The Role of the Skeptic

Post Reply New Topic

^ simulated death (the appearance of someone being him but wasn't him was actually the guy who betrayed him etc) is what muslims believe but the God = Jesus part we don't..

how confusing all around!

I've never seen eye to eye with the notion that faith is a good thing - to me, faith is pretending you know something that you don't know. So I'd like the role of the skeptic to include debunking the notion that faith is particularly virtuous. I'm not saying that people should never act on impulse, follow hunches, behave irrationally or guess, just that I think it's foolish to pretend a thing is correct when a moment's honest reflection shows that it might not be.

What are people talking about when they say they have faith in a religious doctrine? By saying that, aren't they admitting that they know they could be wrong? In which case, I don't understand how they can both hold that a thing is definitely true and that maybe it isn't. It's like a psychotic admitting that what they're seeing is a delusion - surely the moment they've done that, it's no longer deluding them?

role of the skeptic : to provide alternate points of veiw , possibly not considered previously .

Nothing wrong with skepticism—unless one is nasty about it.

On skeptics, cynics, proponents, or just indifference; "everybody is entitled to their own opinions, NOT their own facts!"

1 + 1 = 2 base 10

1 + 1 =10 base 2

1 + 1 = 1 Take two metal bars, melt an end on each of them. Join them while hot. Reshape the joined ends. You now have one metal bar.

In other words, does a fact remain a fact if assumptions that make the fact a fact no longer hold up?

And, are facts true in of themselves or do they require a context and subtext?

This is why I find issues with objective truth and absolutes.

And emotions are a part of the human experience. How can one truthfully set aside one's emotions, feelings and biases completely like science and the scientific method demands? Is this even possible? How?

Facts are subjective to differing situations, contexts and subtexts. If we leave Earth does gravity work in the same way?

Let's talk about biblical moral truths as well. Are they really so true all the time. Example: We all must submit ourselves to governing authorities. http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... themselves.

Yet, the Bible says not to take the mark of the beast. But, isn't this beast a moral authority and wasn't this beast appointed by God? Which of these moral truths is true?

Expanding the box you live in ?

Huh?

Your references to mathematic in the beginning of this thread seem to expound on mathematic perfection as you describe the assembly of the various contexts. Of the metal bars and the resulting shifting of its size by joining or not
You mathematically define a thing a thing that can be changed by how you assemble then , and their mathematical representation. your bars could be considered a box which by mathematics you build and change . Representing the
Realities of affected mathematics that. You think of in this thread . Involving the bars ,but that’s only my own veiw.

Can making difficulties making distinctions between skeptics and cynics be related to the Autism Spectrum?

No.

NTs are at least as sloppy about word usage as autistics if not more so.

CORRECTION (rephrasing) / ADDENDUM: Difficulties with subtle distinctions e.g., between skeptics and cynics can be common with the Autism Spectrum - Yet, NTs can also experience difficulties making those subtle distinctions.

Skeptics comments are usually a neutral more information oriented opinions whereas Cynics. Can cast a very negative connotation to what has been offered by others .

I dont consider it "subtle" at all. The words are similar in sound, but vastly different in meaning. A "cynic" is someone who thinks that everything is motivated by self interest. A skeptic is someone who demands evidence for any assertion.

A "flat earth skeptic" would be someone who doubts the assertions of modern Flat Earthers, and demands that they present evidence for their claims that (a) the earth is flat, and (b) that there is this vast conspiracy to cover up this alleged 'truth' that the earth is flat.

A "flat earth cynic" is kind of meaningless as a phrase, but could mean someone who knows full well that the earth is round, but makes tons of money selling books and documentary films pushing flat earthism to exploit a gullible public.

Another thing that skeptics never really answer is what is considered valid evidence?

Skeptics say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But, what is considered extraordinary evidence? What would be valid evidence for a extraordinary claim?

Alien Abductions? How would one go about proving or disproving this legitimately in the skeptic's eyes? What evidence would be legit to a skeptic?

The word extraordinary is vague and subjective. What exactly would one have to do?

And, I could look all of this up myself but I want an answer from the skeptics here in their own words. I want to see what Fnord and others say what it is.

Dude ...you seem to be obsessed with that phrase coined by Carl Sagan, and started a thread about it several years ago- in which you asked everyone to explain the meaning of (what always seemed to me to be) the rather simple and straightforward phrase to you.

So ...I will now...pick up where we left off on that discussion.

Here is an example of the difference between ordinary claims, and extraordinary claims.

We dont know why our planet has a big moon orbiting around it. How did the Earth get that moon?

Here are examples of "ordinary claims" to explain it:

A. Moon was its own planet for a long time, but then got captured by Earth's gravity, and became our satellite.

B. Moon somehow budded off, or broke off, from the earth, and then went into orbit around the earth.


Those two theories have been the two competing explanations for the origin moon for decades. Right now the favored theory actually is a mix of both, but more of B. During the infancy of the solar system it was a violent shooting gallery of rocks hitting each other, and a medium sized planet (smaller than earth, but bigger than the moon) smacked into the earth, and pulverized the earth, but the pieces fell back together as two bodies, one big and one small. Earth and moon. And this little former crust of the earth pie is still orbiting us today.

But the point is that both competing theories only invoke things that are known to exist: planets, moons, gravitation, and such.

There is a third theory: that the moon is an artificial structure built by aliens from another solar system who use it as a base to spy on us. That is an extradordinary claim. What makes it extraordinary is that it invokes things that are not known to exist:aliens are not known to exist, interstellar space travel, is not known to be possible, and building artificial structures as big as the moon is not known to be possible. So you are explaining one unknown with at least three other unknowns. Which is a logical fallacy. Might even be true, but its still an extraordinary claim. So if you wanna be taken seriously with it you better go the extra distance to persuade us of it.