Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by euclid
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.

I thought you wrote earlier that you were "probably the only true skeptic on these boards," -- I'm paraphrasing here -- skilled in the practice of "philosophic skepticism"...

So....given your previous breakdown of an image from Mars as being "unknowable" due to the exclusion of any other senses but "'visual".....doesn't the lack of other senses also come into play here? On the Intarnets? This is a "visual" only media....right? Wouldn't that, by your measure, discredit your above assertions and conclusions as incorrect?

Finally....I like how you do that "talking out of both sides of your mouth thing".....that's a skill.

It isn't visual only and your feeble attempt at analogy fails because it is out of context to the question; it is a validation of the flawed logic that most people display here (and that isn't an insult - it is observation).

The domain of the question under investigation MUST be in context and constrained to the object of the question; which is true not only in scientific inquiry it is also true in philosophic inquiry. Cross domain metaphores must have a one-to-one correlation of data.

The phenomenological experience on the internet is not the subject of inquiry. The deflection/misdirection of your inquiry, however unintentional, is nonetheless a "tactic" skeptics on this board use ceaselessly and incorrectly in their "alleged" search for truth; more than likely it is executed via complete ignorance on the part of the alledged skeptic.... in some cases it is deliberate - in both cases it is unknowable what constitutes the impetus for the deflection/misdirection, ignorance or deliberation. In you're case I would surmise a little of both.

But I will address your question:

"Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted."
The internet is a medium of transferring intangible data from one point to another point in space and time. The mediums transfers sight - in the forms of images, words; sounds - in the forms of voice and musical tones and human language & thoughts/concepts - in the form of written symbols which includes words, musical notation, mathematic equations and all forms of script extant within the civilization's networked technological infrastructure. The medium does not transmit smell, taste, density, physical materials or other tangible objects/constructs.

"Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things."
We can collate, collect, analyze data from various 2nd, 3rd, 4th n-th party-sources. We can verify some of this data by direct experential efforts if the source of the data is terrestrial in origin. Some information is outside direct phenomenological experience and therefore cannot be knowingly adjudicated.

Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them.
Indifference.



-Euclid

[edit on 28-8-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclid
It isn't visual only

Despite your marvelous explanation of the Internet as a communication medium, with the inclusion of sounds, musical notation, tones, etc....I think you may have introduced the "cross domains" yourself; given that I don't think your obtuse enough not to recognize that my focus is on what we are doing right now...typing and reading words, grammar, punctuation, and spacing, intended to convey some meaning. The only phenomenological and/or empirical evidence you have right now....are the words you are seeing and interpreting. Which makes me wonder about your following quotes....

copied/pasted from euclid's posts in this thread

Some information is outside direct phenomenological experience and therefore cannot be knowingly adjudicated. [...]

Nothing that is outside of our direct experience is truly "knowable" [...]

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"

Those concepts appear to starkly conflict with what appears to be a comment of yours that, at least to me, read as "knowing" and final; while having only the words read on your monitor as the "modality".

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.

"they know"???? How does your philosophical skepticism and it's rules of modality, criteria, direct experience....justify your assertion that anyone "knows"? Can you help me clear up this seeming dichotomy? And, can you do it with less than $5.00 words?

Originally posted by euclid
None of the posters here, and others who call themselves skeptics, are true skeptics adhering to the philosophy of Pyrrho - the founder of what we can call skeptic philosophy.

This is fine for me, but I have a different approach for philosophy anyway. I don't regard old philosophers being right about something whenever a newer version of a philosophy is better, or approaching closer to perfection of an axiom, than the older one.

Surely, there are indeed a great number of intelligent and respectful phislosophers, scientists and writers who have contributed to pool of knowledge and understanding. What also comes is development, where most of old folks are proven imperfect, replaced by an even better axiom.

(I love Aristotle, for example, but he was also wrong about a lot of things.)

Originally posted by euclid
But the overall generalization is correct. Nothing that is outside of our direct experience is truly "knowable"... do we really know if the sun is a thermo-nuclear reactive mass or some thing else, do we really know what electricty is, do we really know the nature/essence of consciousness, do we really know how trees came into existence, do we really know there was a big bang, do we really know what causes quantum deviations within large gravitaional fields? (I could go on forever) The point is we take much of our understanding based on 2nd, 3rd, & 4th (and more) hand data without direct experential evidence and treat it like the word of god.... and it isn't.

You do realize that most of us (me, at least) are utilists as well? Thus, if something works good enough to build a car with, it is all fine and true. If we are talking about essence of things, well, then we are going to have a long, long journey ahead. We are propably also not alive at that point of realizing essences of things anymore, either.

I did once measure Newton's laws, just for fun. I noticed they do work, so they are true. I also believe that people who have tested relativity know what they are doing, so I take knowledge from them and inherit it as well as I can. Those Newton's laws still work, though, but they are not practical for every purpose. Thus, utility of a law determines its truthfulnes, at least for me. This is not always the case, whenever I just want to debate because it is a good way to spend time and to learn.

To be more exact, Newton's laws are a rule of thumb, because empirical observations reveal all three of them not always working as expected in context of 19th century physics.


(edit: furthermore, I see labelling oneself under a single label instead of combining several working ideals as things that very young people do. They may have found something that nobody seems to be able to deny, and believe it to be some sort of everlasting mantra of truth, that they will later find out to be incomplete and finally realize to combine several together, and use that.

Students are usually in this cathegory as well. They find some idea that they want to follow perfectly, later realizing how it has been impossible to follow perfectly in the first place.

Another case are people who are simply blind instead of ignorant. Fourth would be people who just refuse to acknowledge what they are themselves.

I call myself a skeptic, which I am, but I am also a lot of other things, depending on what I see as best approach in a given situation. That's called adaptation, which is usually a reasonable thing to do. I know how to use formal logic but I don't really want to use it with people who don't. Its intelligent, fair and reasonable. People who truly understand how things work can always explain those with words, if they wish to.

There are a million things in the world I know nothing about. Same applies to all those people who believe they are geniuses. A few and rare are, but most are just self-centered people with a low esteem. I don't know who is what, nor do I care to state my own beliefs, but it can be clearly seen from whatever whoever writes.)

[edit on 1/9/08 by rawsom]

It all comes down to if you want to know, or just have a guess. Skeptics (which all scientists are - skepticism is their bread and butter) strive to know. Believers just want to have their ideas left alone so they can have fun with them. That's the difference. That's why some believers don't like skeptics so much - because they shine a light on the irrational beliefs the believers hold.

Originally posted by euclid
you're just not smart enough to see/read/understand it or are ignoring it.

Again, you have stated a position with what appears to be a high level of certainty, that contradicts your position that phenomenological/empirical evidence is the "only" way to "know."

I'll risk the chance and propose that you're introducing a paradox as a method of illustrating some concept that you'll later reveal. I say "risk" because I fear you'll simply jump at the chance to extricate yourself from a condition Native Americans refer to as, "speaking with a forked tongue." And then claim it as the result of your superior intellectual rigor.

I've read the comments in your profile.....I'll bet you're wishing even more to have greater than 10 chances to "ignore" members...huh? Ignoring that which confounds you is damning evidence that your intellect could stand some maturing. But, that isn't your fault, nor do I think less of you for it. It will come with time.....you may possibly expand your library, thus, your mind.

I offered the choices of unwilling or unable. You chose unwilling. I will opt for unable. I suspect a crushing ego inhibits your ability to be introspective.

I'll offer a short parable, possibly you could look it up; "Physician, heal thyself."

Originally posted by euclid
The correct position for a skeptic is indifference due to the fact that this is an unknowable enigma and therefore it is pointless and useless to argue whether it is one thing or another!!!!!!

Pointless and useless? You mean, like your position?

I beg to differ. It is not an unknowable enigma; there is the capacity for it to be known. Maybe not in our lifetimes -- but eventually. Plus there is a particular level of probability one way or the other. The probability of it being an actual coin? Very slim by most folks reckoning. The flip-side of that? There's a pretty darn good chance it's simply a rock.

You don't have to walk away from or ignore difficult questions by claiming them to be "unknowable." For many reasoning people, a high level of certainty is often enough to form opinions with.

I usually find the best intellect seeks out questions, ideas, and concepts much like the one described. They ponder them. Roll them around in their head. Try it sometime.

And your comment;

most skeptics here dismiss things out-of-hand just as much as "believers"

Is completely unsupported by empirical/phenomenological evidence. You've said it..."most skeptics"...now support it. Prove it.

Again, you've shown an opinion that is completely contrary to what you hold as your intellectual values.

'Pffft'....on your values.

I'm not sure.. You must see by now that some of us think the whole of things, not just one single aspect that you call skepticism. There is more to human behaviour that you yourself are also doing, it is not possible for you to do anything else. It is also the case that if you admit even some of our points, you have already lost.

Do you realize that we do know what skepticism means but that we do not intent to make our lifes impossible because of it? By your standards, I cannot know whether I can get a toasted bread out of my bread toaster. You know what? I don't, but I trust I get it because there is a high propability that I do.

We, here, and everywhere else for that matter, are humans. We cannot possibly live by only one single standard of living that you expect us to live by. We call ourselves skeptics, and we are all that, because we CAN question everything whatsoever that we want to question. We cannot, however, trust that what just doesn't happen, happens, because there is a possibility. Our lifetimes our 60-80 years or something, we don't live by standards of billions of years.

We still can understand geology and astrophysics.