Skeptics and Believers dont exist

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"The true meaning is fine but this is not what the masses believe the word to be, this includes most self professed skeptics."

So, we can't agree on what a word means. Where would this go from there? You want a custom definition, I'll go with the book.

It's not complicated and there is no winning this argument, it's a discussion with no victor. If one person wins, both lose - a discussion should always be for the betterment and enjoyment of all participating, not a competition for ideas to emerge victorious based on technicalities.

As I said before, we are arguing about the colloquial meaning of the word, the common conception, not the true meaning. Words change over time as people begin to use them differently - this is why citing ancient greek meanings is not very valid in the century we live in. Charity no longer means love, though this is what the true meaning of the word is - in olde english. I could name loads more but whats the point. It's obvious that as we change, our language changes with us, the meanings follow suite.

Once again, I've already said that you are correct if reference the original meaning of "skeptic" from the Greek, my point is that the word is no longer perceived as meaning that anymore.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I just found this thread and wow,great job skyfloating

You've been quite busy with threads recently

Now to your OP,I agree and do not challenge what you said at all.The information is fact based and non-debatable other then the abuse by certain members of these words.I admit I am guilty myself getting caught up in this 'war' and will try to stop using the words as I have.Star and flag my friend.

[edit on 4/16/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Do you wonder why I stopped replying to you in my other thread?It is because I saw what you were and how a lot of other "skeptics' are.I am not the only one who sees you for what you are.You shoot down everything with colorful language and sarcasm towards other members without actually looking over the evidence or intending on changing your mind.I just wanted to make it known to the board that is what I have seen out of you since I have been back.

Good thread. Took me a minute to actually soak in what you are saying.

Regarding the quotes..

It seems that there is a talent amongst ATS for picking apart a thread, and using quotes such as that you posted to "make one immune" from the facts.

I will say that while posting here, there have been many members that angered me not from a difference of opinion, but the lack of skill to argue it. So, I will just say thanks to those who HAVE been able to have a decent conversation with me - and helping me learn from all sides of the world.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

"Before ATS, I didn't know they were pejoratives."

They're not pejoratives, except to a distinct subset of society.

I mean, being skeptical is part of watching the boob tube! You see some absurd claim in a commercial, like those ridiculous pads that are supposed to some how leech toxins out of the body, and you roll your eyes and say "what kind of garbage is that?"

Being skeptical would be wondering what would make it possible for it to occur, not dismissing it out of hand.

This other definition of skeptical, "dismissing something out of hand because it does not fit preconcieved notions" is a major problem in the modern scientific paradigms.

Being a believer should also not mean that you accept anything that fits your preconceived notion on the subject, that does a disservice and is a major problem with many unaccepted sciences and religion.

Being a believer should mean that after studying a subject intensely, you have decided to accept a certain course of belief on the subject.

That is all that 90% of scientists do, is believe a certain explanation of something after intense scrutiny because they sure as hell haven't proven much science that's out there and technically, it's impossible to prove anything to anyone except that they exist anyways, reference rene' descartes in regards to proveable science.

Jaden

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Masterjaden]

This reminds me of the words conspiracy and theorist. In the major media environment these words would have you believe that they apply to people who are:

Fools, gullible, unscientific, desolate and opinionated - basically to discredit the person entirely.

Back when false patriotism was used to discredit people this topic would have mattered a lot more, but the thing is that this \"word magic\" is beginning not to work. I think that by 2012 everyone will realize this. This is because every \"elite\" and one who thinks that they are has a friend that isn\'t like them because their sole is social.

I feel like you don't like the effects of "word magic" on the way people think. To say that I am a skeptic or a believer is to say that I am skeptical and or a believing in something. The definitions of a word is not exactly the same for one as it is for the other, but by being around other people I can get a general consensus of what the words mean to most people.

What you are telling everyone is how you see the words should be understood, so that the \"word magic\" doesn\'t distort the image of what it means to be a skeptic or believer. This is good. You should include that the it is the flaw of the English language that makes \"word magic\" work so much more. In English there is an exception for every rule. This is a problem I can personally see because English is my 3rd language after German and Japanese. The endless list of exceptions forces the brain to become a memory machine, remembering each and every exception. This makes a person\'s ability to associate things weak. Most thoughts come to you in the language that you speak, but you are not your thoughts--but they can effect your decision.

This is nearly impossible for most Americans because English is their only language. I think that through learning multiple languages early one you grow to use images in thoughts more than words because the brain understands that relying on language is not reliable when it changes 3 times in the first 10 years of life.--I have to live and learn around all the normal kids in Japan, German, and America. Get out there-become truely aware of how little your life really is in terms of just what is going on here on Earth. In terms of the Universe.. I wouldn\'t be able to find Earth if I lived outside of this galaxy.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"The true meaning is fine but this is not what the masses believe the word to be, this includes most self professed skeptics."

So, we can't agree on what a word means. Where would this go from there? You want a custom definition, I'll go with the book.

Do you realize that with this idiocy that you are actually proving their point?

That by insisting on playing games of semantics and not accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of the concept on it's own merits that you prove exactly what they are stating?

wow....

It's amazing to me how some people just don't think rationally sometimes at all and don't realize the consequence of their choices...

Jaden

Originally posted by mortalengine
Skeptical people and open-minded dreamers are a team that, when correctly functioning, lead to massive breakthroughs.

Quite awesome and true. Read this folks. Read it. Consider it.

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"The true meaning is fine but this is not what the masses believe the word to be, this includes most self professed skeptics."

So, we can't agree on what a word means. Where would this go from there? You want a custom definition, I'll go with the book.

Do you realize that with this idiocy that you are actually proving their point?

That by insisting on playing games of semantics and not accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of the concept on it's own merits that you prove exactly what they are stating?

wow....

It's amazing to me how some people just don't think rationally sometimes at all and don't realize the consequence of their choices...

Jaden

I realize that people want to play games, to load words with meaning that are favorable to their own positions. Nothing new in that, it's a game that has gone on for a long time. I just don't play it.

Ok i thought this went without saying. It's just shorthand for saying whether you are generally more accepting or denying of new or disputed things.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

You mean this?

NO. My fourth post on page 1 makes a few specific statements/questions directed at you.

But you did not address that, you quoted something entirely different from my OP and addressed that.

First, if you go into making up your own definitions or claiming special circumstances then communication just plain stops. c.f. Bill Clinton. If the claim is not extraordinary, then you should explain how aliens on Earth are an ordinary event. If you mean the possibility of extraterrestrial life elsewhere is likely, then explain how you reached that conclusion

Right...would it suffice to do that once, twice, or even ten times, or would I have to back it up every single time I post a post, talk to someone, engage in speculation, etc.

In other words: Is this a court of law or a discussion forum?

However, please note that the work done by astrophysicists is, IMHO, extraordinary. Extraordinarily hard, extraordinarily well grounded work. So they've met the Sagan challenge

Of course their work is extraordinary. I understand that believers-of-UFOs-and-Aliens like me often tend to belittle conventional science. Its a trap I also sometimes fall into.

reply to post by C0mmonen5e


Yes, Im wary of how certain words are used as a generalization which blocks discernment and appreciation of the person you are talking to. The labels Believer and Skeptic are often used in a dismissive sense...as if the person labeled that does not have anything interesting to say.

I like your considerations on "word magic".

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Right...would it suffice to do that once, twice, or even ten times, or would I have to back it up every single time I post a post, talk to someone, engage in speculation, etc."

Depends, do you want to be understood or not?

"In other words: Is this a court of law or a discussion forum? "

It's just word salad right now. Unless we stay consistent with the meanings of words there will always be confusion and uncertainty.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


OK, lets get back to the actual definition. Is it correct that you are saying I am not a Skeptic even though I am skeptical of many, many things and generally question everything?

First of all, let me say that I had not read all the posts, but as what I want to say is something about me, I don't think previous posts matter much.

I don't know if I am sceptic, a critic or whatever, I only use the word sceptic because I see it used here on ATS and I think it closest to my way of thinking.

And my way of thinking organises things according to how general knowledge about something appears to explain them.

Because of that, I can not rule out anything, things for which there are no known explanations are just unexplained, but they exist.

And I am not really sure of anything, because what I know now may become obsolete tomorrow.

What should I call myself?
(Please, answers according to the T & C ).

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

OK, lets get back to the actual definition. Is it correct that you are saying I am not a Skeptic even though I am skeptical of many, many things and generally question everything?

Have you given me any reason to think that?

People that will argue with phantom representations in their of those they think they are arguing for the sake of "winning" aside. *coughcoughgawdzillacoughcough*

Great post OP. It is something I have often noticed happening, well, really across the board in society. It seems lately to be a favored past time to polarize and form two hostile camps at any point there is disagreement. After which the comflict often takes on a life of it's own and becomes about more than just the original disagreement. Perhaps this has been going on the whole time but it seems to have gotten worse lately.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Im interested in your definition of "A Skeptic" here. Whether that Skepticism also entails Skepticism toward Skeptics themselves, toward scientific method itself or whether the "A Skeptic" is only the "A Skeptic" when it comes to claims of the paranormal.

Originally posted by ArMaP
What should I call myself?

ARMAP

_______________________________

(Its fine to call oneself anything one likes, imo)

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Im interested in your definition of "A Skeptic" here. Whether that Skepticism also entails Skepticism toward Skeptics themselves, toward scientific method itself or whether the "A Skeptic" is only the "A Skeptic" when it comes to claims of the paranormal.

First you should know that I'm a veteran of the Vietnam War. So I'm rather skeptical of many things I hear. I'm also skeptical of claim that appear to be made without sufficient support. I'm also skeptical of attitudes that don't allow for more than one possibility when the material under scrutiny hasn't been confirmed yet.

I posted a reference to an article that does a better job than I could about my attitude, and it was rejected out of hand without the person even reading it. So I won't do that again.