What is a Non-skeptic ?

[Steve001]

I'm partaking in a discussion on another forum. I gave two definitions so far, but would like others here to contribute as many definitions as possible so there's no confusion on the other poster's part. I'll either borrow the answers anonymously or link to here. So any thoughts on this are welcomed.

[Trent Wray]

Someone who is inclined to give a benefit of the doubt based on little to no evidence perhaps?

[thaiboxerken]

A bleever. A non-skeptic is one who doesn't care about evidence or logic, but simply believes.

[TraneWreck]

It's pretty basic: anyone who doesn't abide by logical or scientific methods of inquiry.

Proper skepticism is a process. If at any point one steps outside of that process (which we all do from time to time) then they are behaving in a non-skeptical manner.

[Sean84]

If this nut with a grudge (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1012&sid=8ed475872e5e331f9ad139d2e90cdc04) is who you are talking about then my answer to your question
What is a Non-skeptic ?
is: Someone not remotely worth arguing with.

If not then I'll go with whatever Tranewreck said.

[Freethinker]

Non-skeptical=Gullible

[bluesjnr]

A Creduloid.

[Pure Argent]

Someone who believes without evidence.

[fls]

Someone who is inclined to think that things can be taken at face value.

Linda

[Dave Rogers]

Someone who is not prepared to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

Dave

[Steve001]

If this nut with a grudge (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1012&sid=8ed475872e5e331f9ad139d2e90cdc04) is who you are talking about then my answer to your question

is: Someone not remotely worth arguing with.

If not then I'll go with whatever Tranewreck said.


;)

Perhaps not. But then I'm not doing it for their benefit either.

[Limbo]

I'm partaking in a discussion on another forum. I gave two definitions so far, but would like others here to contribute as many definitions as possible so there's no confusion on the other poster's part. I'll either borrow the answers anonymously or link to here. So any thoughts on this are welcomed.


A non-skeptic is not a member of organized skepticism, does not conform to the norms of groups that label themselves as "skeptical" and will frequently find themselves arguing with people who do like to label themselves that way. The word "skeptic" is like a fashion accessory for a skeptics persona.

[Steve001]

Thanks to all.

[fls]

A non-skeptic is not a member of organized skepticism, does not conform to the norms of groups that label themselves as "skeptic" and will frequently find themselves arguing with people who do.

I don't think that will do. A 'non-skeptic' is not someone who is the complement to (or negation of) 'person who labels themselves as skeptic'.

Linda

[Dave Rogers]

A non-skeptic is not a member of organized skepticism, does not conform to the norms of groups that label themselves as "skeptical" and will frequently find themselves arguing with people who do like to label themselves that way.

Then again, the same is true of many skeptics.

Dave

[readme.txt]

Someone who believes without evidence.

Isn't that a pleonasm? To believe is to accept something as true with little or no evidence.

[Pure Argent]

Isn't that a pleonasm?

I hope not. I just had the last one removed surgically. I'd prefer not to have to go through that again.

[readme.txt]

I hope not. I just had the last one removed surgically. I'd prefer not to have to go through that again.

Haha, hum what?

[Iconoclast08]

Someone who prefers their gut over reality.

[Psi Baba]

Someone who prefers their gut over reality.
I would like to wish away the reality of my gut, but unfortunately, the evidence is too much in abundance, no matter how much I refuse to believe it. :D