|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2001 : 18:11:27
|
In the minds of most people, skepticism tends only to be negative, usually involving the debunking of something definitely foolish.
However, skepticism is used positively and negatively in science and is often used by the scientists themselves when checking out new theories. We should never forget the positive act of skepticism where we confront an idea and put it completely to the test, looking for the good, as well as the bad, aspects about it.
Skeptics often look only to the obviously silly ideas which are held by the malinformed, misinformed, or uninformed public. Being skeptical throughout one's life involves striking a subtle balance. A good skeptic should give the bearer of the idea or ideas something to help improve the theory (if improvement is possible). Cranks should be ignored with a nice and *knowing* smile...
I particularly like the kind of positive skepticism in science. It creates a better sense of life for the skeptic. There is not much fun in running around town, down in the mouth over everything and everyone. Lacking a positive sense of life can be very depressing.
Yeah, I know, it is so much fun to run blatently silly ideas (and their creator or creators) over the coals... However, one should run all ideas over the coals (including one's own cherished ideas), in order to be completely certain -- temporarily, of course... Know thyself...
So, it is a good idea to be skeptical about skepticism before it all goes to one's little sawdust-filled head.
ljbrs   
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2001 : 11:50:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, one should run all ideas over the coals (including one's own cherished ideas), in order to be completely certain -- temporarily, of course... Know thyself...
What ideas in particular ought the resident skeptics rake over the coals, eh? Of which ideas are skeptics often unskeptical on this board? In my recent experience, the idea that rape is (completely) an act of violence rather than sex is uncritically accepted by most people in society at large and on this board. Also, the political assumption that we ought to address the underlying problems motivating violence rather than fighting directly against the violence has gone relatively unchallenged in the politics forum. On the UFO and religion forum I've seen little skepticism towards the rule of thumb stating that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, or the one that states that you cannot prove a negative. Maybe I've just missed it, but I've seen little scrutiny of these underlying methodological assumptions.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 18:09:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What ideas in particular ought the resident skeptics rake over the coals, eh? Of which ideas are skeptics often unskeptical on this board?
I am not talking only about *resident skeptics* but am speaking mostly for myself about my ideas about the positive side of skepticism. I am only making comments for whatever it is worth. I think that, in our own minds, we should consider all aspects of an issue, positive, negative, and neutral, before we make any decisions. Skepticism need not be only negative. Skepticism is a manner with which one arises at a decision for oneself, either positive, negative, or neutral. I am not attempting to speak for others or to put words into their mouths (including yours).
quote:
In my recent experience, the idea that rape is (completely) an act of violence rather than sex is uncritically accepted by most people in society at large and on this board.
Rape is defined (in my dictionary) as: *1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse. 2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation.* I do not consider this to be synonymous with *sex*, which is simply defined as *sexual intercourse*. Of course, rape is sexual intercourse (but negative and with a vengeance).
You have challenged the idea of rape. I personally think that the words *sex* and *rape* have definitely different meanings and/or connotations. Some people have never had a positive, loving sexual experience and perhaps they might think of *sex* and *rape* as identical/synonymous. Then again, some men may have a different way of thinking about *rape* and *sex* than some women. However, I do not have the foggiest idea. The definitions of the two words are different and, for that reason, they are not synonymous. If both *sex* and *rape* meant identical things, then there is no need for two words expressing such an identical idea, n'est ce pas?
quote:
Also, the political assumption that we ought to address the underlying problems motivating violence rather than fighting directly against the violence has gone relatively unchallenged in the politics forum.
Then that would be a good idea for you to address, if it is important to you.
quote:
On the UFO and religion forum I've seen little skepticism towards the rule of thumb stating that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, or the one that states that you cannot prove a negative. Maybe I've just missed it, but I've seen little scrutiny of these underlying methodological assumptions.
In such cases, it would be a great idea for you to make those distinctions if you felt there to be a need. I think that in a skeptical forum, such statements as *extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs* and *one cannot prove or disprove a negative* should be well known. I would expect most skeptics to be aware of them. Then again, be sure to bring this up whenever you see a need.
I cannot read your mind as to what you might wish to be stated. What you think ought to be stated is in your own mind and not available to me or anybody else.
My whole point in my opening post was that skepticism is not necessarily negative. One should not go around looking for something to demolish. Living with a skeptical chip on one's shoulder is hardly good for the old blood pressure.
This is one of the reasons I have a preference for science, which is based upon skepticism (to me, the useful kind).
Whatever...
ljbrs  
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 18:21:53 [Permalink]
|
I think the only sacred cow that skeptics should have is that there are no sacred cows.
I also think it's not only fair but imperative that skeptic point out what they feel are mistakes being made by fellow skeptics in their reasoning and methods. Fellow skeptic might not agree but hopefully can be polite enough to at least listen to criticism and then either dismiss it or realize the truth of it and try to do better in the future. Skeptics make mistakes and sometimes adhere to some silly beliefs just like anyone else. I shudder to think that any skeptic thinks otherwise.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 19:15:00 [Permalink]
|
@tomic:
Of course, my very own asinine mistakes are actually true brilliance in the subtle disguise of intellectual garbage...
Bravissimo, ljbrs!
ljbrs  
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2001 : 19:20:02 [Permalink]
|
@tomic:
Then again, MY sacred cow is exceedingly better than YOUR sacred cow...
ljbrs
*Nothing is more damaging to a new truth than an old error.* Goethe |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
