The Skeptical Thread (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

Wasn't it Prof Stephen Hawking who recently warned against trying to contact extraterrestrial life? That chances are they won't be friendly?


When I was young I was fascinated by UFO's, I guess I still am, real or not.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, Steve, Dr. Hawking likened our contacting a superior lifeform to what happened to Native Americans after the first European settlers arrived. But, despite his brilliance, I thought his comments verged on alarmism. He's a terrific man, though.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou


When I was young I was fascinated by UFO's, I guess I still am, real or not.

Me too, except Bigfoots.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou /forum/thread/306736/the-skeptical-thread/30#post_3761364

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Jack Briggs

Yes, Steve, Dr. Hawking likened our contacting a superior lifeform to what happened to Native Americans after the first European settlers arrived. But, despite his brilliance, I thought his comments verged on alarmism. He's a terrific man, though.

I agree, certainly more then alarmist. I'm guessing if it took me ages to speak I'd be more alarmist too ha ha. I read somewhere that his motor control is down to just a finger and he might lose that soon and become silent with no way to communicate. Sad if true.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by TravisR

Because the world is in love with his robot voice!

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by 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!

You raise a good point, Jack. "Believers" often seem to assume it's all about criticizing faith for skeptics, but the UFO topic (which has nothing to do with the supernatural) refutes that. it really is different. By the way, did you ever notice that no one runs around trumpeting the discovery of, say, a hitherto unknown species of spider (as opposed to Bigfoot)?

 

[BrianW]

Dr. Hawking says aliens might not be friendly? My gosh, if only Hollywood had prepared us for that contingency!


Eric's comment isn't something I expected to see:

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.

If you lump such people in with skeptics (and I think I can see why you would), then I understand why you would dismiss skeptics as irrational boogerheads. But people who think the moon landings were a hoax (and most other conspiracy believers) aren't really skeptics since they refuse to go where the evidence is leading them. Critical thinking, which skeptics embrace, is, in fact, the very basis of rationality.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I think I am less a skeptic and more an irrational boogerhead.




[SIZE= 10px]Nice thread, Brian. [/SIZE]

 

[Ockeghem]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

Mike,


Just a slight aside, and because I know you like (and have studied to some extent) early music --


Ockeghem frequently wrote in an 'irrational' style. And, his music is often best described apophatically rather than cataphatically. After having studied his works for over thirty-five years, I have found that it just makes more sense to do it that way.


Back on topic. I am skeptical about many things, and used to reject a lot more than I do know. But then I had an epiphany, and my faith in one God grew by leaps and bounds as a result. That's all I'll say about that on this Board.

 

[Cees Alons]

There's nothing wrong with you believing anything "unproven" and still being a skeptic. Skepticism isn't a believe or a faith. Skeptics are not a moral group.

All the "skeptics" have in common is, that they want to agree on some firm procedures and methods before any claim (phenomena, theories, concepts) is to be regarded as proven, in the sense that a responsible intellectual can no longer lightly deny it.


Next to that, an individual skeptic can believe in any religious value, or not, and still be a true skeptic. Or that ghosts exist or aliens are waiting to enter our world, or believe it was his left-hand neighbour who stole the roses from his garden last year, even 'though he cannot solidly prove it and there are no proper witnesses or recordings. A true skeptic will however realize that it's still possible, on the contrary, that it was his hot right-hand neigbour's wife who really did it. The one he acquits automatically all the time.


Thus it can still be his personal believe while at the same time he will realize that - according to his principles - he cannot demand that anyone else will accept it, or let it have real-life consequences.



Cees

 

[Jack Briggs]

I am skeptical about many things, and used to reject a lot more than I do know ...

And, Scott, critical thinking/skepticism is not about "rejecting" in and of itself. As has been stated, it's about the need for evidence when examining certain claims. It's one thing to profess religious beliefs and another to claim that you know a diety exists.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Jack Briggs

I am skeptical about many things, and used to reject a lot more than I do know ...

It's one thing to profess religious beliefs and another to claim that you know a diety exists.

This is where it's useful to consider the fundamental epistemological questions:

• What is knowledge?
• How is knowledge acquired?
• How do we know what we know?

One of the most offensive "tactics" I've seen used by opponents of skeptics is the implication that we know nothing; that everything is pure faith. Quite the contrary, we know a great deal, and there are rational bases for acquiring knowledge.

 

[DaveF]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cees Alons


Is this an appropriate place to talk about those magnetic bracelets that align my Qi? Or about homeopathic remedies for untreatable conditions (that almost certainly take advantage of the body's natural acclimatization process and / or the placebo effect)?

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by DaveF

Is this an appropriate place to talk about those magnetic bracelets that align my Qi? Or about homeopathic remedies for untreatable conditions (that almost certainly take advantage of the body's natural acclimatization process and / or the placebo effect)?

It's certainly the place to say people are skeptical of them (to say the very least).

 

[RobertR]

Here's skepticism taken a bit too far: