reply to post by 2012gal
Of course, that follows simple logic. Even skeptics in their logic aknowledge the fact but they dont like it applied to themselves, of course.
Just recently I was listening to the editor of "skeptic magazine" talk about how the mind "automatically" forms triangles from dots. I almost
choked with laughter and wondered why he couldnt apply the same logic to how he thinks?
The mind doesnt automatically do anything, it does so through habit and condition, reflex and semantics.
A closed mind who has already decided nothing exists will immediately attempt to rationalise anything they see in favor of their own preconditioned
beliefs. So if they do see a UFO, to them it will automatically translate into the quickest and simplest rationalization which fits, balloons, birds,
basically anything they can convince themselves of.
They wont give it extended observation or consideration because their mind already placed it within a "safely tagged" box in their thinking and
within that confine it exists only as the rationalisation you give it.
True skepticism, which is very rare, questions everything, every piece of information, every source, every presentation of reality of truth and runs
it through a process of deduction and reasoning to determine the solidity of the "fact".
In most cases the true skeptic will accept nothing at face value, not daily news, not newspaper photos, nothing, if the information cant be stripped
back down to facts and then processed through reason towards a likely or concrete meaning, it remains obscure and the true skeptic can accept absolute
Im a true skeptic. I dont need meaning in the world around me. Its transient, distorted and misrepresented at all levels. Advertising, marketing,
media positioning, juxataposition, political spin, they are tools , presenters of a flow of soiled truths which have no value. The only thing I
require is to know what is not true and that is pretty much 80% of everything.
Lack of truth doesnt imply false, it simply leaves a matter undetermined which mean I can use the pieces to build a puzzle as I find links. This cant
be done when you safely box every lie away under the illusion of truth.
Most things I pigeon hole as shadows of a truth and when I see something new I might reference it against other shadows and see what patterns emerge,
I might compare patterns t motives, motives to results, results to methodologies, deductive reasoning until im satisfied I cant go any further.
Ill theorise on almost any given thing all the way down the line just to see how it plays out and what logical obstacles or indicators might pop
Does it impact living in the world? No. Why should it? The chair is real enough that I can sit on it, my food is real enough to eat, whatever the ture
image of the social system and model is, it still exists in some form or other, money is required to buy things, things are born of needs and desires.
I understand its operation, im able to function inside it but I have no need to beleive any of it.
For me that is skepticism and I like it that way. The only person that convinces me of anything is me and until im satisfied with something, I dont
need to believe or disbelieve it. I mgith tend to one extreme or another on varying issues depending on how the pieces all knit together, on others I
might just sit on teh fence and watch until something else catches my eye.
Perception is everything. Mulder said it very well, trust nobody.