Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Dr Adequate]

I suppose it's a very undeserved feeling of superiority

My feeling of superiority to halfwitted liars is well-merited.

But it is hardly being "full of oneself" to know that one is not a halfwitted liar. Billions of others can make the same claim.

How's that for "evidence"?

Note for the dull-witted: I made a negative generalization. I claimed "that skeptics don't lie and lie and lie to believers about what believers think". If the prancing little halfwit wishes to argue otherwise, the burden of proof is on him.

 

[Roboramma]

Beauty? Prove it.

If I find a thing beautiful, then it is beautiful. It might not be beautiful to someone else, however.
Similarly, if I find something interesting, it is interesting, whether or not others will be interested by it. The word is based upon the way that the subject (which is or is not beautiful) affects me (or someone else). The fact that many people agree as to what constitutes beauty in many cases is very simple - those people are affected by similar things in similar ways.
And no, I don't think any of this detracts from the meaning of beauty. That things that are similar across humanity that cause us to see beauty are meaningful. They say something about the way the world works.

Just because meaning doesn't exist outside of us, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even objectively. (I'll clarify that statement if needed).

Truth? Prove it.

We can't. No one can. But reality does exist. I don't think anyone really acts as though it didn't. We just do our best to understand it, and for that we need evidence.

Whatever can be asserted can be reduced to what can figuratively be placed in a petri dish. Is this how a skeptic lives in this world? Seeing it as "made for petri dish"? Someone please tell me because I'm right on the edge here.

I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that when we understand something, it loses it's meaning? If so, what meaning did it have before we understood it?

 

[Max560]

Out of Protons?

jj: Out of Protons?

LEO the lion: GER.

 

[monoman]

I'm learning that so-called skeptics are no different than any of the other losers in man's history of ideology. This fad won't even last as long as communism.

Fad? So skepticism started when you registered at the JREF forums?

 

[ruach1]

If I find a thing beautiful, then it is beautiful. It might not be beautiful to someone else, however.
Similarly, if I find something interesting, it is interesting, whether or not others will be interested by it. The word is based upon the way that the subject (which is or is not beautiful) affects me (or someone else). The fact that many people agree as to what constitutes beauty in many cases is very simple - those people are affected by similar things in similar ways.
And no, I don't think any of this detracts from the meaning of beauty. That things that are similar across humanity that cause us to see beauty are meaningful. They say something about the way the world works.

Just because meaning doesn't exist outside of us, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even objectively. (I'll clarify that statement if needed).


We can't. No one can. But reality does exist. I don't think anyone really acts as though it didn't. We just do our best to understand it, and for that we need evidence.


I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that when we understand something, it loses it's meaning? If so, what meaning did it have before we understood it?

Thank you for this thoughtful, benign, sincere post.

The petri dish illustration was answered mostly in the third paragraph of your response. The petri dish resembles evidence, and reality represents, well, reality. When reality doesn't fit neat and tidy into the confines of the petri dish/evidence, then, it seems, that what does not fit is disregarded or regarded as "sub-evidence" material and/or wooish nonsense.

The pervasive "prove it, or else" attitudes and the "is water wet?" dialogues display, IMHO, a collective consensus of mind/attitude among hard-line skeptics/atheists which, as I have been experiencing lately, is easy to fall into once one adopts the "I'd better prove it, or they'll kick me out of the clubhouse/scientific circle" frame of mind.

Obviously, I don't like this easily accepted frame of mind, and I was wondering if any others felt this and/or see it this way.

There's a place for evidence. There's a place for reflection on the aesthetic. After being in the JREF Forum for a while, I've felt these two principles becoming imbalanced due to the internal need for evidence "or else."

 

[wastepanel]

Thank you for this thoughtful, benign, sincere post.

The petri dish illustration was answered mostly in the third paragraph of your response. The petri dish resembles evidence, and reality represents, well, reality. When reality doesn't fit neat and tidy into the confines of the petri dish/evidence, then, it seems, that what does not fit is disregarded or regarded as "sub-evidence" material and/or wooish nonsense.

The pervasive "prove it, or else" attitudes and the "is water wet?" dialogues display, IMHO, a collective consensus of mind/attitude among hard-line skeptics/atheists which, as I have been experiencing lately, is easy to fall into once one adopts the "I'd better prove it, or they'll kick me out of the clubhouse/scientific circle" frame of mind.

Obviously, I don't like this easily accepted frame of mind, and I was wondering if any others felt this and/or see it this way.

There's a place for evidence. There's a place for reflection on the aesthetic. After being in the JREF Forum for a while, I've felt these two principles becoming imbalanced due to the internal need for evidence "or else."

That was a wonderful comment.

 

[Taffer]

Thank you for this thoughtful, benign, sincere post.

The petri dish illustration was answered mostly in the third paragraph of your response. The petri dish resembles evidence, and reality represents, well, reality. When reality doesn't fit neat and tidy into the confines of the petri dish/evidence, then, it seems, that what does not fit is disregarded or regarded as "sub-evidence" material and/or wooish nonsense.

The pervasive "prove it, or else" attitudes and the "is water wet?" dialogues display, IMHO, a collective consensus of mind/attitude among hard-line skeptics/atheists which, as I have been experiencing lately, is easy to fall into once one adopts the "I'd better prove it, or they'll kick me out of the clubhouse/scientific circle" frame of mind.

Obviously, I don't like this easily accepted frame of mind, and I was wondering if any others felt this and/or see it this way.

There's a place for evidence. There's a place for reflection on the aesthetic. After being in the JREF Forum for a while, I've felt these two principles becoming imbalanced due to the internal need for evidence "or else."

So you accept things without evidence?

 

[ruach1]

So you accept things without evidence?

Some things yes--like the beauty of those tropical fish without demanding evidence that they're not fabricated photos.

Some things no--like election results and so on.

But this is not necessarily the issue I think I'm raising. At issue is the frame of mind of demanding evidence for every little thing (is water wet?, prove the fish exist) which, IMO, somehow lessens the "human spirit" when we (notice the we) critical thinkers are imbalanced toward the demands for evidence for said every little thing.

 

[ruach1]

That was a wonderful comment.

 

[Taffer]

Some things yes--like the beauty of those tropical fish without demanding evidence that they're not fabricated photos.

Some things no--like election results and so on.

But this is not necessarily the issue I think I'm raising. At issue is the frame of mind of demanding evidence for every little thing (is water wet?, prove the fish exist) which, IMO, somehow lessens the "human spirit" when we (notice the we) critical thinkers are imbalanced toward the demands for evidence for said every little thing.

And I disagree with you that we actually have this mind-set. We demand evidence for claims, it is true. But we don't demand evidence from every claim if we, ourselves, have evidence for the claim. That is why I find the "is water wet" example silly. A skeptic wouldn't require evidence that water is wet, because by definition it is. We wouldn't demand evidence that fish exists, because almost everyone has "experienced" a fish for themselves. I see nothing wrong with asking for evidence that a specific fish exists, if we have no prior knowledge, however. You seem to have a notion of skeptics that is not true, or at least is not true insofar as I've ever seen it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

At issue is the frame of mind of demanding evidence for every little thing (is water wet?, prove the fish exist) ...

But you will note, if you come down from the clouds for a moment, that no skeptic is demanding evidence for the existence of fish or the wetness of water.

And this is because we have lots of evidence already. We've seen the evidence about water and fish.

Now, would you like to tell me any way I could know that fish existed without having seen any evidence for them?

I believe these things because --- and only because --- I have evidence for them. And so do you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I further notice that you were actually given "water is wet" as an example of something that skeptics wouldn't challenge. Third post on this thread.

For you to then go and claim the exact opposite is foolish at best, dishonest at worst, and either way you're talking smack about us. Stop it, please, or you'll leave town the same way as Huntster.

 

[Godmode]

Meaning and significance are in the eye of the beholder. You don't have to be a woo to see them in the universe.

 

[WanderinWTF]

The universe? do you not think the night sky is a miracle in itself and a thing of great beauty and wonder?

THE DAYBREAK SKYE IS GREAT ALSO. I LOVE THE COLORS PURPLE, BLUE, VIOLET, GREY, WHITE, BLURPLE. THE OTHER NIGHT ALL THE CLOUDS AROUND WHERE I LIVE WAS PURPLE ALL NIGHT LONG IN CRAZY FORMATIONS LIKE I NEVER SEEN B4 AND THEY WAS NOT MOVING FAST AT ALL SEEMED SO CALM AND PEACEFUL. THEN I SWEAR WHEN I WAS IN MY BACK YARD AFTER I WAS DONE LOOKING AT THE CLOUDS I SEEN 2 COLORS STARING AT ME IT FELT LIKE EYES STARING IN WONDER. LOOKED LIKE A PAIR OF EYES I WASNT SURE IF IT WAS A CAT CAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT I KNOW. SO I GRABBED MY FLASHLIGHT AFTER STANDING THERE FOR ABOUT 10 SECONDS I DIDN'T WANT TO HURRY AND TURN AWAY JUST TO COME BACK TO NOTHING AT ALL. AFTER GRABING MY FLASHLIGHT I LOOKED AND IT WAS GONE AND I DIDNT SEE ANY CAT RUNAWAY I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING MOVE AT ALL.

 

[Roboramma]

THE DAYBREAK SKYE IS GREAT ALSO. I LOVE THE COLORS PURPLE, BLUE, VIOLET, GREY, WHITE, BLURPLE. THE OTHER NIGHT ALL THE CLOUDS AROUND WHERE I LIVE WAS PURPLE ALL NIGHT LONG IN CRAZY FORMATIONS LIKE I NEVER SEEN B4 AND THEY WAS NOT MOVING FAST AT ALL SEEMED SO CALM AND PEACEFUL.

Please note that you have the caps lock on.

Could this be the aurora? When I lived in Calgary I was lucky enough to see it from time to time, though certainly very infrequently.
I remember it being green most of the time, and usually I could see some slow movement, but sometimes it seemed pretty stable. And often it did look like clouds. In fact, the first time I saw it, I thought it was clouds. Only after watching it for a long time, noticing it's movement, did I realise it wasn't moving like normal clouds.

That far south, the colours aren't as vibrant as you see in photos from the arctic, and the movement isn't all that amazing either (though it speeds up sometimes). It's an amazing phenemon, though, and the few times I've been lucky enough to see it, I couldn't take my eyes off it. I was very happy when I took my girlfriend to Calgary for a couple of weeks one summer, and we were lucky enough to see it together, especially since I had lived there for years before seeing it.

Anyway, enough digression - just a thought on what you might have seen.

 

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Anyway, enough digression - just a thought on what you might have seen.

Two bits of bad news for you.

1. The guy is insane, (no, seriously), so there is no point in trying to have any sort of worthwhile conversation with him.

2. You will note that he has been banned so you are not likely to get much of a reply.

I hope this helps.

 

[Roboramma]

2. You will note that he has been banned

I hope this helps.

It does, very much.

I won't have to read any more all caps posts for a while.

 

[Rufo]

THE DAYBREAK SKYE IS GREAT ALSO. I LOVE THE COLORS PURPLE, BLUE, VIOLET, GREY, WHITE, BLURPLE. THE OTHER NIGHT ALL THE CLOUDS AROUND WHERE I LIVE WAS PURPLE ALL NIGHT LONG IN CRAZY FORMATIONS LIKE I NEVER SEEN B4 AND THEY WAS NOT MOVING FAST AT ALL SEEMED SO CALM AND PEACEFUL. THEN I SWEAR WHEN I WAS IN MY BACK YARD AFTER I WAS DONE LOOKING AT THE CLOUDS I SEEN 2 COLORS STARING AT ME IT FELT LIKE EYES STARING IN WONDER. LOOKED LIKE A PAIR OF EYES I WASNT SURE IF IT WAS A CAT CAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING THAT I KNOW. SO I GRABBED MY FLASHLIGHT AFTER STANDING THERE FOR ABOUT 10 SECONDS I DIDN'T WANT TO HURRY AND TURN AWAY JUST TO COME BACK TO NOTHING AT ALL. AFTER GRABING MY FLASHLIGHT I LOOKED AND IT WAS GONE AND I DIDNT SEE ANY CAT RUNAWAY I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING MOVE AT ALL.

I'm thinking about nominating this post. It's a really beautiful night sky description, and besides, WanderinWTF has learned to use sentences (or at least periods) now. Come on, the guy should be given another chance. Maybe he will learn about correct capitalization too, if we let him stay.

 

[ruach1]

And I disagree with you that we actually have this mind-set. We demand evidence for claims, it is true. But we don't demand evidence from every claim if we, ourselves, have evidence for the claim. That is why I find the "is water wet" example silly. A skeptic wouldn't require evidence that water is wet, because by definition it is. We wouldn't demand evidence that fish exists, because almost everyone has "experienced" a fish for themselves. I see nothing wrong with asking for evidence that a specific fish exists, if we have no prior knowledge, however. You seem to have a notion of skeptics that is not true, or at least is not true insofar as I've ever seen it.

In posts 3-5, 7-8, & 29, the water is wet dialogue is there for you to see, and I know I saw it elsewhere in the Forum. I don't know if these are meant to be silly or not; currently I'm leaning toward not. Also, Huntster questioned the existence of the fish, but I am pretty certain he was joking around.

Nevertheless, I do think there is an imbalance in some skeptics toward demanding evidence for every little thing. It is not so much a praxis, IMO, as it is a state of mind which grasps tightly at the notion of the necessity to prove and have evidence for everything in nature that comes one's way. To me, its a Scrooge-like grasping that can misshape one's heart such that one can get bent out of shape so quickly and immediately at the slightest whiff of any thought or notion that does not fit perfectly in the clutch of evidence and/or the "skeptic" version of reality.

This is not specific to skeptics. I have also seen this in some Christians who, whenever they come across some idea which is novel or previously not experienced, must find biblical justification for it. If it can't be matched up with their version of biblical truth/reality, then it (whatever it is) is often attacked mercilessly without compromise.

Yet the word claim in your post is significant. If one has a claim, then it should be tested to the highest standards of truth we have available--there is no question in this regard. But, sheesh, if someone likes to snorkel in tropical waters, can't he/she do it without feeling the inescapable, weight-bearing need to prove the water is wet and the tropical fish real?

 

[Huntster]

...Nevertheless, I do think there is an imbalance in some skeptics toward demanding evidence for every little thing. It is not so much a praxis, IMO, as it is a state of mind which grasps tightly at the notion of the necessity to prove and have evidence for everything in nature that comes one's way. To me, its a Scrooge-like grasping that can misshape one's heart such that one can get bent out of shape so quickly and immediately at the slightest whiff of any thought or notion that does not fit perfectly in the clutch of evidence and/or the "skeptic" version of reality.

This is not specific to skeptics. I have also seen this in some Christians who, whenever they come across some idea which is novel or previously not experienced, must find biblical justification for it. If it can't be matched up with their version of biblical truth/reality, then it (whatever it is) is often attacked mercilessly without compromise....

I agree. It's the same phenomenon, and it is exercised in the same way, for the same reasons, and with the same results.

The demand for evidence by skeptics as well as the demand for biblical fundamentalism are both tools used to shut the opposing viewpoint down.