Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Taffer]

What a silly question. There are loads of things we accept without personally examining the evidence: we accept the evidence presented by others whom we presume to know more about the subject than ourselves.

Some examples: I would accept Randi's word about how a particular illusion could be performed without testing it myself. If Phil Plait tells me the angle of Mercury's orbit from the plane of the ecliptic I won't go find an ephemeris to check him. If my buddy Stan the chemist tells me that hydronium consists of a hydrogen ion and a proton, I will take his word for it (in fact, he told me that very thing last week.)

The issue is, WHOSE evidence do you accept and whose do you delve further into and verify for yourself? Or phrased differently, what criteria do you use for deciding what evidence to accept? Skeptics, like scientists, go with evidence that is replicatable, and we like stuff that has passed peer review. Other folks prefer to go with authority vested in certain individuals.

Now to these "other folks", my examples above might look like I'm putting faith in various people just because I like and respect them. That's true, but that's not why I believe them: it's because I know they have worked for years in the fields they are talking about, and that what they know has been subject to practical testing all during that time, and that it has held up (other than that Phil may not have been asked about Mercury's orbital angle for a long time). I trust the experience I know they have, and therefore I don't feel a requirement to go gather the same experience myself.

Good. Just making sure.

Seriously though, I thought you were making another point entirely.

 

[Taffer]

Ultimately, it will fail as such in a similar way that communism failed as a form of central government, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

You have some reason to suppose this, I assume?

 

[Taffer]

It is belief. You have presented your reasons for believing certain people, but it is belief nonetheless.

And that is one of my ideological problems with how many people present skepticism;

at some point, you must have faith and believe, or you run the risk of ideological zeal.

Yes, so?

 

[Taffer]

He's into religion just like everybody else. He just has a different god.

Look at his avatar. His god is portrayed there.

What an ignorant thing to say. Do you have reason to suspect he is a satanist? Does it matter if he is? Perhaps your personal feelings are clouding your vision?

 

[Taffer]

To justify your general disdain for religion, I would say you folks have pretty much turned it into a strawman.

Show where we have done this, Iacchus.

 

[Iacchus]

Wonderful! Now, tell us how it is that you are able to know things outside the time and space constraints of our universe!

Is it the dreams and numerology again?

Do you believe it's possible to be certain of anything? This, in fact, is the key.

 

[Taffer]

It's sad to say, that those who are advocates of "empirical proof" do the same thing.

How do we do this, Iacchus?

 

[Taffer]

Maybe that's because you are only considering what is in your own mind, and have no consideration for what others think, why they think it, and how they think?

Another baseless assertion. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that your statement is anything but a fictitious lie.

 

[Taffer]

No. I'm offering it up for you to fit it, and grant "proof" of it's accuracy.

You're fitting right in.

No, you're making an assertion, providing no evidence, then claiming victory.

 

[Taffer]

Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't.

It's really that simple.

Can't prove a negative, Huntster. Nor should you. Try again.

 

[Taffer]

So, would either of you agree that time and space originated from another dimension? Or, do you believe it has no origin? If it has an origin, then obviously it must have originated from some place other than time and space.

Time and space originated from a singularity. Before time and space there was nothing to be a "place" for something to be, Iacchus.

 

[Taffer]

Do you deny that these (or any) conditions existed?

Yes.

Or rather, impossible to know. So essentially Yes. There is no "before" the big bang. There is no "before" time. Do you understand?

 

[Taffer]

Do you believe it's possible to be certain of anything? This, in fact, is the key.

You didn't answer his question.

 

[Jekyll]

Now THAT is a word I could learn to love!

Bah ha! I defy you sKeptics and your reDUCtionist spelling!!!

*Quitely goes to find spellchecker for firefox*

 

[Belz...]

Do you believe it's possible to be certain of anything? This, in fact, is the key.

So you DON'T know.

 

[Genesius]

Do you believe it's possible to be certain of anything? This, in fact, is the key.

Yes, it is possible.

If I hold a brick in my hand and let go, I am certain it will drop to the floor.

 

[Tricky]

Do you believe it's possible to be certain of anything? This, in fact, is the key.

No, that is not, in fact, the key. Even if it is impossible to know anything other than tautologies with 100% certainty, it is quite possible to gain evidence for a large number of things. In order for something to be worthy of belief, there must be some evidence, or else it would be impossible to know if your belief was based on truth. (Although others may differ, I prefer my beliefs to be based on truth.)

For all real things, it is at least conditionally possible to gain evidence of them. This is not the case with the scenario you have described. The fact that you are incorrect, and in fact cannot possibly be correct in this is one of those rare 100% certainties, because to say one cannot have evidence before evidence exists is a tautology.

You are, quite simply, wrong.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, it is possible.

If I hold a brick in my hand and let go, I am certain it will drop to the floor.

Nope. Not quite certain. Some member of the Floor Preservation Society might run in and catch the brick. Or a strong wind could blow a piece of furniture between the brick and the floor. Or the earth could be vaporized between the instant when you let go of the brick and the instant when the brick hit the floor. Call it instead, a very strong likelihood that the brick will hit the floor. (Assuming you are standing on the floor. )

Actually, this reminds me of one of my favorite bar bets. The bet is "I can throw this olive within one tenth of one inch of the ceiling, and yet be certain that it won't hit the ceiling." If someone takes the bet, you simply wrap the olive in a cocktail napkin and throw it hard at the ceiling. The less-than-one-tenth-inch-thick napkin hits the ceiling, but not the olive.

 

[Huntster]

What an ignorant thing to say. Do you have reason to suspect he is a satanist?

Other than the fact that he lists his location as "the 4th level of hell", and the appearrance of his avatar, and that he is clearly a God-hater, or God-denialist, no.

...Does it matter if he is?...

Only in that if he is, he would be a hypocritical satanist, in that satanism is a religion, and that would make him a "woo", wouldn't it?

....Perhaps your personal feelings are clouding your vision...

Perhaps.

And perhaps not.

 

[Genesius]

Nope. Not quite certain. Some member of the Floor Preservation Society might run in and catch the brick. Or a strong wind could blow a piece of furniture between the brick and the floor. Or the earth could be vaporized between the instant when you let go of the brick and the instant when the brick hit the floor. Call it instead, a very strong likelihood that the brick will hit the floor. (Assuming you are standing on the floor. )

mumblegrumblepicayunesmart-alecks

I shall have to petition the mods to change your name from "Tricky" to "Picky"