|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th December 2012, 12:10 PM | #761 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 623
|
|
7th December 2012, 12:20 PM | #762 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
I must ask you, again, a question you have ignored, missed, avoided, or failed to answer.
Given your allergy to nuance, do you, personally, think there is are differences between a "Skeptic", a "skeptic", a "skeptical person", and "a person who employs a skeptical mode of thought"? Do you think that there are differences among "people who employ skeptical modes of thought"? BTW, just for fun, you might research the "Steve Project". |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
7th December 2012, 12:27 PM | #763 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Put down the dictionary, kid. Knowledge does not consist only in definitions, despite what you seem to hold as dogma.
Quote:
|
7th December 2012, 12:34 PM | #764 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
If you are a student of Ying and Yang. This will be an interesting comparison and a way to see the other side of Carl Sagan.
Dr Timothy Leary released correspondence he had with Carl Sagan during his prison incarceration. Follow link: http://www.timothylearyarchives.org/...hy-leary-1974/ What is even more interesting is the complimentary nature of their obsessions. One was on LSD and the on SETI. How both tried to expand the horizons of space (inner and outer).
Quote:
|
7th December 2012, 12:57 PM | #765 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
The point I was making was the debate between religious groups and science are scientific debates because there are now scientist in both camps. But the debate between skeptics and science are not scientific debates as demonstrated earlier. The partial list just goes to prove the playing field in now the same.
Quote:
|
7th December 2012, 01:08 PM | #766 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
7th December 2012, 01:08 PM | #767 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
7th December 2012, 01:11 PM | #768 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by justintime
Just because scientists are involved doesn't mean that it's automatically a scientific argument. There are rules for science, and a scientific argument is an argument which follows those rules.
Quote:
|
7th December 2012, 01:25 PM | #769 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
7th December 2012, 01:35 PM | #770 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
The OP asks What is and isn't a scientific debate. You just pointed to examples that are not scientific debates and you know they are not scientific debates. Yet you posted them here as examples.
The debates between religion and science are also not about doing the dishes. So how are your examples applicable here? Did I not say earlier. It is this kind of scientific methodology that makes the public suspicious of scientist. You take common day examples and try to raise it to the level of scientific debates. |
7th December 2012, 01:39 PM | #771 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
I must ask you, again, a question you have ignored, missed, avoided, or failed to answer. I refuse to speculate as to what motivates your lack:
Given your allergy to nuance, do you, personally, think there is are differences between a "Skeptic", a "skeptic", a "skeptical person", and "a person who employs a skeptical mode of thought"? Do you think that there are differences among "people who employ skeptical modes of thought"? BTW, just for fun, you might research the "Steve Project". __________________ |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
7th December 2012, 01:47 PM | #772 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
7th December 2012, 02:03 PM | #773 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,416
|
|
7th December 2012, 02:05 PM | #774 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
7th December 2012, 02:25 PM | #775 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
Correction ONCE AGAIN Carl Sagan's CORE work was NOT about Aliens.
JT stop misrepresenting him. |
7th December 2012, 02:33 PM | #776 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 623
|
|
7th December 2012, 03:19 PM | #777 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
I only want to address what is useful to you. There isn't even a description of what skepticism in the entire essay except that anyone who uses the term "skeptic" in a negative sense is a charlatan. But his entire premise is about applying reason. Abelard laid down four basic principles of reasoning. But rationalism is not skepticism.
Back to the basic definitions: Empiricism: One who believes knowledge is gained through experience. Rationalism: One who believes in reason to attain knowledge. Skeptic: One who denies all concepts of knowledge and reason, especially when there is no actual evidence. Skepticism: 1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty. |
7th December 2012, 03:24 PM | #778 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
7th December 2012, 03:41 PM | #779 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
7th December 2012, 03:47 PM | #780 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
|
Originally Posted by justintime
Re-read the essay, bearing in mind that the WHOLE THING deals with the philosophy of skepticism.
Quote:
Quote:
As for my "horribly incomplete" parenthetical comments, someone who claims to be knowledgeable about philosophy should know that at best the extremely brief definitions you've provided are a cartoonish summary of a much more complex definition. |
7th December 2012, 03:50 PM | #781 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
7th December 2012, 04:00 PM | #782 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
You don't defend skepticism by saying it is rationalism.
Maybe you should grasp their actual meaning before losing yourself to interpretation. Scepticism, Rationalism and Empiricism Edit 0 0 2… Scepticism http://drummondphilosophy.wikispaces...showComments=1 <snip>
|
||
7th December 2012, 04:00 PM | #783 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
7th December 2012, 04:00 PM | #784 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
Ignorance is a curable condition.
Intentional, willful ignorance has a 6-letter description, and is uncurable |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
7th December 2012, 04:07 PM | #785 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
7th December 2012, 04:15 PM | #786 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
Sceptics, of course think that both these positions are in trouble, because we can’t rely on the senses, but we can’t rely upon reason either![/quote]
No you have that wrong completely |
7th December 2012, 04:45 PM | #787 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
7th December 2012, 04:47 PM | #788 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
That sounds like a poor attempt at supporting your position through weak and irrelevant arguments to me. Also, likely, a misrepresentation of Yin and Yang. My apologies, but I skipped over a number of the pages in the middle, so I don't know if you've answered a question of mine.
What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish with this thread and topic? I'm afraid that the pursuit of honesty and truth isn't an acceptable response, to note, given the quality of the arguments that you've been using and, in particular, how fallacious they seem to be, from what I've seen. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
7th December 2012, 04:53 PM | #789 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
Extreme handwaving
I think is is time to call a halt to this rubbish Justintime, you have proven yourself over and over on this thread to be an immature, contradictory liar who, when you actually do quote sources, cannot even cherry pick them accurately enough to ensure that they do not contradict your viewpoint. Further, you simply fail to grasp the concept that because someone talks about a subject, that this does not mean they are obsessed with it. In fact, if there is any obsession on display here, it is yours. You appear obsessed with Carl Sagan, and seem determined to follow a path that amounts to an irrational attempt to discredit his fine works. |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
7th December 2012, 05:02 PM | #790 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
Wouldn't it save a lot of time if justintime simply gave it his best shot and presented his definition of what exactly he considers a "Skeptic" to be, and then everyone who cares to could respond by declaring whether that matched their own views or not?
A simple yes/no poll would do it: "Are you a justintime-Skeptic?" |
7th December 2012, 05:06 PM | #791 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
read his books and make up your mind JT boasts that he does not need to read Sagan's books
http://www4.uji.es/~al121356/Proyect...dia/works.html http://saganseries.com/ |
7th December 2012, 05:33 PM | #792 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
7th December 2012, 05:44 PM | #793 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Are you Asellas, or did you simply lift this list from that person's five and a half year old thread? Either way is telling.
"There aren't enough philosophical threads, so I'm going to start one or two since I just finished a course in philosophy." You're definition comes from someone who "just finished a course in philosophy". Got anything more authoritative? |
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th December 2012, 05:49 PM | #794 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th December 2012, 05:57 PM | #795 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 766
|
Q: How many skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Show me evidence that it exists and that it needs to be changed. |
7th December 2012, 05:57 PM | #796 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Again, you're just regurgitating the inept definitions of someone else who doesn't know what he/she is talking about. If the above is really the basic definition, then why does it only show up in the thread I linked to and your posts? The misuses of "empiricism" rather than "empiricist", and "rationalism" rather than "rationalist", are dead giveaways. Would you next like to cite any posts from Hello Kitty forums as authoritative sources?
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th December 2012, 06:05 PM | #797 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Justin:
I will not speculate as to why you are ignoring my questions; behavior which looks, I must say, well...frightened and insecure. However, you have been told, on this and other fora, that your "definitions" offered above, are inadequate, and since that has been made clear to you, over and over, they are inadequate to the point of being dishonest. To start with, "rationalism" is a philosophy, a style of epistemology (a way of knowing about knowing); defining "rationalism" as, "...one who...(no matter what is put here)..." demonstrates a startling level of linguistic incompetence. RHWUD2 defines "rationalism" as, "The principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of belief, opinion, or conduct; in philosophy, the doctrine that reason alone is the source of knowledge and is independent of experience...". The rest of the sub-definitions discuss individual rationalistic philosophers. (That's on p.1602, so you can find it.) So, a "rationalist" is a person who practices, or adheres to "rationalism". (This is one reason honest people give citations for definitons; it makes errors in grammar easier to trace and eliminate.) BTW, it also makes cherry picking and quote-mining much more obvious. Do consider joining honest scholars in the practice of providing citations for your quotes... You made exactly the same category error with your unsourced definition of "empiricism". "Empiricism" is a philosophy, another, and slightly different, epistemological style. An "empiricist" is a person who practices,or adheres to, "empiricism". As to your definition of "skeptic", you make a different kind of error. RHWUD2 defines "skeptic" as, "1) a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual; 2) a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as towards values, plans, statements, or the character of others; 3) a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or any important aspect of it." (that's on page 1790, so you can find it). it is not until you get down to the 4th definition that you find reference to historical Skeptics. Notice that your "definition" pretends that all modern skeptical thinkers, and all modern people who adopt an evidence-based epistemology, are, in fact, indistinguishable form historical Skeptics...which, as you have been shown repeatedly, is not the case. http://youngausskeptics.com/what-is-a-skeptic/ http://www.theskepticsguide.org/ and, a link you provided: http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php, which says, among other things: "The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion", and affirms the importance of a skeptical approach in the pursuit of science. As far as "skepticism", RHWUD2 defines it as, "1) a skeptical attitude or temper; 2) doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, esp. Christianity; 30 (cap.)the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics." (that's on p. 1791, so you can find it). Do notice that even the historical definition, which is not particularly appositive for modern skeptical thinkers, does not, in any way, shape, or form, include the word "dubiety" or uncertainty. (the last part of your "definition, BTW, is clearly pinched form a thesaurus...do consider providing a source for your "definition" or admit that it is your unique offering, and egregious opinion masquerading as fact...) In other words, your "basic definitions" are no such. No wonder you have been unwilling to engage in discussion (not "debate", but that's another issue) about them. They are incorrect and inappositive. If they are quotations, they are from an inaccurate source; one you should consider replacing. If they are original, please try again, and do better this time. Please be aware that when you try to impose false meanings upon words, you hinder communication, and cast a pall upon everything else you say. |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
7th December 2012, 06:24 PM | #798 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
From a source you provided, but do not appear to have read (added highlighting):
"The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method." http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php I have a question: why did you steal the entire bit from "Skepticism..." all the way down to "...upon reason either!", with no attribution, or source? Do you understand what "plagiarism" is? Do you understand that theft of an idea is contemptible, and dishonest? It really makes you seem...insecure...that you have to puff up your posts, and bolster your arguments, by stealing the words of others and pretending they are your own...I know where you got that material--you should be honest and post the source. |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
7th December 2012, 06:29 PM | #799 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
7th December 2012, 06:35 PM | #800 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|