Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by euclid
The problem with your argument is that pyrrhonism is not the only form of skepticism. Pyrrhonism is primarily concerned with philosophical skepticism.
The basic premise being that (as your quote says) everything is ultimately unknowable. Seems like kind of a dead end, but that's just me. In any
case, we see very little of it on ATS from either "side".
What we usually encounter is rational skepticism.
What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse...This is wrong. Skepticism is a
provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method,
not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be
true. When we say we are skeptical, we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe...A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to
such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore
skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
Source
When someone makes a claim, "Ancient Ruins Found on Mars!" it does not sound exactly pyrrhonistic. With a claim like this, a scientific skeptic
must respond. The skeptic must ask for evidence, evidence that is verifiable, evidence that is falsifiable, evidence that is not
ambiquous.
When the topic is the physical world, the world of things that can be seen, heard, touched. In this world scientific skepticism is a valid philosophy.
In any other world I would agree that pyrrhonism is appropriate. Unless you consider aliens & UFO's part of that world you must allow scientific
skepticism to have its say.
[edit on 27-8-2008 by Phage]
Well firstly a skeptic should should seek truth rather than stating, with no basis of truth, something is a rock with out knowing what it is. Thus,
the Pyrrhonistic criteria has been met in this case that the "thing" is unknowable. Pyrrhonism is not a dead end unless one does not know what it
means to be truly skeptical. When I see some "thing" like the thing you noted in the
Ancient Ruins Found on Mars! thread I did not state what I thought that "thing"
might be. I haven't said it is a bunch of rocks and I haven't stated that it is an eroded structure. Both are plausible and because I cannot know
either way I can only imagine what it could be. I am a true a skeptic, possibly the only one on this board.
Additionally the "headline" of the thread is just that a headline. It is meant to capture the attention of someone so that they will be compelled to
begin reading that particular thread. It is the exact same mechanism used by printed newspapers.... hence the name headline. And once reading the very
first line of the post that is the subject of the headline we see:
What could this be?
Is this all that is left of ancient martian life?
or is there still life on mars after all...
What else other than a intelligent being could have constructed this?
which is to point out that the headline was an attention grabber. While the real intent of the post was to ask a question.... a series of
questions.
Addressing the scientific skepticism - I doubt very much that you understand that as well. It is:
a scientific or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence..
source
Note that it uses empirical evidence. It is:
Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation
source
This leads to the question of what is "empirical":
A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on
evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
As any one of reasonable intelligence should be able to plainly surmise; gawking at photos taken from millions of miles away does not meet the
criteria of empirical evidence for the scientific skeptic, i.e. "senses" mean more than one modality of senses must be a determining factor in
whether or not some criteria meets the prerequisites necessary to be considered "empirical evidence"; therefore the photos DO NOT MEET THAT
REQUISITE CRITERIA AS THEY ARE BASED ON ONLY ONE MODALITY which is "visual" and therefore its true nature is "unknowable". And the skeptic cannot
presume to attempt to use scientific skepticism as a point of reference.... it means the analysis of the data is squarely in the realm of philosophic
skepticism.
As I said no one here knows what it is to be a true skeptic.
But, now any skeptic who reads this post has no excuse.... they know and if they continue with their out-of-hand dismissives then they are just guilty
as the fanatical believers.
-Euclid
[edit on 27-8-2008 by euclid]