IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Reply
Old 7th December 2012, 12:10 PM   #761
poblob14
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The universe is humbling, isn't it? Here are my own words on the same subject:

Our anthropomorphic conceits are exposed by the unanticipated truth of nature; that complexity is generated from the bottom up rather than from the top down. We are confronted by an incomprehensibly vast and dangerous, yet beautiful and awesome universe that was not made for us and does not care if we exist or not. We are left to explore this universe without a guide. We are utterly alone... all 6.87 billion of us.

Would anyone else care to add their own thoughts?
Sure.

It's a great big universe
And we're all really puny
Just a tiny speck
About the size of Mickey Rooney.

Okay, those aren't technically my own thoughts, but I agree with them.
poblob14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:20 PM   #762
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
List of scientist who believe in god.
Scientists and Their Beliefs in God
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm

Theistic evolution. Also provides list of Christians who believe in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

When you search for scientist who are skeptics. Only climate change skeptics are listed.
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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:27 PM   #763
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
Put down the dictionary, kid. Knowledge does not consist only in definitions, despite what you seem to hold as dogma.

Quote:
Your link basically relies on logic as the truth determiner. You should go to What is a skeptic? You will find it in this same section.
You obviously didn't read it--or if you did you attempted to translate every word through your favorite dictionary. That was merely one aspect of what was said.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:34 PM   #764
justintime
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:
Leary was the era's foremost advocate of inner space exploration, through humanistic psychology and mind-altering drugs, whereas Sagan was the highest profile advocate of space exploration and extra-terrestrial communication. Both were adept at using the media to illuminate their big ideas about inner space (Tim) and outer space (Carl).

Last edited by justintime; 7th December 2012 at 12:47 PM.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:57 PM   #765
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Yet again, you're demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding how communication works. The fact that someone doesn't stand up with a sign on them saying "I AM A SKEPTIC!!!!!!" and shouting it through a megaphone doesn't mean they aren't one. If they agree with the philosophy of skepticism, they are a skeptic. You have to do a tad more research than a simple Google search to find that out, though.
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:
List of scientist who believe in god.
Scientists and Their Beliefs in God
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm

Theistic evolution. Also provides list of Christians who believe in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

When you search for scientist who are skeptics. Only climate change skeptics are listed.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:08 PM   #766
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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).
Interesting, but maybe you're better off thinking of twelve, rather than peppermint.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:08 PM   #767
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Put down the dictionary, kid. Knowledge does not consist only in definitions, despite what you seem to hold as dogma.

You obviously didn't read it--or if you did you attempted to translate every word through your favorite dictionary. That was merely one aspect of what was said.
Can you list the other aspects that you think I missed? To me circular logic has the same starting and ending.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:11 PM   #768
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by justintime
The point I was making was the debate between religious groups and science are scientific debates because there are now scientist in both camps.
Now there's a mind-blowingly stupid idea. My wife and I are both scientists. Does that make an argument about doing the dishes a scientific argument? How about the argument I had with a friend (geologist) about the Rebel Flag being flown in the South?

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:
But the debate between skeptics and science are not scientific debates as demonstrated earlier.
You didn't demonstrate anything. You thew a dictionary at us and demanded we all capitulate to your superior skills with alphabetization. Besides, as I said your list is meaningless. Scientists can be Skeptics, skeptics, or skeptically minded without posting it on Google or informing you personally of their choice. Your list is necessarily incomplete, and therefore without value. Someone who knows philosophy should understand that type of thing.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:25 PM   #769
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
Oh dear, you've misunderstood the meaning of both 'demonstrated' and 'proved' there. And 'debates'. And 'scientific'.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:35 PM   #770
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Now there's a mind-blowingly stupid idea. My wife and I are both scientists. Does that make an argument about doing the dishes a scientific argument? How about the argument I had with a friend (geologist) about the Rebel Flag being flown in the South?

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.

You didn't demonstrate anything. You thew a dictionary at us and demanded we all capitulate to your superior skills with alphabetization. Besides, as I said your list is meaningless. Scientists can be Skeptics, skeptics, or skeptically minded without posting it on Google or informing you personally of their choice. Your list is necessarily incomplete, and therefore without value. Someone who knows philosophy should understand that type of thing.
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.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:39 PM   #771
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:47 PM   #772
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Oh dear, you've misunderstood the meaning of both 'demonstrated' and 'proved' there. And 'debates'. And 'scientific'.
You have to read my earlier post where I demonstrated with examples Skeptics challenging scientists are not scientific debates. I know you are getting lost in the semantics.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:03 PM   #773
oody
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Dr Timothy Leary released correspondence he had with Carl Sagan during his prison incarceration.
... back when he was on the inside, looking out.
oody is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:05 PM   #774
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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).
Hmmm.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:25 PM   #775
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Correction ONCE AGAIN Carl Sagan's CORE work was NOT about Aliens.

JT stop misrepresenting him.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:33 PM   #776
poblob14
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 623
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Dr Timothy Leary released correspondence he had with Carl Sagan during his prison incarceration.
Would you care to quote what, exactly, in those letters supports anything you have claimed? Not the commentaries on the letters, the actual letters.
poblob14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:19 PM   #777
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post


It's a discussion on how skepticism works. You've missed ALL OF IT. Furthermore, you only accept as skeptics those who come out and say "I'm a skeptic!" By that criteria I wouldn't be a Neocatastraphist, despite the fact that the concept is inherent in everything I do.

I'm not doing your homework for you. The essay proves your concept of skepticism wrong. Read it and you'll see why. Or don't, and continue to look foolish. Your call.
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.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:24 PM   #778
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Hmmm.
And I thought it was just me.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:41 PM   #779
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by poblob14 View Post
Would you care to quote what, exactly, in those letters supports anything you have claimed? Not the commentaries on the letters, the actual letters.
What the commentaries does is establish the relationship between a mind expanding LSD user and the space expanding scientist by pointing to actual correspondence between these two great icons. The Yin and Yang is the complimentary sides of the same space they occupied.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:47 PM   #780
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by justintime
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.
This is the problem with your slavish devotion to dictionary definitions: it makes you incapable of recognizing nuance. The ENTIRE ESSAY is about the philosophy of skepticism. The philosophy is inherent in every sentence. The essay really serves as one of the better primers for the philosophy that I've ever seen. But you completely missed all of that because the specific word "skeptic" doesn't appear in it.

Re-read the essay, bearing in mind that the WHOLE THING deals with the philosophy of skepticism.

Quote:
But his entire premise is about applying reason. Abelard laid down four basic principles of reasoning. But rationalism is not skepticism.
If you think Abelard did that you're more historically ignorant than I gave you credit for. It was the Ancient Greeks that did that; Abelard was merely reminding everyone of it. And while rationalism is not skepticism, the two ARE extremely closely related (specifically, skepticism is a subset of the rationalistic family of philosophies).

Quote:
Back to the basic definitions:
Okay, a bit of advice about rhetoric: Unless you intentionally want to insult everyone else in the discussion, repetition is extremely annoying and counter-productive. I've already read your (horribly incomplete) definitions. I don't agree, and gave my reasons in the form of a reference I linked to. Repeating the (horribly incomplete) definitions isn't going to make me go "Oh, golly! NOW I get it!!" I understand what you said before. I think you're wrong. You might want to try a new method for presenting your data.

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.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 03:50 PM   #781
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by VanillaCone View Post
The OP reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from "The Wire."

"A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie."

Amen.
But it should be based on some real context. Not all your favorite quotes are applicable outside of the context it is used. You have to learn to apply it correctly.

Quote:
What is and isn't a scientific debate?

Skeptics debating science is not a scientific debate. Skeptics claim their skepticism is a process to arrive at the truth/fact. But scientist also follow a process to arrive at facts. And that process has been used by the scientific community. It is called the scientific method.

So unless skeptics are challenging the scientist's scientific method. It is hard to substantiate their claims against science based on their own methodology. Now skeptics such as Carl Sagan advocated scientific skepticism which is the scientific method. Then skeptics are challenging scientist over a methodology they themselves accept. Is it the skeptics goal to undetermined the very methodology they recognize as scientifically sound?

Scientist say it is dangerous for religion to explain science. So too would be the converse where science tries to explain religion. This has been the classical struggle between creationist and evolutionist. But the barriers have fallen. There are scientist who are religious and there are religious people who are scientist. So the debates between religious academics and scientist are scientific debates.

Is there a role for skeptics? They belong on Skeptic Forums debating both science and religion without the intensity or knowledge of either.
Notice the word proved is not even mentioned in the post.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:00 PM   #782
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
This is the problem with your slavish devotion to dictionary definitions: it makes you incapable of recognizing nuance. The ENTIRE ESSAY is about the philosophy of skepticism. The philosophy is inherent in every sentence. The essay really serves as one of the better primers for the philosophy that I've ever seen. But you completely missed all of that because the specific word "skeptic" doesn't appear in it.

Re-read the essay, bearing in mind that the WHOLE THING deals with the philosophy of skepticism.

If you think Abelard did that you're more historically ignorant than I gave you credit for. It was the Ancient Greeks that did that; Abelard was merely reminding everyone of it. And while rationalism is not skepticism, the two ARE extremely closely related (specifically, skepticism is a subset of the rationalistic family of philosophies).

Okay, a bit of advice about rhetoric: Unless you intentionally want to insult everyone else in the discussion, repetition is extremely annoying and counter-productive. I've already read your (horribly incomplete) definitions. I don't agree, and gave my reasons in the form of a reference I linked to. Repeating the (horribly incomplete) definitions isn't going to make me go "Oh, golly! NOW I get it!!" I understand what you said before. I think you're wrong. You might want to try a new method for presenting your data.

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.
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>

Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 4. Is it 4 or 6? It's 4. I was right the first time.

Last edited by Loss Leader; 7th December 2012 at 06:44 PM.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:00 PM   #783
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The Yin and Yang is the complimentary sides of the same space they occupied.

Handwaving.
__________________
"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
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:00 PM   #784
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
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
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:07 PM   #785
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Ignorance is a curable condition.
Intentional, willful ignorance has a 6-letter description, and is uncurable incurable
But that is a contradiction. If ignorance is a curable condition. Intentional, willful ignorance does not make it any less curable. It makes it harder to cure but not incurable.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:15 PM   #786
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
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
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:45 PM   #787
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
But that is a contradiction. If ignorance is a curable condition. Intentional, willful ignorance does not make it any less curable. It makes it harder to cure but not incurable.
No. Ignorance can be cured by education.

Willful ignorance is a deliberate choice. One you have made. Why have you largely abandoned you other threads?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:47 PM   #788
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
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.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:53 PM   #789
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Handwaving.
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!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:02 PM   #790
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
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?"
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:06 PM   #791
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
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/
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:33 PM   #792
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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?"
I second this, but I'd like JiT to present his definition in his words as concretely as he is able.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:44 PM   #793
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:49 PM   #794
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Intentional, willful ignorance does not make it any less curable. It makes it harder to cure but not incurable.
So you're saying there's still some hope for you?
__________________
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:57 PM   #795
Verklagekasper
Muse
 
Verklagekasper's Avatar
 
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.
Verklagekasper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:57 PM   #796
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:05 PM   #797
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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.
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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 7th December 2012 at 06:31 PM. Reason: ETF minor fomat issues
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:24 PM   #798
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
<snip>
If you could resolve an argument using evidence, you aren’t a sceptic. Sceptics don’t think we can truly know anything, because all evidence can be doubted.
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

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Empiricism (a posteriori knowledge)
Some philosophers believe that it is the case that real, true knowledge is based on the experience we have of the world, that is to say that our senses, tricky and fallible though they are, do tell us about what is going on outside of our own minds. These philosophers are described as empiricists. Empirical knowledge is knowledge based on experience and this is also described as a posteriori knowledge, that is to say knowledge that comes after experience.

Rationalism (a priori knowledge)

Some philosophers don’t agree with that view, and think that even though we do learn about the world through our senses, more importantly we reason, and it is the operation of our reason that gives us the real truth about the world. These philosophers are known as rationalists because they think that reason is more important than experience. This is also described as a priori knowledge – that is, knowledge that comes before experience.

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!
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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 7th December 2012 at 06:38 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:29 PM   #799
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
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.
On the other hand, Asellas, who seems to have composed those definitions, is at passable cognizant of the proper usage of commas, and so is unlikely to be the same person as justintime.
__________________
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 06:35 PM   #800
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
On the other hand, Asellas, who seems to have composed those definitions, is at passable cognizant of the proper usage of commas, and so is unlikely to be the same person as justintime.
Foster: Thank you! Aselas was before my time, but whether Justin stole the definitions, or cobbled them together himself, they are still wrong; in form, content, structure, and effect.

..."just-an" added example of fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.