Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[hammegk]

Let me clarify then.

It is best left to professional philosophers.

Sorry. That didn't clarify anything, other than your confusion.

 

[Iacchus]

You must hear those two phrases very often, yes. Doesn't the fact that people keep correcting you for making exactly the same clumsy stupid errors tell you anything?

Perhaps that it's a "collective belief? You know, sort of like religion?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry. That didn't clarify anything, other than your confusion.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps that it's a "collective belief? You know, sort of like religion?

No ... there is evidence that Huntster fights straw men and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Huntster]

You must hear those two phrases very often, yes. Doesn't the fact that people keep correcting you for making exactly the same clumsy stupid errors tell you anything?

No, I don't suppose it does.

It can't, or you wouldn't think that pointing this out was in some way a snappy answer to my post, instead of an embarrassing admission.

How dumb can you get?

Clearly, not as ignorant as you.

You write as if I am the only writer to have those phrases used against him/her.

You are an ideologue in denial, arrogant, and really brave behind that keyboard.

Your avatar label suits you:

"Imaginary Superhero"

 

[Huntster]

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

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

Look at his avatar. His god is portrayed there.

 

[Iacchus]

No ... there is evidence that Huntster fights straw men and attempts to shift the burden of proof.

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

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

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

An interesting observation! If you make a claim the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it. If I require you to prove your claim, how am I creating a strawman? How am I shifting the burden of proof? The burden lies with those making the claim, how am I shifting it?

Was that just another of your meaningless throw away lines?

 

[Iacchus]

An interesting observation! If you make a claim the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it. If I require you to prove your claim, how am I creating a strawman? How am I shifting the burden of proof? The burden lies with those making the claim, how am I shifting it?

Was that just another of your meaningless throw away lines?

Indeed, what good is the empirical proof without "the mind" that ascertains it? Doesn't this tell you something? ... that it is, in fact all in the mind? So, why do you demand proof when somebody claims to see something you don't? Didn't they use to hang people up on crosses for this, being unable to furnish the proof?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Indeed, what good is the empirical proof without "the mind" that ascertains it? Dosn't this tell you something? ... that it is, in fact all in the mind? So, why do you demand empirical proof when somebody claims to see something you don't? Didn't they use to hang people up on crosses for being unable to furnish the proof?

Because, to function, we have to have a consensus. Does it matter if you perceive the color red from how I perceive it, so long as we can agree that what we are perceiving is labeled "red".

Asking for proof/evidence/etc is saying, "Give me something other than your description, that I can agree to perceiving with the same labels as you do."

Regarding the Burning Times; no, they burned them for making claims, or having claims made against them (with or without proof).

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Indeed, what good is the empirical proof without "the mind" that ascertains it? Doesn't this tell you something? ... that it is, in fact all in the mind?

This probably means something to you but it completely escapes me.

So, why do you demand proof when somebody claims to see something you don't? Didn't they use to hang people up on crosses for this very thing, being unable to furnish the proof?

People claim to see things I don't all the time, frankly I couldn't care less. If, however, you expect me to believe your visions you are going to have to prove they exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Because, to function, we have to have a consensus. Does it matter if you perceive the color red from how I perceive it, so long as we can agree that what we are perceiving is labeled "red".

I argee, but since when does having a consensus (religious or otherwise) constitute proof of anything? ... except of course, that there is a consensus.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Iacchus :
Indeed, what good is the empirical proof without "the mind" that ascertains it? Doesn't this tell you something? ... that it is, in fact all in the mind?

This probably means something to you but it completely escapes me.

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?

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

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?

Are you offering this mind reading example as proof of your psychic powers?

 

[Iacchus]

If, however, you expect me to believe your visions you are going to have to prove they exist.

That may not be possible, unless we have shared a similar experience ... in which case we may be able to come to a consensus.

 

[Iacchus]

Are you offering this mind reading example as proof of your psychic powers?

Either that or, merely the fact that he's human.

 

[Huntster]

Are you offering this mind reading example as proof of your psychic powers?

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

You're fitting right in.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Either that or, merely the fact that he's human.

I don't think I require any proof that he is human, I'm happy to go along with that assumption.

You still haven't answered my question in regard to how my requirement of proof for your claims is erecting a strawman.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I argee, but since when does having a consensus (religious or otherwise) constitute proof of anything? ... except of course, that there is a consensus.

Consensus, in and of itself, is neither proof for nor against anything. It is an agreement of the terms, definitions, and observations among a party. Just as debators must be in agreement on the definition of terms used in a debate (something apparently lacking in this thread), so to must two, or more, human beings in agreement that their labels for a given observation are in agreement.

If there is agreement of terms between to two parties one can do the following:
Person A: If I add chemical X to chemical Y, the resulting solution is red.
Person B: Yes, it is. (or no it is not)

From this we can apply the scientific process, whereby, if a large enough portion of the scientific community has concensus that chemical X + chemical Y = red solution then a "provisional agreement" is made stating that to the extent of the current scientific paradigms ability to test and observ X + Y = red.

What you appear to be doing, is injecting philosophical arguments about "what is real" in to a dialogue for which such questions are not of value.

Per Michael Shermer, "Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon."

 

[Iacchus]

Per Michael Shermer, "Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon."

So, it is not designed to test for the supernatural then?