Scepticism - Belief vs. Certainty

[Whomp]

When I look at the term Sceptic in the dictionary, I get these definitions:

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
and
1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ©

So, as a sceptic, when is it acceptable to change "I believe X is true" to "X is true"? Is there a difference between these two statements?

Many posters here have there minds made up about the paranormal. 'It just ain't so!'

With the preponderance of testing, history, and failure of tested paranormal activity it is easy to see why.

So have we arrived at TRUTH and FACT? Many posters here seem to think so. At what point does the search for truth become the arrival at truth?

If we have arrived there, are we then truly sceptics? Part of the definition is "One who is yet undecided as to what is true"

Is Randi's $1M challenge a true search for truth, or a goad and flail for believers in their paranormal skills?

Just some random synapses firing.

Whomp!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Whomp
So, as a sceptic, when is it acceptable to change "I believe X is true" to "X is true"? Is there a difference between these two statements?

I can't be completely certain that anything is true. I can't be certain that I'm not a brain in a jar being fed sensory input. Long ago, when I was a kid, I figured out that it is not possible to disprove an "equivalence class" of solipsism, nihilism, and maybe idealism. My response to that was to give up trying.

But everybody (assuming that any of you exist, of course) is in the same boat, and people use language to mean things. For all intents and purposes, saying "X is true" means "X is so likely to be true that it's perverse to maintain otherwise, unless you have a very good reason." We humans often do try to finish conversations before everyone falls asleep, so we use this shorthand called language.

Is Randi's $1M challenge a true search for truth, or a goad and flail for believers in their paranormal skills?

Does it matter? It is, and I think the world is better because it is there. Unless it isn't, and it's just a figment of my imagination, but the probability of that is low.

[TechMage]

Don't worry about it folks. You are all just projections of my mind. Nothing exists except myself. Infact none of you were even being projected until about 5 minutes ago. All of your memories and experiences I put in your illusionary mind, to make you think this reality is billions of years old, when it's actually only 5 minutes old, well now 5 minutes and 54 seconds. Have a nice life. :)



Hehe, I love stuff like that. ;)

[Yahweh]

Scepticism - Belief vs. Certainty

Interesting thought...

"Skepticism - Certainty vs. Accuracy"

I've often heard "skeptics assume things", well, everyone assumes things, regardless of skepticism or belief. Its possible to have certainty without accuracy, in a Judicial System where we are supposed to operate "with no reasonable doubt", innocent people have unfortunately been jailed for crimes they didnt commit.

You can extend the thoughts to...

"Belief - Faith vs. Certainty"

First, you really cant ignore the trackrecord of having "faith". When working with realistic scenarios (meaning nothing paranormal, could actually occur), faith is no more reliable than throwing a pair of dice. Faith is certainty without evidence... lucky for me, I have no faith in dice.

[Ratman_tf]

Yes.

I think the statement "There is no Bigfoot." implies a "I don't know a zillion per-cent for sure, but damn, if Bigfoot's out there, he's not left anything a reasonable person would construe as evidence."

I think this is part of the tendency for believers to retreat into rationalizations and semantics when their beliefs are challenged.

A: "How do you know there isn't a Bigfoot?"

B: "Because there isn't any evidence that couldn't be faked or mistaken."

A: "Aha! But can you be certain?"

B: *Veins bulging* "NO ONE CAN BE CERTAIN OF ANYTHING, ARE WE OFF THE TOPIC OF BIGFOOT AND INTO PHILOSOPHY NOW?!?!"

[Whomp]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Yes.

I think the statement "There is no Bigfoot." implies a "I don't know a zillion per-cent for sure, but damn, if Bigfoot's out there, he's not left anything a reasonable person would construe as evidence."

I think this is part of the tendency for believers to retreat into rationalizations and semantics when their beliefs are challenged.

A: "How do you know there isn't a Bigfoot?"

B: "Because there isn't any evidence that couldn't be faked or mistaken."

A: "Aha! But can you be certain?"

B: *Veins bulging* "NO ONE CAN BE CERTAIN OF ANYTHING, ARE WE OFF THE TOPIC OF BIGFOOT AND INTO PHILOSOPHY NOW?!?!" Ahhh, Ratman! I think that was what I was looking for. It seems the two phrases are the same, but at some level of evidence (or complete lack thereof) it becomes appropriate to drop the "I believe" part.

Although for the sake of blood pressure, I think I'll try to avoid the example that you just raised by leaving the "I believe" in there.
However, then I risk hearing "Well I believe bigfoot does exist.", attemting to equate their nonsupported believe with my supported one.

I believe that as sceptics, it's important to hang onto the notion that we don't know for sure. All we can be is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Whomp!

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Whomp

Although for the sake of blood pressure, I think I'll try to avoid the example that you just raised by leaving the "I believe" in there.

I try to do that as well. Maybe not the 'I believe' part, but include enough qualifiers to fend off any off topic retreats into possibility versus plausibility.

But damn, forget it once and the subject rears up pretty fast, in my experience. :p