"The Skeptics Dictionary" Unmasked

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
There's nothing wrong with sceptics or scepticism, it's the pseudosceptics that you have to watch out for !

I usually favour the more logical or rational position on a subject, but if I've had compelling personal experiences that cannot be proved by objective analysis, then I will tend to side with my personal experience.

In fact, it's perfectly common for me to hold two views on the same subject; one formed from my personal experiences, and the other formed from the more mainstream, scientific perspective.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
If a skeptic admits that the question is either open or unresolved, then I'd be okay with overt skepticism. Most don't admit to the impact of empirical evidence, and that's just lousy research discipline. This ends up with these kinds of skeptics as dogmatic and unrealistic as the magical thinkers they goof on.

I don't respect anyone who is incapable of a new thought. I really can't stand people who are incapable of letting others explore a new thought. Those people are worse than a waste of time.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





One of the most popular Destinations for arguing some point on the Internet is the Skeptics Dictionary


Uhhhm FYI. That site is owned by Phage.

Becker



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becker44
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





One of the most popular Destinations for arguing some point on the Internet is the Skeptics Dictionary


Uhhhm FYI. That site is owned by Phage.

Becker


LOL, why doesn't that surprise me..
Think I'll have a look and see what proof is acceptable...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
There is a strong paranormal-bias established with reductionist materialism. Which in turn is really "Existential Nihilism" at heart. The fact is our historic record has ample cases worth investigating regarding paranormal events such as "Lucid Dreaming", "Out-of-body Experiences", "Precognitive Dreams","Miraculous Healing" and these events also occur today.

There is strong evidence in the case of Reincarnation with documented case studies that verify information remembered by individuals, youtube has a few wonderful documentaries on the topic, such as:
.

NDE evidence is becoming more and more apparently linked to a potential reality outside of physical reality such is the case of "Pam Reynolds":


If you really look at all the reincarnation and NDE evidence there is a strong overwhelming case argument in favour of consciousness existing outside of the physical body ... period.

Having personal experience with reincarnation ( I remember existing before this life and have done so since I can remember being human in this life ) it's no surprise to me to find out others have also.

Having gone out-of-body over 3,000+ times in my life, it's no surprise that NDE and other evidence in favour of non-localized consciousness is quite valid.

Personal experience clearly has demonstrated for me that we do indeed dream of future events and can have lucid dreams. This reality is so much more robust and amazing when you engage these experiences. It's a shame the skeptics have won the census that such phenomena are not real. Tragic because they connect us to a broader spectrum of personal experience and a greater "Reality" then just the physical holographic virtual reality.

Anyways, the skeptics are quite wrong in their "beliefs" and bias-arguments. That's their religion and they can have it. They'll find out in the end just how wrong they were. Doesn't seem to matter in the big picture. Everything becomes self-evident when our focus and attention changes into these non-physical realms of consciousness.




edit on 28-11-2010 by YouAreDreaming because: yuid



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Is this topic about how being skeptical is a bad thing?



their agenda obviously goes beyond that into promoting philosophical-Materialism and Atheism while rejecting any reality one cannot immediately perceive with ones senses.


Why would someone NOT reject an idea if it can not be demonstrated to exist?

Like really...


...they claim that Firewalking only works if you walk over the hot coals with great speed.


The science behind "firewalking" is pretty solid, unless you can explain or demonstrate (perhaps physically) why walking over coals is possible and why the current science behind walking quickly over something hot is wrong, I don't see any textbooks being re-written.


...not quickly but rather leisurely, I can state with certainty that the Skeptics are wrong on this one.


Please stand on the burning coals and see what is meant by "moving quickly" and how it prevents injury.


...and dozens of other well-established forms of helping people.


"Well established" has no merit in the explanation of how these things work. If it lacks any evidence whatsoever, I'd rather stay on the skeptical side then go "Well my grandmother once said this fixed her headache...". Homeopathy is "well established" to some...it's just water.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The problem with a skeptics dictionary, and skeptics in general is it/they have nothing to do with "truth."
When I was a kid, in the summer I never wore shoes. My feet had thick callouses. I could hold a flame to the bottom of my foot for a good while. BUT, eventually the heat WOULD go through and the callous would hold the heat, so removing the flame did no good at that point.
So, the skeptics dictionary has no clue what MY experience and MY truth is.
So, why use it? Because you want to argue about something you know nothing about.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Stewie because: clarification of point



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Sorry but you're completely missing the point.

The entry about firewalking is in response to the paranormal claims, that's it. Yes, he could have added something like the Wikipedia entry, but that's NOT what the purpose of the response about firewalking was.

From Wikipedia


Factors that prevent burning

Calluses on the feet may offer an additional level of protection, even if only from pain; however, most people do not have calluses that would make any significant difference.


Again, it's explaining what others label as "mystical" or whatever bull term they want to use.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 



"Well established" has no merit in the explanation of how these things work. If it lacks any evidence whatsoever, I'd rather stay on the skeptical side then go "Well my grandmother once said this fixed her headache...". Homeopathy is "well established" to some...it's just water.


Well there are many accepted medicines in mainstream medicine that work but the science community does not know how or why..
Should we be skeptic about them and recomend patients not take them because we don't know how they work??

My wife is on medication and I asked her specialist how it works..
His answer was "GOK" God Only Knows..Very scientific huh...
Maybe I should therefore stop buying them although she suffers awful pains if not taken..



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 

I don't think I am missing any point, perhaps because I was not addressing your post.
My point is that a skeptic merely presents an argument on why an assertion is false. In many cases, not "likely" false, but IMPOSSIBLE.
So, I say, they are of little use in the realm of "truth".
Skeptics often argue from a position based upon ignorance and inexperience...opposing real experience and the resulting "reality."
I have an open mind, so if someone says they saw a ghost, and the ghost spoke to them, I will hold out the possibility that they are telling the truth. I will not say they are lying because a ghost never spoke to ME. When you stake out the position of the skeptic, you are saying I don't believe you, prove it.
So, what does that have to do with TRUTH?
Nothing.

edit on 28-11-2010 by Stewie because: clarification



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 



My point is that a skeptic merely presents an argument on why an assertion is false. In many cases, not "likely" false, but IMPOSSIBLE.


Skepticism is simply doubting claims that go against present knowledge or a claim that seems unreasonable etc, depending on the specific example, it may be falsified or rejected based on logic, reason etc. If it can be falsified, it's probably not worth believing in, if it provides no evidence, there's no reason to believe / make up a fairytale explaining it.


Skeptics often argue from a position based upon ignorance and inexperience...opposing real experience and the resulting "reality."


Yes, we should get rid of science and the scientific method and embrace anecdotal evidence...


The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.


Your "experience" is most likely explainable, if it's not, then it's unexplained. If your claiming to know the specifics of an "experience", use the scientific method and present it for scrutiny. That's how the real world works.


I have an open mind, so if someone says they saw a ghost, and the ghost spoke to them, I will hold out the possibility that they are telling the truth.


Skeptically, I'd respond with the incident being perfectly explainable rationally as the 'evidence' of said phenomenon does not stand up to scrutiny and can also be explained. Does that mean I know with 100% certainty that ghosts don't exist? No, merely that all of the presented evidence is inadequate to support said hypothesis and can be explained without resorting to paranormal explanations.


When you stake out the position of the skeptic, you are saying I don't believe you, prove it.


I have you prove I don't believe that you saw something? That's not how it works, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

reply to post by backinblack
 



Well there are many accepted medicines in mainstream medicine that work but the science community does not know how or why..


Such as?


Should we be skeptic about them and recomend patients not take them because we don't know how they work??


I'd hope so.


My wife is on medication and I asked her specialist how it works..
His answer was "GOK" God Only Knows..Very scientific huh...


What was the medication? Also, he may need help himself...


Maybe I should therefore stop buying them although she suffers awful pains if not taken..


Again, it's impossible for me to argue this point without knowing specifics.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 



What was the medication? Also, he may need help himself...

It's for Crohn's disease and strictly controlled by the Government..
He is a very highly respected specialist and I believe him when he says they don't know how it works, just that it does..
I'm sure there are many other examples so the "evidence=proof" theory doesn't always work...

Eg: We know what gravity does, the math is sound..But do we know what gravity is 100% ???
No we don't and many highly respected scientists argue over it..

So sometimes we DO overwhelmingly accept things without concrete proof..
Funny, even skeptics accept gravity though it's far from proven..



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 

Skeptics are b.o.r.i.n.g. people.
Here, I will give you an example.
Jill, the prettiest girl in the school who has a boyfriend that is the toughest guy in the school had sex with me. I had a witness, his name was Larry. I told the skeptic about it, his name was Billy.
Billy doesn't believe me because I have no proof, and the testimony of Larry isn't considered proof.
Larry and I know the truth.
When the boyfriend asks about the rumor, the truth never comes out.


You skeptics are boring, sorry.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The law of gravity states: "gravity, is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract one another.", the theories explaining why this happens is "argued". All of this was reached using the scientific method and evidence. We KNOW gravity happens, so we attempt to explain it and stick to the theory which is supported by evidence. This is not "We don't know", it's "This is what the evidence points to".


So sometimes we DO overwhelmingly accept things without concrete proof..


"Concrete proof" is being misused in my opinion. If I throw an apple at the sky and it falls back to the ground, create a hypothesis which then is tested by experiments and support by evidence, I'd say it's reasonable to claim we know how it works while still studying it and using the scientific method.


Eg: We know what gravity does, the math is sound..But do we know what gravity is 100%


Skeptically speaking myself, I'd say nothing it 100% certain, but again, when it's adequately explained, it's reasonable to say this is how X works.

Regardless, gravity is a silly example. You can't use any level of uncertainty as evidence for another claim which is demonstrably falsifiable. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It's like comparing uncertainty about the origin of the universe to homeopathy and saying "Well, you can never be certain" when homeopathy can be shown to be nothing more than a placebo (And water)
edit on 28-11-2010 by Whyhi because: Grammar



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Oh, like witness testimony? Yeah...

Eyewitness Identification


Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence


Innocence Project


While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.


Why do you think this is? Could these be solved by being more skeptical? Incorporating science maybe?
edit on 28-11-2010 by Whyhi because: Grammar



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


"Well, you can never be certain" when homeopathy can be shown to be nothing more than a placebo (And water :lol


You do know that many a snakeoil homeopathy cure have been taken up by big pharma?
I just heard on the ABC here the other day that a local tribe here has been given rights to a local remedy dating back years..
Big pharma are trialing it now...
Not all quacks are quacks,lol...



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I agree with your assessment for the most part. Skepticism of that caliber reduces one's outlook on life to a small box. They're the type of people who would have an aneurysm if they ever actually received the proof they demand.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Becker44
Uhhhm FYI. That site is owned by Phage.


Really? That would be hilarious considering I like Phage



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie

Skeptics are b.o.r.i.n.g. people.



Thats what you become when you think love is a mere chemical reaction.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
You go to the faith healer; I’ll go to the doctor.
You go the mind reader; I’ll see a psychologist.
You get your house built by the telekinetic; I’ll get mine built by an engineer.
You use remote viewing; I’ll use Google maps.
You keep an “open” mind; I’ll stick to my scepticism.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join