- #31
BoulderHead
You like to mention this word "faith". I get the feeling you mean it to mean 'belief without evidence'...
What Are the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism?
- Thread starter Zero
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Philosophy
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The forum discussion centers on the two distinct camps of scientific skepticism: the reactionary skeptics who dismiss unscientific claims outright and the intellectual skeptics who seek to understand and explain why certain beliefs are unfounded. Participants argue that the latter group is more constructive, emphasizing the importance of evidence and reasoning in debunking myths, particularly in relation to religion and pseudoscience. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding the motivations behind beliefs to foster meaningful dialogue and promote critical thinking.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of scientific skepticism and its principles
- Familiarity with the concepts of reactionary and intellectual skepticism
- Knowledge of the role of evidence in forming beliefs
- Awareness of the psychological aspects of belief systems
- Research the differences between reactionary and intellectual skepticism
- Explore the psychological motivations behind belief in pseudoscience
- Study methods for effectively communicating scientific reasoning to non-scientific audiences
- Investigate the historical context of skepticism in relation to religion and mythology
This discussion is beneficial for philosophers, educators, psychologists, and anyone interested in the dynamics of belief systems and the importance of critical thinking in society.
- #32
LogicalAtheist
He does always mention it. But - and without insult - look at some of his concepts.
He bends reality into his own world so the meanings he wants to give things are "true" to him. And doesn't listen to fact that hurts his faith.
Not an insult, but many here are observing it. So what is this faith? And why have it?
He bends reality into his own world so the meanings he wants to give things are "true" to him. And doesn't listen to fact that hurts his faith.
Not an insult, but many here are observing it. So what is this faith? And why have it?
- #33
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Yeah, and while running the whole thing like a three ring circus. Perhaps like one of his well-known counterparts, the so-called "true conservative," Rush Limbaugh ...
- #34
Zero
You should really read his site, you know? He is as upfront as anyone I have witnessed. And, what is the circus, expecting people to prove things or stop making claims?
- #35
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
No, I mean it by "weighing the benefit of the doubt" -- afraid you can't get away from that -- and concluding which "logical" choice to take. So then, maybe there is some higher form of intelligence over here to my side of things afterall? Hmm ... Faith is just a matter of existence. I hate to tell you this!
- #36
BoulderHead
Sounds ok to me.
I’ll let you know after I’ve reached a conclusion I can have faith in.
Oh, I already understood it in that way, thanks. Just making certain you weren’t going off the edge…
All the more reason to be open to reevaluating things from time to time.
- #37
Zero
I think the point of skepticism is creating the proper screening process for new ideas. You give ideas the benefit of the doubt...but some get a lot less benefit than others.
- #38
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Actually I saw him on a Nova program, something about the "Secrets of the Russian Psychics?" and, while it was a pretty good program, he struck me as nothing but pompous, arrogant, stubborn, presumptuous and totally engrossed in his whole unique "world view." Does this sound anything like Rush Limbaugh by the way? So really what I think it all boils down to is "pandering" to what other people might want to hear.
- #39
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Yes, that would be due to the benefit of experience, as well as preference.
- #40
Zero
Well, if you are a skeptic, your preference would be for things with logical basis, rather than emotional or anecdotal basis.
- #41
wuliheron
- 2,149
- 0
The people Randi busts are usually big time multi-million dollar a year scam artists. Once, however, he trained several people how to fool experts and then sent them around to something like four hundred reputable psychic research institutes across the country. Not once did these people get caught and when finished they went back and explained they had fooled these people and offered to show them how they had done it. Those who refused to listen to how they had been fooled had their names published in the subsequent book.
Personally, I don't think Randi's confrontational brand of skepticism is doing much except to show the faithful don't have a lock on hatred. He's complained about peoples' complaints about his aggressive style as well. In my opinion, what he does is similar to cops working the ghetto. That he is both respected, feared, and deplored by people on sides of the issue comes as no surprise... except it seems to Randi himself.
What he seems to have missed, again, is the opportunity to be skeptical about his own motivations and methods.
- #42
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,097
- 1
Perfect !
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence.
Live long and prosper.
- #43
Zero
Originally posted by drag
Perfect !
Except that I'd remove the word "skeptical"
from the last sentence.
Live long and prosper.
Well, any philosophy should contain a bit of skepicism, don't you think?
- #44
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Yeah, the only thing that I think Randi has proved, is how gullible people can be. He didn't "necessarily" have to chose the field of religion in order to demonstrate this, to say the least. Fraud is something you have to deal with on a daily basis. Even with your kids perhaps, when they come home and say they're going to do something, and then run off and do something they were "advised" not to do.
Last edited:
- #45
wuliheron
- 2,149
- 0
I think Randi has proved more than that, he has proven that supposidly objective scientists were not objective and that public tax dollars were being wasted. Not just by gullible people, but by people who had blinders on. In the process it seems he has been confronted with his own blinders. :0)
- #46
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And yet the one thing he's not going to prove, is that God doesn't exist, which I'm afraid is what so much of the hoopla is all about. So he doesn't earn any points in my book in that respect.
- #47
Zero
LOL, bring up that silly 'you can't prove God doesn't exist' stuff, why don't you!
- #48
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
The thing is, I base it upon the likely probably that He does exist, so in that respect it's not silly.
- #49
LogicalAtheist
Zero - ones truth bends around emotion like a mass bends space and time. In both cases the mass/emotion bend reality into the emotion making all appear in favor, and blocking the truth.
- #50
BoulderHead
Gotta have faith in something, right?
- #51
LogicalAtheist
Likelihood that "God" exists? How in the @*$^ing hell were you able to twist statistics so much? Your emotion is way out of hand...
- #52
Zero
Part of what I feel is vital to a skeptical outlook is not believing until you have proof, instead of believing until you find disproof.
- #53
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
Are you saying I would make such a claim because I want God to exist? or, that I "know" that He exists? That's a big difference. Whereas how could you possibly know the nature of my "emotional state?" Just because you interject that something is there doesn't make it so, I can assure you!
This applies to you too BoulderHead.
- #54
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And since when do statistics have anything to do with an actual fact? (if what I'm saying is true). And what do emotions have to do with it?
- #55
wuliheron
- 2,149
- 0
If everybody in the world were a believer or an atheist they'd still be raising a stink imo. More pointedly at stake are our personal values, the emotional context within which we view the world around us. Violence not only gets immediate and widespread attention, if sustained it can cause permanent physiological changes that in turn help to sustain the violence for generations.
LA is presenting an excellent example right here of what I mean. He is taking things totally out of context, cussing, and in general acting just as badly as the most foam at the mouth Bible Thumping evangalist. You'd have to do some fancy talking to convince me that if everybody in the world became Atheist right this second his behavior would improve much. :0)
- #56
LogicalAtheist
Oh, that's so sweet.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #57
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
But where does the proof come from? And who's going to believe it when they see it? I can assure you, I'm just as skeptical as the next person.
- #58
Zero
Sure you are...*grins*...and I don't doubt your intellect, for sure. I think we simply have a different definition of what constitutes evidence.
- #59
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
This wouldn't work in a court of law either by the way, at least in the United States anyway.
- #60
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
It creates a "new reality" too now doesn't it?
Oh, I thought you were talking about Randi here for second ... And I was going, "What the heck?"
Similar threads
- · Replies 12 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 14 ·
- · Replies 8 ·
- · Replies 5 ·
Undergrad
Are Geometric Points Affected By Forces?
- · Replies 3 ·