• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Kumar

Unregistered
Joined
Oct 13, 2003
Messages
14,259
Hello all,

Since there are lot of discussions going on in this forum on these issues, I just thought to contribue/contradict/do something. Let us first know differant definitions;

Skeptic; an adherent or advocate of skepticism.<"The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found":"Nature confuses the skeptics and reason confutes the dogmatists">

Skepticism; 1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonym: UNCERTAINTY concern, doubt, dubiety, dubiosity, incertitude, mistrust, suspicion, uncertitude, wonder

Antonyms: gullibility

Gullible; easily duped or cheated: Synonyms; EASY fleeceable, naive, susceptible.

Believer; a supporter who accepts something as true: One who believes; one who is persuaded of the truth or reality of some doctrine, person, or thing.

Belief; The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Believe; to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>:to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>:to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>:to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you>.

Placebo Effect; any effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo; the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental drug was supposed to do; pharmacologists were the first to talk about placebo effects but now the idea has been generalized to many situations having nothing to do with drugs: Self healing effects: Effects By one's will power, self/specific thoughts.

Blind faith; A popular definition of faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."1 , this is what people commonly call blind faith, however that is not biblical faith. A better definition is "The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faithBlind faith or faith based on eyewitness testimony
=================================

Now you can judge very well that who is who. I think a skeptic can be believer provided he is satisfied but he can't be a "Gullible". Accordingly, a 'believer' can be a 'skeptic' but should not be a "Gullible". What about a "Gullible"???:)

Are we discussing here about a Skeptic, Believer or Gullible?

When a skeptic believes, he will be a true believer & so will/can get more "specific belief effects" so more specific placebo effect than a blind believer who may just get some common placebo efftect. On other side, when a believer disbelieve or found a belief otherwise, he can be more skeptic. What about a Gullible?

[/b]Best Wishes.[/b]

eddited to add & correct to enhance meanings.

P.S. I don't understand how I am getting post afer ====in italic words.
 
The definitions given disprove, rather than lead to, your conclusions.

"An attitude of doubt ... toward a particular object" and "something believed or accepted as true" are opposites of each other.

So are "doubt concerning basic religious principles" and "to have a firm religious faith".

There. I have just taken fifty-eight words to say what PixyMisa said in one.
 
Beleth said:
The definitions given disprove, rather than lead to, your conclusions.

"An attitude of doubt ... toward a particular object" and "something believed or accepted as true" are opposites of each other.

So are "doubt concerning basic religious principles" and "to have a firm religious faith".

There. I have just taken fifty-eight words to say what PixyMisa said in one.

These are not opposite. You can't say that a skeptic don't believe in anything. But he just want to believe in style based on his beliefs & choices. Few skeptic can believe after getting some evidances by himself personally OR by scientists of his belief/choice OR by eve-witnesses of his accepted authorities OR by observations & experiances of his community/liked/believed people. Some other skeptics can believe in mass & well distributed observations & experiances but other may not. Some can believe in 'conventional systems' whereas others in traditional/alternative systems. Some may believe in few concepts of any religion/any system but may not believe in everything whereas other may not believe in anything of this religion/system--but still believe in their religion/system.

Some may believe in Homeopathy & other systems as blind faith, on observations & experiances (by others/its community or by himself personally) or part of it(as few remedies/TRs/molecular remedies of low potencies only) whereas some other can believe upto E=mc^2 as presence of effects of active substances. In opposite to it, many people may not believe in anything of it.

It can just depend on personal choice based on What is learned, taught, induced, made conventional , observed, experianced etc.etc. Any person who don't believe straight away or don't keep blind faith or doubt to be sure as per his requirements--can be thought as skeptic. But few things can common, He doubts, He doubts in specifics, He don't accept straightaway, He want to believe in complete as per his choice & knowledge-- in logic, in sciences, in the speceific observations & experiances of his choice AND on the top 'He is not Gullible.

As Darat has indicated that "According to some people you are, according to others you aren't but on both sides people are only expressing their opinions. (Unless there has been an international standards body that has agreed what a “sceptic” is and I wasn't informed.)"---so there is no 'universal' definition of skeptic & so One can be skeptic specifically.
 
These words just SO suit Kumar...

`JUST the place for a Snark!' the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

`Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.'


The Hunting of the Snark, Fit The First - Lewis Carroll
 
Kumar,

Stop dabbling in semantics. It isn't going to help you show the validity of homeopathy. Only scientific evidence can do so.

Kumar said:
eddited to add & correct to enhance meanings.

Enhance meanings!!!??? :eek: :eek: Are you on LSD or something?
 
Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Vikram said:
Kumar,

Stop dabbling in semantics. It isn't going to help you show the validity of homeopathy. Only scientific evidence can do so.


Yuu mean scientific evidence for science or to help science. Anyway, it is not for homeopathic validity because it is not the need & in the interest of homeopahic community, but It was just an example as also given in other thread by others.

Enhance meanings!!!??? :eek: :eek: Are you on LSD or something?

No, I don't take. But you may not understand the logic & enhancement behind it due to preconvinced ideas.
 
Re: Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Kumar said:
Yuu mean scientific evidence for science or to help science. Anyway, it is not for homeopathic validity because it is not the need & in the interest of homeopahic community, but It was just an example as also given in other thread by others.
For once, you've said something I can agree with! Looking at the evidence is most certainly "not ... in the interest of homeopathic community."
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Mojo said:
For once, you've said something I can agree with! Looking at the evidence is most certainly "not ... in the interest of homeopathic community."

Yes, people can afraid from hijecking & coverting old same remedies to new medicines in new bottles with their labels/patents as evident in some 'other healing substances' due to its prominance, money power, govt. support, attuned prefered/conventional system...etc.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Kumar said:
Yes, people can afraid from hijecking & coverting old same remedies to new medicines in new bottles with their labels/patents as evident in some 'other healing substances' due to its prominance, money power, govt. support, attuned prefered/conventional system...etc.
Translation, anyone?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Kumar said:
Yes, people can afraid from hijecking & coverting old same remedies to new medicines in new bottles with their labels/patents as evident in some 'other healing substances' due to its prominance, money power, govt. support, attuned prefered/conventional system...etc.

Translation: Homeopaths fear pharmacies stealing their magic and using it for evil purposes.
 
Yes, people can afraid from hijecking & coverting old same remedies to new medicines in new bottles with their labels/patents as evident in some 'other healing substances' due to its prominance, money power, govt. support, attuned prefered/conventional system...etc.

Yes, people should be afraid. Pharmisutical companies often hijack/reuse "old" medications. All they do is repackage and repatent the product, this is evident in allopathic medicine-where money, power, government support, and a preferance to the current health care come into play.

I think I got that.

Kumar, could you conferm this?

ETA: I type to slow. Dangerous gots it.
 
Can't this happen on getting scientific proofs of its working? Someone on this forum said something like it that Modern system remain in search of new possibilities so they don't discourage......somewhat like it. What does it meant for?
 
Kumar said:
Can't this happen on getting scientific proofs of its working? Someone on this forum said something like it that Modern system remain in search of new possibilities so they don't discourage......somewhat like it. What does it meant for?
Kumar, there is no evidence that homeopathy works. All evidence points to it not working. There is no reason to think that DBPC studies somehow don't apply to homeopathy. Anyone reasonable would have been discouraged decades ago.
 
Re: Re: Re: Can Skeptics be Believers & opposite?

Kumar said:
But you may not understand the logic & enhancement behind it due to preconvinced ideas.

Of course, your constant insistence on the validity of homeopathy is the absence of any evidence whatsoever is nowhere near "preconvinced ideas", is it?

Saints save us!
 
Homeopathic current status is well know & well discussed here & it is not the 'new subject' of today. Let us therefore wait till it is proved or till dies in itself--if fake. We may therefore avoid wasting of our time in just 'yes & no' but can utilze it in knowing something new.

To the topic subject, whether skeptics are any kind of beliver or not?
 

Back
Top Bottom