The Mentality of Skeptics

[Resume]

The whole point of skepticism is to not form any conclusions. Forming a conclusion is anti-skeptical, but not necessarily wrong.

In a very strong field of contenders, this is one of the wrongest wrong things you've ever posted.

 

[Resume]

Just because someone thinks their analysis of the evidence is correct doesn't mean they're being skeptical. Someone could provisionally conclude that based on the "evidence" they've observed, that god exists. In that case they'd be both wrong AND unskeptical.

It's entirely dependent on the nature of the evidence.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

In a very strong field of contenders, this is one of the wrongest wrong things you've ever posted.

The truth about most peoples idea of skepticism isn't easy to handle.

 

[Resume]

The truth about most peoples idea of skepticism isn't easy to handle.

When you get around to posting up that truth, we'll let you know.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

The strong emotional reactions already gave me a hint.

 

[Resume]

The strong emotional reactions already gave me a hint.

What are you talking about?

 

[Resume]

noun
1.
a skeptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.
"these claims were treated with skepticism"
synonyms: doubt, doubtfulness, a pinch of salt; More
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/

It is also important to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions; they give usages . . . . Since rationality is the most reliable means of thinking, a rational skeptic may be defined as:
One who questions the validity of particular claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality . . . But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

My point here is that provisionally concluding something isn't the same as being skeptical. Skepticism is just a process that leads to it. It doesn't get more simple than that.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Just because someone thinks their analysis of the evidence is correct doesn't mean they're being skeptical. Someone could provisionally conclude that based on the "evidence" they've observed, that god exists. In that case they'd be both wrong AND unskeptical.

No. This is so removed from reality, it boggles the mind. It would be impossible for humans to function if we never came to a conclusion about anything. That doesn't mean we can't approach things with a measure of doubt, and maintain the ability to change our minds about things. THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE NOT POLAR OPPOSITES, no matter how much you insist it to be the case.

BTW, if new evidence came to light showing that there might possibly BE a God, and you or I automatically ignored it without even examining it, THAT would be unskeptical. Not that I'm holding my breath.

 

[Kid Eager]

The strong emotional reactions already gave me a hint.

I'm skeptical of your claim. Not because of emotion, but because your argument appears to lack evidence, to the extent that you've:

1. needed to create a strawman skeptic
2. redefined skeptic and skeptical; and
3. engaged in quote-mining to support your assertion

 

[Resume]

My point here is that provisionally concluding something isn't the same as being skeptical. Skepticism is just a process that leads to it. It doesn't get more simple than that.

Coming to a provisional conclusion after examining the evidence is indeed part and parcel of being skeptical.

You're getting all this wrong.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

No. This is so removed from reality, it boggles the mind. It would be impossible for humans to function if we never came to a conclusion about anything.

I never said that skepticism is a way of life. Obviously, you can't and shouldn't be entirely skeptical of everything.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

My point here is that provisionally concluding something isn't the same as being skeptical. Skepticism is just a process that leads to it. It doesn't get more simple than that.

For once, you're right, but not in the way you think. Skepticism is just a process, a way of approaching a subject. If at the end of this process you come to a conclusion, a conclusion that is flexible, and able to be changed as and when new evidence is discovered, YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED BEING SKEPTICAL. THE TWO DO NOT CANCEL EACH OTHER.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Coming to a provisional conclusion after examining the evidence is indeed part and parcel of being skeptical.

Where do you get that idea?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I never said that skepticism is a way of life. Obviously, you can't and shouldn't be entirely skeptical of everything.

No, you should be skeptical of everything. This does not stop you from also proceeding with life. I can say, "Gee, based on the evidence, I think that griffleborfs are usually yellow. This does not prevent me from maintaining a healthy amount of skepticism, and admit that I might change my mind down the road if I was suddenly confronted with a blue gtiffleborf. They are NOT in opposition of each other.

 

[Resume]

Where do you get that idea?

That's sort of the point of examining the evidence. (try reading the link in post187)

You understand that a provisional conclusion can include "I don't know" don't you?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

If at the end of this process you come to a conclusion, a conclusion that is flexible, and able to be changed as and when new evidence is discovered, YOU HAVE NOT STOPPED BEING SKEPTICAL. THE TWO DO NOT CANCEL EACH OTHER.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Senex]

Let's say you are a skeptic.

You see a post that says, The Mentality of Skeptics.

You think, "I bet that post misrepresents skeptical thinking."

You click on the link and you are correct.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

That's sort of the point of examining the evidence. (try reading the link in post187)

You understand that a provisional conclusion can include "I don't know" don't you?

In that case you're not letting go of your skepticism. It's when you take a positive or negative stance on something that you're letting it go.

 

[Resume]

It's when you take a positive or negative stance on something that you're letting it go.

No, it isn't. The process of skepticism isn't neutrality but coming to best possible conclusion based on a careful examination of the evidence.