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.

 

A brief guide to scepticism

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
sometimes i get it stuck in my head that a word usually only means a few things, or that words don't have other ways to describe them.

so, in order to better contribute to this thread, i looked up the accepted meanings of skeptic, skeptical, and skepticism, and also (when available) provided what the thesarus kicks back at us, too.

refresher (helps me):



Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonyms see uncertainty
source: www.merriam-webster.com...
___________________________________________________________
Entry Word: skepticism
Function: noun
Meaning: a feeling or attitude that one does not know the truth, truthfulness, or trustworthiness of someone or something — see doubt
___________________________________________________________
Entry Word: skeptical
Function: adjective
Meaning: 1 inclined to doubt or question claims




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Apparently science as you see it leads to assumptory leaps in a vain attempt to defend against any percieved slight against it. Science is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. To assume that science by default makes a person skeptical is laughable at best and more than a little magical thinking.

But, praytell stranger, what are my beliefs? Hm?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Great thread we really need to apply logic and critical thinking. Without it we are forever duped.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Feh.. there are a few types that visit here. There are very few that are truly unbiased. I try to be, always. I'll just as readily defend a UFO case or sighting, as ridicule a ludicrous one. How many are really like that? How many actually take each case at face value, and don't go in with foregone conclusions?

Many of the skeptics go into -any- thread here with the idea of debunking the case, before even reading about the case. You know it's true. Many of the die-hard believers will then defend.. they will believe anything if a fuzzy film exists to back up their beliefs.

I wish more could just approach each case utterly neutral. As if you knew nothing about UFOs, hoaxes, aliens, or anything else. That is the only way any real headway will be gained. Attacking and defending cases for the sake of it won't reveal anything. The laughable 75+ thread about a white umbrella pretty much proved that. The mere fact it -got- to that many pages, as people tried to drive their opinion home was a comedy.

Also, the skeptics spends FAR far too much time in the ludicrous threads. Keeping these threads alive is a sad thing. I'd rather cover the solid cases for the 129th time in great detail, than argue if a small floating dot is a lantern or not. Yet these threads disappear quickly.

You can try to defend the skeptics all you like, but many enter ALL threads with the preconceived notion that it's nothing but an explainable phenomena. That's a very poor way to research anything.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


i just watched those again, love them.

and btw, i also edited my personal profile page to change my favorite threads, for the first time in 3 years!

thanks m0r1arty for putting all those videos on one nicely packaged thread!

thanks,
et



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Apparently science as you see it leads to assumptory leaps in a vain attempt to defend against any percieved slight against it. Science is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. To assume that science by default makes a person skeptical is laughable at best and more than a little magical thinking.


Nor did I suggest anything of the sort. You are trying to twist my words to fit your anti-science prejudice.


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
But, praytell stranger, what are my beliefs? Hm?


I have no idea what your specific beliefs may be. However, it is clear from your posts here and elsewhere that you are possessed of an anti-science attitude. As science does not support your beliefs, whatever they may be, you assume that science is flawed.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


Interesting videos. I have learned a thing or two ( or three
).


Starred and Flagged, hoping more members will watch them.

Good day.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



Nor did I suggest anything of the sort. You are trying to twist my words to fit your anti-science prejudice.


*Wry Grin* You deny it then follow it with a confirmation of exactly what I was saying. How amusing. That would be the assumptory leap I was talking about sir.
You are welcome to attempt to justify it though. I do so love strangers telling me what I think. It provides endless hillarity.


I have no idea what your specific beliefs may be. However, it is clear from your posts here and elsewhere that you are possessed of an anti-science attitude. As science does not support your beliefs, whatever they may be, you assume that science is flawed.


And that is why you're assumptive leap is incorrect my friend.
Science is flawed because mankind is flawed. Nothing is transcendent of it's creator and we created science. To believe otherwise is magical thinking.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
it is important to note:

one way of describing a skeptic is: one who practices a method of suspended judgement.

under that definition a skeptic is simply one who has not gathered enough credible information to make an informed decision that effect their opinion making mechanisms.

skeptics can be people who simply do not decide upon judgement (on an issue), yet. This void of judgement is related to the critical thinking video i think.

critical thinking, is it not related to judgement?

perhaps their is a difference between permanent judgment and temporary belief systems where enough info simply isn't known yet, but we are presented with a fork in the road, so to speak, and must continue one way or another.

thoughts are things,
et



[edit on 21-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join