'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[CFLarsen]

On the other hand, it is somehow sincere to put forth that comparison even when no one ever in the history of the universe has seriously put forth the notion of the moon being made from green cheese.

Who decides whether a notion is made in seriousness?

Based on what?

 

[Oleron]

Hypothetical:

If I was a "real" psychic I would be doing business with the JREF or CSICOP because, if I went to the Forteans to be tested, the public would point out that Forteans "went easy" on me.
I would want to be subjected to the most rigorous of tests, by the most skeptical of scientists. Only then could I convince the public of my abilities and rightly so.
What would be the point in 'soft' skepticism? It can prove nothing.

It is essential that scientists take a hard skeptical line when dealing with claims of the paranormal. Anything else is non-rigorous and open to challenge.

Does anyone seriously want CSICOP or the JREF to start setting the standards lower to enable people to pass? What good does that do either side of the debate?

 

[Jono]

Turtle, yes language do change over time of course.
What starts off as slang many times grow into the very descendant form of the language.
At least I've seen this in old swedish and english which do have words and frases incommon.

But of course language isn't unique from the point that its words changes meaning.
Symbols for example does that very thing, take the suncross for example.
Forever stained by the era of Hitler.
Other celtic and symbols of Norse mythology and the viking era have also left a bad taste in many a mouths, sadly.

 

[CFLarsen]

Other celtic and symbols of Norse mythology and the viking era have also left a bad taste in many a mouths, sadly.

Really? Which ones?

 

[arthwollipot]

I quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

For example, I don't know if this occurs in other countries, but I am quite distressed in the common trend in Australia for people to use the word "gay" when they actually mean "stupid". As in, "this website is so gay. It is the gayest website I've ever seen."

They are not using it, as some have suggested to me, to mean excessive and flamboyant. They are using it to mean "stupid".

I'm all for the evolution of language, but please let's not evolve in a direction that is directly offensive to those who suffered from previous evolutionary drift.

 

[Jono]

CFLarsen, well you're scandinavian so I am sure you know some of the symbols that, been worn nazis and similar groups, have gotten a missunderstood,or altered meaning in the eyes of a lot of people.

Symbols such as, of course, the Swastika, which does appear in many elderly cultures.

The Suncross, The Sunwheel, ancient symbol, appears on viking runes and jewelry as well as in other ancient cultures.

The Triscelon, a three-legged version of the swastika, originating from ancient Greece.

VargHaken, an old pagan symbol originally used to protect against werewolfs. In modern times often used by the group WAR (VAM in swedish), White Arian Resistence.

The Celtic Cross, originating from Ireland and Scottland, often used today by nazigroups and racists of the White Power persuasion.

The Gryphon, old mythological symbol, frequently used Swedish nazirelated groups.

Thor's Hammer, the symbol of the Norse god Thor, God of Thunder.
Very often worn by swedish nazis and nazibands singing about the glory of the nordic arian race.
A famous painting from the 18th century had both the symbol of the hammer and the swastika, Hitler loved this painted and in his crusade is said to have been "artistically inspired" and influenced by it.
When Sweden, Great Britain, Germany where in a sort of "competition" of who were the most "viking like".

These above are a few of the symbols that before the stain of Hitlers era did carry a nobel and patriotic if not poetic meaning for many.

 

[Jono]

quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

Yes of course I can relate to your view there Arthwollipot.

And with the increasing rate of globalization words do change even faster, what was once a word meaning this is tomorrow simply a word meaning that.
Hard to keep up as I experience it.

Though when I write I strive to take as little heed as possible to contemporary trends in language and simply write what I have learned and experienced a word to mean.

Poetic freedom, a writer's sancturary indeed.

 

[CFLarsen]

WhiteLion,

I think it is fair to say that only the Swastika is today generally recognized as a nazi/racist symbol. If you showed the other symbols to people, I doubt many would say what you are saying.

Oh, well. Back to subject.

 

[Jono]

I think it is fair to say that only the Swastika is today generally recognized as a nazi/racist symbol. If you showed the other symbols to people, I doubt many would say what you are saying.

Well I've worn the celtic cross and Thor's Hammer, I've been asked if I were a nazi from inquisitive people from different cultures.

So I assessed that there, though perhaps not a vast one, is a somewhat general concern about other symbols other than the Swastika as well.

Still I agree that the Swastika is the most common and known of Nazi symbols.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

It's stupid for the same reason a five-year-old child saying, "Okay, I don't believe in Santa but I believe in Sanka with a k", is stupid. Sheez.

Skeptical means skeptical no matter how much you want to play "let's make up words" so you can create a bogus scale of skepticism. Are you also going to create bogus "scheptic" and "sleptic" and "skeeptic" and "septic" words to slap on your stupidly silly scale of skepticism?

Sorry, but many of those who call themselves "skeptics" exhibit an attitude which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the word as originally defined. They are cynics who are convinced that the world absolutely must operate on the principles which happen to be intellectually fashionable in modern western culture, and are impervious to all the evidence (and reasoning) which suggests otherwise. This is the very antithesis of a sceptic. Thus I think it is essential that we distinguish between these 2 positions. I for one shall continue to use the word sKeptic to refer to people with such an attitude.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Please produce one person, out of the available six billion, who says that "most unexplained phenomena are a priori impossible". And please let him be a man of flesh and not of straw.

And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That's nice for you.

Your opinion is wrong, however. That's not what a priori means.

The point here is that "Open Mind" has demonstrated that Dr A was talking out of his you know what. Not that I think it needed to be demonstrated. It's the very definition of a sKeptic that they think most, if not all paranormal phenomena, as contradicting what science has shown to be the case regarding reality. Thus they are overwhelmingly predisposed to reject any evidence for the paranormal given that it cannot achieve a very clear effect each and every case on demand.

 

[Interesting Ian]

And the crickets went: chirp, chirp, chirp.

Well, I guess there was no answering that.

Ummm . .no. Most people on here such as you fit the bill.

 

[Dr Adequate]

As I have pointed out before, repeatedly lying to me about my own opinions reveals you as

(1) Stupid
(2) Unpleasant
(3) A liar
(4) A bore

A bore, Ian, a bore. Can you not think of some new pathetic lies? I'm tired of the old ones.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Isn't it amazing the way something as small as the spelling of a word can generate such heated feelings?

I've always thought that "skeptic" was the American English way of spelling the word, and "sceptic" was the English English way of spelling it. Same sort of distinction as "color" and "colour". Now I see that some people want to use that distinction for a political purpose - to separate "real" scotsmen... er, I mean skeptics... from those who say they are but really aren't.

My response: get over it. There is no "real" skeptic, just like there is no "real" atheist. Everyone is different, everyone has different experiences. Some people are more tolerant of those who come up with woowoo ideas, others are sick and tired of explaining all over again and simply bat it down.

There are those who claim that chiropractic (to take just one example) is completely useless for anything at all. My chiropractor fixed my back problems. But then again my chiropractor never claimed to be able to fix anything except back problems. So am I skeptical about chiropractic? That can't be answered in one word. Yes, I am skeptical about chiropractors that claim to be able to cure haemorrhoids. But No, I have experienced that it works in a limited range of applications. Haemorrhoids isn't in that range. Neither is eczema, schizophrenia or angina.

So am I skeptical or am I sceptical? Who cares? You're just playing with words. I choose not to play that game.

This is not a game. SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.

Now could you please answer this question?

How the hell can it be appropriate to describe them as sceptics?? Do you have any idea of what the word "sceptic" means??

It's as if people were to start using the word homosexual to actually mean heterosexual.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I quite agree, WhiteLion, language does change and needs to change. Some changes are better than others.

For example, I don't know if this occurs in other countries, but I am quite distressed in the common trend in Australia for people to use the word "gay" when they actually mean "stupid". As in, "this website is so gay. It is the gayest website I've ever seen."

They must be referring to CFLarsen website

 

[CFLarsen]

They must be referring to CFLarsen website

If you think you can do better, go ahead.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is not a game. SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles.

Could you name one of these people and give a list of the principles he or she says that reality "must operate on", a priori.

Yes, it is a game. It's the same halfwitted game you're always playing. And losing.

 

[H'ethetheth]

... SKeptics are approaching the question of the paranormal with the presupposition that reality must operate on certain principles...

Well, don't you? We wouldn't be getting anywhere if the world didn't operate on "certain principles", would we?
Seriously though, people you call sKeptics probably exist, but probably not in numbers as great as you would like to think. People here do tend to ask for evidence.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, let's find out.

Discovering what people think by asking them, rather than by fantasising about it... it's a crazy idea, but it might just work.