|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2005 : 20:04:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And please do discriminate between emotional and aesthetic response, as the two are independent.
I have to take this in pieces because I'm in a hurry, and this is the first piece that caught my attention.
The statement you are making that emotional and aesthetic response is independent is an unsupported statement that, at least from my philosophy of aesthetics class in college's (though that was a while ago) perspective is a very tenuous assumption.
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
 |
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 20:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Now do non-skeptics feel these emotions? No, they don't. So using your argument, you would come to the conclusion that only skeptics feel emotions.
I'm really wishing people would stop thinking that I'm putting my argument out there in one long statement. This is all coming in pieces and building on each other, remember?
Isaiah |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 20:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
The statement you are making that emotional and aesthetic response is independent is an unsupported statement that, at least from my philosophy of aesthetics class in college's (though that was a while ago) perspective is a very tenuous assumption.
Interesting. I wonder why we have two different words for them, then.
Seems to me that some people can find ugly things give them an emotional boost (pug dogs, for example), and the same people can view other ugly things which depress them (images of tsunami devestation), or ugly things which elicit no emotional response at all (urban homeless). Obviously, the aesthetic of 'ugliness' is not linked to a particular emotional response, or to any emotional response at all.
In a similar fashion, some will find this to be beautiful, others will be indifferent, and some will be repulsed. Do you honestly think that a higher proportion of skeptics will be indifferent than the non-skeptics?
Also, we're once again at the point where you've asked me to support a more-or-less universal negative. Since you obviously think the converse is true - that emotional and aesthetic responses are dependent upon one another - you've got your own duty to support your hypothesis (and more than "I learned it in college" will be required). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 21:42:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Obviously our beliefs will often affect our emotional response to what we perceive. A scientist may have a strong emotional response upon finding a crucial piece of evidence to back up or refute a theory. It does not follow that non-scientists are emotionally crippled.
You're right, but we're not talking about scientists/non-scientists.
You do understand that my point had to do with flawed logic and not with any specific example, right? I took the logic that you used to "prove" that skeptics are emotionally limited and applied it to a different situation in an attempt to demonstrate that your logic was flawed.
I'm just asking because you mention that "...we're not talking about scientists/non-scientists." is there some reason to believe that this logic is more valid when comparing the emotional ability of skeptics/non-skeptics?
quote:
If we agree that beliefs will affect our emotional responses to our perceptions, then wouldn't people who had less "beliefs" in general have less of a chance proportionally to have beliefs be a mitigating factor in their emotional response to a situation?
I would agree that beliefs affect emotional responses, but I don't think that your conclusion necessarily follows. I think it's likely that beliefs will always be a 'mitigating factor' in regards to emotion in any conceivable situation.
quote:
So, here's the question. Do you (and this question is meant for everyone) think that skeptics put up higher barriers to "believing" something than do people who don't use critical thinking as often or suspend it regularly?
Often yes. The basic idea, from a skeptic's point of veiw, is that true beliefs will generally be supported by evidence. If there is no evidence to support a belief, then from a pure skeptic's point of veiw there is no reason to hold that belief.
The reason I say 'often' and not 'always' is that many beliefs eliminate others beliefs from consideration. Some Fundamentalist Christians for example, seem to resist 'belief' in evolution at all costs.
quote:
Do you think skeptics have less "beliefs" on average than non-critical thinkers?
I think that most skeptics have fewer 'unsupported' beliefs than most non-critical thinkers, but I realize that's not what you asked. As to whether skeptics have fewer beliefs on average than non-critical thinkers, I really have no idea. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2005 : 23:21:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
I'll chime in on this one. As I find most of the assertions made by christians regarding their religion to be ridiculous and hold no personal religious beliefs, I wasn't effected by the water and palm-oil stained glass.
However, my first sight over the edge of the Grand Canyon is permanently etched into memory. I spent about an hour just standing there amazed. A street artist painting I once saw on the Berlin Wall, same thing. Standing in Berlin on Nov 9th, 1989 (my 20th birthday) and listening to the city literally shake from the voices of people celebrating as we all ripped the wall into shreds. Standing three feet away from the Mona Lisa (as that's as close as anyone can get these days, since it's behind inches thick armored glass since some fucker vandalized it) and just staring in wonder at it. Standing at the base of the Giza pyramids.
Stuff like that I can appreciate. The emotional impact of them I can still recall to this day, and probably will til I die.
You are seriously mistaken if you believe that a skeptic is inhibited from appreciating the aesthetic and experiencing emotions.
quote:
If we agree that beliefs will affect our emotional responses to our perceptions, then wouldn't people who had less "beliefs" in general have less of a chance proportionally to have beliefs be a mitigating factor in their emotional response to a situation?
So, here's the question. Do you (and this question is meant for everyone) think that skeptics put up higher barriers to "believing" something than do people who don't use critical thinking as often or suspend it regularly?
Do you think skeptics have less "beliefs" on average than non-critical thinkers?
First off, you're going to have to define "belief", or atleast explain what context you are intedning the word here.
I think you are using the word as a synonym for "faith".
However, if you use this definition: quote:
be·lief
Function: noun
: a degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence
Then I'd say that skeptics would tend to hold MORE beliefs than non-skeptics.
Of course you can also define the word as "any cognitive content held as true". In which case evidence would not necessarily apply. In this case I would say that number of beliefs held by any given person would depend on that person's level of curiosity, which (so I think) would also place skeptics ahead in the belief count.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 00:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Once evidence is obtained and evaluated, there is still the rest of life out there.
For example, I am an atheist. That is the conclusion I have come to after careful review of a very large amount of evidence. But I have to deal with a world full of theists including a country where theists hold positions of power.
The same appears to hold for the theists. They have come to conclusions based on what they have been taught, read, or experienced that led them to draw conclusions in spite of or for lack of knowledge or understanding of evidence. Theists have the same world to deal with as atheists.
So I'm wondering if the question is based on an assumption religion is the only thing one can be 'fulfilled' by or some other similar nonsense. Just as morality does not come from religion, neither does contentment, fulfillment, or any other of the endless claims that atheists are supposed to lack because only religion can provide.
We are all the same humans, the same race, we live in the same world.
Maybe I am reading too much into the questions here, but that's my contribution to this discussion. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 07:39:08 [Permalink]
|
True story.
This very nice fundy christian woman my wife is friends with owns a dog that had a litter of puppies. A while after they were born we stopped by there house and asked to see the puppies. She said they were gone... My wife asked where; and she said she drowned them because she didn't want them.
She had no problem doing this because the were beasts with no soul, and animals were put on the earth for man to reign over.
This is a woman that would bend over backwards to help a fellow human being and is a wonderful mother.
As a deficient athiest I was and still am horrified.
This is just an anecdotal instance where my emotional response seem stronger that someone who's life is built around a set of beliefs.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 08:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Okay. Let me try a different tactic that might encourage you guys to actually help me think through things instead of inspire a "No, we're not" attitude, which is what I'm interpreting most of this as.
You, as a skeptic, wake up one morning with this crazy hair of a hypothesis wandering through your head that maybe skeptics had a muted emotional response and aesthetic response because of their reluctance to leap into beliefs without supportable evidence. You had no idea right away how to test this, but you knew you had to because you wanted to think about this possibility critically. How would you go about trying to fairly evaluate this hypothesis. What tests or methods would you use to give your fledgling hypothesis a fair shake? (Besides running the hypothesis by a bunch of skeptics, because that doesn't work.) |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 08:35:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Isaiah wrote:
I meant to imply only that aesthetic or emotional experiences exist that a non-skeptic appreciates more than a skeptic.
Welcome Isaiah.
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Why would one's level of emotional response to something be predicated on one's desire to determine if something is true?
I think it's a pretty easily proven point. but I'll provide an exaggerated proof.
Follow this link.
Do you honestly believe that you are getting the same aesthetic and emotional experience as the people who would sit in those chairs not desiring to determine the truth?
It's interesting. The swirling colors are quite nice and astectically pleasing. Would a Muslim get the same emotional effect from such a vision as true believers? How about a Buddhist? This Wiccan definately does not get the religious spark out of it that Catholics might. The imagery is still quite nice.
Ever see pictures of Bryce Canyon at sunrise? My aunt lives there and it is very beautiful. It has been my experience that these views are far more striking and beautiful in person. I enjoy the theater.
Hmmm, not so easy to prove this point, eh? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 08:45:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
You, as a skeptic, wake up one morning with this crazy hair of a hypothesis wandering through your head that maybe skeptics had a muted emotional response and aesthetic response because of their reluctance to leap into beliefs without supportable evidence.
To me the basic problem we're having is that you're comparing our requirement of proof before belief to opinions that are subjective - like beauty, or emotions - like love.
I do not believe in God because I have no proof that God exists. It is reasonable to expect proof, as God should not be merely a matter of opinion, but an entity.
I love my husband. I am not sure exactly why (believe me, he's asked  ). I can only demonstrate it. I can't prove it.
I think sunsets are beautiful. If you disagree I can't prove that I'm right, any more than I can prove that you're wrong. It's purely a matter of opinion.
Such issues are IMO immune to skepticism. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 08:48:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
Okay. Let me try a different tactic that might encourage you guys to actually help me think through things instead of inspire a "No, we're not" attitude, which is what I'm interpreting most of this as.
You, as a skeptic, wake up one morning with this crazy hair of a hypothesis wandering through your head that maybe skeptics had a muted emotional response and aesthetic response because of their reluctance to leap into beliefs without supportable evidence. You had no idea right away how to test this, but you knew you had to because you wanted to think about this possibility critically. How would you go about trying to fairly evaluate this hypothesis. What tests or methods would you use to give your fledgling hypothesis a fair shake? (Besides running the hypothesis by a bunch of skeptics, because that doesn't work.)
OK, I've been dying to ask this question.
What the fuck has belief got to do with appreciating beauty?
Beauty is experienced, not considered nor analyzed. Emotional responses come from our subconscious. It is that instinctual part of ourselves which determine how a piece of art makes us feel.
Prick us, do we not bleed?
Your belief of skeptics appreciation for aesthetics has no basis. Also, your aesthetics teacher should have told you that the concepts he was discussing apply to most people, not all. There is no universal aesthetic. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 09:38:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK, I've been dying to ask this question.
What the fuck has belief got to do with appreciating beauty?
Beauty is experienced, not considered nor analyzed. Emotional responses come from our subconscious. It is that instinctual part of ourselves which determine how a piece of art makes us feel.
I think you answered your own question. For many people, beliefs are experienced, not considered nor analyzed. Many if not most beliefs come from their subconscious (oh hell, we'll just personalize this and say from MY subconscious). It is that instinctual part of myself which determines whether I "believe" something or not. |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 09:49:44 [Permalink]
|
Isaiah said:
quote:
What tests or methods would you use to give your fledgling hypothesis a fair shake? (Besides running the hypothesis by a bunch of skeptics, because that doesn't work.)
This is interesting, you seem to have a complete lack of understanding how science works.
If I had a hypothesis I would first research to see if this hypothesis is new. If not I would see what work had been done on the subject.
If it was a new hypothesis I would go about developing an experiment to determine if the hypothesis could predict the outcome of the experiment.
The LAST thing I would do to test a hypothesis would be ask skeptics, or christians, or bald people or any other group of people.
I could ask an expert from the applicable field for some insight on how to test my hyposthesis, but I would not 'test' a hypothesis by running it by a group of people. It makes no difference if the people think it is a good hypothesis. It only matters if the evidence supports the hypothesis, otherwise it is only conjecture.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
| Edited by - furshur on 01/11/2005 09:51:44 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 09:58:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Isaiah
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
OK, I've been dying to ask this question.
What the fuck has belief got to do with appreciating beauty?
Beauty is experienced, not considered nor analyzed. Emotional responses come from our subconscious. It is that instinctual part of ourselves which determine how a piece of art makes us feel.
I think you answered your own question. For many people, beliefs are experienced, not considered nor analyzed. Many if not most beliefs come from their subconscious (oh hell, we'll just personalize this and say from MY subconscious). It is that instinctual part of myself which determines whether I "believe" something or not.
But where did they get the beliefs to begin with. People didn't just wake up (ok, maybe in the case of verlch) and believe something out of the blue with no guidance or evidence.
I do not accept as valid your assertion that belief comes from the subconscious. Please provide sources for this assertation.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Isaiah
Skeptic Friend
USA
83 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2005 : 10:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
But where did they get the beliefs to begin with. People didn't just wake up (ok, maybe in the case of verlch) and believe something out of the blue with no guidance or evidence.
I do not accept as valid your assertion that belief comes from the subconscious. Please provide sources for this assertation.
Of course your belief doesn't come from your subconscious--you don't let it. You'll only believe something if your critical thinking can't find holes in it. You put hurdles in your path to believing everything, so I'm not surprised that you don't have beliefs bubbling up from inside you. And I'm assuming that's the case with most of you skeptics. All I need is anecdotal evidence to show that some (not all) people just have beliefs intuitively and subconsciously arise. And I have at least one person (ME) as an anecdote for that.
Or are you claiming that I'm just imagining that some of my beliefs arrived intuitively and subconsciously? |
For Real Things I Know - http://solomonj.blogspot.com
"My point is, that you cannot use lack of evidence for one possibility as proof for another." - Dude
“I would rather delude myself with comforting fantasies than face a cold reality” - Isaiah, altered from astropin |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
