Anything from left field make it to mainstream?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is not meant to support wild notions for which we have no basis for belief.

Explain its meaning in greater detail, if you would.

There is a difference between jumping to belief and listening to what people have to say.

Yes, we already agree on this.

Sometimes they may deserve to be taken at face value.
Why should we automatically assume that anyone who claims the inexeplicable is lying?

Personally, I believe precious few of the people reporting strange things are lying. We may be in disagreement about what the term "face value" means without knowing it. If someone reports having seen a ghost, I don't think it is ever judicious to automatically believe that is what they saw. If you count the source as credible, then the only accurate thing you can say is that they saw something fitting the usual descriptions given when people say they've seen a ghost.

Point taken. My intent is not to attack skepticism - a necessary component of discovery. My objection is to skepticism as a religion at the expense of truth.

Here is something for you to consider and see if it isn't true in your experience. Whenever I find myself thinking about a concept such as "skepticism", "religion", "science", "medicine", and so forth, I have an emotional reaction which, if I examine it, turns out to be something along the lines of the sum total of the emotional reactions I've had to the people whom I consider representatives of that concept. The concept, it turns out, doesn't actually exist, per se, outside of anyone I hold to be a representative of the concept.

That being the case, there is really no skepticism to attack, defend, or be made into a religion. There isn't anything like a platonic ideal behind the concept from which a lot of people are deriving their inspiration. All there is, under the term "skepticism" are a lot of individuals who are skeptical about certain things to varying degrees, completely independently of each other.

Additionaly, some people who seem like skeptics, are actually confused and adopt a stance that looks like skepticism because they haven't got a good idea of how to sort things out.

The same holds true whenever I examine any concept: there is no center to it, just individuals associated together in my mind alone.

-Zooby

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Explain its meaning in greater detail, if you would.

There are claims of phenomenon such as ghosts, spirits and other apparitions that are as old as man and that are still common today. These claims that span cultures and the social spectrum are to be distinguished from those that offer relatively few common experiences and no physical evidence.

That being the case, there is really no skepticism to attack, defend, or be made into a religion. There isn't anything like a platonic ideal behind the concept from which a lot of people are deriving their inspiration. All there is, under the term "skepticism" are a lot of individuals who are skeptical about certain things to varying degrees, completely independently of each other.

Additionaly, some people who seem like skeptics, are actually confused and adopt a stance that looks like skepticism because they haven't got a good idea of how to sort things out.

The same holds true whenever I examine any concept: there is no center to it, just individuals associated together in my mind alone.

-Zooby

Hmmm... you make some good points. I have more to say but instead I will think about your words of wisdom a bit longer.