How many posters are consistent with your idea of "skeptic" ?

[El Greco]

I just want to see what we think about the skeptical abilities of our fellow posters :)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by El Greco
I just want to see what we think about the skeptical abilities of our fellow posters :)

I'm the only true skeptic here. My skeptic dowsing rod only twitches when my own posts are on the screen.

[T'ai Chi]

Keep in mind that this board is basically a 'voluntary sample' of skeptics.

Most of us, including myself, are posting here because we like to be heard. Therefore, I wouldn't call this board, or any board for that matter, representative of typical-ness.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I wouldn't call this board, or any board for that matter, representative of typical-ness.

Of course, this poll is just meant to be an indication of how much we agree with each other's skepticism on this board.

[sweetkb713]

Originally posted by El Greco


Of course, this poll is just meant to be an indication of how much we agree with each other's skepticism on this board.

Yes, this board would be quite a non-random sampling.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by El Greco
I just want to see what we think about the skeptical abilities of our fellow posters :)
No need for a new poll. Simply look at any poll initiated by Interesting Ian. The percentage of people voting against his proposition is the approximate percentage of skeptics on the boards (around 80%).

[Ersby]

And, of course, some people make a distinction between "skeptic" and "sceptic". I find this kind of semantics pretty tedious, but they seem to take it seriously.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Tricky

No need for a new poll. Simply look at any poll initiated by Interesting Ian. The percentage of people voting against his proposition is the approximate percentage of skeptics on the boards (around 80%).
There are a number of 'nay-sayers' on this board who definately do not fit into my idea of skeptic. I would put them into the catagory of Cynic or even even woo-woo-skeptic (think de_bunk or !Xx+-Rational-+xX!). There are also a number of people who post regularly on other board forums (PCE & SI, for example) who havent really made any impression as to their skeptical leaning
P

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Tricky

No need for a new poll. Simply look at any poll initiated by Interesting Ian. The percentage of people voting against his proposition is the approximate percentage of skeptics on the boards (around 80%).

:D

But let me clarify: I voted 25-50% myself. The reason I think that several people are not consistent with my idea of a skeptic, has to do with the fact that they tend to put aside their critical thinking when it comes to certain issues, most notably politics and love matters. I chose not to take into account the belief in God when I voted, because I have observed that the theism of many people on this board does not interfere with their critical abilities.

[sweetkb713]

Originally posted by Ersby
And, of course, some people make a distinction between "skeptic" and "sceptic". I find this kind of semantics pretty tedious, but they seem to take it seriously.

Skeptic, sceptic, skeptoid - believers use all of these terms to describe the same thing. Yet, they claim that there are differences between them!

Plus, if you disagree with them about anything, they'll just label you "skeptoid" or "debunker" simply for disagreeing.

You MUST be a troll!

[geni]

Originally posted by sweetkb713
Plus, if you disagree with them about anything, they'll just label you "skeptoid" or "debunker" simply for disagreeing.

You MUST be a troll!

I haven't been labed as either of the top two.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm skeptical about the skepticism of all the posters here...

Did I mention that I'm also cynical?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm skeptical about the skepticism of all the posters here...

Did I mention that I'm also cynical?
You're also suspicious of others.
(Heck, why not go for the trifecta? :p )

[Clancie]

Posted by El Greco

I chose not to take into account the belief in God when I voted, because I have observed that the theism of many people on this board does not interfere with their critical abilities.
I think this kind of thinking is pretty common here (and one reason I voted 0-25%). To me, a commitment to intellectual consistency in one's reasoning is an important part of being a skeptic. I, personally, don't think it's good enough to say, "Well, I embrace this belief (religion) even though I recognize it is irrational to do so without more evidence that these things are true. Nevertheless, in other areas, I'm consistent in my reasoning process and therefore am satisfied with my level of skepticism."

I think intellectual consistency in your reasoning process as a skeptic -is- important.

(I also think that "0%" and "100%" should have been listed separately, since there is no doubt there, but...just my "skeptical" two cents....)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I'll just say that too many skeptics here are soft! We all need to get more serious about this holy war against irrational claims!

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Clancie

I think this kind of thinking is pretty common here (and one reason I voted 0-25%). To me, a commitment to intellectual consistency in one's reasoning is an important part of being a skeptic. I, personally, don't think it's good enough to say, "Well, I embrace this belief (religion) even though I recognize it is irrational to do so without more evidence that these things are true. Nevertheless, in other areas, I'm consistent in my reasoning process and therefore am satisfied with my level of skepticism."

I see what you mean but I can't avoid taking into account that religion is a major part of societies. For many people it is an integral part of their upbringing, their traditions and their social life and so they simply can't (or don't want to) subject their religious beliefs to any kind of scrutiny.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think that there is a clear line between "Skeptic" and "not a skeptic". There are people who will believe any stupid thing that you tell them and others who will ask you for evidence if you tell them that the sky is blue and water is wet. Most people fall somewhere between those two extremes.

Like El Greco, I have noticed a lot of people lose all capacity for critical thinking when certain subjects are brought up. They might be the biggest skeptics in the world if you are talking UFOs, or psychics, or whatever, but then they lose it completely if you start talking politics, or religion, or otherwise push some button. I don't know that you can say that they are not skeptics, but I don't know that you can say they are either, it's fuzzy. :con2:

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by El Greco


:D

But let me clarify: I voted 25-50% myself. The reason I think that several people are not consistent with my idea of a skeptic, has to do with the fact that they tend to put aside their critical thinking when it comes to certain issues, most notably politics and love matters. I chose not to take into account the belief in God when I voted, because I have observed that the theism of many people on this board does not interfere with their critical abilities. Well, if one has to think critically one every subject to be a skeptic, I would put it at 0 to 25 %, actually 0% to be precise.

Walt

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by geni
I haven't been labed as either of the top two.
Now you have, skeptoid.

[Yahweh]

I'd say (guess) a good 85% of the skeptics here fit my idea of skepticism... too bad the other 15% are the ones who make the most noise...


I would be willing to bet that if asked what their idea of skepticism is, you'd get a different answer for just about everyone you'd ask. Some people believe a person cannot be a skeptic if they believe in God or say other truely ignorant things like that, others like me take a much more light hearted approach towards defining skepticism (my definition would probably resemble closely Philosophical Skepticism).

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm skeptical about the skepticism of all the posters here...

Did I mention that I'm also cynical?

I'm skeptical of you being Cynical.

I've never seen you stalk LeFevre with the Diogenes user name.

:D

[Wudang]

I think a good number of people have different levels of skepticism for public and private proof. And some peoples minds are like an ant colony, tough for an invader to get in but once inside it's unquestioned. I think I'll leave the ambiguity of that last one open ;)

[Clancie]

Clancie:

To me, intellectual consistency in one's reasoning is an important part of being a skeptic. I, personally, don't think it's good enough to say, "Well, I embrace this belief (religion) even though I recognize it is irrational to do so without more evidence that these things are true. Nevertheless, in other areas, I'm consistent in my reasoning process and therefore am satisfied with my level of skepticism."

El Greco:

I see what you mean but I can't avoid taking into account that religion is a major part of societies. For many people it is an integral part of their upbringing, their traditions and their social life and so they simply can't (or don't want to) subject their religious beliefs to any kind of scrutiny.
Yes, I don't disagree with that except that not subjecting your most cherished beliefs to critical thinking isn't very skeptical (imo).

And why should religion get such a pass? And spiritualism -is- a religion for many (one reason Arthur Conan Doyle was criticized by his Christian friends for embracing spiritualism--that religiously he was rejecting Christianty).

Would you say, for example, that "spiritualists" should get a "pass" just like other religious people here, that they can be perfectly good skeptics even if they had a belief in mediumship (or, quite skeptically :), thought "there -might- be something to it")?

Is Christianity given a "pass" just because it is a widely accepted and practiced social dogma--i.e. because it's just easier and more pleasant for "skeptics" to mock people here for an unpopular view (like spiritualism) than to criticize a popular one (like Christianity)?

Seriously, why should Christians be embraced as fellow skeptics but spiritualists be rejected?

[Clancie]

Posted by nyarlathotep

I don't think that there is a clear line between "Skeptic" and "not a skeptic".
Actually, I agree with this (but it's not, imo, the common view here). I think skepticism is really more of a spectrum, not an "either/or" at all.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Clancie
Seriously, why should Christians be embraced as fellow skeptics but spiritualists be rejected?

It is just my idea of a "skeptic", as the title of the poll says. In many societies, rejecting religion can isolate you and have a large impact on your relationships, business and life in general. I consider all of the above to be a good excuse for someone for not even daring to question religion. Not so for "spirituality"; I don't think that many posters live in societies where rejection of "spirituality" would affect their lives.

[Jeff Corey]

Some of my skeptical friends are observant Christians, Jews or Bhuddists for family and social reasons. I've gone to Christian wakes and funerals, Jewish funerals and sat shivva (sp?) and attended Bhuddist memorial services.
Do most of them really believe? I think not, but the bile that is spewed at atheists in this increasingly "religious" country serves to silence them.

Freedom from religion, please.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Seriously, why should Christians be embraced as fellow skeptics but spiritualists be rejected?

I think it depends on who is doing the embracing. I, for one, find both to be equally irrational.

[Clancie]

El Greco,

I meant "Spiritualist" in the religious sense (Skepdic.com): "Spiritualism or spiritism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium."

But, I agree with your point about tolerance. I just wish it was more consistently applied by some "skeptics" who, imo, give Christians a "pass" as fellow skeptics while freely mocking Spiritualists as "creduloids" and "morons" (aka "believers") for their views.

If a Christian can be accepted as a skeptic, why not a Spiritualist?

If Spiritualism is too "wacky", then why isn't Christianity?

The lack of consistency for some people with this is something worth noting, I think.

[geni]

Originally posted by Clancie
El Greco,

I meant "Spiritualist" in the religious sense (Skepdic.com): "Spiritualism or spiritism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium."


This is a testerble claim. Most major relgions (islam cristanity sikhism etc) are rather light on the testerble claims bit.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by geni


This is a testerble claim. Most major relgions (islam cristanity sikhism etc) are rather light on the testerble claims bit.

Exactly. And there are woo-woo religious types. (See young earth creationism for one example.)

I have no problem with religion or spirituality in general. It's the specific claims of some of the followers that I may have problems with.

[magicflute]

Posted by geni
This is a testerble claim. Most major relgions (islam cristanity sikhism etc) are rather light on the testerble claims bit.
Some of the christian denominations claim to speak to the spirits, "speaking in tongues" as it is called. This would certainly qualify as spiritualism and is testable. But then again, whenever the recording of these events are checked out by linguists they prove to be just more mumbo-jumbo.

Here is an excerpt from http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm

Evaluation of "tongues" by linguists and others:
Two secular researchers conducted studies of Glossolalia in the 1970's:

Felicitas Goodman, who used an anthropological approach across a range of cultures, 8,9 and
William Samarin who used a linguistic approach. 10,11,12,13

Some conclusions and opinions of linguists are:

William Samarin has written: "When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language — although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives." 18
J.G. Melton 14 wrote briefly of Samarin's findings, who concluded that glossolalia is not a true language. Only a few consonants and vowels appear in it.
An academic Internet mailing list, "The Linguist List" focused on glossolalia in early 1995. 15 Some of the subscribers noted that glossolalia had a simple primitive structure, and exhibited much repetition of individual sounds.
One commented that the words spoken within a given church tended to be similar, and unlike the sounds heard within in another congregation.
Another commented that his observations among American churchgoers showed that they "seem to latch onto and then repeat sounds that sound foreign to them, and intersperse the name 'Jesus' in between the sounds."
Still another said that: "there are two continental charismatic traditions - a French one concentrating on melodious spontaneous song and a German/English one concentrating on speech."
A subscriber stated that "Some years ago as an undergraduate, I memorized the first eleven lines to Beowulf. Occasionally I recited them to people (I still do). Once I recited them to a friend from Alabama, and she told me that if I did that back where she came from, folks would say I was speaking in tongues."
The moderator noted that the: "native language of the speaker was a pretty good predictor of the kinds of sounds that would occur in glossolalia; one general pattern was that sounds perceived as generally marking "foreign" speech (whatever that may mean) would occur, while sounds perceived as typical of the native language would not. Thus, for American English speakers, /r/ would be rendered as the alveolar trill, never as the American retroflex; on the other hand, these speakers would not include the low front vowel in their glossolalia, /ae/-as-digraph, because that's perceived as a typically "American" sound for some reason. On the other hand, truly exotic sounds--those not typical of the native language, but that don't happen to be familiar to speakers of the language--would tend not to occur: American English speakers don't produce clicks in their glossolalia."

Sort of reminds me of the "psychics" who question and receive answers in English from people who never spoke the language while living. When questioned, the psychics often claim they are receiving feelings and not words from heaven. Then I have to ask, how "Cheo", my cousin's dead childhood friend was able to transmit many things about himself but never transmitted his love for fresh guavas to a few psychic we "consulted" at a fair. I guess these psychics cannot distinguish between a dead monkey ("Cheo") and a dead human.

:D

[Clancie]

Posted by geni


This (Spiritualism) is a testable claim.
Is it?

Posted by ratman_tf

And there are woo-woo religious types. (See young earth creationism for one example.)
Why wouldn't mainstream religions be just as "woo woo"?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Clancie
If a Christian can be accepted as a skeptic, why not a Spiritualist?

If you are asking for my opinion, I accept some Christians as skeptics simply because I see that many of them are only Christians out of momentum or fear of rejection. Some of them only believe in afterlife, for example; nothing more. In principle I agree that there is no difference, but there is a whole lot of difference when it comes to society.

[geni]

Originally posted by Clancie
Is it?

You are claiming non random real word effects. It is testerble.

[Clancie]

Posted by geni

You're claiming non random real world events. It's testable.
If you can't adequately control for all the variables...and if you can't eliminate subjectivity in analyzing the results....would you still consider it scientifically testable?

[geni]

Originally posted by Clancie

If you can't adequately control for all the variables...and if you can't eliminate subjectivity in analyzing the results....would you still consider it scientifically testable?

Yep I've done this quite a few times. The less controll you have over the varibles and the more subjectivity involved the harder it gets.

[Clancie]

Posted by geni

Yep I've done this quite a few times. The less controll you have over the varibles and the more subjectivity involved the harder it gets.
So, just curious. Why don't you think these two factors exist to such a degree that mediumship is not testable at all? (Or, if you disagree, then how would you test for it?)

[geni]

Originally posted by Clancie

So, just curious. Why don't you think these two factors exist to such a degree that mediumship is not testable at all? (Or, if you disagree, then how would you test for it?)

As long as an effect is non random and has an effect on the real world it can be tested. Mediumship is claimed to be non random. It claims to have an effect on ther real world in that mediums claim to get messages. If mediumship is of any use then the noise produced by the two above factors can't be bigger than the signal. People claim to get results these claims can be tested. If people want to say that it is posible to recive message from the dead but no one has ever done it and this whole thing is purly a matter of faith I'm not going to be that interested.

It is intersting to note how claims change when examined. If we take an area which I suspect we agree on (homeopathy) what homeopaths claims amoungst them selves and talking to clients is very different to what they claim when they are talking to sceptics. I suspect that too a degree the same is true with mediums.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Clancie

Why wouldn't mainstream religions be just as "woo woo"?

Why would it? If someone believes in god, that's no problem with me. If you want to believe in god, or spirituality, or magic, again, no problem.
If someone says all the dating methods are wrong (or the atheist scientific conspiracy is acting against them :rolleyes: ) and the earth is only 6-12 thousand years old, well that's either a lie or a misunderstanding of the facts. (Most often a lie, in my experience.)
If you want to believe in (hypothetically) levitation, good for you. But don't expect me to believe it without seeing someone actually levitate. And considering the possibility of trickery, you might forgive me for asking for a few seperate demonstrations and some procedures to make sure there's no trickery going on.

[Godmode]

Why would somebody leave an alien baby in somebody's attic? That doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd just "forget about" lol The only real question in my mind is whether this guy actually found it, or planted it.

[Imrational]

I would like to consider myself 99% skeptic, yet unless I examine all my concepts and notions skeptically, I cannot tout that high of level. I'd say I'm more around 60%. I don't believe in a god or gods, I strive to hold a scientific world-view (although the quantum stuff still urks me), and I'm willing to change my opinions when I am shown that I am wrong. I would like to achieve a higher level.

I actually agree with some previous posters. I think there are a great many individuals here who are soft on their skepticism. It's strange to see... I really didn't expect to meet unskeptical skeptics when I first joined the JREF.

[drfrank]

Am I the only one who sees the "Alien Baby Authenticity Poll" rather than the skeptic poll that should be there? :boggled:

[kmortis]

Am I the only one who sees the "Alien Baby Authenticity Poll" rather than the skeptic poll that should be there? :boggled:
Nope, I see it too. It's all part of the Greek Conspirocy.

[Kopji]

The alien poll adds a sense of compelteness.

Just call me a critic of the woodom...

[c4ts]

I could be more skeptical, but I'm lazy.

[Jabur]

I don't think you need to be skeptical of absolutely everything in your life all the time in order to be considered a skeptic. The important part is that you can critically analyse beliefs and knowledge when a question arises. This doesn't mean that you need to re-analyse things when a question is asked, simply that you have analyzed it before, and are willing to again if new information arises.

For example, if someone tells me that they believe the sky is green, I will discard their idea. However, if they then show me a picture of the sky being green, I will take a peek out the window.

[Soapy Sam]

Why would someone revive a 2 year old thread to ask why someone would leave an alien baby in somebody's attic?
You have to leave them somewhere.