The Mentality of Skeptics

[The Sparrow]

I don't know if I am a skeptic, but I always thought of it as an attitude that says I won't necessarily accept a thing as fact without critically examining the evidence. IF, after that examination, I am satisfied that the thing is fact I will accept it as true. If I am not, I will reject it. Neither conclusion is ultimately final. New evidence could come up to change things. Nowhere here do I see adopting uncertainty and agnosticism about everything as a standard 'skeptic' way of looking at the universe. I am not terrified of the possibility that, for example, the big bang theory of things might at some point be proven false. I'd be foolish to, for the rest of my days, be a big banger no matter what came to light.


You seem to be trying to argue that to be a skeptic you can never accept any conclusion on anything. Is that about it?

 

[John Jones]

[...]This is weird because being able to tolerate cognitive dissonance is essential for proper skepticism.

This is one of the weirdest unsupported claims I've heard in a field renowned for weird, unsupported claims, and weird people.

Well done, OntarioSquatch.

Thank you for promoting negative stereotypes about kooks/weirdos/crackpots/cranks.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

The process of skepticism isn't neutrality but coming to best possible conclusion based on a careful examination of the evidence.

Neutrality and non-belief is a main component of the process. Going with what you think is the best possible conclusion is actually being the complete opposite of skeptical, but like I said before, it's not necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then you go with it.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

This is one of the weirdest unsupported claims I've heard in a field renowned for weird, unsupported claims, and weird people.

Well done, OntarioSquatch.

Thank you for promoting negative stereotypes about kooks/weirdos/crackpots/cranks.

A "skeptic" who can't handle cognitive dissonance or uncertainty is going to go with a conclusion regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It basically makes them act unskeptically and that's problem that I was originally trying to point out with this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Being skeptical means you should believe me (and not ask for evidence or suggest I'm wrong) when I say Bigfoot both exists and is an alien engineered creature with supernatural properties that allow it to avoid detection."

There I just summed up the subtext to the last 5 pages.

 

[John Jones]

A "skeptic" who can't handle cognitive dissonance or uncertainty is going to go with a conclusion regardless of whether it's right or wrong. It basically makes them act unskeptically and that's problem that I was originally trying to point out with this thread.

OK. A straw man argument with no citations or evidence.

Nice try!

Better luck next time!

 

[Resume]

Neutrality and non-belief is a main component of the process. Going with what you think is the best possible conclusion is actually being the complete opposite of skeptical,

No.

. . . but like I said before, it's not necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then you go with it.

But that's exactly what scientific/rational skepticism is about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientific skepticism (also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge . . . "A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion."(Steve Novella)

So you see, you are incorrect in thinking skeptics must remain neutral.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

"Being skeptical means you should believe me (and not ask for evidence or suggest I'm wrong) when I say Bigfoot both exists and is an alien engineered creature with supernatural properties that allow it to avoid detection."

There I just summed up the subtext to the last 5 pages.

That's not what this thread is about, but I think you already know that. Also, I've never claimed that Sasquatch have supernatural properties. In fact, I've stated that they don't.

 

[John Jones]

That's not what this thread is about, but I think you already know that. Also, I've never claimed that Sasquatch have supernatural properties. In fact, I've stated that they don't.

State for the record what properties you claim that Sasquatch has. You can keep it very basic, like "existence", "mammalian", etc.

I'm very relaxed and un-anxious as I await your reply.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

So you see, you are incorrect in thinking skeptics must remain neutral.

I've never claimed that skeptics need to remain neutral on everything. It wouldn't make sense if they did.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

State for the record what properties you claim that Sasquatch has. You can keep it very basic, like "existence", "mammalian", etc.

I'm very relaxed and un-anxious as I await your reply.

Flesh and blood, human and genetically engineered.

 

[Resume]

I've never claimed that skeptics need to remain neutral on everything. It wouldn't make sense if they did.

Not playing your game. Please address my post #207 in an intellectually honest fashion.


ETA: This is what you said:

Going with what you think is the best possible conclusion is actually being the complete opposite of skeptical, but like I said before, it's not necessarily wrong. If you have enough evidence to believe something, then you go with it.

You've been shown that coming to a provisional conclusion is not only part of the skeptical process, but the point of it. It is certainly not the "opposite" of it.

Please acknowledge your error.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It sounds like you've misinterpreted the quote that you highlighted

"A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence".

This means that a skeptic assess the stuff that people believe using available evidence.

 

[Resume]

It sounds like you've misinterpreted the quote that you highlighted

"A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence".

This means that a skeptic assess the stuff that people believe using available evidence.

What do you think provisionally proportion acceptance of a claim means OS?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Provisionally proportioning the acceptance of a claim means you're subjecting the acceptance of a claim to further examination.

 

[Resume]

Provisionally proportioning the acceptance of a claim something means you're subjecting the acceptance of a claim to further examination.

Yes, and what happens after the examination of that claim? If the evidence is reliable, well, here's Novella from the clause that preceded the one you snipped.

"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid."

Conclusions. Part of the process, the method.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid."

This is true, but I'm trying to say here that the act of accepting a conclusion isn't a skeptical one.

 

[The Sparrow]

"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid."

This is true, but I'm trying to say here that the act of accepting a conclusion isn't a skeptical one.

So what do you mean by 'accept'?

 

[Resume]

"A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid."

This is true, but I'm trying to say here that the act of accepting a conclusion isn't a skeptical one.

You are wrong. Accepting the claim is the result of a skeptical examination of that claim.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

So what do you mean by 'accept'?

Accept as in believe or acknowledge.