The Skeptical Thread (1 Viewer)

[Marianne]

I'm sceptical that you are sceptical of mattCR's scepticism.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I had no idea my GHOST POST thread was going to be so threatening to the skeptics on this forum.

Shawn, not "threatened." Just a nice thread started so as to give skeptics a place to speak without disturbing your "Ghost Post" thread. Understood?


Well, I'm here. I just don't have any comments at present. Nice thread, though.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Cees Alons


EDIT:

I'll clarify why I'm being annoyingly pedantic: when I read "The Skeptic Thread", my interpretation is "The thread for those who disbelieve religion and wish to harrangue and abuse those who do". That would dramatically color my participation in such a thread, and might even move me to request its removal as a violation of HTF's guidelines. But rather than act on a possibly wrong assumption, I instead asked for the meaning of "skeptic" in this context. But that's been surprisingly difficult to get

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by DaveF



I'll clarify why I'm being annoyingly pedantic: when I read "The Skeptic Thread", my interpretation is "The thread for those who disbelieve religion and wish to harrangue and abuse those who do".

Paranormal claims may be related to religion, but skeptics don't address matters of religious faith. Such matters are inherently non-falsifiable, and therefore outside the bounds of scientific investigation. Martin Gardner, one of the founders of CSICOP, was not an atheist, though other skeptics are.


If someone claims, for example, to be able to levitate objects, it's irrelevant whether or not he or she claims to be able to do so on a religious basis. He could claim he learned it from Jor-El, Merlin, or a burning bush, for all the the skeptic cares. The skeptic will simply say "Ok, that's a testable claim. Let's see if you can do it."


I hope that helps you "get it".

 

[TravisR]

I'm not the OP but I took this thread to basically be for people who don't believe or want more evidence before believing in aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, a sixth sense, etc. and other threads on those topics can be used for people who want to talk about their belief in them. That way, those threads don't turn into a battle ground.


And as per HTF rules, I'm sure religion is meant to be left out of the discussion entirely.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Travis, I know a little about HTF rules and I can tell you that if a specific religious issue were being discussed within a larger context about skepticism itself, that would be OK (if kept within those bounds). That's not to say I can start a thread titled "Why I don't believe in god." But the issue of a diety within a discussion of skepticism itself would be passable -- that is, until someone else got offended by it and forced the thread into closure. (I've seen a number of threads start off nicely only to be wrecked by someone joining in and making a mess of it.)


Otherwise, to your earlier question, skepticism is about requiring evidence before one can accept another's claims. And not just any ol' claim, but a claim that is in itself "fabulous." You can say that the sky is red or green, but all one needs to do to check the evidence is to look up. But tell me that you have been abducted by little grey people with big black eyes and have had medical experiments performed on you by them, well, that's a claim that requires some serious evidence. Produce that evidence, of course, and you'll change the world. Problem is, no one claiming alien abduction has ever been able to prove it. Which means a skeptic will file it under "a" for "anecdote."

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by DaveF :

[SIZE= 10px]About CSI[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee:[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 10px]1. Maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]2. Prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]3. Encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]4. Convenes conferences and meetings[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]5. Publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 10px]6. Does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully. [/SIZE]



[SIZE= 10px]The Committee is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization, started in 1976. The Skeptical Inquirer is its official journal.[/SIZE]

So, this is the context the OP was borrowing the term "skeptical" from.



As far as religious and and/or political subjects are concerned: as Jack Briggs pointed out already, it can be done within the rules of this forum if handled very carefully and wisely, but I advise strongly against it. In fact for that same reason: it will almost never stay careful enough nor wise.

(Note: since discussions took place Jack was referring to above, the rules have been slightly changed, unfortunately "tightened" is the best characterization. We had to.)



Cees

 

[SWFF]

I'm curious what you guys' beliefs are about death, specifically, what do you believe happens when your bodies cease to exist? This is just a curiosity question.

 

[mattCR]

I am now skeptical that anyone is taking my skepticism seriously. Seriously. Either that or I'm skeptical of people who are not skeptical of normal things viewing a non-normal thing as something you could be skeptical about.

 

[Eric_L]

I am of the opinion that skepticism is a activity that is often abused by weak minded people attempting to appear intellectual. Skepticism over certain political outlooks (most of which are virtually impossible to test scientifically) is one example. Skepticism over religion is another ('faith', by definition, is impossible to prove, or else it would be 'knowledge' instead of 'faith') Skepticism over silly things like the trip to the moon or 9/11/01 are more examples where people take it to silly and absurd degrees. Not all skepticism is absurd, but irrational skepticism is so common that I have decided that I don't want to consider myself a skeptic; I prefer just being rational.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by SWFF

I'm curious what you guys' beliefs are about death, specifically, what do you believe happens when your bodies cease to exist? This is just a curiosity question.

Each will probably have a personal opinion about that. Most may differ from the others. And when ventilated, should meet with the usual approach, skeptical, by others. There's no group-effect when you're talking about subjects that do not define the "group".



Cees

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by SWFF

I'm curious what you guys' beliefs are about death, specifically, what do you believe happens when your bodies cease to exist? This is just a curiosity question.

For me? I believe that once you die, you're dead and that's it. Your body breaks down and you don't care about it since your conscious no longer exists. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife or reincarnation. It will be a nice surprise if it ends up there is one! Unfortunately, no one comes back to life with convincing enough evidence of an afterlife for me to heartily agree there is one. This also means I don't believe in ghosts. I'm not going to say that anyone hasn't seen a ghost, because it goes against the base scientific principle that you can't prove a negative. I find the stories interesting, but I want a bit more evidence then a spectrometer and someones story. That said, EVPs played at 2am in a dark room can give me the willies, I just want a more thorough examination before I say "Ghosts are real and here's the EVP to prove it."


Here's a vid I emailed to some friends who yelled at me (yes yelled) for not believing that little green men regularly visit our plant. I did agree that other life in the universe is possible, and odds are very likely that there is life out there somewhere, I just disagreed that they were coming around earth regularly to experiment. Anyways, this video is a good explanation of the bases of "Critical Thinking" that is really at the heart of skepticism, as opposed to just being a naysaying nancy.

 

[RobertR]

Excellent video, Russell.

 

[Steve Christou]

Luverly video Russ.


I am a skeptic when it comes to dieties, ghosts, demons and other supernatural phenomena.


But I do believe in life "out there" (and UFO's too).

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by RobertR


PS: that's pretty much a verbatim conversation from a few weeks ago by the way....

 

[Jack Briggs]

But I do believe in life "out there" (and UFO's too).

Steve: No one is saying that life on other planets does not exist; in fact, I'm willing to say that most people who pride themselves in their skepticism are open to the idea -- excited by it. They would in all likelihood draw the line at flying saucers, however. That's a subject that fits nicely under this general "rule": The more you look into it the less there is.


If this planet is ever visited by intelligent beings from another planet, believe me, we will all know about it.

 

[Walter Kittel]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]If this planet is ever visited by intelligent beings from another planet, believe me, we will [/COLOR][COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]all[/COLOR][COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)] know about it.[/COLOR]

Assuming that they want us to be aware of their presence. I suspect that any civilization capable of harnessing the technologies required for interstellar travel could elude detection. Of course it depends upon what method of travel is employed. Generation ships (which seem to be one of the less technically extreme methods) would probably not escape our notice. Other, smaller, or more technically adept vehicles or modes of transportation might escape detection. For instance, nano-assemblers would be stealthy enough to avoid detection.

Actually though the odds of Earth being visited during our lifetimes are astronomically small not only because of the gulf of interstellar space, but also because of the vastness of time and the improbability of two intelligent civilizations existing during the same minute time period (when considered against the lifespan of the universe.)

Anyway, back to the Skeptics thread.


- Walter.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Walter Kittel




Assuming that they want us to be aware of their presence. I suspect that any civilization capable of harnessing the technologies required for interstellar travel could elude detection. Of course it depends upon what method of travel is employed. Generation ships (which seem to be one of the less technically extreme methods) would probably not escape our notice. Other, smaller, or more technically adept vehicles or modes of transportation might escape detection. For instance, nano-assemblers would be stealthy enough to avoid detection.

Actually though the odds of Earth being visited during our lifetimes are astronomically small not only because of the gulf of interstellar space, but also because of the vastness of time and the improbability of two intelligent civilizations existing during the same minute time period (when considered against the lifespan of the universe.)

Anyway, back to the Skeptics thread.


- Walter.

That said, seeing how we have a combination of numerous astrologist scanning the skies with equipment so sensitive that we can discover distant galaxies, stars and planets, on top of other groups actively looking for alien life and crafts... shouldn't we of seen some minute evidence by now that can be proven without a doubt?

I'd love it to be true. Being visited by an alien life form, absolute proof of psychic abilities, ghosts, etc, would eclipse every single scientific break through that the human race has had. It would knock everything we understand and physics in particular off it's feet. Which is why you have to be so diligent in getting proper positives.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, I do not want to see the idea of life on other worlds -- particularly intelligent life -- grouped into the same category of pseudoscience and all-out nonsense as ghosts, goblins, demons, Virgin Mary sightings, Bigfoots (Bigfeet?), Yetis, and on and on. One is a scientific concept, while the others, well, are not. Flying saucers, on the other hand, are fair game!

 

[Walter Kittel]

[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]That said, seeing how we have a combination of numerous astrologist scanning the skies with equipment so sensitive that we can discover distant galaxies, stars and planets, on top of other groups actively looking for alien life and crafts... shouldn't we of seen some minute evidence by now that can be proven without a doubt? [/COLOR]

Well, if you are asking why we haven't seen signs of intelligent life off of the Earth...


My last post addresses one of the possible reasons why - the vast scope of time - unless the universe is teeming with life (a nice thought, but no evidence other than probability to support it) the odds of detecting other life seem (ahem) astronomically small. Our instruments are looking into the universe's past and we might be one of the first emerging sentient species. Sadly, intelligence might not be a survival characteristic and we might not find evidence of it elsewhere because any civilization which is sufficiently developed technologically to destroy itself - inevitably does so. (These are in no way original arguments, but I believe they are worthy of consideration.)


I'd love for humanity to discover evidence of extra-terrestrial life. There have been a number of SF stories that deal with the sociological implications such as From Downtown at the Buzzer by George Alec Effinger (a favorite of mine) and I suspect that they all pale in comparison to what might actually occur.


Physics itself would not be knocked off its feet. Our knowledge might be extended and augmented but not subverted.


Edit: Good point Jack (re: grouping)



- Walter.