The trouble with skepticism....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(13-08-2013 07:24 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  S[k]epticism means reserving an opinion. Little to evidence has been provided for a claim so you're reserving judgement.

No. That is not being a skeptic. A skeptic is a doubter. That's it. I would say a good skeptic is willing to reevaluate their opinions and views when evidence that would support an opposing position becomes apparent. Being a skeptic does not mean reserving an opinion. It means being willing to reverse an opinion.

(13-08-2013 07:24 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Being a s[k]eptic is very easy.

No, again. Being a blind follower is easy. Just let everyone else do your thinking for you. Being a good skeptic means listening to competing ideas and determining which wide the the most correct, or formulating original or personal opinions on an issue.

I'm disagreeing with you here. Scepticism means reserving judgement. And it is easier than being a blind follower.

There are millions of claims and you can't follow all of them blindly, it's impossible (It's also impossible to research and look into each claim). Many are direct contradictions which will simply get you killed or injured, or thrown in prison. You can't be a blind follower - you pick and choose.

Being a sceptic means you simply respond with "I don't know" if you're not convinced sufficiently (which varies greatly between people). If you don't know for sure or aren't convinced of a claim, you reserve judgement. It doesn't matter what you're willing to do, it's what you actually do.

It's easier being sceptical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 12:03 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  I'm disagreeing with you here. Scepticism means reserving judgement. And it is easier than being a blind follower.

There are millions of claims and you can't follow all of them blindly, it's impossible (It's also impossible to research and look into each claim). Many are direct contradictions which will simply get you killed or injured, or thrown in prison. You can't be a blind follower - you pick and choose.

Being a sceptic means you simply respond with "I don't know" if you're not convinced sufficiently (which varies greatly between people). If you don't know for sure or aren't convinced of a claim, you reserve judgement. It doesn't matter what you're willing to do, it's what you actually do.

It's easier being sceptical.

I think you're arguing semantics here. Reserving judgement and offering an "I don't know" if you don't have enough evidence on either side of a certain topic is okay. However you don't need to reserve judgement all around. Forming a good opinion (having a judgement) about something is fine. Being a good sceptic means that you are open to all evidence contrary to your opinion and are willing to change it if said evidence is stronger.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
12-09-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
being sceptic is not being sure that existence is true, then since being is about objective consistency always, being sceptic is what admit opposites being possible equally
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 12:47 PM)absols Wrote:  being sceptic is not being sure that existence is true, then since being is about objective consistency always, being sceptic is what admit opposites being possible equally

[Image: foghorn.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-09-2013, 12:55 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 12:47 PM)absols Wrote:  being sceptic is not being sure that existence is true, then since being is about objective consistency always, being sceptic is what admit opposites being possible equally

absols, that may be the closest thing to a coherent thought I've ever seen you post. Thank you.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 12:03 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 11:36 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  No. That is not being a skeptic. A skeptic is a doubter. That's it. I would say a good skeptic is willing to reevaluate their opinions and views when evidence that would support an opposing position becomes apparent. Being a skeptic does not mean reserving an opinion. It means being willing to reverse an opinion.


No, again. Being a blind follower is easy. Just let everyone else do your thinking for you. Being a good skeptic means listening to competing ideas and determining which wide the the most correct, or formulating original or personal opinions on an issue.

I'm disagreeing with you here. Scepticism means reserving judgement. And it is easier than being a blind follower.

There are millions of claims and you can't follow all of them blindly, it's impossible (It's also impossible to research and look into each claim). Many are direct contradictions which will simply get you killed or injured, or thrown in prison. You can't be a blind follower - you pick and choose.

Being a sceptic means you simply respond with "I don't know" if you're not convinced sufficiently (which varies greatly between people). If you don't know for sure or aren't convinced of a claim, you reserve judgement. It doesn't matter what you're willing to do, it's what you actually do.

It's easier being sceptical.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this point.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
who is ok to not know or to seek good arguments is the same one anyway

at least they are related for sure in being same, what dont know is what dont have good arguments
and what seek some truth is what dont know himself so dont know anything at all

and when any objective mean is absolutely, then it is the same one for sure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
Hmm. Now you lost me again. Consider

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
im showing u that u insist on confusing urselves with the nature of things, as if u can say things from ur own feelings or sense about it

this is wrong

u dont believe that things are totally independant to u

that is how i proved how ur mean and who u disagree with means are the same one truth meant, while ur senses seem totally different bc it is about u not about the thing

u refuse to see things objectively surely bc of ur belief that u r the reason of things

that is why u wont ever see how it is the opposite, urselves is according to what things are
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: The trouble with skepticism....
(12-09-2013 03:57 PM)absols Wrote:  im showing u that u insist on confusing urselves with the nature of things, as if u can say things from ur own feelings or sense about it

this is wrong

u dont believe that things are totally independant to u

that is how i proved how ur mean and who u disagree with means are the same one truth meant, while ur senses seem totally different bc it is about u not about the thing

u refuse to see things objectively surely bc of ur belief that u r the reason of things

that is why u wont ever see how it is the opposite, urselves is according to what things are

So how exactly are we supposed to see things as they are, rather than how we see them as our subjective selves? Being that the only way we can view things is through the lense of self.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: