SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
After looking at other threads in the conspiracy forum, I like to present two questions:
1) Has skepticism about the conspiracy theories reached the level of cynicism?
2) To what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true?
For reference of the definitions:
The dictionary:
Cynical
Cynic
Skeptical
Skeptic
Now, which one do you feel applies? I think after 6 years, everyone already made up his/her mind in many cases, based on previous experience, background knowledge, personal reasons and scientific review. Some of the conclusions are detailed and well founded some are based on a general perception and everything in between. I agree that it may be very frustrating to hear twoofers speak, but we give them a chance anyway. That is amendable but to what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true.
The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it. True skeptics are in some way, to some level, really fence sitters in my opinion, as opposed to a true cynic. The million dollar challenge is a good example of this. Up to this day no one has yet presented convincing evidence of the paranormal or homeopathy to be true… but if they could, it would certainly be worth a million dollars. I personally don’t believe they can, but I feel that doesn’t make me a cynic yet as long as I am able to doubt myself.
I often look back and find out that I have changed my mind, found a new perspective. I tend to regard a change of mind under the guide of a skeptic point of view amendable, rather than a sign of weakness. Similarly, gaining insight by losing a well argued point to a skeptic is really progress rather than a loss. I do not expect a conspiracy theorist to “admit defeat” neither would they expect it from me, but rather to remain honest about what he believes to be true and either change his mind in the face of evidence or at least consider the evidence before making up his mind. This also works the other way around.
This is just my opinion,
SYL
PS. I am looking for the opinion of the forum rather than another animated debate. I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts. Lists of links to websites and short provoking questions to the original poster do not fall under that category. Answer the two questions in your own words presenting your own opinion, any position is acceptable. Do not attack other members in the thread, but of course feel free to respond to the arguments. I have added my opinion to anticipate the expected questions.
Good luck
1) Has skepticism about the conspiracy theories reached the level of cynicism?
2) To what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true?
For reference of the definitions:
The dictionary:
Cynical
Cynic
Skeptical
Skeptic
Now, which one do you feel applies? I think after 6 years, everyone already made up his/her mind in many cases, based on previous experience, background knowledge, personal reasons and scientific review. Some of the conclusions are detailed and well founded some are based on a general perception and everything in between. I agree that it may be very frustrating to hear twoofers speak, but we give them a chance anyway. That is amendable but to what extent are we still skeptics and where do we start becoming missionaries for what we perceive to be true.
The obvious question is how many chances we should give to a conspiracy theory. Based on the definitions presented above, I would say at least one until it has been disproven beyond any doubt… regardless of the person presenting it. True skeptics are in some way, to some level, really fence sitters in my opinion, as opposed to a true cynic. The million dollar challenge is a good example of this. Up to this day no one has yet presented convincing evidence of the paranormal or homeopathy to be true… but if they could, it would certainly be worth a million dollars. I personally don’t believe they can, but I feel that doesn’t make me a cynic yet as long as I am able to doubt myself.
I often look back and find out that I have changed my mind, found a new perspective. I tend to regard a change of mind under the guide of a skeptic point of view amendable, rather than a sign of weakness. Similarly, gaining insight by losing a well argued point to a skeptic is really progress rather than a loss. I do not expect a conspiracy theorist to “admit defeat” neither would they expect it from me, but rather to remain honest about what he believes to be true and either change his mind in the face of evidence or at least consider the evidence before making up his mind. This also works the other way around.
This is just my opinion,
SYL
PS. I am looking for the opinion of the forum rather than another animated debate. I am looking for well written civil responses only (400-1000 words) that can stand on their own without direct reference to the OP or other posts. Lists of links to websites and short provoking questions to the original poster do not fall under that category. Answer the two questions in your own words presenting your own opinion, any position is acceptable. Do not attack other members in the thread, but of course feel free to respond to the arguments. I have added my opinion to anticipate the expected questions.
Good luck
