set of ideas, that I plan to properly write someday. I would say (guided by mere intuition) that some of them are concentric and many others do overlap each others.

I still don't understand how this explains your OP where you state you are no longer a skeptic because of of these ideas and appear to imply that you again believe in the list of "woo" things mentioned.

Well, I have never said that I'm no longer a skeptic, just (IMO) a better skeptic. The OP strictly says that I'm not longer a RECALCITRANT SKEPTIC, this is, somebody who brags about his skepticism and continually trash anything that smells like "woo".

I used to be like that, for a while, making fun of every belief of friends and family. Now I only talk about critical thinking and skepticism when someone asks, or in determinate and particular situations.

[ponderingturtle]

Your example is flawed, but I will attempt to rescue the ideas, please correct me if you feel I'm wrong.

1) There are some certainties in the world. (HD TVs offer better image than regular tvs)

Wrong. Better is a value judgment and strictly in the realm of philosophy. They offer a higher resolution picture that offers more detail that most people consider better.

But that is a just a value judgement, and no different fundamently that misleading someone about talking to their dead relatives, in both cases they are lying to the person. The person is not getting what they are paying for.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wrong. Better is a value judgment and strictly in the realm of philosophy. They offer a higher resolution picture that offers more detail that most people consider better.

Obviously, "better" in the CONTEXT of HD televisions sets means they offer higher resolution. There is no subjective assessment on that. Still, I fail to see anything of relevance here.

But that is a just a value judgement, and no different fundamently that misleading someone about talking to their dead relatives, in both cases they are lying to the person. The person is not getting what they are paying for.

If you believe you can talk to them you are not lying. Pretty obvious too. Ok, and now it is time for you to read the rest of the thread. Thanks.

[ponderingturtle]

Obviously, "better" in the CONTEXT of HD televisions sets means they offer higher resolution. There is no subjective assessment on that. Still, I fail to see anything of relevance here.

No, better is a broad based value judgment. It is like comparing two photographs and saying that because everything is in focus in one and it is in color it is a better photograph.

Are MP3's better than record players? Better than CD players?

You clearly are not applying your thought process broadly enough.


If you believe you can talk to them you are not lying. Pretty obvious too. Ok, and now it is time for you to read the rest of the thread. Thanks.

Ah so if I believe I can cure your cancer that is all that matters. Actually having a chance curing your cancer is just a nice benefit of using evidence based approaches?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... a nice benefit of using evidence based approaches?

Why don't you take your time, read how the thread have developed since the day you made your first comment and then comeback with arguments (in case you are still want to pick a fight). If you have evidence, and it is sound, you could have something of value there. Otherwise, don't ask foolish questions. The thread is beyond that point now.

EDIT:

After a brief search I found that your first post in this thread is #143, so it is specially important for you to read the whole thread in case you want to comment. It is easy to pick things out of context and start strawman arguments which lead nowhere.

[NeilC]

The results of particular experiments answer questions elaborated by its methodology, but such questions depend on a particular standing point (or world-view).

Fair enough. I will use standard definitions:

WORLD-VIEW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)

"A world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung ([ˈvɛlt.ʔanˌʃaʊ.ʊŋ] (help·info)) Welt is the German word for "world", and Anschauung is the German word for "view" or "outlook". It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which an individual interprets the world and interacts in it. The German word is also in wide use in English, as well as the translated form world outlook. (Compare with ideology)."

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (couldn't find it as a concept in Wiki, still, here is a good definition: http://www.analytictech.com/mb313/elements.htm)

"A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts, like a theory but not necessarily so well worked-out. A theoretical framework guides your research, determining what things you will measure, and what statistical relationships you will look for.

Theoretical frameworks are obviously critical in deductive, theory-testing sorts of studies (see Kinds of Research for more information). In those kinds of studies, the theoretical framework must be very specific and well-thought out."

I hope those two definitions clearly illustrate the concepts.



Thanks for this, yes, absolutely. What I post here in the forum is a continually evolving set of ideas, that I plan to properly write someday. I would say (guided by mere intuition) that some of them are concentric and many others do overlap each others.

Well, I have never said that I'm no longer a skeptic, just (IMO) a better skeptic. The OP strictly says that I'm not longer a RECALCITRANT SKEPTIC, this is, somebody who brags about his skepticism and continually trash anything that smells like "woo".

I used to be like that, for a while, making fun of every belief of friends and family. Now I only talk about critical thinking and skepticism when someone asks, or in determinate and particular situations.

OK I think I understand what you are saying better now.

Do you have any specific examples of how this thinking has changed your beliefs on a skeptical topic?

Re: germ theory - can you think of a world-view that would alter the validity of the theory?

What I'm trying to get it is - what are the practical results of this? I accept that our knowledge is mostly beliefs and that my worldview could be right, skewed or entirely erroneous (I clearly accept that my experiences are subjective). Anything is possible if a whole lot of other things turn out to be incorrect.

[ponderingturtle]

Why don't you take your time, read how the thread have developed since the day you made your first comment and then comeback with arguments (in case you are still want to pick a fight). If you have evidence, and it is sound, you could have something of value there. Otherwise, don't ask foolish questions. The thread is beyond that point now.

EDIT:

After a brief search I found that your first post in this thread is #143, so it is specially important for you to read the whole thread in case you want to comment. It is easy to pick things out of context and start strawman arguments which lead nowhere.

Nonsense They where perfectly in context, just a bit of a regression.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

OK I think I understand what you are saying better now.

:)

Do you have any specific examples of how this thinking has changed your beliefs on a skeptical topic?

Well, not exactly, it has been an evolutionary changing in my thinking, from somehow a woo (like everybody else) passing to be a "pseudo skeptic" this is, in my case, a person who beliefs in a different world view and also that this world view is the skeptical view, to another who is simply a skeptic, without embracing any world view as final. For practical reasons I believe that physicalism is the most robust of the current world views, but I also believe that it is impossible to have a complete explanation about everything. For a start, because language itself limits what we can understand and even think.

Re: germ theory - can you think of a world-view that would alter the validity of the theory?

Nope, facts are facts, still it is interesting that you ask it, because what I do believe is that we could find an alternative theory that was compatible with the facts.

What I'm trying to get it is - what are the practical results of this? I accept that our knowledge is mostly beliefs and that my worldview could be right, skewed or entirely erroneous (I clearly accept that my experiences are subjective). Anything is possible if a whole lot of other things turn out to be incorrect.

Its not "anything" in the sense it is open for everything (for example elephants above turtles giving the world a foundation), but I can tell you that some answers (if we stretch the meaning of the word here) lie "outside" language. :)