Do we dare to call ourselves Skeptics?

[Myriad]

It's entirely possible, for example, that religious belief has had a positive influence on believers lives & society, but skepticism demands the entire structure be questioned, doubted, and IMO rejected, despite any positive value.

Huh? Questioned and doubted, sure; but rejected? Skepticism demands only that conclusions and decisions be based on evaluating the evidence (that's the questioning) and doubted if they haven't been (that's the doubt). What are the positive influences, and what negative influences must those positive ones be weighed against? That's a question that skeptics should and do ask.

"Religious belief" has multiple facets, most of which fall under the three general categories of narratives, practices, and experiences. Whether or not some or all the narratives are true is not the sole determiner of whether the practices or experiences have net positive or negative value.

For sure, there's plenty of uncritical thinking on both sides. Claiming unbounded "positive value" based solely on an unverifiable claim of the truth of a narrative (e.g. Pascal's Wager) is just as much an example as claiming that no positive value is possible at all if the narrative is false (which would reject all positive value for fiction, fables, legends, parables, etc.) Neither of those demonstrate skepticism, though.

 

[Shiner]

After looking at an article titled “What is Scepticism” by Brian Dunning, I asked myself “do we all dare to call ourselves Skeptics?”

Abstracts from his article…
Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity.
Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world.
Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and popular misinformation toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world.
Skepticism is an essential and meaningful component of the search for truth.

Most importantly he states: “The scientific method is central to skepticism” and a skeptic “maintains a doubting attitude toward values, plans, statements”

In light of the above I have a serious concern about the way people in the Forum respond to seemingly well thought through information contained in posts. Responses such as these are worth nothing… nothing and do not in my opinion contribute anything to a search for truth… or whatever.
“Really?”
“OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!”
“Uhguuu!”

As light of the above I suggest that people responding to posts should:
Make an effort to understand the point of view expressed in the post.
Apply critical thinking in evaluating the content of the post.
Define your own point of view and present it in a logical way.

I feel we should be very skeptic about our own inputs to the Forum.

Cool story, bro.

The forum IS called "International Skeptics"

On the International Falconery Forum, some members are not falconers. Even kindafunnyforums.com can't make the claim that all of their members meet tha low standard they set.

My hat is bread. Your government is invalid.

 

[marplots]

I'm a skeptic. I don't like to be scolded about it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Brian Dunning has an interesting Google result:

Brian Dunning, Host of Skeptoid Podcast, Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison for Scamming eBay

Yes, and?

 

[SusanB-M1]

My goal is to move humanity forward toward critical thinking, even if my efforts don't move us more than millimeter. Trump's election is one giant step back. But the UK and parts of the EU moving away from god beliefs is a step forward.

As is, in my opinion, the Archbishop of Canterbury exhorting people to turn to

...the power of God to chase away "the fear of terror" and the "economies of despair

.

 

[jakesteele]

This makes the false assumption that said conclusion was drawn before any evidence was assessed.

Exactly right, but that's the problem with neo-skepticism. I've been on this site since 2009 and this is pretty much all I see in this and the CT forum. The Official Story is always right, even if it's wrong in whole or in part. Any and all UFO-type sightings, incidents, reports, claims, etc., are all mundane.

Think of police investigating the murder of a man's wife. The police don't automatically assume the husband did it. He is, however, the first stop on the Occam's Razor Express. If that doesn't pan out, then they move the OR Express on to the next stop on the tour and check out immediate family, friends, associates, anybody bothering her, any strangers, etc. And sometimes, you simply can't draw a conclusion...it's then called a cold case waiting for more pieces of the puzzle.

Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

But if you fail to present any specific points of disagreement, with a rational or evidence based argument, then you are just lacing the forum with your emotional scat. Personally, "I don't generally feel the need .." to listen to your unevidenced OPINIONS, tho' I'd like to understand your ARGUMENTs. That is the point of the forum - no ? How do emotional utterance advance the forum ?

Luckily, neither my world, nor the world, revolves around your reasoning. Who claimed I wouldn't respond with...scientific points? I didn't, you assumed it.

You assumed most of your breakdown of my post, and I honestly can't think why you went to so much trouble. Maybe you shouldn't go out of your way to assume so much about other posters based on one single post made in a sarcastic manner.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Exactly right, but that's the problem with neo-skepticism. I've been on this site since 2009 and this is pretty much all I see in this and the CT forum. The Official Story is always right, even if it's wrong in whole or in part. Any and all UFO-type sightings, incidents, reports, claims, etc., are all mundane.

Think of police investigating the murder of a man's wife. The police don't automatically assume the husband did it. He is, however, the first stop on the Occam's Razor Express. If that doesn't pan out, then they move the OR Express on to the next stop on the tour and check out immediate family, friends, associates, anybody bothering her, any strangers, etc. And sometimes, you simply can't draw a conclusion...it's then called a cold case waiting for more pieces of the puzzle.

Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary.

All very well but there comes a point in your day to day life that you have to make a decision based on the available evidence. Otherwise you wouldbe, as Marillion put it 'Trapped in the indecision of another fine menu' and never eating a meal.

 

[gerdbonk]

Until there's evidence to establish a firm conclusion, going with what's most likely is a reasonable position to take.

 

[fuelair]

I tend to strongly favor the gather evidence before you work to lose the assistance of the people you love to check first because assumptions. Amazingly most people tend to respond poorly when you act as if they are guilty but they aren't.

 

[LSSBB]

Exactly right, but that's the problem with neo-skepticism. I've been on this site since 2009 and this is pretty much all I see in this and the CT forum. The Official Story is always right, even if it's wrong in whole or in part. Any and all UFO-type sightings, incidents, reports, claims, etc., are all mundane.

Think of police investigating the murder of a man's wife. The police don't automatically assume the husband did it. He is, however, the first stop on the Occam's Razor Express. If that doesn't pan out, then they move the OR Express on to the next stop on the tour and check out immediate family, friends, associates, anybody bothering her, any strangers, etc. And sometimes, you simply can't draw a conclusion...it's then called a cold case waiting for more pieces of the puzzle.

Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Where is this "Official Story" of which you speak? For example, is there a Federal Story 5.16(a): Big Foot Does Not Exist, that we could analyze as part of the discussion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I think "the scientific method"(SM) is widely misunderstood and instead used as a form of 'religion' (with unquestioned tenets) by many. ...

Typical means of dismissing critical thinking, claiming it is religion rather than recognizing the differences.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Exactly right, but that's the problem with neo-skepticism. I've been on this site since 2009 and this is pretty much all I see in this and the CT forum. The Official Story is always right, even if it's wrong in whole or in part. Any and all UFO-type sightings, incidents, reports, claims, etc., are all mundane.

Think of police investigating the murder of a man's wife. The police don't automatically assume the husband did it. He is, however, the first stop on the Occam's Razor Express. If that doesn't pan out, then they move the OR Express on to the next stop on the tour and check out immediate family, friends, associates, anybody bothering her, any strangers, etc. And sometimes, you simply can't draw a conclusion...it's then called a cold case waiting for more pieces of the puzzle.

Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Interesting. Do you have any examples of skeptics on this site defending an "official story" that is provably wrong, either in part or entirely?
Do you have any empirical evidence that UFOs are anything other than misidentified mundane objects or occurrences?

 

[baron]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism before any conclusion is arrived at.

Neo-skeptic(Debunker) – one who holds an a priori belief that the phenomena does not exist or can't be true, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.

Should that not be pseudo-skeptic?