Rights - Skepticism

swifty · 20th March 2007, 09:07 PM

Firstly I am very sorry if this is in the wrong section but I have a question.

Would you all consider this an appropriate statement:

No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner.

I posted this in a different forum and was curious of what you all think.

It was in reply to someone who told his life story/background which was very obscure (in no way paranormal) and seemed unlikely.

Some people replied to him in basically the words of "this is ******** you cant prove this stuff with a video so it isnt true", etc. I deem myself a critical thinker but the type of skepticism in which all options and possibilities arent looked into to annoys me...

Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it? I prefer to be open minded but based off logic.

swifty · 20th March 2007, 09:25 PM

also...

Originally Posted by Towels

There are alot of trails that hit a dead end with him tho.

Ie; Dub Back learned on Concrete....no vid
Tricks used in a fight....no vid
etc etc

Your claim is he did not double back on concrete and your proof is there is no vid. Can you prove something by nothing? Can he prove something by nothing? No for both. In effect, your point is as valid as his because both cannot be proved to be true. Therefore, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't feel you should be implying he is a liar or completely saying 'no way that is impossible'.

Is that decent enough? I understand it is not his (towels) responsibility to prove him wrong, but in this situation where it is simply someone recalling events in their own life is it not suitable to be able to say "I'm not sure I can believe you fully, but if it is true, well done that is amazing!"??

Marquis de Carabas · 20th March 2007, 10:24 PM

The question is, how unlikely are we talking? Everyone's life story is not equally entitled to be taken at face value. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that jazz.

Take the following three stories. Are they all equally to be accepted without further investigation?

My name is Jay. I live in Beaumont, Texas, and do tech support for several departments at a local university. I drive a black Mitsubishi and enjoy Guinness and Camels.

My name is Bob. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana and am the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I currently hold the world's record for highest speed attained on a unicycle on level ground.

My name is Horvald. I am the ghost of a Viking warrior killed battling Martians in Australia 3000 years before Christ. I like tea.

My guess is one of these you'd pretty much just accept, one you'd want a little data to back up, and one you'd just think I was bats

t insane for saying. Or, you could just tell me, "Well done, that's amazing! You really like tea?"

SamanthaMc · 20th March 2007, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by swifty

Firstly I am very sorry if this is in the wrong section but I have a question.

Would you all consider this an appropriate statement:

No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner.

I posted this in a different forum and was curious of what you all think.

It was in reply to someone who told his life story/background which was very obscure (in no way paranormal) and seemed unlikely.

Some people replied to him in basically the words of "this is ******** you cant prove this stuff with a video so it isnt true", etc. I deem myself a critical thinker but the type of skepticism in which all options and possibilities arent looked into to annoys me...

Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it? I prefer to be open minded but based off logic.

Is saying unequivically, "This isn't true because you have no proof," less skeptical than saying, "Wow, that's hard to believe but I won't discount it entirely"? I think so in many cases.

But as folks are fond of quoting around here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I heard an extraordinary life story, I would think about ways in which certain claims could be proven, and see if any evidence exists to substantiate it. But I wouldn't call someone a liar just because they haven't video-taped their entire life.

All sorts of unlikely things happen. Completely believing something without proof is about the same as completely discounting something without further investigation.

SamanthaMc · 20th March 2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that jazz.

WOW, MdC and I were like thinking the exact same thing at the exact same moment! That is what I would call extraordinary!

Or should I say Horvald?

swifty · 20th March 2007, 11:11 PM

Marquis de Carabas I believe I mentioned there was nothing paranormal about his claims.

I suppose i could relate it to the second example you gave. Albeit well achievable/not impossible some may straight away say no way. This is different because you can prove you have the fastest unicycle record..

Im unsure if i should post what he posted, it is fairly long and in depth and some of the content may not be understandable unless you are familiar with the terms ...

So is the consensus that what i initially said can be correct in some but not all cases? In which some would be those which are more like Marquis' 2nd example?

Should we keep to our opinions but state them in a manner which is not insulting anyone else's intelligence?

SamanthaMc · 20th March 2007, 11:30 PM

Okay, let's say his life story did have paranormal elements to it. Would you still say the same things that you previously posted?

slingblade · 20th March 2007, 11:35 PM

Well. Hmmmm.
I know people who like to think that an opinion, because it is "only" opinion, can never be wrong. Bull. Opinons based on crap info are crap opinions.

However, you do have the right to hold a crap opinion. You prove you're a moron every time you trot it out, but you go ahead and hold it as tightly as you like.

Anecdotes have their place, and if one comes along that you are skeptical about, so what? You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate. Should you tell the guy you don't believe him or that you're skeptical? Depends on what you're trying to gain, I guess. If insulting him will get the desired result, insult him. If not, keep it to yourself until you do get what you want. If you want nothing from him, then why care what he thinks or what he's done?

In the scheme of things, I usually keep that opinion to myself.

swifty · 21st March 2007, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by SamanthaMc

Okay, let's say his life story did have paranormal elements to it. Would you still say the same things that you previously posted?

No, but that is because I believe there is nothing that is "paranormal" therefore I wouldnt believe him

swifty · 21st March 2007, 06:11 AM

And slingblade I like your style, very much! I often post replys and then just close down firefox and not post it... Sometimes it is better to keep your thoughts to yourself unless you have a clear reason/objective in stating them

Marquis de Carabas · 21st March 2007, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by swifty

Marquis de Carabas I believe I mentioned there was nothing paranormal about his claims.

Are you saying that only paranormal claims require skepticism? What of the Nigerian scam? Nothing paranormal there. The belief that the governement was behind 9/11? Nothing (necessarily) paranormal there. Extraordinary is not synonymous with paranormal.

SamanthaMc · 21st March 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by swifty

No, but that is because I believe there is nothing that is "paranormal" therefore I wouldnt believe him

So if his claims did include paranormal stuff, then you wouldn't still feel someone would have "the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all"?

I do agree that if someone tells you something that happened to them, calling them a liar outright is ridiculous. Even if it is paranormal. There are lots of other explanations for things other than someone lying.

And thank you for responding to me, by the way. There are times I am certain the entire forum has me on ignore!

drkitten · 21st March 2007, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by swifty

Would you all consider this an appropriate statement:

No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner.

Not in the slightest. It has little meaning, and the meaning it does possess is mostly misguided.

I'm not sure what it means to "deny someone of their life story"; your life is what it is, regardless of what kind of story you tell about it -- and if your version of the story differs from other people's, that isn't a "denial," but a different point of view.

Furthermore, any story that pretends to be based upon fact -- such as a "life story" -- should in fact be factually accurate. If I tell a "life story" that starts with my being born in Antarctica, a continent I've never even visited, then that's not simply "a different point of view," but an outright untruth. "Denying" that particular version of the story is not a violation of rights, but an appropriate response in any context where factual accuracy matters.

Similarly, "having an open mind" does not mean accepting statements that are untrue -- or even statements that are unlikely to be true, without further evidence. You don't need to "look at all possibilities" when faced with a patent untruth. And when faced with a statement that is not patently untrue, but is implausible to the point of irrationality, there's no reason to believe it.

Quote:

Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it?

Well, let's see. You owe me $100,000 dollars. You lost it to me one night in a drunken stupor betting on a poker game that you don't even remember -- but I insist upon payment now.

Do you disbelieve this statement?

What does "logic" tell you about that possibility?

swifty · 22nd March 2007, 03:03 AM

No you cannot use this to justify anything...

How i respond to that question does not relate to how I would to the one I posed.

If I believe/disbelieve in yours there are big consequences either way. Whilst on mine the only thing it changes is how people view me/I can view myself as a person...

Never mind, I agree with "You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate"

Marquis de Carabas · 22nd March 2007, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by swifty

Never mind, I agree with "You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate"

And a stalemate leaves one in the default position, which is disbelief. If the claimant persists in his claim, the choices come down to ignore him, change the subject, or demand proof.

20th March 2007, 09:07 PM	#1
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	Rights - Skepticism Firstly I am very sorry if this is in the wrong section but I have a question. Would you all consider this an appropriate statement: No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner. I posted this in a different forum and was curious of what you all think. It was in reply to someone who told his life story/background which was very obscure (in no way paranormal) and seemed unlikely. Some people replied to him in basically the words of "this is ******** you cant prove this stuff with a video so it isnt true", etc. I deem myself a critical thinker but the type of skepticism in which all options and possibilities arent looked into to annoys me... Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it? I prefer to be open minded but based off logic.
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

20th March 2007, 09:25 PM	#2
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	also... Originally Posted by Towels There are alot of trails that hit a dead end with him tho. Ie; Dub Back learned on Concrete....no vid Tricks used in a fight....no vid etc etc Your claim is he did not double back on concrete and your proof is there is no vid. Can you prove something by nothing? Can he prove something by nothing? No for both. In effect, your point is as valid as his because both cannot be proved to be true. Therefore, you are entitled to your opinion but I don't feel you should be implying he is a liar or completely saying 'no way that is impossible'. Is that decent enough? I understand it is not his (towels) responsibility to prove him wrong, but in this situation where it is simply someone recalling events in their own life is it not suitable to be able to say "I'm not sure I can believe you fully, but if it is true, well done that is amazing!"??
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

20th March 2007, 10:24 PM	#3
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	The question is, how unlikely are we talking? Everyone's life story is not equally entitled to be taken at face value. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that jazz. Take the following three stories. Are they all equally to be accepted without further investigation? My name is Jay. I live in Beaumont, Texas, and do tech support for several departments at a local university. I drive a black Mitsubishi and enjoy Guinness and Camels. My name is Bob. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana and am the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. I currently hold the world's record for highest speed attained on a unicycle on level ground. My name is Horvald. I am the ghost of a Viking warrior killed battling Martians in Australia 3000 years before Christ. I like tea. My guess is one of these you'd pretty much just accept, one you'd want a little data to back up, and one you'd just think I was batst insane for saying. Or, you could just tell me, "Well done, that's amazing! You really like tea?"
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

20th March 2007, 10:35 PM	#5
SamanthaMc Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: In a field, waiting for the mothership. Posts: 369	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that jazz. WOW, MdC and I were like thinking the exact same thing at the exact same moment! That is what I would call extraordinary! Or should I say Horvald?
	Last edited by SamanthaMc; 20th March 2007 at 10:36 PM. Reason: I carn't spel

20th March 2007, 11:11 PM	#6
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	Marquis de Carabas I believe I mentioned there was nothing paranormal about his claims. I suppose i could relate it to the second example you gave. Albeit well achievable/not impossible some may straight away say no way. This is different because you can prove you have the fastest unicycle record.. Im unsure if i should post what he posted, it is fairly long and in depth and some of the content may not be understandable unless you are familiar with the terms ... So is the consensus that what i initially said can be correct in some but not all cases? In which some would be those which are more like Marquis' 2nd example? Should we keep to our opinions but state them in a manner which is not insulting anyone else's intelligence?
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

20th March 2007, 10:28 PM	#4
SamanthaMc Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: In a field, waiting for the mothership. Posts: 369	Originally Posted by swifty Firstly I am very sorry if this is in the wrong section but I have a question. Would you all consider this an appropriate statement: No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner. I posted this in a different forum and was curious of what you all think. It was in reply to someone who told his life story/background which was very obscure (in no way paranormal) and seemed unlikely. Some people replied to him in basically the words of "this is ******** you cant prove this stuff with a video so it isnt true", etc. I deem myself a critical thinker but the type of skepticism in which all options and possibilities arent looked into to annoys me... Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it? I prefer to be open minded but based off logic. Is saying unequivically, "This isn't true because you have no proof," less skeptical than saying, "Wow, that's hard to believe but I won't discount it entirely"? I think so in many cases. But as folks are fond of quoting around here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I heard an extraordinary life story, I would think about ways in which certain claims could be proven, and see if any evidence exists to substantiate it. But I wouldn't call someone a liar just because they haven't video-taped their entire life. All sorts of unlikely things happen. Completely believing something without proof is about the same as completely discounting something without further investigation.

20th March 2007, 11:30 PM	#7
SamanthaMc Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: In a field, waiting for the mothership. Posts: 369	Okay, let's say his life story did have paranormal elements to it. Would you still say the same things that you previously posted?

20th March 2007, 11:35 PM	#8
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Well. Hmmmm. I know people who like to think that an opinion, because it is "only" opinion, can never be wrong. Bull. Opinons based on crap info are crap opinions. However, you do have the right to hold a crap opinion. You prove you're a moron every time you trot it out, but you go ahead and hold it as tightly as you like. Anecdotes have their place, and if one comes along that you are skeptical about, so what? You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate. Should you tell the guy you don't believe him or that you're skeptical? Depends on what you're trying to gain, I guess. If insulting him will get the desired result, insult him. If not, keep it to yourself until you do get what you want. If you want nothing from him, then why care what he thinks or what he's done? In the scheme of things, I usually keep that opinion to myself.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

21st March 2007, 06:10 AM	#9
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	Originally Posted by SamanthaMc Okay, let's say his life story did have paranormal elements to it. Would you still say the same things that you previously posted? No, but that is because I believe there is nothing that is "paranormal" therefore I wouldnt believe him
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

21st March 2007, 06:11 AM	#10
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	And slingblade I like your style, very much! I often post replys and then just close down firefox and not post it... Sometimes it is better to keep your thoughts to yourself unless you have a clear reason/objective in stating them
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

21st March 2007, 06:17 AM	#11
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by swifty Marquis de Carabas I believe I mentioned there was nothing paranormal about his claims. Are you saying that only paranormal claims require skepticism? What of the Nigerian scam? Nothing paranormal there. The belief that the governement was behind 9/11? Nothing (necessarily) paranormal there. Extraordinary is not synonymous with paranormal.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st March 2007, 10:33 AM	#12
SamanthaMc Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: In a field, waiting for the mothership. Posts: 369	Originally Posted by swifty No, but that is because I believe there is nothing that is "paranormal" therefore I wouldnt believe him So if his claims did include paranormal stuff, then you wouldn't still feel someone would have "the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all"? I do agree that if someone tells you something that happened to them, calling them a liar outright is ridiculous. Even if it is paranormal. There are lots of other explanations for things other than someone lying. And thank you for responding to me, by the way. There are times I am certain the entire forum has me on ignore!

21st March 2007, 11:45 AM	#13
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by swifty Would you all consider this an appropriate statement: No one has the right to deny someone of their life story and an open mind is a necessity to all. Therefore as to not be hypocritical, no one has the right to deny YOU of your opinions. This means we should all have free speech, but in the way that one looks at all possibilities and provides an appropriate opinion with logic to back up claims and consideration of all factors in a decent manner. Not in the slightest. It has little meaning, and the meaning it does possess is mostly misguided. I'm not sure what it means to "deny someone of their life story"; your life is what it is, regardless of what kind of story you tell about it -- and if your version of the story differs from other people's, that isn't a "denial," but a different point of view. Furthermore, any story that pretends to be based upon fact -- such as a "life story" -- should in fact be factually accurate. If I tell a "life story" that starts with my being born in Antarctica, a continent I've never even visited, then that's not simply "a different point of view," but an outright untruth. "Denying" that particular version of the story is not a violation of rights, but an appropriate response in any context where factual accuracy matters. Similarly, "having an open mind" does not mean accepting statements that are untrue -- or even statements that are unlikely to be true, without further evidence. You don't need to "look at all possibilities" when faced with a patent untruth. And when faced with a statement that is not patently untrue, but is implausible to the point of irrationality, there's no reason to believe it. Quote: Because something is unlikely, should we disbelieve it? Well, let's see. You owe me $100,000 dollars. You lost it to me one night in a drunken stupor betting on a poker game that you don't even remember -- but I insist upon payment now. Do you disbelieve this statement? What does "logic" tell you about that possibility?

22nd March 2007, 03:03 AM	#14
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59	No you cannot use this to justify anything... How i respond to that question does not relate to how I would to the one I posed. If I believe/disbelieve in yours there are big consequences either way. Whilst on mine the only thing it changes is how people view me/I can view myself as a person... Never mind, I agree with "You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate"
swifty Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 59

22nd March 2007, 06:12 AM	#15
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by swifty Never mind, I agree with "You can't prove it, he can't prove it: stalemate" And a stalemate leaves one in the default position, which is disbelief. If the claimant persists in his claim, the choices come down to ignore him, change the subject, or demand proof.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.