Skeptics

[Guest LarryP]

Being skeptical requires one to question everything, correct?

 

 

 

That's correct. Including their own position as well.

 

To do anything else is just selective skepticism.

 

Hence the term "pseudo-skepticism".

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, Cotter, but we are also forced to say on topic in a forum. This makes it hard to question "everything" sadly.  It would be difficult for me to question conspiracy theories constantly without being rightly accused of going OT.

[Guest LarryP]

What does staying on topic have to do with not questioning your own position regarding the topic?

[Guest DWA]

It's a badge of honor to their fellow defenders of the established orthodoxy and materialism.

 

 

 

"They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them."

 

- Robert Anton Wilson

Ding, Robert A.  (And for finding that, LP.)  That's what strikes me most about most of the "skepticism" I read here.  That's why they can't defend their position (and frequently don't even understand what position they're defending, or that they're even defending one).  They're just utterly sure they're right about this and have an extremely hard time giving up that certainty.

 

I actually think it's behind much of the mainstream's attitude toward sasquatch.  They're more hoping it's not real now; they're so deeply sold out that any admission at this point is going to make them look like fools, so they're hoping the amateurs taking over for them look like fools instead.

[Bonehead74]

Interesting read that fairly closely describes my attitude toward strange claims:

http://esoterx.com/2013/10/17/black-eyed-children-and-slender-men-waiter-theres-some-emic-in-my-etic/

[MikeZimmer]

There was an article on bigfoot and amateur scientists discussed quite a while back on the previous forum. It is a good short article by Sherrilyn Roush, a professor of Philosophy, with a speciality in the Theory of Knowledge. She has written quite a bit on skeptical thinking. It is an enjoyable read, and gets to the heart of the efforts of Sasquatch researcher's efforts. Here is an excerpt:

 

Still, scientists' need to make assumptions about what's plausible and what's not, she added, shouldn't deter ordinary citizens from practicing what she dubbed "vigilante science," the "investigation by unauthorized lay people" of events and objects overlooked by the scientific establishment - just as birdwatchers and amateur astronomers already do. "People should feel more entitled to go out and investigate things that scientists might say don't exist," declared Roush, citing "the broader purpose of science to find out what's going on in the world..What I'm saying is that the lay public can actually help science, and has a right, even a responsibility, to do so." In contrast to the dismissive attitude of most scientists toward Bigfoot and other such "anomalous events and objects," Roush cited primatologist Jane Goodall, who recently told NPR of her confidence in the vast number of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot encounters by Native Americans and others in the Northwest. Goodall also admitted to being "a romantic," and said, "I always have wanted [bigfoot] to exist."

That, said Roush, is "an extremely mature attitude. "

 

Article at: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2008/02/27_bigfoot.shtml

[Guest thermalman]

^^@ dmaker  Take it to the tar pit. No restrictions there.

Edited November 27, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest LarryP]

Interesting read that fairly closely describes my attitude toward strange claims:

http://esoterx.com/2013/10/17/black-eyed-children-and-slender-men-waiter-theres-some-emic-in-my-etic/

 

Thanks for that link Bonehead.

 

Love this:

 

 

"Skepticism is a mental epistemology, and a fairly lackadaisical one at that. Not to mention tautological since it amounts to “I’m willing to believe in what I already believeâ€. 

[dmaker]

Oh I do, TM, I do.  Not all the folks that I butt heads with, though, have premium accounts sadly.

[Incorrigible1]

^^@ dmaker  Take it to the tar pit. No restrictions there.

 

Would love to speak frankly with a habituator or two, but they seem reluctant to support the forum or face frank talk. Ah, well.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

IDK, something tells me that a few of the habbers might just have a bit of frank talk of their own. It would be great to see it happen, though.

[Guest LarryP]

Would love to speak frankly with a habituator or two, but they seem reluctant to support the forum or face frank talk. Ah, well.

 

Perhaps your idea of "frank talk" differs from their's?

 

That is a very relative term, that's ripe with all kinds of various connotations.

[Guest]

None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma.

 

If by "dogma" you mean well supported science then yes. You wouldn't be hearing many skeptics criticizing vaccines, heliocentricism, evolution, plate tectonics, ect. Whenever fringe theories label something "dogma", its code for "a theory that is more useful and has more evidence then mine."

 

And a pseudo-skeptic could also be someone who does the opposite. Question only mainstream ideas, but never David Paulides.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Bigfoot skeptic error #3,884,353:  cherrypicking one out-there guy or one out-there idea as representative of the whole that one wants to attack.

 

All I ever see bigfoot skeptics do is attack fringies that most of us put no stock in.  They lack the ammo to go after the scientific proponents - red-light "that means you are wrong doesn't it??" indicator right there - so they go after people most of us consider ten-foot-pole territory.

[Guest DWA]

Thanks for that link Bonehead.

 

Love this:

 

 

"Skepticism is a mental epistemology, and a fairly lackadaisical one at that. Not to mention tautological since it amounts to “I’m willing to believe in what I already believeâ€. 

And:

 

If you want to reduce the universe to discrete grains of sand that will ultimately tell you conclusively about themselves, seek the intellectual safety of accounting. If you are interested in examining how humans interact with a puzzling world, your options are far more exciting than the binary juxtaposition of proven and unproven.

 

Waaaaaay too many people here who need someone to tell Toto for them that they aren't in accounting anymore.