At what point does Skepticism become cruel?

[ImaginalDisc]

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

I woulnd't do anything. Now, if there was a guy hanging around the cemetary offering to channel the souls of the loved ones that people are speaking to, I'd debunk that charlatan before you can say "Bob's your uncle."

 

[Axenos]

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

After some thought, I believe I do condone "comforting lies", but only in the case that the person would not really comprehend what one may consider the truth.

I am somewhat grey in this area, meaning that the cases in which I might condone it are narrowly specific, using my own personal criteria. Others I am sure will feel differently.

I am a realist, make no mistake, but I am tempered by a compassion for those who are not able to perhaps fully understand an intelligent argument.
That is not to say, as some have surmised, that I feel people are stupid, it's just that I am aware of the limitations of my fellow man... myself included.

It's a somewhat grey, foggy area...

Regards,

Axe

 

[brettDbass]

Or, Stella, perhaps Downs affects some people by making their expressions of emotion much stronger?

Have you ever seen an angry sufferer of Downs Syndrome? It can be quite scary.

 

[Stellafane]

My thoughts exactly!

Well, bully for you...

 

[Stellafane]

Or, Stella, perhaps Downs affects some people by making their expressions of emotion much stronger?

Have you ever seen an angry sufferer of Downs Syndrome? It can be quite scary.

Perhaps. All I can say is that I've never been as obviously happy and joyful as this woman appeared to me. Nor can I recall seeing that level of delight in other people I know.

I'm wishing now I never used this example. What a way to inadvertantly derail an interesting thread...

 

[brettDbass]

It's still an interesting topic of discussion though.

 

[c0rbin]

If I may, "cruel" is not the right word, I don't think, for what you are trying to say.

Many here do cross a line into ad hom, maybe not enough restraint or patience even for those "believers" or "woos" who are themselves woefully stupid or poor at articulating or arguing their point.

I think there is an eagerness to "do battle" with the "opposition" that pulls some of us skeptics across that line.

Skepticism itself cannot be cruel for it seeks the truth. In the great scheme of things, it is far more mature of us as a species to face the truth.

I do not have the same anti-religion and anti-spiritualism that some here have. I think people, in the long run, get what they pay for and it is their right to do so in this country.

Edit to add: I believe the word you are looking for is "buzz-kill."

 

[Rasmus]

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one?

Nothing.

Most of all, what I wouldn't do would be assuming that that person would think whoever was burried there could still hear them. there is a difference between "talking to the dead" and "talking next to a tombstone".

I have no way of knowing this, but my guess is that most people are aware of the difference, even the majority of the people that do occasionally talk next to a tombstone.

Be that as it may, I reject the notion that being a sceptic means one should also be a tactless #*$%#*&. In most situation, however, the woos volunteer their opinions, and i think it's fair game to answer truthfully if directly approached.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So are some people here actually saying they never let any woo statements go? Don't get me wrong - if someone starts insisting that there's life after death or water can cure cancer, I'd be asking them to explain their position and confronting them with evidence to the contrary.

Most people haven't got financial or political motives when they express what they believe. These things just help them along day to day. Most of the woo people buy into does something for them, or else they wouldn't believe it.

Everyone has some distorted and incorrect ideas because sometimes you just have to wing it - you can't know everything you need to know all the time.

I think the arguments some people here get into are more likely motivated by their need to right rather than helping the deluded people see reality. Dilbert says it best:

“It’s not how much you know, it’s who knows less than you that counts”

As for the person talking by the tombstone, as others have said, I don’t know anything more about them and it is none of my business anyway so I’ll keep my ideas to myself.

 

[opqdan]

From Edmond Way Teale, by way of Carl Sagan
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have it"

Not sure if I agree completely (I think it is far more gray than he makes it seem), but food for thought.

 

[Beady]

I don't do anything. Why should I do anything?

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth? After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth? Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion? Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

 

[Beady]

Most people haven't got financial or political motives when they express what they believe.

True, but a great many people do have egotistical motives when expressing their beliefs. I have perhaps as much of a problem with them as I do with the profiteers and politicians. More of a problem, perhaps, since I have more personal experience with them.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth? After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth? Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion? Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

Whoa, not so fast. There's a hell of a difference between someone talking to their dearly departed, and someone who claims to be able to talk with the dearly departed of someone else.

Do the people at cemetaries really believe that they are talking, as in holding a conversation? Doubtful. What they are doing is pouring their heart out to one they are missing.

Like Penn said on "Bulls**t": It's easy to talk to the dead. The trick is to get them to talk back.

 

[Tanstaafl]

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

I think it would be extremely inapropriate to say anything in that case. I myself have talked to my mother's tombstone. I know no one is there and she doesn't hear me. It's just a tool to focus my thoughts on her. It seems to me it would be hard to tell the difference between that and someone who really believes they are being heard. And I think it would be rude and presumptuous to jump in and say something.

But I think I understand the urge to do so. I think such delusions are sad, but I can't imagine trying to correct someone on them.


Argh! Rasmus beat me to this thought! Sorry for not reading to the end before posting.

 

[Rasmus]

Do you mean you don't insist on telling them the truth?

In my case, that's just what it means.

After all, as you said, "Telling people that they can talk to their dead loved ones is - as far as we know, of course - a lie."

You would never hear me utter such outrageous nonsense.

What is the substantive difference between telling a lie and omitting to tell the truth?

The key factor here is: Was I asked to voice my opinion?

If I accepted your version of what it means to "omit a truth" I would spend most of my time talking about frogs. I have no intention of doing that, though.

I am only omitting a truth if I do tell things on either side of the truth and create the impression that there was nothing else in the middle. In the scene on the graveyard, I am just being quiet. And, again, I don't even know what the person thinks that is doing the talking.

Isn't walking away (my words) or not doing anything (your words) the same as allowing them to continue in their delusion?

In that situation, I would not know what their alleged delusions are. Also, by approaching them in that situation, I would find myself violating a lot of other things that are important, such as their right to privacy.

I see nothing wrong with approaching that person and finding about their believes and possibly addressing their delusions should it turn out they have any. All I need now is a way of doing that without also stalking them.

I suspect there might be away that would respect their privacy, but I dount it'd be worth my efforts, really.

Don't we owe it to them, ourselves and the world at large to actively profess The Truth (tm) at every opportunity?

No.

 

[tkingdoll]

From Edmond Way Teale, by way of Carl Sagan
"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have it"

Not sure if I agree completely (I think it is far more gray than he makes it seem), but food for thought.

That's exactly the point though! Many many people do not care how they get their money! We can take the moral high ground all we want, but if we say that our ideal of what is moral should be mandatory for all society, we are no better than a religion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

On a slightly related subject, no sceptic should use any phase that implies Freud theories are correct. To do so would be lying to the public.

As far as I know most are not falsifiable and those that have been tested have been shown to be false! Therefore anyone referring to his theories by using constructs such as ego are on shaky ground to say the least.

Not that anyone here would have any wrong ideas about Freuds theories

Beady:

True, but a great many people do have egotistical motives when expressing their beliefs. I have perhaps as much of a problem with them as I do with the profiteers and politicians. More of a problem, perhaps, since I have more personal experience with them.

I'm not picking on you - I've seen it a lot on threads and am amazed nobody has commented on it before.

 

[aggle-rithm]

On a slightly related subject, no sceptic should use any phase that implies Freud theories are correct. To do so would be lying to the public.

As far as I know most are not falsifiable and those that have been tested have been shown to be false! Therefore anyone referring to his theories by using constructs such as ego are on shaky ground to say the least.

Not that anyone here would have any wrong ideas about Freuds theories

Beady:


I'm not picking on you - I've seen it a lot on threads and am amazed nobody has commented on it before.

"Ego" is just Latin for "I". The actual word Freud used was "Ich". It was the translators that turned it into "ego".

 

[AmateurScientist]

Don't people want "facts" though? It's uncertainty that's scary.

You are right. I provide advice and counsel in my job, and quite often the truthful answer to a question posed to me is along the lines of "I don't know and cannot know. All I can give you is an educated guess."

This is often enormously frustrating for my clients, and some of them grow angry with me because of it. No offense, but as a category I find that it is my engineer clients who often find such a response unacceptable. Many of them seem to have a compulsive need to have some degree of certainty. In fact, this often gets asked as "What are my chances [of success]?"

The truth is that in law, which is what I do, much of the professional advice is guesswork. Clients often want guarantees. Sorry, but I can't do those. Neither can I assess a set of odds as to anyone's chances to any mathematical degree. I can give my subjective, gut-level opinion, but that's all it is.

I know a colleague who always answers the chances question with "50-50. You could win, or you could lose." I think that's a little cynical and dismissive, but he's got a point.

AS

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You are right. I provide advice and counsel in my job, and quite often the truthful answer to a question posed to me is along the lines of "I don't know and cannot know. All I can give you is an educated guess."

This is often enormously frustrating for my clients, and some of them grow angry with me because of it. No offense, but as a category I find that it is my engineer clients who often find such a response unacceptable. Many of them seem to have a compulsive need to have some degree of certainty. In fact, this often gets asked as "What are my chances [of success]?"

The truth is that in law, which is what I do, much of the professional advice is guesswork. Clients often want guarantees. Sorry, but I can't do those. Neither can I assess a set of odds as to anyone's chances to any mathematical degree. I can give my subjective, gut-level opinion, but that's all it is.

I know a colleague who always answers the chances question with "50-50. You could win, or you could lose." I think that's a little cynical and dismissive, but he's got a point.

AS

Well, you're an expert going off of your experiance in the field. If I asked a lawyer, "What are my chances that I'll be sucessfully sued for negligence if I don't do X, Y, and Z?" and the lawyer says, "I can't give you any precise figures, but in my professional judgement, you'd be taking on a large risk of a costly legal battle and a small risk of a huge financial loss." that would be good enough for me.

When someone answers a difficult question to the best of their ability, that ain't the same a lie.