It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Skeptic a bad word?

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
"Skeptic" is one of those words that has been bastardized by Propaganda.
There was a time, where 'Skeptic' was used more like the polar opposite of "Naive". A skeptic would be leery of certain situations regarding the accepted status quo, where those who lacked wisdom or experience were considered naive. At some point, the word 'skeptic' has obtained extra baggage that implies that a skeptic may be too pessimistic, all 'doom and gloom' versus the naive wonders and miracles of organized religions. That "questioning authority" became "question all accepted opinions".

Either way, the term is a bit 'tarnished', although I don't think it is a 'bad word'.

Those who are labeled "Skeptics" often undergo a bigoted scrutiny because they don't accept what they are told at face value. I would also say that the term is thrown about quite a bit as a veiled insult (or not so veiled). So anytime one of the Gatekeepers of the Status Quo label you as a skeptic, shame not, and wear that label as a badge of honor.

DocMoreau




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Any person with a 120 or higher I.Q. is probably capable of exercising judgement, but critical thinking is something we take for granted.


I think you need to say 90 I.Q. for 120 I.Q. limits about 90% of the population from the abiliy to have judgement since 90% of the population is below 120 I.Q....hehe




This is why we have skeptics for UFO's, a photograph and filmed phenomena, skeptics for the existence of life after death, despite scientific investigation into the matter (a life force does leave the body at death, it's been observed.) We have skeptics for the existence of chem trails, despite investigations done on the matter proving that chemicals are being sprayed.


I think what you are missing here is the level at which a person becomes a skeptic on a topic.

As example; If you present data of chemtrails over a limited area or town with pictures and documents etc. backing it up I would follow your conclusions and we both would most likely come to an agreement that it is real.

But now once we expand it with chemtrails across the whole US on a daily bases you start to lose me unless you present more empirical data backing it up. That data needed also starts to expand outward like a tree with many more branches such as the mass fleet of equipment and planes, factories, and 10,000s of people involved that would not be there for the more limited chemtrail conspiracy. The problem that happens in this case and so many others is this expanded conspiracy still only has the data from the limited one as proof and it is also confounded with piles of just totally false data (such as pictures of contrails from normal airlines) that in the end there really is nothing to it even when the limited chemtrails could be factual.



Open-mindedness allows critical thinking and the integration of new ideas, even if those ideas stretch belief systems etc. If something is logically sound, skeptics should not have a hard time accepting it, but the most logically sound explanations for 'paranormal' phenomena I have seen shot down again and again as 'impossible' - especially topics that have not been defined by a status quo.


I think the word "impossible" is always the wrong word at anytime. In the case of the paranormal I think this one comes down to personal experience since there is really no actual empirical data backing it up. Even with the most logical explanation when the rubber meets the road they are only conjectures of what might be the truth without solid proof too.

I find this in majority of the cases where that last link needed is missing and proof positive stays as a conjecture only.

What I find in most cases is my comments on what would be needed to show that a topic is true are ignored or some excuse is given as to why it can't be done. As example with the very long posts on Criss Angel levitation ability I just ask that this levitation (anyone) be done under controlled conditions to validate it as real. I’m not suggesting it is not real, but a TV show is not proof. Instead of a mutual agreement that more investigating is needed I get excuses as to why it cannot be done in a control environment, but can be done surprising for TV at any time. I also get excuses about how those who can do it for real do not want the world to know they can, and a plethora of other reasons.

In the end I must sit on the side that it is not real for the data needed as proof cannot be done. This is not saying it is impossible as much as not provable. I feel the not provable is the best answer out there and it should be everyone’s main objective to continue to gather the data needed to further the truth whichever way the truth may go.


[edit on 24-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
To get to a point where questions are no longer necessary is a sign of repression. Debunkers and unquestioning believers both share this trait.


Yes you hit the nail on the head here for both are unwilling to follow any other logic process but their own and both can not budge an inch in any other direction even when data starts to take them there. I also find in both these cases that they tend to filter their information to only what fits their views while ignoring anything else, or they just out right argue that any other course of action is ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Skeptics



Skeptizism has become PERVERTED by the time.


Most people who call them skeptics today are in fact only AFRAID of being called naive or believing in something that is too far off.


Skeptics in my view means to question everything and anyone should do that so in the common sense I'd say being a SKEPTIC is bad...



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Skeptic is a bad word when global warming or the new buzz word, "climate change" is the issue. Most global warming believers think that us skeptics should be decapitated.

To believer and skeptic both: Have a good Christmas holiday. Enjoy the time with family and friends.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Areal51
To get to a point where questions are no longer necessary is a sign of repression. Debunkers and unquestioning believers both share this trait.


Yes you hit the nail on the head here for both are unwilling to follow any other logic process but their own and both can not budge an inch in any other direction even when data starts to take them there. I also find in both these cases that they tend to filter their information to only what fits their views while ignoring anything else, or they just out right argue that any other course of action is ridiculous.





both can not budge an inch


Yes, this is what I seek to understand, it is almost an enigma,

This is what has taught me to back away from a debate, it becomes pointless.

[edit on 033131p://bMonday2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Skeptic is a bad word when global warming or the new buzz word, "climate change" is the issue. Most global warming believers think that us skeptics should be decapitated.

To believer and skeptic both: Have a good Christmas holiday. Enjoy the time with family and friends.


Merry Christmas



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
Skeptics



Skeptizism has become PERVERTED by the time.


Most people who call them skeptics today are in fact only AFRAID of being called naive or believing in something that is too far off.


Skeptics in my view means to question everything and anyone should do that so in the common sense I'd say being a SKEPTIC is bad...


I have to disagree,
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Does this go the other way? Maybe skeptic- haters


Yep. There are plenty of people out there who love to 'Cry Skeptic' using the bad definition when it doesn't really apply to the person.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


nothing wrong with being a sceptic/cautious--sorry i'm on guard all the time "paranoid" have received too many "beatings" by being simple--what i dont understand is why some have to get a "hate on" here on ats a place i look for a refuge--for me the physical assaults i suffered as a child in england definitely have caused me to "get a hate on" for that place and i some how have to try and suppress the vengence i "desire" but shouldn't want to see for where i was born--even if i'm not a brit by race--it is my home and i still have family left there----a persons childhood experiences never leave them--i suspect everyone of us here are sceptics because of the seperate "hells" each of us have experienced while growing up.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Pseudoskepticism is something everyone should be familiar with. That's when you doubt something simply because it contradicts your existing beliefs without conducting an honest investigation.

I think there should be a few things everyone should be made clearly aware of. This is one.

C



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voidmaster

2.) Hated Skeptic- A person who has already decided that something doesn't exist, or is not true, and considers everyone who believes otherwise to be either ignorant or a liar. His purpose is to convince other people that the subject at hand is completely ridiculous, and is not even worth being discussed.


This distinction needs to be made and kept in mind when talking about skepticism at all.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Most 'skeptics' are impersonators. They are not using their own judgement to study information and use their own critical thinking - reason being they refuse to study the topics to begin with. They refuse to look at the information.

How can you debunk information that you haven't read? Believe me : plenty of people do it, or imagine that they are doing it. The reality is, they are derailing the evolution of the subject and encouraging people NOT to look into ____ or even consider ____ plausible.

They declare something impossible before considering the evidence presented, and the proof for this is in the way they go about discussing topics. Outright denial is the first thing out of their mouth, the rest is damnation and mockery of anyone considering the existence of ______.

I'm simply not under the impression that most people are healthy skeptics at all. Their mind is closed from the first sentence they speak, all the way until the topic is deflated and people are tired of arguing with them. "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
I'm simply not under the impression that most people are healthy skeptics at all. Their mind is closed from the first sentence they speak, all the way until the topic is deflated and people are tired of arguing with them. "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome.


Yes most are not healthy sleptics, but that can mean either side of the coin don't you think?

I don't know for I find myself many times progressing during a debate and end up with a different view than when I started. The only times I hit a wall so to speak is when I’m up against a person who is totally set and they just keep repeating the same message.

I also see the person who continues to debate a topic even when they do not have enough data to completely close all the links of factuality, but instead of saying hey I believe but at this point this is all I can prove they seem to kick, bite and claw to the bitter end…hehe



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Come on guys if it werent for skeptics this site wouldnt exist!!! lol

Because we are all skeptical we look for conspiracies and not just believe what the government tells us!!!

if we werent skeptics... noone would believe aliens exist... noone would believe 9/11 was an inside job...

either way you are a skeptic or a believer... just depends on what you are lookin at... if you believe in the 9/11 inside job theory you are skeptical of the government... if you believe the governments "official" story... you are skeptical of the conspiracy...

its not a bad word, people just need be be educated on this site IMHO



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

AH, BUT THEY BREED IN THE SEWERS, AND SOON YOU GET HUGE EVIL-SMELLING FLOCKS OF SOILED SKEPTICS, FLYING OUT OF PEOPLES' LAVATORIES AND INFRINGING THEIR PERSONAL FREEDOMS



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Most of the posts on this thread have addressed either the “skeptic” types or the definition of skeptcism in general, and many valid points and definitions have been made.

I do agree that, especially in forums like this one, there seem to be some very insincere, obsessive skeptics. And this group, as Voidmaster nicely summarized it in two categories, belongs to the "Hated Skeptics" group.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not hated because they are mean or anything, but simply because their skepticism has turned in to a schtick and is void of any rhyme or reason. More importantly, because they have made "skepticism" into an ideology. But, it is not an ideology, is it?

Skepticism, although it has the -ism suffix, is simply a character trait, inherently built in to the Operating Systems (so to speak) of a huge portion of us as humans, and offer many advantages in the survival of our respective tribal arrangements. Carriers of this trait tend to go towards arts and sciences or any other field that requires free thinking. They challenge the existing human condition in an effort to improve on it.

To form a fully functioning society, this first portion nicely complements the second, who tend to be more in to military, religion, etc. They don't question the status quo. They don't question orders. They don't question god's words. They are the go-to guys if you want to defend the way things are.

One big problem is that, once this character trait is defined and classified as "skepticism", and "the skeptic" has become aware of the classification of what has simply been his/her natural way of thinking until then, the magic slowly starts fading away.

The now "official" skeptic, willingly joins the category and, unfortunately, while once unpredictable, is hereby contained. There starts a feedback inhibition cycle between the actual "trait" and it's "label". They feed off each other and eventually become a liability.

Skepticism requires an open mind as opposed to the auto pilot, out-there-to-prove-everyone-wrong, pro-level skepticism. By definition, the once open mind is now a member of a certain line of thought, which, ironically, begins to limit that "once open mind". What a bummer!



[edit on 24-12-2007 by may_be_true]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join