|
|
|
Gary 7
New Member
28 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2007 : 20:45:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by GeeMack
Originally posted by Gary 7...
Has there ever been famous or influential skeptics in history? |
How about, just for a start, Ben Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, Carl Sagan, Charles Darwin, Archimedes, Nikola Tesla, Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, and Max Planck? Would you like several hundred more? And how about all those famous influential dowsers, Gary?
Well, I used to be a skeptic,too. I realized it was my programming - you know - the media and peer groups etc.
I decided to change. Skepticism is a tool for those having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. We can become the unconscious tools of repression. |
Then you clearly have no idea what is actually meant by the term skeptic. And with that severe of a misunderstanding, when you thought you were a skeptic, you weren't. You could start by reading the mission statement at the bottom of this page for your badly needed first clue.
|
Sorry, I don't consider these people skeptics. They did not maintain the status quo, but made huge (sometimes negative) contributions to human knowledge and potential.
I don't doubt they may have had a skeptical side to them,but it didn't stop them doing great things.
Skeptics are, in general, people who do nothing, but sit around saying other people's research is a load of rubbish and do nothing to contribute themselves.
The important factor is contribution, not debate. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 20:45:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7
Is there any sensible reason why I should dismiss the information received from dowsing? |
Dismiss it? Who said anything about dismissing it, Gary? Just admit that dowsing provides you with the answers that you want (and only those), and you'll be able to do exactly the same things you've been doing, but you won't have to waste time by dowsing.If you ask me is there any sensible reason why people should consider dowsing, I would reply YES.
Pendulums were endorsed by King Solomon and Cleopatra etc. and used in minefields, but that's not the main reason. |
Endorsements from dead people and idiots: always nice.
What's the main reason, Gary? Why not post your "A" game first?
[/quote] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 20:55:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gary 7
Is there any sensible reason why I should dismiss the information received from dowsing? |
Dismiss it? Who said anything about dismissing it, Gary? Just admit that dowsing provides you with the answers that you want (and only those), and you'll be able to do exactly the same things you've been doing, but you won't have to waste time by dowsing.If you ask me is there any sensible reason why people should consider dowsing, I would reply YES.
Pendulums were endorsed by King Solomon and Cleopatra etc. and used in minefields, but that's not the main reason. |
Endorsements from dead people and idiots: always nice.
What's the main reason, Gary? Why not post your "A" game first?
|
Unfortunately dowsing has provided with answers I did not want and I need some friendly skeptics to help me convince myself that's it's all a loads of codswallop.
"Oh, save me from this wicked affliction!" (just kidding! Slightly)
You made incorrect assumptions - that's not very bright.
Who isn't either an idiot, a dead person or both these days?
Perhaps it was different back in the good'ol days. As technology develops, we regress to barbarism and ignorance, n'est pas? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 20:57:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7
Sorry, I don't consider these people skeptics. They did not maintain the status quo, but made huge (sometimes negative) contributions to human knowledge and potential.
I don't doubt they may have had a skeptical side to them,but it didn't stop them doing great things.
Skeptics are, in general, people who do nothing, but sit around saying other people's research is a load of rubbish and do nothing to contribute themselves.
The important factor is contribution, not debate. |
Wow, you really do have the words "skeptic" and "cynic" mixed up, don't you? So you were a cynic, and now you've done a complete 180 and are a believer.
And you've got the story about Sagan all messed up, too. And Sagan was a skeptic, as well, even though he contributed a lot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 21:01:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7
Unfortunately dowsing has provided with answers I did not want... |
No, you wanted answers that you didn't want in order to be able to say that dowsing doesn't always give you the answers that you want.| You made incorrect assumptions - that's not very bright. |
You can assert that all you like, but without providing evidence, I have no reason to believe you.| Who isn't either an idiot, a dead person or both these days? |
You. Me. Lots of others.| Perhaps it was different back in the good'ol days. As technology develops, we regress to barbarism and ignorance, n'est pas? |
No, that's just you new agers, always looking backwards, and scared to death of the future.
Still not going to present your best, huh? Still don't want to discuss metaphysics, either? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 21:14:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gary 7
Sorry, I don't consider these people skeptics. They did not maintain the status quo, but made huge (sometimes negative) contributions to human knowledge and potential.
I don't doubt they may have had a skeptical side to them,but it didn't stop them doing great things.
Skeptics are, in general, people who do nothing, but sit around saying other people's research is a load of rubbish and do nothing to contribute themselves.
The important factor is contribution, not debate. |
Wow, you really do have the words "skeptic" and "cynic" mixed up, don't you? So you were a cynic, and now you've done a complete 180 and are a believer.
And you've got the story about Sagan all messed up, too. And Sagan was a skeptic, as well, even though he contributed a lot.
|
No,I will always be a cynic until everyone understands that objective truth is not something we need to run away from. Fantasies,wishes and perceiving the world as we wish it to be is not as fun as seeing it for what it is.
Assuming or wishing that dowsing is rubbish does not change the truth.
That goes for reincarnation and a host of other things,too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Sagan: Well, when I talk to religious leaders, one thing I always ask them is: What would you do if a fundamental tenet of your religion was definitively disproved by science? And, at least in the West, and especially among fundamentalist religions, the tendency is to say, "Science couldn't possibly," or, "My religion is an absolute truth, and if science gets different answers, too bad for science." The Dalai Lama's answer was: "If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism." So I tried to push him on this issue. Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n2_v26/ai_18082728/pg_3 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 21:39:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gary 7
No,I will always be a cynic until everyone understands that objective truth is not something we need to run away from. |
You post pretensions towards metaphysical understanding, but you cannot see that your own questions presuppose the complete lack of anything approaching an objective truth. You haven't actually thought any of this stuff through, have you?| Fantasies,wishes and perceiving the world as we wish it to be is not as fun as seeing it for what it is. |
That was Carl Sagan's point, and I whole-heartedly agree.| Assuming or wishing that dowsing is rubbish does not change the truth. |
Assuming or wishing that dowsing is somehow worthwhile (as something other than entertainment) does not change the truth, either. But Sagan would suggest that because you're making the claim, you need the evidence.
| That goes for reincarnation and a host of other things,too. |
Absolutely, we agree. I honestly want the entire host of other things to be true. But until I see evidence that they are true, I'm not going to spend time acting as if they are.Carl Sagan: Well, when I talk to religious leaders, one thing I always ask them is: What would you do if a fundamental tenet of your religion was definitively disproved by science? And, at least in the West, and especially among fundamentalist religions, the tendency is to say, "Science couldn't possibly," or, "My religion is an absolute truth, and if science gets different answers, too bad for science." The Dalai Lama's answer was: "If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism." So I tried to push him on this issue. Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n2_v26/ai_18082728/pg_3 |
Very good. See how the real story differs from your earlier summary of it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 22:28:39 [Permalink]
|
I'm learning a lot, Dave, from your patient and rational approach to this discussion. My accolades for the way you're handling this.
One of your points was that Gary 7 has been confusing skepticism for cynicism. This is a very common confusion, and may indeed illustrate how most people view skepticism. My own daughter (an intelligent young woman with a much better education than I have) has been a little slow to understand the difference. I think she may still feel that my assurances about the difference are simply defensive on my part.
The way I think of "skepticism," is to define it as a basic outlook or philosophy that attempts to apply a scientific approach not only to science itself, but to broader issues as well.
Cynicism is simply an attitude of distrust of other peoples' motivations.
Amongst people who consider themselves skeptics, there is a spectrum, from those who are basically optimistic and fairly trusting, to those who are entirely distrusting and cynical. Some may argue, with justification, that the two extremes actually lie outside of skepticism, but the point is, skepticism and cynicism are very different things, like "color" and "brightness."
Some of us skeptics have vivid imaginations -- in fact, I think ours tend to be better than most people's. But we consciously try (with varying success) to distinguish what is imagined from what is real. People who are extremely unskeptical seem to either believe things because such beliefs are culturally traditional, or latch onto beliefs because they are exciting. But neither type uses critical reasoning to test those beliefs.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/29/2007 22:32:21 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 22:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Gary wrote: | Has there ever been famous or influential skeptics in history? |
First of all, every person mentioned by GeeMack was a legit example. Skeptics DO NOT support the status quo. They are often iconoclasts, rejecting the status quo because they dared to question traditions and myths.
So how about the most famous skeptic in history: Socrates. The man was a hugely influential philosopher (hundreds of years later he's still a household name!) and he's basically famous for asking questions and saying we don't know anything. He was prosecuted for “atheism” (although it is questionable whether he was actually an atheist. There is evidence that he believed in some supernatural force or realm) and instead of just giving in to what his prosecutors wanted, he drank the hemlock and died for the sake of his skeptical integrity!
Pyrrho was the first to officially champion the philosophy of skepticism. He's rather famous and influential thinker. How about some more contemporary example: Descartes and Hume. These people are undeniable famous and influential and are self-declared skeptics. Both of them were inspiring to many (I am personally rather inspired by David Hume), and neither of them supported the status quo.
| Skeptics are, in general, people who do nothing, but sit around saying other people's research is a load of rubbish and do nothing to contribute themselves. |
James Randi could be called a career skeptic, and he hardly sits around doing nothing. He conducts experiments to prove through ACTION, not just thought and talk, that certain claims are unsubstantiated or outright fakery and scams, and then he gives talks and does presentations to try to educated other people about what he's discovered.
| The important factor is contribution, not debate. |
Bullshit. Criticism and debate are just as essential to progress and inquiry as contribution. This is because contributions can be wrong, even dangerous. If nobody is there to question things we'd still be using leeches and blood-letting. Jonathan Swift was a satirist and his works are well known and still relevant today, and Swift did pretty much nothing but criticize and debate!
| Do you have any concrete examples of this in mind? |
Let's go with the 14th and current Dalai Lama since you mentioned him, so I figure he probably has your approval as a sage. From the article on him in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticism
British journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing attack on the Dalai Lama in 1998, which questioned his alleged support for India's nuclear weapons testing, his statements about sexual misconduct, his suppression of Shugden worship, as well as his meeting Shoko Asahara, whose cult released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system. Brian Given published a detailed reply to these criticisms in World Tibet Network News.
There has also been criticism that feudal Tibet |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2007 00:10:24 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2007 : 22:36:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Wow, you really do have the words "skeptic" and "cynic" mixed up, don't you? So you were a cynic, and now you've done a complete 180 and are a believer. |
Hey, cynics aren't all that bad. Diogenes is one of my favorite Greek philosophers! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope
When Alexander the Great came to that town he went to see the wise man. He found Diogenes outside the town lying on the ground by his barrel. He was enjoying the sun.
When he saw the king he sat up and looked at Alexander. Alexander greeted him and said:
"Diogenes, I have heard a great deal about you. Is there anything I can do for you?"
"Yes," said Diogenes, "you can step aside a little so as not to keep the sunshine from me." |
From here: http://www.de.dau.lv/angluvaloda/ang1/node21.html
Also, Gary cannot mean cynics because true cynics do not support the status quo. They reject and criticize all social conventions and institutions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/29/2007 22:37:11 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 05:01:32 [Permalink]
|
| Gary, is it really bliss like they say? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 07:17:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Also, Gary cannot mean cynics because true cynics do not support the status quo. They reject and criticize all social conventions and institutions. |
Don't think of me as referring to "true cynics," then, but only to Archie Bunker-style "I'm terrified of change" cynicism.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 07:23:12 [Permalink]
|
I missed this earlier:Originally posted by Gary 7
You may be shutting yourself off from metaphysical experiences... |
Now it's clear that you're using "metaphysics" as a synonym for something like "paranormal" or "supernatural," when in fact, metaphysics is a philosophical subject. But I forgot, you consider "metaphysics" to be a "higher order" of reality. I guess it's really no wonder that you don't want to talk about it anymore, Gary. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gary 7
New Member
28 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:01:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I missed this earlier:Originally posted by Gary 7
You may be shutting yourself off from metaphysical experiences... |
Now it's clear that you're using "metaphysics" as a synonym for something like "paranormal" or "supernatural," when in fact, metaphysics is a philosophical subject. But I forgot, you consider "metaphysics" to be a "higher order" of reality. I guess it's really no wonder that you don't want to talk about it anymore, Gary.
|
I would think Metaphysics as philosophy would simply be empty debate.
My teachers and many others have "experienced" Metaphysics and it does indeed point to a higher order of reality. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2007 : 10:37:27 [Permalink]
|
Gary wrote: | My teachers and many others have "experienced" Metaphysics and it does indeed point to a higher order of reality. |
In your worldview, how do you deal with the fact that some people have mystical experiences that contradict with those of others? For instance, I have a friend who is Wiccan, and from time to time he engages in religious rituals that channel the dead or that encourage visions. He's had a vision that Jesus came to him and the two of them made peace (he had previously had a lot of anger surrounding his Christian upbringing, and projected it on the figure of Jesus). But in his vision, Jesus had been merely a sagely man in his life, not the son of God. But other people have visions and such of Jesus where he is God. He can't be both God and not-God, so how do we as bystanders know whose visions is true, if either?
How can re-incarnation be real with so many people supposedly channeling the dead? If those souls are in new bodies alive today, then how are they available to talk to the channelers?
This is just the beginning of questions. The reason we shouldn't just accept these experience as true on face value is because they just don't all make sense together if we accept them at face value. If you are really curious about facts and reality and facing the true of our existence, you would be questioning and curious, not explicitly backing specific and detailed claims that cannot be substantiated. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2007 10:37:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Shirley Maclaine & Kevin Ryerson
