Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Iacchus said:
Why do you think I'm wrong? You're the one who said it's impossible to know of such things. It sounds to me like you're not too sure about what you know.
Click to expand...

No, you are IMPLYING that I am saying you are wrong. You are the one trying to judge how I feel, act, and believe by placing a label on my beliefs. I like challenging conversations, but I believe that you have just as much right as I do to believe you are a {lable}. I get upset when others try to break down my beliefs with no proof, just as others get upset with me if I try to break down their arguments without proof. As I said, if someone can prove to me there is not a creator, I have every right to believe what I want. On the other hand, I'm not going to force others to my beliefs if they don't want to.
 
Mercutio said:
An observer, a learner, is necessary, but awareness is not at all necessary for learning.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I was just reading this morning how cockroaches can be conditioned just like Pavlov's dogs.
This is the first confirmation of the conditioned reflex in a creature other than a mammal. The findings were used to illustrate the insect's higher brain functions in the February issue of the British publication, The Journal of Experimental Biology.
Click to expand...
 
Tricky said:
Right. So given that not you or I or anyone else has any explanation (or evidence, I might add) for this thing, why do you decide to believe it exists? Is it because of the way you were taught? That's certainly true for many many people, so it would be a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...
And do you honestly think I believe what I believe because of a lack of evidence? Nevermind ...
 
Iacchus said:
And do you honestly think I believe what I believe because of a lack of evidence? Nevermind ...
Click to expand...
Not because of a lack of evidence, but in spite of a lack of evidence. Yes, I know you claim to have all the evidence you need, but you have never provided one iota of it to anyone here.

But of course, this question was to Wastepanel. He seems like he might be rational.
 
Tricky said:
Not because of a lack of evidence, but in spite of a lack of evidence. Yes, I know you claim to have all the evidence you need, but you have never provided one iota of it to anyone here.
Click to expand...
You may in fact never get it.

But of course, this question was to Wastepanel. He seems like he might be rational.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you keep it up and you may be able to make a convert out of him/her.
 
Tricky said:
Interesting. I was just reading this morning how cockroaches can be conditioned just like Pavlov's dogs.
Click to expand...
Cool... but wrong. Insects have been classically conditioned since 1971: Classical conditioning in the blowfly (Phormia regina): Associative and excitatory factors.

Subjected 792 blowflies (phormia regina) to a classical conditioning procedure in hopes of detecting modifiable behavior. Sugar was the ucs and saline and water were the css; proboscis extension was both ucr and cr. Results indicate that flies can be classically conditioned; both compound css and discriminative css were found to depend partially on the conditioning procedure, and partially on central excitation induced by the ucs. Control experiments were performed which suggest some interplay between excitatory and associative factors in the conditioning process. (17 ref.)
Click to expand...

Planaria, since 1966:
30 FLATWORMS, CURA FOREMANII, WERE CLASSICALLY CONDITIONED WITH LIGHT AND SHOCK. SS WERE GIVEN ACQUISITION TRAINING OF 20 TRIALS A DAY FOR 5 DAYS AND THEN WERE DIVIDED INTO 2 MATCHED GROUPS. 1 GROUP WAS GIVEN 40 EXTINCTION TRIALS ON DAY 6. THE OTHER GROUP WAS GIVEN 20 EXTINCTION TRIALS ON DAY 6 AND 20 EXTINCTION TRIALS ON DAY 7. SPONTANEOUS RECOVERY OF THE RESPONSE WAS DEMONSTRATED BY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUPS AS A RESULT OF THE 24-HR DELAY IN EXTINCTION TRIALS.
Click to expand...
(sorry, the database was yelling)
 
Huntster said:
To discredit, defame, or otherwise harm him?

Because they disagree with him?



Is probablility a consideration that skeptics accept?

Always? Sometimes? Only when it supports their views? Only when the mathematical probability equations are worked out on paper?
Click to expand...

I would wager that probability is necessary for skeptics and the scientific method. Quantum mechanics is based upon it, Occam's Razor is the use of it.

Both you and Iacchus' appear, to me, to be doing no more than playing word games for the sake of stirring up noise on the thread. Or, in more succinct words, you're trolling.
 
Tricky said:
Yes, but there are lots and lots of things for which there is "no evidence that they do not exist". So how do you pick which ones of that very large list that you will believe in?


Right. So given that not you or I or anyone else has any explanation (or evidence, I might add) for this thing, why do you decide to believe it exists? Is it because of the way you were taught? That's certainly true for many many people, so it would be a plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm serious. Why do people believe the things they believe, especially the ones without evidence?
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed that post.

If there is no evidence to the contrary or to prove existance, I keep my mind open. I'm not going to throw all my marbles into one basket, only to have that basket's bottom fall through.

In regards as to why I believe, it is because I choose to. I've been trolling and posting here for about 7 months. I've met alot of people that hold no regard for unproven beliefs. To me, this is taking a big step out of rational thought. If I think something, does it make it wrong if nobody concurs?

EDIT: I'm not saying that I believe what I think. I'm saying that, faced with no evidence supporting either theory, it's a crapshoot. Hopefully, one day this will be settled. Until that day though, my beliefs are valid until proven otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Not because of a lack of evidence, but in spite of a lack of evidence. Yes, I know you claim to have all the evidence you need, but you have never provided one iota of it to anyone here.
Click to expand...
It's all about the capacity to know, and being able to be certain of something. If we didn't possess this property, then no, we would never be able to tell.
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
....Both you and Iacchus' appear, to me, to be doing no more than playing word games for the sake of stirring up noise on the thread.....
Click to expand...

This entire forum is one, long, forlorn word game, and the noise is lost in the winds of fecklessness.
 
Iacchus said:
Are you referring to those who adhere to the "default position" and say it's impossible to know? Indeed, it sounds more like a matter of convenience (in order to support their world view) than anything else.
Click to expand...

That's because they know that, for now, the question of origins cannot be answered except through assumptions. However, since we don't want to assume, and our science can't tell us the answer, we HAVE to assume that, for now, it's impossible to know.

You'd rather make up an answer ? Fine. Go right ahead. Don't expect ME to follow suit.
 
Huntster said:
Perhaps they don't like Iacchus, and they all wish to discredit, defame, or otherwise harm him?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy, then ? Why am I not surprised ? You're probably the type who thinks scientists all lie about evolution just to be famous. Sheesh.
 
Belz... said:
That's because they know that, for now, the question of origins cannot be answered except through assumptions. However, since we don't want to assume, and our science can't tell us the answer, we HAVE to assume that, for now, it's impossible to know.

You'd rather make up an answer ? Fine. Go right ahead. Don't expect ME to follow suit.
Click to expand...
Yes, agreed. The default position states that I'm a liar.
 
wastepanel said:
I'm not saying that I believe what I think. I'm saying that, faced with no evidence supporting either theory, it's a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

Except that very rarely do we ever genuinely have "no evidence supporting either theory."

If nothing else, we have track records to go on. If I'm out walking with two friends, and we get lost, I will for preference follow the one who has previously been shown to have the better sense of direction. And I will pay little attention to the one who has been shown to be able to get lost inside a room with one door.

So far, the historical record has been fairly kind to the skeptics who don't believe in things for which no evidence can be brought to bear. The historical record has not been kind to the credophiles who believe in things without evidence. This is evidence -- and it suggests that a healthy dose of disbelief is the "rational" course based on the evidence we have available.
 
Iacchus said:
As certain as I am the observer sitting in this chair. Why, how is it that you come to know about things?
Click to expand...

Why don't you answer Tricky's question instead:

"For that, you have evidence, as do we. It is not 100% certain, but since we know how the forum works, it pretty strong evidence. Now, the part where you are "certain there was something before the big bang". Can you give us some strong evidence for that? How about weak evidence? How about any evidence?

How do you decide whether or not you are "certain" about a thing, if not by evidence?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom