|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2007 : 18:54:15 [Permalink]
|
How am I supposed to take this? I really don't know.
|
Take it as complete, unexplainable silliness. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 01:43:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Actually, this is sorta backwards. Science uses skepticism, critical thought and logic as its basic tools. |
The concepts are deeply related, was the point I was making. The most basic tool of science is simple observation, to which a whole lot of other thigs are then applied.
Personally the skeptical outlook is taking the other tools of science and applying them to claims people make. Critical thought is really just a practical application of logic to solve problems. All of these things are tightly connected.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 01:49:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
How can skepticism be applied to itself? |
Easily, by asking if skepticism is a useful tool for leading us towards something resembling truth. In other words, we question the utility of skepticism to reach the goal for it set by skeptics. |
It can be naively applied in a sense but doing so is tautalogical and thus not meaningful. In fact doing so contradicts a logical basis of skepticism and thus it is not actually skepticism that is being applied.
|
Skepticism is not a single thing. It uses many tools, and is (like sceince) a method. It is a self auditing method, which is why it (and science generally) has enjoyed unprecedented and unmatched success in discovering facts about our universe.
So yes, skepticism can be applied to itself, and it is in no way tautalogical.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 02:01:10 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
Supernatural claims are by definition not claims about the natural world.
|
If they are to be treated as meaningful, then they have to be considered claims about the natural world.
For instance, the existence of a creator god would be ENTIRELY about the natural world. The claim is that such a being created the universe, so how is that not about the natural world?
It is nothing more than a smokescreen to shield imbecilic claims from rigorous scrutiny, or to give people an excuse to refrain from such scrutiny, to label something supernatural.
Besides, every single claim of "supernatural" I have ever heard has to do with things that people have allegedly experienced. Again, how is that not part of the natural world?
"Supernatural" is a word used by ignorant people to explain things they lack the education and intelligence to comprehend.
|
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 |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/05/2007 02:07:55 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 10:24:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Skepticism is not a single thing. It uses many tools, and is (like sceince) a method. It is a self auditing method, which is why it (and science generally) has enjoyed unprecedented and unmatched success in discovering facts about our universe.
So yes, skepticism can be applied to itself, and it is in no way tautalogical. |
How can one apply skepticism to the claim that skepticism is a valid method for determining the truth value of claims about reality without being tautalogical? |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 09/05/2007 10:33:05 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 12:09:10 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt asked:
| How can one apply skepticism to the claim that skepticism is a valid method for determining the truth value of claims about reality without being tautalogical? |
One more time, in case you missed it the first time:
Skepticism is not one single thing. It is a method that uses many different tools. Those individual tools can be examined using other tools in the set, and if one is found wanting it can be revised or discarded.
This should be self-evidently obvious.
How can using one tool to examine another tool be tautalogical?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 12:29:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
One more time, in case you missed it the first time:
Skepticism is not one single thing. It is a method that uses many different tools. Those individual tools can be examined using other tools in the set, and if one is found wanting it can be revised or discarded.
This should be self-evidently obvious.
How can using one tool to examine another tool be tautalogical? |
If one uses tool a to verify tool b then one cannot turn around and use tool b to verify tool a as that would be tautalogical. No matter how many tools there are you eventually come upon one or more tools that cannot be verified because they are the basis upon which the rest of skepticism is verified. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 14:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
In Bidlack's case his deism appears to have value as a coping mechanism.
|
How does something which has no evidence, and has no ability to affect one's life at all help someone "cope?"
|
The "how" is distinct to the fact that it does help, in some cases. I certainly don't know why belief in something blatantly untrue may in fact have a positive effect, but the evidence shows us that sometimes it does.
Originally posted by Gorgo
And why is creating fantasies in order to "cope" seen as a positive thing? |
I don't think that many (here at SFN at least) are suggesting that the creation of fantasy is inherently a positive thing. It's just that the positive effects seem to be real in some cases.
Originally posted by Gorgo
I feel the need to say, because of all the hostility on this seemingly radiating from the owners and moderators of this forum, that I'm not being sarcastic here. |
I've seen this quote (or one just like it) from you a couple of times in this thread. Is it based on behaviour in this thread, or are you talking about more general behaviour? If the former, I certainly can't see it. Either way I'm confused by it.
(edited to add the following paragraph, rather than posting a new message about this one point.
Originally posted by Gorgo
Better to be discomforted and see things as they are, than to be comforted by lying to yourself. |
That seems to be an opinion rather than an absolute fact. I happen to agree with you. I can, however, see that it would be possible for some self-deception to have a net-positive affect on comfort.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 09/05/2007 14:46:25 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 15:07:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | I don't know how it can be meaningful, which is one of the reasons I asked you for an example of a supernatural claim. |
To be honest, I don't understand how it is meaningful either, but it apparently makes sense to a lot of people (like Spong or Bidlack) who as far as I can tell are totally rational and highly intelligent people, so I can't entirely discount it because that feels like hard core intellectual arrogance on my part.
I do not think that being a skeptic is the same as being a rationalist. To me, someone is being skeptical if they reserve a certain level of uncertainty about claims which can't be objectively proven, but it doesn't mean a person can't speculate about the unknown and have beliefs about certain claims being the correct ones. To me, skepticism is about trusting knowledge before belief, not only trusting knowledge. (I'm defining knowledge as that which can be proven using the scientific method.)
Dude wrote: If they are to be treated as meaningful, then they have to be considered claims about the natural world.
For instance, the existence of a creator god would be ENTIRELY about the natural world. The claim is that such a being created the universe, so how is that not about the natural world? |
According to the definition of supernatural, the existence of a creator god who is supernatural would not be entirely about the natural world.
All you are saying here is that you don't think "supernatural" means anything other than being a label for speculations or theories that explain things not yet known about nature. According to the encyclopedia, that is one definition of "supernatural", but it is not all. So you are basically saying that the other definitions are total nonsense, that the word itself is devoid of actual meaning.
| It is nothing more than a smokescreen to shield imbecilic claims from rigorous scrutiny, or to give people an excuse to refrain from such scrutiny, to label something supernatural. |
I'm sure it often is that, but I doubt it is only that.
| Besides, every single claim of "supernatural" I have ever heard has to do with things that people have allegedly experienced. Again, how is that not part of the natural world? |
Because it is supernatural. But if you think that is meaningless and that "natural world" should be defined as "everything which exists", then okay.
| "Supernatural" is a word used by ignorant people to explain things they lack the education and intelligence to comprehend. |
Certainly possible. The problem is, how can we be aware of our own limits of comprehension? What do you do when you don't, can't understand something that other people claim to understand? There is much in philosophy and science that most people can't wrap their brains around. What should such people conclude about those claims they don't understand? A rationalist takes assurance in pure rationalism because it makes sense to them. But how can they know if they aren't blind or ignorant or not smart enough in certain regards to go beyond rationalism?
I am personally a rationalist. I am an atheist. I am a skeptic. Religious stuff makes absolutely zero sense to me. But while I find it easy to dismiss religious claims which directly conflict with empirical evidence, I am uneasy about totally dismissing claims which only conflict in terms of philosophy and reasoning. You very well might be right about supernaturalism, but I just don't feel nearly as much certainty about that as I do about, say, young-earth creationists being dead wrong.
Matt wrote: | If one uses tool a to verify tool b then one cannot turn around and use tool b to verify tool a as that would be tautalogical. No matter how many tools there are you eventually come upon one or more tools that cannot be verified because they are the basis upon which the rest of skepticism is verified. |
I'm not sure, but I think I might be stuck in this mental labyrinth on the question of supernaturalism. In my attempting to reconcile progressive theism with skepticism, I think I might be applying skepticism to itself, and maybe that's why I keep thinking I'm on to something, but then suddenly get lost.
|
"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 09/05/2007 15:11:28 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 18:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
I feel the need to say, because of all the hostility on this seemingly radiating from the owners and moderators of this forum, that I'm not being sarcastic here. |
I've seen this quote (or one just like it) from you a couple of times in this thread. Is it based on behaviour in this thread, or are you talking about more general behaviour? If the former, I certainly can't see it. Either way I'm confused by it.
[/quote]
This thread is a good example. See any response by Kil to me, see Dave's attitude towards Jerome, and see just about any Valiant Dancer response to me since I got here. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 19:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
See any response by Kil to me, see Dave's attitude towards Jerome, and see just about any Valiant Dancer response to me since I got here. |
I was sarcastic to you exactly once in this thread after you said:
“The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality.”
Frankly, I'm sorry I went straight into sarcasm mode, but that kind of statement of fact pushes my buttons and sets off my skeptic alarms.
Beyond that, there are no other responses that I made to you that were hostile, unless you count not agreeing with you as an act of hostility.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 00:33:46 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt said:
| If one uses tool a to verify tool b then one cannot turn around and use tool b to verify tool a as that would be tautalogical. No matter how many tools there are you eventually come upon one or more tools that cannot be verified because they are the basis upon which the rest of skepticism is verified. |
Only in a completely static world.
Tool a checks tool b, and if tool b is found lacking it is discarded or revised. Tool b-2 is then used to evaluate tool a. No tautalogy. Some assumptions, yes.
Besides, all the tools we use are predicated on our own knowledge. No tool of the same name is actually the same tool in another person's hands, thus greatly expanding the number of individual tools available to check the rest.
They also all started out with the most basic tool of all, simple observation. We can get into the whole solipsism thing, but that is rather pointless. We all know that the most basic underlying assumptions we all make rest on nothing. For pratical reasons we are forced to accept them.
Beides, it is the best we can do.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 00:38:49 [Permalink]
|
marfknox wrote:
According to the definition of supernatural, the existence of a creator god who is supernatural would not be entirely about the natural world.
All you are saying here is that you don't think "supernatural" means anything other than being a label for speculations or theories that explain things not yet known about nature. According to the encyclopedia, that is one definition of "supernatural", but it is not all. So you are basically saying that the other definitions are total nonsense, that the word itself is devoid of actual meaning.
|
Until you (or anyone else) can provide evidence of a supernatural thing, then yes. Good luck getting around the problem that anything you can provide evidence for is a part of the natural world.
And really, lets be clear on this... how, exactly, can a being who created the natural world not be relevant to it?
Utter, complete, and total nonsense word. It has no value in non-fiction discussions because the very definition is a series of false premises.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 03:39:04 [Permalink]
|
| Saying "I don't know" is the only honest way to explain things you don't know. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 03:40:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gorgo:
See any response by Kil to me, see Dave's attitude towards Jerome, and see just about any Valiant Dancer response to me since I got here. |
I was sarcastic to you exactly once in this thread after you said:
“The purpose of "faith" is to deny reality.”
Frankly, I'm sorry I went straight into sarcasm mode, but that kind of statement of fact pushes my buttons and sets off my skeptic alarms.
Beyond that, there are no other responses that I made to you that were hostile, unless you count not agreeing with you as an act of hostility.
|
I stand corrected, then. Thanks. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
