Skeptics and Believers dont exist

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Now that is classic pseudo-skepticism at work. Thanks for not making me have to go searching in other threads to begin. You are using the Strawman fallacy here. I haven't given any definitions yet, and was very clear that if I did provide definitions, they would not be my own but would be established definitions that anyone could examine for themselves, just as you just quoted from a dictionary for that very purpose. However, despite this, you make a false accusation and use that as an excuse to terminate the discussion.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


We all know you like to parade around with your pseudo-sceptic claims but have you considered that there are pseudo-believers as well?

Having said all that, the whole them and us thing gets old quite quickly.

As the OP said:

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And thats what this artificial "Skeptics vs. Believers" Internet-War comes down to: Two artificial sides labeling each other as ignorant, stupid, misinformed, blind.

As we can see this is exactly what is happening between yourself and Gawdzilla.

Tiring at best.






[edit on 16/4/09 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Now that is classic pseudo-skepticism at work. Thanks for not making me have to go searching in other threads to begin. You are using the Strawman fallacy here. I haven't given any definitions, and was very clear that if I did provide definitions, they would not be my own but would be established definitions that anyone could examine for themselves, just as you just quoted from a dictionary for that very purpose. However, despite this, you make a false accusation and use that to terminate the discussion.

Strange, that's not the impression I have. Maybe my opinion is less valid than yours because I'm not a True Believer? That wouldn't be surprising.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Malcram

 

Okay, you want to make up your own definitions, that's fine. It's also where communication ends. Have a nice day.

Well thats a little over-the-top wouldn't you say, aren't we discussing the validity of someone actually being called "A skeptic" ? I appreciate that you've taken the word from Greek and thats where our English equivalent is derived from but we're not speaking Greek. Just because the word is a derivative doesn't mean it's used in the same way. For instance, in Greek it means "inquirer" & "investigator" correct ?

Well tell me how today's skeptics are "inquiring" and "investigating" ? - they wait for the investigator's to put their documentation forward and then they shoot it down. - I am speaking of course in terms of how the majority of skeptics today act and react. When was the last time a "skeptic" inquired ? More likely they already have all the answers, they're not doing the inquiring.

"The good teacher ever remains a learner."

[edit on 4/16/09 by mortalengine]

And here's a nice thought... Gawdzilla is actually a true believer of the fact that he's a true skeptic ^^

reply to post by mortalengine


"Well tell me how today's skeptics are "inquiring" and "investigating" ? - they wait for the investigator's to put their documentation forward and then they shoot it down."

First, English is well-founded in Greek and Latin, so words derived from those languages are rife in English. Just so you know.

Second, are you really afraid of having your assertions challenged?

It seems to me the intent of this thread is to force a re-interpretation of "skeptic" into a pejorative. Sorry, but you're not hijacking the term for the purposes of forwarding your agenda.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Another Strawman. You are insinuating that this is about "opinions" when I've stated it is about established, accepted definitions for the words we use, not "opinion", and you are trying to imply that my motivations is that I dislike "skeptics" - an attempt to create a skeptic vs believer rift and rally people to your cause. Classic pseudo-skepticism (review my signature)

Actually, as I've said before, true Skeptics are extremely valuable and very necessary at ATS. I have only appreciation for legitimate skepticism - legitimate according to well established and defined criteria, not anyones opinion.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


You haven't proved your point, so it remains opinion.

Excuse me for asking for proof of your assertion, I know that's a sin.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"Well tell me how today's skeptics are "inquiring" and "investigating" ? - they wait for the investigator's to put their documentation forward and then they shoot it down."

First, English is well-founded in Greek and Latin, so words derived from those languages are rife in English. Just so you know.

Second, are you really afraid of having your assertions challenged?

It seems to me the intent of this thread is to force a re-interpretation of "skeptic" into a pejorative. Sorry, but you're not hijacking the term for the purposes of forwarding your agenda.

It seems that you are afraid of having your assertions challenged, I'm not the one who said I was leaving the discussion because people weren't accepting my opinions. Nevertheless, we digress. I do know that English is derived from Greek and Latin, what I'm saying is that we dont use the words in the same way, anyone who knows languages well will tell you that. Do you honestly believe that the common consensus is that skeptics are known as inquirers and investigators ? The colloquial understanding of the word says otherwise.

Try to relax a little will you, it's just a discussion - I take neither side but I do enjoy a good debate, it's good for the soul.

reply to post by mortalengine


Still waiting. Challenge away, I'm not busy right now. Breakfast coming up, however, so don't dwaddle. Unless, of course, if you want to, I'm not telling you what to do, Hades forbid.

Originally posted by Chadwickus

We all know you like to parade around with your pseudo-sceptic claims but have you considered that there are pseudo-believers as well?

I'm interested in the definitions of "skepticism" and "pseudo-skepticism" being clearly understood, yes. Again, I repeat I have nothing but appreciation and respect for true skepticism and skeptics. It's a vital component at ATS.

And yes, I have already posted several times about the correlation between what some call "wild eyed true believers" and "pseudo-skeptics". So, yes I agree, and have never disagreed.

Having said all that, the whole them and us thing gets old quite quickly.

Again, I agree, but as I've just said, there is no "them and us" tension between true skeptics and cautious believers, they have a very fruitful synergistic relationship.

As the OP said

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And thats what this artificial "Skeptics vs. Believers" Internet-War comes down to: Two artificial sides labeling each other as ignorant, stupid, misinformed, blind.

As we can see this is exactly what is happening between yourself and Gawdzilla.

Not really, because I have no quarrel with skeptics and skepticism. I do have a problem with people who in no way meet the definition of skeptics presuming to represent (and actually misrepresenting) skepticism, as should skeptics.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Malcram

 

You haven't proved your point, so it remains opinion.

Excuse me for asking for proof of your assertion, I know that's a sin.

Why feel the need to be so arrogant when you're speaking on a board you regularly visit. Clearly you enjoy the input of others so why treat your fellow posters that way ? All I see are people discussing different sides of an argument, where is the harm in that ?

Do you Believe it's a sin ? - Shouldn't you be a little skeptical of it being a sin. I mean afterall, where is the proof that asking for proof is a sin ?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

Still waiting. Challenge away, I'm not busy right now. Breakfast coming up, however, so don't dwaddle. Unless, of course, if you want to, I'm not telling you what to do, Hades forbid.

Challenge what ? - you want me to show you how words differ in meaning but not in derivative ?

Occult for instance, it comes from the latin occultus. Here is wiki's definition:

The word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden".[1] In the medical sense it is used to refer to a structure or process that is hidden, e.g. an "occult bleed"[2] may be one detected indirectly by the presence of otherwise unexplained anaemia.

That is the true meaning of the word in English, is that how it's used ?

I think you're getting confused with arguing the correct meaning of the word with the commonly understood meaning of the word. Clearly you know how the common person has very little understanding of the true meaning of the words he/she uses. Occult nowadays means Satanic, devil worshipping.

This is where the argument is arising I believe, in your defense I have to conclude that it IS correct to call oneself "A Skeptic" if you're referring to the true meaning of the word. However the OP is still correct when referring to the common misconception of what the word means. Unfortunately it's always the more incorrect understanding of something that tends to be the most popular.

"True Believer" however is still incorrect in my opinion, as believing in something does not mean believing in everything, the word for that is gullible.

reply to post by mortalengine


I'll go with the ideas put forward in the May/June 2009 Sketpical Inquirer, starting on page 51. Good read, you should check it out.

reply to post by mortalengine


"This is where the argument is arising I believe, in your defense I have to conclude that it IS correct to call oneself "A Skeptic" if you're referring to the true meaning of the word."

Would it be possible to stick to the true meaning of the word, or is this thread simply about stereotyping people?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

I'll go with the ideas put forward in the May/June 2009 Sketpical Inquirer, starting on page 51. Good read, you should check it out.

But I have no desire to be skeptical, or to read wholey skeptic biased material. I just read all things, whether I'm skeptical about it or not is dependant on the material. I want to know that I was skeptical of it rather than reading someone else's skeptical view on it. At least that way I know I have chosen for myself, right or wrong it needs to jibe with me, otherwise who am I fooling but myself ?

It's great to be skeptical of things but if you think about it, science proves that what we can see, taste, touch and smell are less than 1 millionth of reality. Where does proof fit in then ? - where does skepticism fit in when it's scientifically correct to say that we really just dont know a fraction of reality. Time and time again we have proved just how little we know, when we look back at ourselves we realise how silly we were to think the way we thought. Shouldn't we have learnt our lesson by now ?

If sight is anything to go by, take a look here

(though I'm sure you already knew this.)
Where proof is possible, it's well received but where proof is not possible - each an every person must make a decision within themselves, in the end it's only pride that stands against us.

reply to post by mortalengine


"
But I have no desire to be skeptical, or to read wholey skeptic biased material. "

Buzz, game over.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"This is where the argument is arising I believe, in your defense I have to conclude that it IS correct to call oneself "A Skeptic" if you're referring to the true meaning of the word."

Would it be possible to stick to the true meaning of the word, or is this thread simply about stereotyping people?

The true meaning is fine but this is not what the masses believe the word to be, this includes most self professed skeptics. Go into a church and try convince people you like studying the occult, then try and explain to them the true meaning of the word and see if they care or if they try forcibly cast demons out of you. Who cares what the true meaning of the word means when you alone know it ? Words are only symbols we attach to an understanding of a concept - if the masses believe otherwise then the true meaning of the word changes to the common conception. This is how language works and changes, symbols referencing concepts, not something set in stone and enforced by some agency.

reply to post by mortalengine


"The true meaning is fine but this is not what the masses believe the word to be, this includes most self professed skeptics."

So, we can't agree on what a word means. Where would this go from there? You want a custom definition, I'll go with the book.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mortalengine

 

"
But I have no desire to be skeptical, or to read wholey skeptic biased material. "

Buzz, game over.

Neither do I have a desire to be a believer, I desire to be a knower. At times it is requires that I believe, other times to be skeptic - these are tools I use in my path to truth, they are not what I am and they are not my ideals.