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.

 

Skeptics and Believers dont exist

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


That was quite a bit of work to set up a strawman argument. You realize, don't you, that skeptics look for evidence, and only reject it when it's just not good evidence?




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I'm pretty convinced that history will eventually regard this era as one of strictly believers (ultimately, overall); regardless of the political-secular or spiritual-religious nature of the beliefs. A paradigm or civilization with enough objective facts will require the end of secrecy-based government and organized religions... Of course I admit that's my BELIEF.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dean Goldberry
 


I think history will regard them as non-existent



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Too bad that wasn't a strawman argument. Might want to know the gist of logical fallacies til you attempt to label others with them.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Too bad that wasn't a strawman argument. Might want to know the gist of logical fallacies til you attempt to label others with them.


Going with our own definitions again? Have fun with that, I don't play that game.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
"Instead, how about questioning everything, including oneself."

The age old addage,"Question Authority" is meaningless if you are not willing to question the "authorities" you may already believe.

It's nice to know that the mods of even this forum can keep it in perspective.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Sure aren't, funny that you would accuse me of that though considering. And to refute, I go by this definition,

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...
And if you can actually defend that claim without mental and/or semantic gymnastics I would happily accept it but I am pretty sure you can't. PhDs do not bestow magical powers that transcend the human proclivities I hate to tell you and the "Scientific Community" has like all the rest of humanity only half listen when something does not jive with what it accepts as fact, regardless of any proof, this has happend with any number of theories that are now accepted as fact.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
COME ON PEOPLE!

God...........(sorry for caps),Armap was right,can we stop waisting time arguing BS and start debating the truth!?

Can we stop debating which belief is right?We have resorted to religion on this issue,"I am right,you are wrong!"

If certain MEMBERS can not contribute w/o bias then do NOT CONTRIBUTE!

We are being EXTREMLY DERAILED from the facts and truth pursuit here,maybe that is the plan of some,I dont know.

Since I have been back on ATS I have seen greater divide b/w members on the core issue of ATS........not to mention viewers and members diverting attention to non UFO/alien topics(ie;topics about NWO,swine flu,etc with 200 stars and flags)

Can we please get "back to basics"?

It matters not,I will be back on Wednesday(right now I am watching the meteor showers and am on wifi) and will have more threads that push the facts of UFO and alien visitation.I just am glad some members are able to disregard this "war" b/w members here on ATS.

I am not liking the direction ATS is going right now,but I hope I and others can change it.Again,good thread skyfloating,sorry I couldn't contribute more,but I have been real busy recently.

[edit on 4/26/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 8/30/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk. If you want to be a skeptic, you have to understand what being skeptical means.


Why would any one "want" to be a X (skeptic or believer)? wouldn't it be better if people just wanted to find the truth (whatever it may be), and use all of their available intelligence, critical thinking, and critically vetted advise of others in doing so? Skepticism is one of those processes required.

But you make it sound as though "being" a skeptic is a virtue, not the use of skepticism, This is the kind of reasoning that entangles the ego with the process of skeptical scrutiny. There is no virtue in being a skeptic. God is not going to reward you with a cookie if you are a skeptic. Nothing about "you" as a person is better because you "are" a skeptic. or because you are a "this or that". Rather, the conclusions that one may come about are more likely to be verifiable and consistent with other data if a skeptical process is used.

This is an example of the erroneous attribution of a process (the scientific method and skeptical thinking) as a human trait. And the only purpose that it can possibly serve is satisfying the ego (making a person feel morally or intellectually superior to others) or attacking another person's ego.

Given that this is almost invariably the tacit purpose of most of those skeptic versus believer arguments, it is no surprise that eventually they turn into personal attacks, because that is what they were all along, just veiled.


-rrr



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


"But you make it sound as though "being" a skeptic is a virtue, not the use of skepticism, "

Splitting hairs? If you use skepticism properly you can hardly be anything but a skeptic. It undoubtedly doesn't not constitute your whole personality, but it should be a facet of it.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


"But you make it sound as though "being" a skeptic is a virtue, not the use of skepticism, "

Splitting hairs? If you use skepticism properly you can hardly be anything but a skeptic. It undoubtedly doesn't not constitute your whole personality, but it should be a facet of it.


Those are the hairs I meant to split precisely. It is more than semantics when you "should" be a skeptic as opposed as using skepticism.

Whether you and I are basically saying the same thing or not comes down to whether or not you would get a bumper sticker, t-shirt or login name that reads "Skeptic", or dismiss information automatically if it does not come from another badge carrying skeptic. If skepticism is something that defines *you*, well then you have somehow mistaken a process for a human trait.

Aside from that, the other difference is what kind of outcomes result from discussions from other people. If the outcome of a discussion is to assert the superiority of an individuals favorite"ism" above the pursuit of truth, then that would be another way in which being a skeptic and using skepticism are entirely different things.

-rrr



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


OK, now I am getting confused with all those semantics, you have to remember that I am just a guy that never learnt English at school, so I am not aware of all those details.

Could you please tell me what you would call someone that applies scepticism (in different doses) to all that surrounds him/her?

Thanks.

PS: after writing the above I notices that there is no "beliverism", as far as I know, so in that sense a sceptic will always be different from a believer?



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


OK, now I am getting confused with all those semantics, you have to remember that I am just a guy that never learnt English at school, so I am not aware of all those details.

Could you please tell me what you would call someone that applies scepticism (in different doses) to all that surrounds him/her?

Thanks.

PS: after writing the above I notices that there is no "beliverism", as far as I know, so in that sense a sceptic will always be different from a believer?


First I will give you the obvious answer that you want me to give you... "A skeptic"

In reality though, If it is somebody I am on a first name basis I would call them by their first name, jim or john, or whatever. If it is my wife, I would probably call her a term of endearment like Honey, or dear.

What you have to wonder is, in what realistic debate scenario is there a necessity to call somebody a skeptic or a believer, or any other label that is derived from a process they carry out?

Put another way.... do you poop? do you poop in a daily basis? What do you call a person who poops on a daily basis?

Should I call you a pooper because of that? or are you merely somebody smart enough to maintains proper digestive health by pooping on a regular basis like everyone else?

for all intents and purposes you can call somebody a skeptic or a believer and there is no confusion.

However, the problem that often comes up is that people identify with those labels and their egos become entangled with them. A person is no longer defending an argument, but defending him/herself and the associated side. Don't just take my word for it, just look at all believer verus skeptic threads. Or look at democrats versus republican threads, or feminist versus whatever the opposite of that is threads. How often to those threads evolve into group A is morally superior to group B? would you say 95%? Because they don't really evolve into that, they start like that, and the veil of politeness wears out.

I would contend that discussions of any controversial matter are bound to go much better, and presenters of evidence are far more likely to win other people over if ego-linguistics like the use of nominalizations of processes as personal labels are avoided.

And in short, If I did not misunderstand the op, It seems like that was the message he or she was trying to convey, and I happen to think it's a great idea.

-rrr

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rickyrrr]

[edit on 29-4-2009 by rickyrrr]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
First I will give you the obvious answer that you want me to give you... "A skeptic"
I don't want you to give me a specific answer, I really wanted to know it because in Portuguese we rarely use the word sceptic (obviously, in Portuguese, "céptico") without preceding it with something that identifies what that person is sceptic about, like Euro-sceptics for those that are sceptic about the European Union's actions, and even that was a newly imported word.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by rickyrrr
First I will give you the obvious answer that you want me to give you... "A skeptic"
I don't want you to give me a specific answer, I really wanted to know it because in Portuguese we rarely use the word sceptic (obviously, in Portuguese, "céptico") without preceding it with something that identifies what that person is sceptic about, like Euro-sceptics for those that are sceptic about the European Union's actions, and even that was a newly imported word.


Wow, didn't know that about the use of the word in Portuguese. I though your question was rhetorical. Thanks for that information. So as you can see, the use of XXX-skeptic like Euro-skeptic is somewhat of a "better" or more targeted label as just "skeptic". Nonetheless, it further highlights how arbitrary labels can be when different languages and cultures sort them out in different ways.

Cheers,

-rrr



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't want you to give me a specific answer, I really wanted to know it because in Portuguese we rarely use the word sceptic (obviously, in Portuguese, "céptico") without preceding it with something that identifies what that person is sceptic about, like Euro-sceptics for those that are sceptic about the European Union's actions, and even that was a newly imported word.


Thanks for that interesting piece of info.


Thats the way "skeptical" used to be applied in English too. The idea of "being a Skeptic" is a modern movement - a cult so to speak.

Words become memes, memes become conflicts.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
However, the problem that often comes up is that people identify with those labels and their egos become entangled with them. A person is no longer defending an argument, but defending him/herself and the associated side. Don't just take my word for it, just look at all believer verus skeptic threads. Or look at democrats versus republican threads, or feminist versus whatever the opposite of that is threads. How often to those threads evolve into group A is morally superior to group B? would you say 95%? Because they don't really evolve into that, they start like that, and the veil of politeness wears out.



This paragraph should be required reading for all.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
One thing that I have found out is even with the fact that any true ufologist is well balanced between the two spectrums, sometimes (well a lot of times) it is still appropriate to refer to a certain approach by one as either "skeptical" or "believer". As we see most commonly in threads here on ATS there is always a group of individuals which are skeptical of alien life visiting Earth (sometimes alien life at all!), while there are other groups CERTAIN that aliens are visiting Earth. Most of the time however, most of those in the aforementioned groups manage to remain somewhat unbiased, although I see that a lot of them still have their core belief and will always look at the answer that fits them, regardless of the evidence for or against.

But as far as normal investigations go, again using ATS threads as a reference, of course you will have members branch out to the 'skeptic' or 'believer' side during the course of the investigation, that is normal. For an example, I might be 'skeptical' of a youtube video, while member "A"may be certain it is proof of Pleadian lightships. Now one who is truly balanced will always remain 'skeptical' of anything other than what the evidence shows, and regardless of his or hers own personal wants or beliefs they will digress to the evidence and make a far conclusion. Most of the time in the real good UFO/Alien cases the final 'conclusion' is still unknown, then it is when we have the further branching of individual beliefs.

One person may believe that the facts of the case obviously point to ETs, while another may think there is not enough evidence to make a certain conclusion like that. The point I am trying to make is sometimes there really are times where the terms 'skeptic' and 'believer' are appropriate. But that only applies to the two 'pseudo' ends of the 'ufology spectrum' in my opinion. Of course I agree with you that in reality the real way that a truly balanced investigator goes about research is without either of the ideologies of the skeptics and believers. In my humble opinion it is just really hard not to attach those terms to different outlooks of cases sometimes, however, in saying that the point of your thread is still right. Anyone who is utilizing a purely analytical approach to ufology will be neutral, although as we all know sometimes that is easier said than done.

[edit on 8/30/2009 by jkrog08]



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join