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.
Originally posted by v01i0
I think that skeptism and stubborness goes hand in hand.
On the other hand, skeptism is kind of stubborness in it's refusal to believe "out there" stories.
Originally posted by markjaxson
Most skeptical people cannot think for themselves, scientists have already done the thinking for them, the basics of a skeptic (About 95% of them,like we didnt already know what we saw or experienced wasnt possible according to "science") is to disagree with anything that doesnt agree with their view point, they find a scientific article which can "disprove" what you saw or experienced, post it, then proceed to sit back and feel good about themselves.
Originally posted by nerbot
I'd rather be a skeptic living from a realistic point of view than a believer living in a fantasy.edit on 19/11/2010 by nerbot because: kjhgkjhg
In the scientific community it used to be detrimental to your career, and severely, if you referred to the intentions, emotions, thoughts of animals. This was seen as mere speculation and projection. Now, it is seen as OK and is the norm. Those scientists were in a culture of diseased skepticism. They remain so in other areas.
Originally posted by v01i0
This is a discussion about skeptism and stubborness, more specifically, where goes the limit when healthy skeptism becomes stubborness?