arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I trust chillzero.
Who can you trust? How did you become a Skeptic?
- Thread starter streetsmart1980
- Start date
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Dont' apologise, Hokulele. All threads can benefit with the addition of a little xkcd.
Xkcd is the new cowbell.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I also trust Hokulele.Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Ok Hokulele, he's got his guard down now. Anytime you're ready. . .
snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
I trust Mashuna. Why? Because I trust all fluffy white sheep from Welsh Wales.
My move to skepticism is still in progress. Only because sometimes its easier to blame outside forces for my predicament , thus, I have no control and no choices to make.
Maybe it's part of recovery. yeah, that's the ticket.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
I trust Mashuna. Why? Because I trust all fluffy white sheep from Welsh Wales.
My move to skepticism is still in progress. Only because sometimes its easier to blame outside forces for my predicament , thus, I have no control and no choices to make.
Maybe it's part of recovery. yeah, that's the ticket.
We're all very trustworthy. Although you do have to watch out for the sheep in wolf's clothing.
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,584
Everyone and anything to a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
I don't have any, but if I did I'd say to a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
To a certain degree.
Huh?
The realisation I don't have absolute belief in anyone or anything.
I think doubt is a better survival strategy than belief.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I think Ivor's post illustrates the problem quite well. The OP is vague and asks lots of questions that do not lend themselves to definite answers. While I appreciate the intent of the post, it's kinda hard to respond to properly.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I still have doubts that I am a skeptic.
streetsmart1980
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 15
Thanks for the stories on how you became a skeptic. I'll have to check out those 'naughty nurses' some time.
My motivation for becoming a skeptic also accumulated over time. I guess if you get duped enough by a variety of sources you will eventually develop a sort of skeptical toolbox. I am just glad there are so many great programs like Bulls-Hit and Mythbusters available now a days. I learn best visually and through comedy. I just wish those programs had been around earlier. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.
I didn't mean to come off harsh. I guess calling humans stupid and wrong didn't sound quite right. What I meant with that is my observation that most people I have encountered wouldn't come up with a decent skeptical toolbox on their own. I have been severely mislead by my own ideas and feelings. Most people I know are the same way, but it is only a small section of the population that ends up refining those tools and consistently using them. I have met many engineers, physicists, chemists and other highly educated professionals that totally believe in a lot of woo. It appears that a majority of people in history have also been very gullible and superstitious. I find that the education system in the west as I know it doesn't do a very good job of expanding a persons skeptical / reasoning toolbox. That's why I think those skills are so rare. Science and skepticsm are not necessarily natural occurrences in every day people. Hence we are susceptible to self delusions. Also there have always been people throughout history who were more educated than others and they were very well able to take advantage of the less educated. Certain Religious movements were more guilty of this than others. There have also been super-deluded maniacs that have manipulated regular people into supporting atrocious movements. Think Hitler. People throughout history have had a tendency to fall for such irrational traps. Most people I know are so busy working and chasing toys that they are unable to double check the movements / beliefs they are caught up in. I always found that frightening and unacceptable.
By saying "I have separated myself from the masses" I don't mean that I am better than others. It is not a judgment of value, but merely a statement of fact. If someone chooses to become a leader, they separate themselves from pure followers. If they choose to produce, then they separate themselves from pure consumers. One route takes substantial effort and is the road less traveled. The other route doesn't take much effort at all. All I was saying was, that I had made a conscious decision to avoid the common default life, because I found it to be obviously a dangerous and vulnerable path. I never wanted to be someone elses subject, I made the effort to guide my own destiny, hence I separated myself from a large amount of people. I mean look at the number of people that believe in the paranormal. Look at the programming on Television. The marketing experts, the businessmen at the top, the ones demanding maximum profit at any cost know that regular people will watch and believe lies rather than science / skepticism. It sells better, or at least it does for now and it has in the past. I welcome disagreement on any of these points.
Looking back on my journey I got trapped in a lot of different places. With my initial questions I was getting at the idea that I couldn't trust people so much, because many of them didn't have the skeptical toolbox either. I am grateful that there are organizations out there that have compiled the principals of skepticism for people like myself to adopt. I wouldn't have come up with them on my own. I am convinced that the principals of skepticism are essential to an exceptionally good life, and that was always what I wanted.
As to how much I have questioned science?
Not much. To me science is a large collection of 'facts'. It is a system developed by humans to research practical things in a way that tries to minimize the common mistakes people make in observing reality. It helps us guide our next areas of inquiry. As a principal I think it is sound. As a collection of information I think it is also great. We will continue to refine our understandings and that is an excellent position.
So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.
My motivation for becoming a skeptic also accumulated over time. I guess if you get duped enough by a variety of sources you will eventually develop a sort of skeptical toolbox. I am just glad there are so many great programs like Bulls-Hit and Mythbusters available now a days. I learn best visually and through comedy. I just wish those programs had been around earlier. It would have saved me a lot of trouble.
I didn't mean to come off harsh. I guess calling humans stupid and wrong didn't sound quite right. What I meant with that is my observation that most people I have encountered wouldn't come up with a decent skeptical toolbox on their own. I have been severely mislead by my own ideas and feelings. Most people I know are the same way, but it is only a small section of the population that ends up refining those tools and consistently using them. I have met many engineers, physicists, chemists and other highly educated professionals that totally believe in a lot of woo. It appears that a majority of people in history have also been very gullible and superstitious. I find that the education system in the west as I know it doesn't do a very good job of expanding a persons skeptical / reasoning toolbox. That's why I think those skills are so rare. Science and skepticsm are not necessarily natural occurrences in every day people. Hence we are susceptible to self delusions. Also there have always been people throughout history who were more educated than others and they were very well able to take advantage of the less educated. Certain Religious movements were more guilty of this than others. There have also been super-deluded maniacs that have manipulated regular people into supporting atrocious movements. Think Hitler. People throughout history have had a tendency to fall for such irrational traps. Most people I know are so busy working and chasing toys that they are unable to double check the movements / beliefs they are caught up in. I always found that frightening and unacceptable.
By saying "I have separated myself from the masses" I don't mean that I am better than others. It is not a judgment of value, but merely a statement of fact. If someone chooses to become a leader, they separate themselves from pure followers. If they choose to produce, then they separate themselves from pure consumers. One route takes substantial effort and is the road less traveled. The other route doesn't take much effort at all. All I was saying was, that I had made a conscious decision to avoid the common default life, because I found it to be obviously a dangerous and vulnerable path. I never wanted to be someone elses subject, I made the effort to guide my own destiny, hence I separated myself from a large amount of people. I mean look at the number of people that believe in the paranormal. Look at the programming on Television. The marketing experts, the businessmen at the top, the ones demanding maximum profit at any cost know that regular people will watch and believe lies rather than science / skepticism. It sells better, or at least it does for now and it has in the past. I welcome disagreement on any of these points.
Looking back on my journey I got trapped in a lot of different places. With my initial questions I was getting at the idea that I couldn't trust people so much, because many of them didn't have the skeptical toolbox either. I am grateful that there are organizations out there that have compiled the principals of skepticism for people like myself to adopt. I wouldn't have come up with them on my own. I am convinced that the principals of skepticism are essential to an exceptionally good life, and that was always what I wanted.
As to how much I have questioned science?
Not much. To me science is a large collection of 'facts'. It is a system developed by humans to research practical things in a way that tries to minimize the common mistakes people make in observing reality. It helps us guide our next areas of inquiry. As a principal I think it is sound. As a collection of information I think it is also great. We will continue to refine our understandings and that is an excellent position.
So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Snopes is pretty well researched and generally trustworthy. But make sure you read through their Lost Legends page.
streetsmart1980
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 15
Originally Posted by streetsmart1980 View Post
So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.
Snopes is pretty well researched and generally trustworthy. But make sure you read through their Lost Legends page.
I read the lost legends page. I don't see how it is relevant.
So is snopes.com trustworthy or not? I am relying on it for now.
Snopes is pretty well researched and generally trustworthy. But make sure you read through their Lost Legends page.
I read the lost legends page. I don't see how it is relevant.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Thanks Hokulele. Yes, this was the point of the Lost Legends page. I was hoping that streetsmart would come to it him/her(?)self like I did. It's a very powerful message when you read the legends as presented, then suddenly something seems not quite right, so you look for "more information about this page" and get the story.
Streetsmart, snopes.com is generally fairly reliable. But you should not use it as a sole authoritative source. Any source can get things wrong, including Snopes. Always do your own research on subjects that are important to you.
Telaynay's G'son
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 209
The point is that neither Kepler, Michelson or Morley started from scratch: They tested their hypotheses, built on observations. Since scientific observations suggested that orbits were perfect circles, Kepler went with that. Likewise, since scientific observations showed that whenever something was moving, it was carried by something (e.g., sound through air), the hypothesis of an aether was suggested.
The difference lies in how the observations have been achieved: Do we rely on people imagining that a chariot drags the Sun across the sky, or do we rely on the scientific explanation, based on logic, rationality and sound models?
That's why Shermer is right: We should start with the idea that we are wrong, and seek to find out what is real, instead of what our senses tell us. There has to be positive evidence - not belief that needs to be disproven.
If the latter was true, psychics would be real, until proven false. Ain't working that way.
The difference lies in how the observations have been achieved: Do we rely on people imagining that a chariot drags the Sun across the sky, or do we rely on the scientific explanation, based on logic, rationality and sound models?
That's why Shermer is right: We should start with the idea that we are wrong, and seek to find out what is real, instead of what our senses tell us. There has to be positive evidence - not belief that needs to be disproven.
If the latter was true, psychics would be real, until proven false. Ain't working that way.