Skeptic vs. believer's forums

[epepke]

I rather think that they are correct. So called "Skeptics" are not inhuman. They tend to be as emotional as anyone else. Really, you seriously expect people to believe there is no emotional dimension to so called "skeptics" beliefs?? Come now. Please be sensible. You're an intelligent guy in my opinion. PLease use your intelligence constructively and try to be a bit more objective and impartial.

Please reread what I wrote. I never stated that skeptics are devoid of emotional investment in their beliefs, only that the kind of beliefs that they have emotional investments in aren't the ones that are challenged by believers who come to skeptic fora.

Let me try a specific. If I, say, were to go to a ghost forum and challenge the idea that ghosts exist, I would directly be challenging the core belief of the forum.

However, if a believer in ghosts came to a skeptic's forum and asserted that ghosts existed, they would not be challenging any of my beliefs. I do not have any emotional investment in the idea that ghosts do not exist.

Even here, I don't get angry at the things you say, because I don't see any reason to do so. There's nothing your actions or statements deprive me of. I think you're wrong, but that's as maybe. It doesn't threaten me in any way.

I'm happy to deal with whatever happens to be. If someone did something tomorrow that completely turned upside-down everything I have come up with about how the universe works, my first thought would be "Cool!" Then I'd try to relate it to everything else.

The only way to deprive me of emotional solace would seem, prima facie, to attack my core beliefs. This happens sometimes, albeit rarely, usually from the postmodern contingent.

In that case, there are many possible outcomes. Either it doesn't persuade me, in which case I'm happy. Or it does persuade me, in which case I'm just as happy. Or it's somewhere in-between, in which case I'm even happier, because I get to think about more stuff, which I enjoy doing.

There simply is no unhappy outcome, in terms of my emotions. However, if I challenge the idea of ghosts on a ghost forum, I risk making someone unhappy because they had solace over the death of their mother or something. Which is why I don't spend time doing it, but I digress. The point is that there really is nothing that a believer can do as a believer in a skeptics' forum that is going to deprive me of emotional attachment.

As for the deleted question of how many people here are really skeptics, beats the hell out of me. I sometimes complain about lack of skepticism here. But since the forum per se is not about being non-skeptical, the culture is such that there's going to be more skepticism compared to a believers' forum, which is in and of itself enough to form a hypothesis about the comparative reactions.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And how many skeptics are there on here? MikeD, dharlow, flyboy perhaps. Just a handful of people.

Yeah, that's the trouble with these boards. No sceptics.

And I'll tell you another thing --- the sea's too bleedin' dry.

Believers and so called "skeptics" both have preconceived ideas about the world.

But this is the very opposite of the truth. Last time (couple of years ago) anyone asked me "what do you believe?" I replied, immediately: "Anything at all for which there is sufficient evidence". That's a sceptic.

They are both absolutely convinced that their beliefs are the correct characterization of reality.

Speak for yourself. I'm a sceptic and I'm not. So you made that up.

If only the other side were more intelligent and would just listen to reason!! Convince me that there is anything of substantive difference between them.

The difference?

Sceptics: empirical evidence
Believers: words, words, words

 

[Anders]

I didn't realize that.

Hmmm... I wonder if they have any oil fields. Maybe we should give them freedom too.

No, no oil fields, Norway got those. We have Nuclear power though, and at one time in the past, up to the early 70:s in fact, Sweden had a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian
Believers and so called "skeptics" both have preconceived ideas about the world.

Dr A
But this is the very opposite of the truth. Last time (couple of years ago) anyone asked me "what do you believe?" I replied, immediately: "Anything at all for which there is sufficient evidence". That's a sceptic.

And what that person should have said to you is below.

We are all implicitly aware of how the world appears to be, and this influences us when we form overall metaphysical views of the world. But we tend to be vastly more influenced by what our culture tends to implicitly believe and by our personal experiences. The mechanical philosophy (the world operates purely through push and pull effects), first formulated in the 17th Century, lives on in a vastly attenuated form and I think it's about time people grew up and realized mechanical principles, and indeed physical laws, are simply a description of reality, rather than an actual characterization of reality per se. Unfortunately the remnants of the mechanical philosophy still provide the lens through which we view scientific evidence.

The area where science has excelled is in physics. Being influenced by the mechanical philosophy we tend to think of physics as describing a world out there of a mind-independent nature with real forces (a generative causality) influencing such objects. But physics, which materialist/Skeptics believe that all science reduces to, is ultimately simply concerned with the patterns in our perceptual experiences. I rather think that such does not give much comfort to materialism, atheism, or Skepticism. Nor does direct investigation of certain paranormal phenomena which continue to exhibit small but persistent effects.

In short, your response was daft.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...But physics, which materialist/Skeptics believe that all science reduces to, is ultimately simply concerned with the patterns in our perceptual experiences...

Now that is wrong on at least two counts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And what that person should have said to you is below.

We are all implicitly aware of how the world appears to be, and this influences us when we form overall metaphysical views of the world. But we tend to be vastly more influenced by what our culture tends to implicitly believe and by our personal experiences. The mechanical philosophy (the world operates purely through push and pull effects), first formulated in the 17th Century, lives on in a vastly attenuated form and I think it's about time people grew up and realized mechanical principles, and indeed physical laws, are simply a description of reality, rather than an actual characterization of reality per se. Unfortunately the remnants of the mechanical philosophy still provide the lens through which we view scientific evidence.

The area where science has excelled is in physics. Being influenced by the mechanical philosophy we tend to think of physics as describing a world out there of a mind-independent nature with real forces (a generative causality) influencing such objects. But physics, which materialist/Skeptics believe that all science reduces to, is ultimately simply concerned with the patterns in our perceptual experiences. I rather think that such does not give much comfort to materialism, atheism, or Skepticism. Nor does direct investigation of certain paranormal phenomena which continue to exhibit small but persistent effects.

In short, your response was daft.

But this bizarre series of non sequiturs has nothing to do with my post.So I will continue to believe absolutely anything for which there is sufficient evidence, since you've said absolutely nothing to change my mind, and indeed, nothing that relates to what I said.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But this bizarre series of non sequiturs has nothing to do with my post.So I will continue to believe absolutely anything for which there is sufficient evidence, since you've said absolutely nothing to change my mind, and indeed, nothing that relates to what I said.

What I explained is your response is devoid of meaning. Read my post carefully.

 

[Suggestologist]

But this is the very opposite of the truth. Last time (couple of years ago) anyone asked me "what do you believe?" I replied, immediately: "Anything at all for which there is sufficient evidence". That's a sceptic.

Sufficient according to whom?

Sceptics: empirical evidence
Believers: words, words, words

Believers never justify with (what seems to them) empirical evidence?

"Words, words, words" is meaningless as an answer here.

 

[BPScooter]

"juicy" states

One thing I realize when reading literature, is that these "juicy" states are very relative and omnipresent. How many pints and tumblers were metabolized while these folks were thinking and talking? Look at Vanity Fair, for example, how many times the characters warm themselves with brandy, or whatever. It's almost impossible to read 1960's without understanding the psychedelics. Boswell drank, Huxley dropped, and they both managed to write coherently. I'd argue with someone that said Boswell was a drunk (therefore disregard his biography) or Huxley was a tripper (disregard his "Science, Liberty, and Peace"). As an individual, I've pursued my share of juicy states of mind, thank you. I don't intend to stop doing so, but I know the difference between those states and the opposite.

I'd bet that in a dictionary search, we'd find a circular definition between "sober" "rational" "prudent" "realistic" "pragmatic" and such, especially as applied to people in public life. Just guessing, but really I think it is possible to approach the unknowable without the benefit of a Dionysian ritual.

 

[SezMe]

Fellow skeptics are welcome to point out where I make errors.

OK, here is one from the SezMe Pet Peeve Department. CFL wrote:

and you can literally see the condescending glee in their eyes

My emphasis.

You mean the opposite of "literally." Why do people (CFL is certainly not the only person to do this) think that saying "literally" adds gravitas to a statement when it literally makes it erroneous?

 

[SezMe]

(snip)But you can be sure that the majority of skeptics are pissed off with what Larsen gets away with here. (snip)

Evidence?

 

[Suggestologist]

OK, here is one from the SezMe Pet Peeve Department. CFL wrote:
My emphasis.

You mean the opposite of "literally." Why do people (CFL is certainly not the only person to do this) think that saying "literally" adds gravitas to a statement when it literally makes it erroneous?

It's a nuance in the practice of suggestion. If you put emphasis on a modifier (adjective "literally" in this case), then: what is modied by it -- is more accepted, because it is less the central focus of the statement, and more a peripheral presuppositional existant. Painting a picture (visual words in this case) also makes it harder to resist the suggestion to concretely imagine what is described. The more clearly and easily you can imagine something, the more likely you will conclude it as "real" or "correct" or "true" -- human judgement heuristic of availability.