|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2001 : 09:04:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My problem with those who attack Chomsky is that they are not attacking commonly held beliefs, but rather defending the status quo against someone who is challenging common doctrine.
I'm not sure if "commonly held" is relevant, but they most certainly are attacking beliefs. The nonsense that Chomsky spouts seems pretty obvious to me to be exactly that, nonsense. Now are you saying that I'm not being skeptical, because I don't agree with you?
This line troubles me: quote:
it has become painfully obvious to me that many people on this site, and really everywhere, are not what I would consider skeptics, but instead staunch defenders of the status quo (capitalism, U.S. imperialism, etc.)
You are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that people who defend capitalism, and reject the claim that the U.S. is "imperialist" are worthy of criticism. You are saying that one can't defend capitalism, etc., and be a "true" skeptic. Is this not a false dichotomy? One can reasonably assume that your choice of examples is an accurate indication that you believe that capitalism and U.S. "imperialism" is worthy of criticism.
The definition you give is really worthless to this discussion in it's simplistic form. A skeptic will instinctually doubt assertions that are fantastic (IOW we don't doubt every little claim that someone makes; when the weatherman tells me that the sun will rise at 5:52 am tomorrow, I don't doubt him). We will also doubt claims in which we have no experience with until sufficient evidence convinces us otherwise. When one comes to a reasonable conclusion about an idea, one can stop doubting it. This doesn't mean that one will stop listening to any and all evidence to the contrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that one is not a skeptic.
And if I was any good at expressing my ideas in written form, you'd really be in trouble!  
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
 |
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 11:18:20 [Permalink]
|
So if I lived in the old USSR, and communism were the status quo, would I have to support capitalism in order to be a "true" skeptic?
Hmm. The Man says it's the status quo not to stick a fork in one's eye... I'll teach them... *stick* AAAHH!!!
|
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 12:22:50 [Permalink]
|
Yes, I agree, teaching creationism as a replacement for evolutionary theory in schools has real, practical implications on our lives - and, in my opinion, is an area where we can use real evidence to support the truth of evolution versus the falsehood of a particular creation myth. But that's different than debunking the existence of god, which would have little practical implications. I know I'm splicing hairs here, but I think there is a difference.
quote:
It doesn't make any difference...until you decide your God wants you to hijack an airplane and crash it into a skyscraper, or you deny medical treatment to your child because you think sickness is a test of faith, or you try to have laws past to teach Creationism in public schools as being a valid alternative to evolutionary theory.
|
|
|
|
Gandalf
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 12:48:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are saying that one can't defend capitalism, etc., and be a "true" skeptic.
There's no on/off switch to being skeptical, of course, but I would assert a simple truism: the more one "defends" a particular point of view, surely the less skeptical one is about it. So if Alan Greenspan tells us, which he has on numerous occasions, that "worker insecurituy and a flexible work force is good for the economy," and all the economists jump up and down and agree, then we have to wonder exactly what he means. Certainly having a flexible workforce - meaning people waking up each day not knowing if they will have a job, having more temporary workers, etc. - is good for the bottom line of corporations, but how does that affect the lives of average workers? Who is Greenspan referring to when he is talking about the economy? Is he referring to the income bracket of the top five percent? Do they represent the economy?
So if I was busy defending the U.S.'s special brand of capitalism, it's highly likely that I would not be skeptical about his remarks. I would have just accepted them as an affirmation of the status quo. Of course I agree with you - you can be skeptical about anything. The point is that it's most important to be skeptical especially about commonly held beliefs that have real implications on our lives, such as the one by Greenspan that I just mentioned.
quote:
You are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that people who defend capitalism, and reject the claim that the U.S. is "imperialist" are worthy of criticism. You are saying that one can't defend capitalism, etc., and be a "true" skeptic. Is this not a false dichotomy? One can reasonably assume that your choice of examples is an accurate indication that you believe that capitalism and U.S. "imperialism" is worthy of criticism.
The definition you give is really worthless to this discussion in it's simplistic form. A skeptic will instinctually doubt assertions that are fantastic (IOW we don't doubt every little claim that someone makes; when the weatherman tells me that the sun will rise at 5:52 am tomorrow, I don't doubt him). We will also doubt claims in which we have no experience with until sufficient evidence convinces us otherwise. When one comes to a reasonable conclusion about an idea, one can stop doubting it. This doesn't mean that one will stop listening to any and all evidence to the contrary, and it certainly doesn't mean that one is not a skeptic.
And if I was any good at expressing my ideas in written form, you'd really be in trouble!
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2001 : 13:02:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My problem with those who attack Chomsky is that they are not attacking commonly held beliefs, but rather defending the status quo against someone who is challenging common doctrine.
You are making an assumption here. It could be that people are attacking Chomsky not because they are defending the status quo but rather they are attacking him because they think he's full of crap. Your assumption is also implying that Chomsky is absolutely correct but that is certainly open to debate and that is what you called an "attack."
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2001 : 13:35:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There's no on/off switch to being skeptical, of course, but I would assert a simple truism: the more one "defends" a particular point of view, surely the less skeptical one is about it. So if Alan Greenspan tells us, which he has on numerous occasions, that "worker insecurituy and a flexible work force is good for the economy," and all the economists jump up and down and agree, then we have to wonder exactly what he means. Certainly having a flexible workforce - meaning people waking up each day not knowing if they will have a job, having more temporary workers, etc. - is good for the bottom line of corporations, but how does that affect the lives of average workers? Who is Greenspan referring to when he is talking about the economy? Is he referring to the income bracket of the top five percent? Do they represent the economy?
So if I was busy defending the U.S.'s special brand of capitalism, it's highly likely that I would not be skeptical about his remarks. I would have just accepted them as an affirmation of the status quo. Of course I agree with you - you can be skeptical about anything. The point is that it's most important to be skeptical especially about commonly held beliefs that have real implications on our lives, such as the one by Greenspan that I just mentioned.
This is generally refered to as trickle down economics. I agree in part with the concept of this economic theory, only in part. There is more to economics than one theory can provide, as there are so many... Supporting what you personally view as the best possible solution/theory in a given situation is not a lack of skepticism. A person comes to that conclusion by some means, generally involving an education in economics, a review and comparison of all possible theories and personal biases.
Skepticism to me, is reviewing all possible data, understanding that you are viewing from the basis of your own biases, and drawing the conclusion based on a given data set. Yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I use that often enough with UFOols and HBs (moon hoax believers - since your new to the board). But, because I don't follow a particular line for whatever reason or have questioned and drawn my own conclusions does not mean that I lack the skepticism necessary to reach the proper conclusion. I question most things I read or hear, for my own sake so I can understand where things come from. As regards to Chomsky, I've said this before: I would question his motives for his continued rhetoric. I would also question whether he's been saying the same thing so long that he's lost a sense of perspective regarding the issue of US foriegn policy. Additionally, he never offers up his own ideas, merely tears down that with which he vehemently disagrees, without seeming inquiry into his own motives. Which leads me to another point in skepticism, I will question my own motives in holding a position, however, I know that I - being merely human - am often times less than honest with my self regarding my motives. So I question this with others, what I see as a fault within myself. If that makes me a bit of an egocentric, so be it.
If skepticism led everyone to the same conclusion as everyone else, then - what's the point of questioning those ideas out there to determine if this is something with which I can agree or no? There isn't, I might as well pick one person and follow them blindly, I can not do that, that much I know, the point I reach in my skepticism is heavily biased by my past experiences and my own, often, bizarre thought processes.
To belittle someone who does not agree with what I think, is not an act of skepticism, it is an act of arrogance. Yes, I can be arrogant, but this is one area in which arrogance is not required nor necessary. I will listen, but if the argument is not sound nor well thought out and even if it is, I need not agree.
Well, I think maybe I've rambled just enough for now.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 09:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Being a skeptic usually means that we question beliefs that by there very nature lack evidence or support. Extraordinary claims. Sometimes its easy to do that. When someone tells me that a blue ball of structured water thrown into my wash instead of detergent will clean my undies, I can test that. When a creationist tells me that the Earth is 6000 years old I can refer that person to a mountain of evidence that refutes that assertion.
Politics is another story. For every non fiction book that "factually" debunks what is being called the "status que" there is another book that "factually" supports the common thinking about how things are. Our belief in one idea or the other is filtered through our personal political bias. Any conclusion we may draw can be a roadblock to further consideration of an idea. On the other hand, on a personal level, some ideas simply sound better to some of us than others.
We start down a slippery slope when we assert that any political view is the only correct view based on a skeptical analysis of both that view and the opposing viewpoint. While we should not forget to question any assertion, I think it would be helpful to remember that in the area of politics, the result of all our questioning is that we get to form an opinion. That's it. An opinion.
I have friends who are skeptics and believe in god. I just chalk that off to a blind spot in their thinking. But I could be wrong. I have friends who are staunch republicans, libertarians and liberals. You name it. All good skeptics.
Oh, and by the way, sometimes the status que is the status que because it works. Sometimes common thinking about something became common because it is time tested and has been shown to be valid...
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
ZaphodBeeblebrox
Skeptic Friend
USA
117 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 13:28:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A skeptic will instinctually doubt assertions that are fantastic (IOW we don't doubt every little claim that someone makes; when the weatherman tells me that the sun will rise at 5:52 am tomorrow, I don't doubt him).
If however, he were to say, "The Sun will rise Tomorrow, and Yodel," now that, would be Extraordinary!
If it happens, however, I think that we'd all be in Trouble ...
If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 14:02:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
A skeptic will instinctually doubt assertions that are fantastic (IOW we don't doubt every little claim that someone makes; when the weatherman tells me that the sun will rise at 5:52 am tomorrow, I don't doubt him).
If however, he were to say, "The Sun will rise Tomorrow, and Yodel," now that, would be Extraordinary!
There are two ways to read this:
The weatherman claims that the sun will yodel as it rises.
The weatherman claims the sun will rise, and yodels as he does so.
Either way, I'm thinking I'd be looking for a different news station... 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2001 : 19:28:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Politics is another story. For every non fiction book that "factually" debunks what is being called the "status que" there is another book that "factually" supports the common thinking about how things are. Our belief in one idea or the other is filtered through our personal political bias. Any conclusion we may draw can be a roadblock to further consideration of an idea. On the other hand, on a personal level, some ideas simply sound better to some of us than others.
We start down a slippery slope when we assert that any political view is the only correct view based on a skeptical analysis of both that view and the opposing viewpoint. While we should not forget to question any assertion, I think it would be helpful to remember that in the area of politics, the result of all our questioning is that we get to form an opinion. That's it. An opinion.
Oh, and by the way, sometimes the status que is the status que because it works. Sometimes common thinking about something became common because it is time tested and has been shown to be valid...
Yes, perhaps opinion is a better choice than conclusion. Can I base my opinion on the conclusions I've reached through my own questioning?
Well said, Kil.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 16:03:02 [Permalink]
|
I hesitate to put my hand into the nest of rattlesnakes after the flaying that I took over my anti-Chomsky stance, but I shall make a few comments anyway. In spite of the efforts of several others on this board, I believe I still have a right to my opinions and a right to seek to discredit the viewpoints and influence of fringe lunatics like Chomsky. Naturally, making this post and the comments herein will no doubt result in a flurry of condemning responses; what else is new?
1) The very existence of this topic on this board is ample proof that those subscribing to "politically correct" and/or far leftist political stances will "shout down" or attempt to discredit through repetitive personal attacks and demeaning dismissals anyone who dares to oppose the cherished dogma of their leadership. This recourse to the active suppression of ideas happens on college campuses on a regular basis - zealous students and pompous academics have even resorted to stealing campus newspapers and pamphlets that contained viewpoints that weren't precisely in line with the "proper" perspectives on other cultures and American foreign policy (and I can produce links proving this). This is a criminal distortion of the first amendment, allowing only for full protection of speech that is "acceptable" and actively seeking to suppress any other viewpoints by applying generalist labels to them as "racist" or advocating "hegemony" (e.g., sucking up to the capitalists that "enslave" us) or as "smear" campaigns against "great men" like Chomsky. One can also be unfairly accused of being naively unskeptical, as is noted in the first post on this topic, simply because one isn't in lockstep with the leftist critics of American society and foreign policy. I submit that this accusation is an intellectual conceit.
2) I have spent a couple of days since deciding to cease the argument on the other topic searching other message boards for exchanges about Noam Chomsky. I was not surprised to find very similar dialogues; anyone condemning the viewpoints of Noam Chomsky (or Howard Zinn or others on the extreme left) was accused of "smear" campaigns and was subjected to similar unreasoned attacks because they had the nerve to actually dislike what these men have to say.
For the record, I believe that my diatribes were, contrary to a few opinions expressed herein, completely within the proper framework of skepticism. As I have stated before, I am a political iconoclast and "pray" to no political icons on the left or right, although I actively dislike moral relativism and post-modernism (as much as I dislike religious fervor and pseudo-science). My disdain for Chomsky is based on detailed research of his historical revisionism and the examination of his opinions within the framework of his distorting language and the fallacy of argument, not because I have any particular political "axe" to grind. He probably has a legitimate point about certain historical events and causes, but his tone and manner are so nauseatingly obtuse and arrogant (and one-sided) that I will never be able to take anything he says seriously and uncritically. As Kil so elegantly put it, this is my OPINION, which is the best that you can call it in the volatile world of politics.
I do ask for forgiveness from the SFN members for my sarcasm; I do tend to overuse hyperbole and ironic nastiness when confronted with overwhelming evidence of blind allegiance to rhetoric.
Good evening..
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 19:13:24 [Permalink]
|
Very well said, Kil. I agree completely.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 19:40:36 [Permalink]
|
Now look what you gone and done, Gandalf!
I think maybe "skepticism" is quite relative. For example, I am very very skeptical of things like Joseph Newman's over-unity electric devices, and so I find myself staunchly, loudly, and sometimes angrily defending the status quo--ie conventional physics. Does being a skeptic mean I cain't call unconventional inventor Joseph Newman a con man and crank?
I also think the unconventional, acerbic, and outspoken conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage is a stinkin' a*****e and ought to be deeply ashamed of himself. But since he's assaulting the status quo, must a skeptic automatically support him?
OK, you see where I'm going with this, and it's a path others in the thread have trod. For me, the salient question is not defending or attacking the status quo, it's defending or attacking bad thinking--the fakery of demogogues such as Savage and con men like Newman. Unfortunately, I find myself investing heavy emotional artillery in ideas I think are just plain right, and it can be painful when one starts taking heavy casualties in the logic department. But I think a good skeptic will probably have a very pungent and well-developed set of opinions. I wouldn't have it otherwise.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 12:14:46 [Permalink]
|
The produce of your fifteen minute "research" showed that you have no concept of what you're talking about, and accept any smear that's readily available in any search engine with no regard for accuracy or even relevancy. You are the one with the personal attacks, with statements such as "brains for mush" and "fiend." No one has shouted you down, your own noise imploded on itself.
quote:
My disdain for Chomsky is based on detailed research of his historical revisionism and the examination of his opinions within the framework of his distorting language and the fallacy of argument, not because I have any particular political "axe" to grind. He probably has a legitimate point about certain historical events and causes, but his tone and manner are so nauseatingly obtuse and arrogant (and one-sided) that I will never be able to take anything he says seriously and uncritically.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 19:59:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The produce of your fifteen minute "research" showed that you have no concept of what you're talking about, and accept any smear that's readily available in any search engine with no regard for accuracy or even relevancy. You are the one with the personal attacks, with statements such as "brains for mush" and "fiend." No one has shouted you down, your own noise imploded on itself.
I do not need to add anything to this statement; it absolutely proves my assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a complete lack of skepticism and critical thinking in those who obsequiously bow down before Noam Chomsky and his ilk and hang on to every ludicrous and meaningless word passed down in the cult of the radical left.
I will probably never win this battle of the words as long as Gorgo has fingers to type a keyboard (he will undoubtedly make sure to have the LAST WORD on any political topic). I will leave this discussion with a link to a recent interview with Msr. Noam "I couldn't tell the truth or recognize the correct side of a moral issue if it bit me in the ass" Chomsky, where he condemns our bombing of Afghanistan as a "worse act of terrorism than the WTC". Tell that to the women of Afghanistan who felt the sun on their faces for the first time in five years or the little boy who took his kite out today in Kabul (see washingtonpost.com front page pictures for a very moving picture of that last one).
http://in.news.yahoo.com/011110/16/18lbm.html
It's a good thing I had a few hours to dwell on my answer, Gorgo, or you would have seen an "ad hominem" attack of unprecedented fury. I guess you now "own" the SFN (sorry, Atomic).
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
