Skeptical Approaches: Exploring the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Science isn't sopposed to solve social problems...religion claims to be that solution, and very obviously isn't. Science doesn't claim to be more than it is, religion does.

Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what you're saying is Science is more the "political pawn" then. Does that still excuse it?

Yes, that does excuse it.


Without science, you wouldn't be alive
Even worse, you wouldn't be able to access PF.
I think that excuses it pretty well.

 

[Kerrie]

we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
we need to get off the topic of religion and discuss skeptical philosophy...this is not a thread of religion vs science...

And yet what was the whole purpose behind this thread, to illustrate the merit of Science over Religion, or at least that's what I gathered based upon this other post ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would you say that all people who believe in God are superstitious and, that their beliefs are undfounded? If so, then you're just as bad as James Randi. Because to me, he doesn't express anything other than this "very belief." As a matter of fact it comes across loud and clear.

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, if you bothered to read his stuff...you would know how wrong your statement is.

I find that it is funny that you harp on his Ego, since his site is made up mostly of letters from other people.

Then I'm sure you're familiar with the Pigasus Awards? Hmm ... A pig with wings? It kind of brings to mind Pegasus, the winged horse of Greek Mythology? Now I remember him bringing this up on the program I watched, and I think it was about the time that he expounded on the nature of superstitious beliefs, and I couldn't help but believe he was mocking the Pegasus of Greek Mythology. Which suggests to me that he has no perception or understanding whatsoever, of what the Pegasus entails. And that's sad. For indeed there's a great deal more to the Greek Myths than what this man would hold up to mock and ridicule.

Well, the Pigasus Awards are FUNNY...and mythology should be mocked too, you know! So should religion, frankly...not the PC thing to say, but I still think it is semi-true.

And let the truth be known!

 

[FZ+]

Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... you made that post. All that shows is that this is what you consider this thread to be about...

Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1", that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Iacchus, you are typing as if you expect science to replace religion...to offer everything that religion offers. But it is simply not that way. Science doesn't offer purpose (for scientific knowledge or your own life). Science is just a way of gaining knowledge, whether that knowledge is used for good or bad. What we call "science" is the conjunction of 2 things:
1) scientific methods of discovery
2) knowledge gained through scientific discovery

The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.

 

[Kerrie]

I repeat, let's get back on topic otherwise it will be locked.

 

[Zero]

Yeah, ummm...sorry Kerrie!


Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually, it wasn't too long after I made the original post about James Randi on the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2414&perpage=15&pagenumber=1", that he started this thread, and it wasn't long after that (a few posts later) that he brought up James Randi. And, while I think this is a very good thread, I'm still very "skeptical" about his intent behind posting it. In which respect I think both he James Randi have a lot in common. At least this is what my "skeptical philosophy" tells me!

Actually, before i got sidetracked, I was going to direct you to his column archive, which contains a guest essay about the compatability of spiritualism and skepticism, and to note that often Randi shows respect for researchers who honestly look into teh supernatural. If you use the right techniques to look, it is hard to be disrespectful of a scientist using actual real science to look into things like astrology or telepathy.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The fact is you have the rational side and you have the irrational side, neither of which can exist without the other. In which case I think science should become a means by which to augment religion and vice versa. Otherwise by encouraging their separation you promote alienation, rather than wholeness. At the very least I think the two ought to make allowances for each other's existence.

A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
A skeptical philosophy should, in my opinion, disregard the irrational by default.

That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That means essentially we should disregard ourselves, especially our feelings, by default. This is absurd in its own rite, and thus to be disregarded according to its own logic.

Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, unlike the religious types, I never claim perfection...but, it seems to be a logical idea to eliminate as much irrationality as possible, in order to truley apply critical thinking to life.

Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.

THAT statement makes sense to me...thanks for clarifying, we are of mostly like minds on that.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Zero
Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.

That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

[EDIT: removed a pesky double negative]

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

This is a good description of a skeptic imo with one exception. Many things are not logically coherent, but still widely accepted by skeptics because they are observable. For example, a skeptic can accept the Liar's Paradox as real and existent, yet acknowledge that it is not logically coherent.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive.

Oh how generous you are! ...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh how generous you are! ...

More that I personally think you deserve, but what the heck, right?