Being skeptical of skepticism?

[chillzero]

I take it from the ironic smiley that it is not what you said.

If that is the case, then explain what you mean. I can't guess what you mean, and I certainly can't read your mind.

You don't need to read my mind. Just the words that are there.

 

[CFLarsen]

Get used to that emoticon, socialists. Unless you learn to respect the rights of others and be skeptical of government force, you will have cause to be using it a lot in the future!

Do you really think that argument is persuasive?

 

[CFLarsen]

You don't need to read my mind. Just the words that are there.

If you won't explain it, then we won't understand.

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

Yep: It cuts both ways - woos and skeptics alike.

 

[chillzero]

If you won't explain it, then we won't understand.

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

Yep: It cuts both ways - woos and skeptics alike.

Well, as a skeptic I'm open to the possibility I am wrong, or worded my posts poorly.

As a regular forum member, however, I'll wait until anyone else indicates there is an issue with the plain english words I wrote, before I revisit it.

 

[IXP]

Somebody didn't pay a few billion in bribes?

Assuming you actually believe that this is the way drugs get FDA approval, can you honestly say that your anarcho-capitalist system would improve upon it? You would have to believe that for-profit entities, with no legal consequences for taking bribes, would be less likely to do so than a government agency with its required transparency and accountablity. Get real.

IXP

 

[Mashuna]

If you won't explain it, then we won't understand.

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

Yep: It cuts both ways - woos and skeptics alike.

Hey, enough with the we talk!

 

[Alex Libman]

Do you really think that argument is persuasive?

To be persuasive I would have to dumb things down quite a bit, and that doesn't interest me. I'm here to express myself for my own amusement, within the framework of my own personal integrity, but not necessarily to make any converts. (Though I do from time to time.)

It takes years of study to understand AnCap philosophy. I don't expect anyone to be converted just because I save them a Google search or two...

Assuming you actually believe that this is the way drugs get FDA approval,

Are you saying it currently doesn't cost anything to bring a product past the government red tape to market? It does, in fact, take years and costs millions, in some cases billions of dollars.

can you honestly say that your anarcho-capitalist system would improve upon it?

Of course, without government how can there be red tape?

You would have to believe that for profit entities, with no legal consequences for taking bribes, would be less likely to do so than a government agency with its required transparency and accountablity.

Duhh, absolutely! In a free market, a company has to convince people to buy their products or services. This includes individual medical professionals offering their opinion, various review publications, certification authorities, insurance companies, etc. If a free-market entity tries to sell BS, its reputation will be ruined. That can never happen to a monolithic government agency because it's backed up by force.

 

[Tricky]

Get used to that emoticon, socialists. Unless you learn to respect the rights of others and be skeptical of government force, you will have cause to be using it a lot in the future!

How do you do it, Alex? When faced with two or more mutually exclusive possibilities, how do you decide which one is correct? Do you go with your "gut feeling", or do you try to find out which is better supported by evidence?

 

[Alex Libman]

For me the two are inter-related.

 

[drkitten]

Are you saying it currently doesn't cost anything to bring a product past the government red tape to market? It does, in fact, take years and costs millions, in some cases billions of dollars.

But not as "bribes." The years and costs are R&D. The usual reason that a drug fails to be approved is not due to lack of drugs, but due to lack of provable safety and efficacy.

Usually, in fact, because a drug is provably unsafe and/or ineffective.

Of course, without government how can there be red tape?

Red tape can be a good thing, if the alternative is people selling poisonous snake oil out of the back of their unlicensed and dangerous cars.

 

[drkitten]

How do you do it, Alex? When faced with two or more mutually exclusive possibilities, how do you decide which one is correct? Do you go with your "gut feeling", or do you try to find out which is better supported by evidence?

To an anarcho-capitalist, "gut feeling" is evidence.

Mainly because there is no other source of support for anarcho-capitalism. It cannot be supported historically, it cannot be supported empirically, it cannot be supported via economic theory, and it cannot be supported philosophically. It can't even be supported by reference to plausible imaginary worlds, although Rand tried --- but the sheer implausibility of the world she had to create in order to make anarcho-capitalism viable proves in and of itself that anarcho-capitalism is completely without merit.

 

[drkitten]

To be persuasive I would have to dumb things down quite a bit, and that doesn't interest me.

To be persuasive, you would need to be supportable by any sort of evidence whatsoever.

It doesn't take "years of study" to understand AnCap; it takes about ten minutes, after which the utter vacuity is apparent. It takes "years of study" before cognitive dissonance sets in and you force yourself to believe it to justify your wasted effort.

 

[tyr_13]

Let me stop you right there. I never said I was that someone.

Alright, easy fix. Just replace the specific 'you' in my post and replace it with the general, 'one'. Then address my points maybe? I mean, not using 'you' and 'one' completely correct doesn't invalidate my points does it?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, as a skeptic I'm open to the possibility I am wrong, or worded my posts poorly.

As a regular forum member, however

Just a moment. Why do you bring that up, all of a sudden? Were you posting as a forum moderator?

, I'll wait until anyone else indicates there is an issue with the plain english words I wrote, before I revisit it.

Or, as a regular forum member, you could explain what you mean, since your posts clearly are worded in a manner that isn't understood.

To be persuasive I would have to dumb things down quite a bit, and that doesn't interest me. I'm here to express myself for my own amusement, within the framework of my own personal integrity, but not necessarily to make any converts. (Though I do from time to time.)

In that case, you are not interested at all to explain your position. You merely want to claim that your critics don't understand you. You lay all the blame on your critics. Poor saps, eh?

If you won't explain it, then we won't understand.

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

Yep...cuts both ways...

It takes years of study to understand AnCap philosophy. I don't expect anyone to be converted just because I save them a Google search or two...

Really? Did you study "AnCap philosophy" for years before you understood it?

 

[chillzero]

Just a moment. Why do you bring that up, all of a sudden? Were you posting as a forum moderator?

No. I never said I was. Do you see any mod boxes up there?

I post on this forum on a regular basis, so I see how certain members like to respond obtusely ... regularly.

Or, as a regular forum member, you could explain what you mean, since your posts clearly are worded in a manner that isn't understood.

I don't think I need to. You seem to be the only one with an issue - but as I said, if anyone else indicates they are confused, I'll revisit why that might be. For you - nah.

Here, try this:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/skeptical-of-skepticism.php

John supports what I said:

In fact, skepticism is not a single concept, it is a way of thinking that includes many components - it is actually a method of inquiry (see: What is Skepticism?).
Whenever a word has more than one meaning, there’s always the possibility of making a fallacy of equivocation and that is what is happening with the question “are you skeptical of skepticism?” When people use this question they intend it to mean “are you doubtful of your system of doubt?” but when it’s applied to scientific skepticism, what they’re actually asking is “are you doubtful of your method of inquiry?” - in other words, do you or can you question your method of inquiry?

 

[CFLarsen]

No. I never said I was. Do you see any mod boxes up there?

Since when did that prevent a mod from speaking as a mod?

I post on this forum on a regular basis, so I see how certain members like to respond obtusely ... regularly.

You are the one bringing up member status as a factor when participating in this debate. If you didn't want to draw attention to that, you shouldn't bring it up.

I don't think I need to. You seem to be the only one with an issue - but as I said, if anyone else indicates they are confused, I'll revisit why that might be. For you - nah.

Why on Earth do you need a larger audience - especially when you are addressing a specific member's posts?

That is just a form of appeal to popularity: You can't be bothered to explain, unless you have a large audience.

Which is pure bollocks. You do have a large audience - so go right ahead, and explain what you mean.

Here, try this:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/skeptical-of-skepticism.php

John supports what I said:

That just reiterates the claim that you should be skeptical of skepticism. Not how.

Can you explain how?

 

[chillzero]

Since when did that prevent a mod from speaking as a mod?

You can take this off topic derail to Forum Mgt.

You are the one bringing up member status as a factor when participating in this debate.

No, I am not. Try reading it again, slowly. I never referred to status, mod or otherwise, and clarified your misunderstanding already for you.

If you didn't want to draw attention to that, you shouldn't bring it up.

Try reading it again slowly.

Why on Earth do you need a larger audience - especially when you are addressing a specific member's posts?

I'm participating in a public discussion in a public thread. If I wanted to subject myself to your ... wit... as an individual, I'd use PMs.

That is just a form of appeal to popularity: You can't be bothered to explain, unless you have a large audience.

Not at all. I just don't see the point of jumping through hoops for you. So far, you're the only one complaining that you don't understand. Mashuna has already pointed out that you don't speak for everyone else.

Which is pure bollocks. You do have a large audience - so go right ahead, and explain what you mean.

Make your mind up - large audience, or just responding to you? In any case... I've already stated my position, and would prefer to get back to discussing the topic than continually deal with your whining about stuff you claim not to understand. If you don't understand something, maybe just once you should go back and re-read it, instead of repeatedly accusing others of not being clear.

That just reiterates the claim that you should be skeptical of skepticism. Not how.

Can you explain how?

That shouldn't be hard to work out, and in fact the answer is implicit in the final sentence I quoted:

do you or can you question your method of inquiry?

Skepticism - question things - even your own method of decision making.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can take this off topic derail to Forum Mgt.

And you are speaking as a mod now?

Obviously she wasn't, Claus, because there was NO MOD BOX - like the one you see HERE. I am, however, speaking as a moderator - if you wish to discuss Forum Management issues, take it to FM. In the meantime, stop derailing this thread with remarks about moderation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

No, I am not. Try reading it again, slowly. I never referred to status, mod or otherwise, and clarified your misunderstanding already for you.

Try reading it again slowly.

No, you clearly said that you spoke as a regular member. Not as someone speaking on a regular basis.

I'm participating in a public discussion in a public thread. If I wanted to subject myself to your ... wit... as an individual, I'd use PMs.

In which case, you can explain what you meant.

Not at all. I just don't see the point of jumping through hoops for you. So far, you're the only one complaining that you don't understand. Mashuna has already pointed out that you don't speak for everyone else.

I am not asking you to jump through hoops. Just to explain what you meant.

Make your mind up - large audience, or just responding to you? In any case... I've already stated my position, and would prefer to get back to discussing the topic than continually deal with your whining about stuff you claim not to understand. If you don't understand something, maybe just once you should go back and re-read it, instead of repeatedly accusing others of not being clear.

This thread is about whether one can be skeptical about skepticism. Discuss that.

That shouldn't be hard to work out, and in fact the answer is implicit in the final sentence I quoted:

Skepticism - question things - even your own method of decision making.

Again, that just reiterates that you should be skeptical of your own skepticsm. It doesn't explain how.

 

[chillzero]

I'm only going to deal with on topic material here. (Before you ask again, any member can see and point out when something is off topic.)

I am not asking you to jump through hoops. Just to explain what you meant.

And I've said I don't believe I need to. It's not a difficult concept, and if you don't understand it, you should maybe take some more time to review it, and try to take it in.
No-one else seems to be having a problem following it. If they are, I'll revisit. I'm not repeating that any more.

This thread is about whether one can be skeptical about skepticism. Discuss that.


Again, that just reiterates that you should be skeptical of your own skepticsm. It doesn't explain how.

By questioning and examining how you come to conclusions. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? The act of questioning and examining anything is not a that, it's an action, and therefore a how. Honestly - it's really that simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

And I've said I don't believe I need to. It's not a difficult concept, and if you don't understand it, you should maybe take some more time to review it, and try to take it in.
No-one else seems to be having a problem following it. If they are, I'll revisit. I'm not repeating that any more.

Appeal to popularity.

By questioning and examining how you come to conclusions. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? The act of questioning and examining anything is not a that, it's an action, and therefore a how. Honestly - it's really that simple.

How do you question and examine skepticism itself?