What Are the Two Camps of Scientific Skepticism?

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Logic is a tool that has no meaning outside of our use for it, hence it is the personal emotional context as much as anything else that decides whether or not it is meaningful and applicable. In other words, we can apply it positively or negatively and each distinctive approach impacts our humanity. Rather than constantly striving to eliminate the irrational including our own feelings, we can progressively seek out the more rational and logical answers which support our positive feelings. This is, of course, not to discount the usefulness of sometimes striving to eliminate the illogical and irrational in our lives, but merely to point out that absolute negative statements against the irrational and illogical are themselves irrational, illogical, and inhumane.

THAT statement makes sense to me...thanks for clarifying, we are of mostly like minds on that.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Zero
Anyhoo, to me, a skeptic can believe in whatever their intellect tells them to...so long as they do not claim to have the final answer, or to be completely closed off to NEW evidence.

That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

[EDIT: removed a pesky double negative]

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

This is a good description of a skeptic imo with one exception. Many things are not logically coherent, but still widely accepted by skeptics because they are observable. For example, a skeptic can accept the Liar's Paradox as real and existent, yet acknowledge that it is not logically coherent.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
That doesn't fit with the definition of skeptical that I know. Being skeptical means not often being incredulous of claims. Being skeptical means not accepting statements without sufficient evidence and logical coherence. What you describe, Zero, is having an open mind, which is not the same thing as skepticism. They are apples and oranges.

-------------------

I would say to eliminate as many irrational thoughts/beliefs (statements) as possible. For examples, while one may consider emotions irrational, or at least arational, an emotion such as the one associated with laughter does not convey a belief. However, irrational beliefs, such as "I am jesus christ" should be eliminated.

Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I know...I was trying to throw a bone to the religious minded folks...just trying to be inclusive.

Oh how generous you are! ...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh how generous you are! ...

More that I personally think you deserve, but what the heck, right?