Hi All,

I found this quote on the internet and just wondered what everyone thought about this man’s view of Skepticism and how it might apply to religion.


From:
I Was Abducted by Aliens at Area 51! by Glenn Campbell,
Chapter Two: Before the Beginning

I became, instead, a Skeptic. UFOs were not real; all religions were false; all psychics were charlatans; and haunted houses didn't frighten me a bit. I believed the pronouncements of C. Sagan, who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If I did not have positive proof for something, then it did not exist. I believed in the scientific method, and I saw myself as completely rational. When I found that other people had irrational beliefs, I tried to enlighten them, figuring that reason would improve their lives. Time after time, this got me into a heap o' trouble. I came to understand that people with irrational beliefs don't like to have their beliefs challenged, and they would rather kill you (or fire you, or accuse you of something you didn't do) than accept any change in themselves. I became, by necessity, a closet Skeptic, scoffing quietly to myself but not daring to speak my views in public.

Before I go on, I must take a moment to apologize for my Skeptical period. It is another of the addictions I am recovering from.

What I failed to understand was that Skepticism itself was a religion, with its own set of sacred tenets taken without proof. One of these assumptions is that the world would be a better place if only the irrational beliefs of the public were debunked. If we could disprove all religion, then reason would take its place; most wars and discrimination would be avoided, and people would begin to live together in harmony. If you believe that, then I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you. A dedicated Skeptic, like J. Randi, spends his career disproving the claims of psychics, not realizing that for every one he shoots down, there will be ten others to take his place.

Another fallacy of the Skeptics is that you need scientific proof for something before it becomes real or worthy of attention. Life is too short for scientific proof, and if you try to live your life like this, then it is going to be a very rigid and impoverished one. The scientific method is concerned with the testing of ideas, but the Skeptics never talk about where those ideas come from. Sure, you need to test an engineering concept rigorously before building a bridge upon it, but until this need arises, ideas don't need to be proven. To make the scientific method work, somebody has to be creative to begin with. Somebody has to make the conceptual leap that bread mold might kill bacteria before the principle can be tested. To create those breakthrough ideas requires a certain amount of blind faith. You have to be willing to explore, fantasize, wonder and wander for a while without judging. If you scoff at every lamebrained idea that comes along then you are never going to recognize the one lamebrained idea that might work.

Skeptics often refer to something called Occam's Razor when trying to debunk some far-out claim. Occam said that if there are two explanations for some phenomenon, the simplest theory is usually the correct one. When analysing a UFO sighting, given the choice between a complicated alien invasion and deluded human perception, Occam would suggest that human failure is to blame, because that is the simplest explanation. Unfortunately, history has shown that Occam's Razor is baloney (excuse me, bologna) and has lead to many fatal errors. Take the shape of the world. If you talked to an Indian, walking across the desert before the coming of the White Man, and you told him that the earth he was standing on was actually round and suspended in space, he would say you are full of peyote. If the Indian applied Occam's Razor, a round earth would make no sense; it wouldn't be the simplest explanation. We now accept that the world is round (if indeed it is) because we have learned a lot of other concepts to support it, but to the Indian, the earth is solid and flat beneath his feet, and within his universe, that is all he needs to know. To him, Occam's Razor is a convenient rationalization to help him avoid ideas that he just can't handle right now.

Even if you accept that the Earth is round, Occam's Razor doesn't help you explore it. Occam would have never predicted that there was a whole other continent between Europe and Asia. Even Columbus couldn't accept it, because it wasn't the simplest explanation. Throughout human history and our own personal lives, exploration messes us up like that. Just when we think we have everything all worked out, reality throws something unexpected at us, something that doesn't fit into our neat theories. We find, then, that our theories were hopelessly näive and that there is a whole other dimension to the universe that we hadn't considered. This is why it is so dangerous to be an ideologue. If you commit yourself totally to a theory, be it Skepticism or conservatism or social darwinism or any other "ism", then you are not going to be prepared for contradictory information when it comes in. The real world defies all theories. When you visit someplace like Area 51, you can have some ideas to begin with, but then you need to stop, look and listen. You have to lay aside your theories and let the world teach you what is really going on.


So, what think you?

Hi All,
So, what think you?

I think I will go with the flow, partially a skeptic and partially a believer.

Seti:

Can you shorten the point up yourself for us who prefer to keep the reading short.

Seti:

Can you shorten the point up yourself for us who prefer to keep the reading short.

That's why you will never learn anything. Take the time to read and understand. It will only serve to help you.

Your preference will be your undoing.

Perhaps you are right, if you are speaking so that you understand me.

But Q, can his point not be summed up? I mean, he's talking about something very specific. Maybe he isn't, but I certainly don't want to get wound up in all kinds of delusional stuff.... About "occams razor" and all this other nonsence which is easily understood.

My preference isn't my undoing, your preference is your undoing. Perhaps you are right. Alas.

Seti:

Can you shorten the point up yourself for us who prefer to keep the reading short.

I do not really have a point.

I am just trying to deconstruct, digest, and understand these ideas, and I want to know what other people think about these things. I am asking for help to determine whether these ideas have some merit or not.

Please just bite off one small piece or two and tell me if you think it is a valid point or not, and hopefully why you think so.

I am not a scientist and I have a lot to learn! Here is just one question I have...

Are his comments on Occam's Razor valid or not?

Thanks!

My preference isn't my undoing, your preference is your undoing. Perhaps you are right. Alas.

Perhaps, but I do know one thing, reading and understanding something is tantamount to learning.

Excellent response.

I or someone else will get tot his.

Perhaps, but I do know one thing, reading and understanding something is tantamount to learning.

All the knowledge exists within you at this moment.

I would say more, but I sort of refuse.
Refute.

Oh. Why would learning something be so important if all you want to do is to learn about it? What are you so interested in anyway. :p

Anyway, that's all for now :)

Seti: I appoligise. Your OP is perfectly reliable.

All the knowledge exists within you at this moment.

Uh, actually, no it doesn't.

Oh. Why would learning something be so important if all you want to do is to learn about it? What are you so interested in anyway.

I want to know how things work. Doesn't everyone? :shrug:

Uh, actually, no it doesn't.

What is knowledge Q? What knowledge are you speaking of?


wtf!
You're saying knowledge exists outside of you?
That all of the "information" exists somewhere else :p

LoL
For crying out loud.

Are his comments on Occam's Razor valid or not?
In short, no.

Take the shape of the world. If you talked to an Indian, walking across the desert before the coming of the White Man, and you told him that the earth he was standing on was actually round and suspended in space, he would say you are full of peyote. If the Indian applied Occam's Razor, a round earth would make no sense; it wouldn't be the simplest explanation.
Of course it would if you were to ask him to give some explanation for, say,
why does the Earth always have a circular shadow on the moon?
why do things far away disappear from the bottom upwards?
Any explanation for those observations versus the actual one (i.e. the Earth is a ball) should then be tested with Occam's Razor...

Even if you accept that the Earth is round, Occam's Razor doesn't help you explore it. Occam would have never predicted that...
So what?
Occam is a method of deciding which hypothesis to pick (and is only a general rule - it's not hard and fast).
Would ANY explanation of the shape of the Earth (no matter how weird) help explore it?
If someone could prove that, say, the Earth is really a dodecahedron, would that tell us what continents were there before we found them?

Uh, actually, no it doesn't.

What is knowledge Q? What knowledge are you speaking of?


wtf!
You're saying knowledge exists outside of you?
That all of the "information" exists somewhere else :p

LoL
For crying out loud.

Sorry, I mistook your post to mean "ALL" knowledge.

Interesting... slightly.

But the guy clearly has some flaws in his argument...

Of being a skeptic...
If I did not have positive proof for something, then it did not exist.This is drivel - and anyone can tell you that. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Another fallacy of the Skeptics is that you need scientific proof for something before it becomes real or worthy of attention.More drivel. Theories make predictions - and the predicted areas do not have evidence until they are borne out by observation.
Most of the interesting stuff - if not ALL the interesting stuff - is in trying to observe these areas that are currently only predicted.

Life is too short for scientific proof, and if you try to live your life like this, then it is going to be a very rigid and impoverished one.Again - drivel. Appeal to emotion and nothing more.

The scientific method is concerned with the testing of ideas, but the Skeptics never talk about where those ideas come from. Sure, you need to test an engineering concept rigorously before building a bridge upon it, but until this need arises, ideas don't need to be proven. To make the scientific method work, somebody has to be creative to begin with. Somebody has to make the conceptual leap that bread mold might kill bacteria before the principle can be tested.ALL part of the scientific method.

To create those breakthrough ideas requires a certain amount of blind faith.Not at all. It takes an understanding of the principles involved - and the understanding that there is at least a possibility, and then an assessment of risk / reward to see if its worth even carrying on.

You have to be willing to explore, fantasize, wonder and wander for a while without judging. If you scoff at every lamebrained idea that comes along then you are never going to recognize the one lamebrained idea that might work. Appeal to emotion.
Neither the scientific method nor skeptics "scoff at every lamebrained idea".
No idea is "lamebrained".

Skeptics often refer to something called Occam's Razor when trying to debunk some far-out claim. Occam said that if there are two explanations for some phenomenon, the simplest theory is usually the correct one.This is just one variation of the statement by Occam.
With regard to theory (and he is afterall relating this to the Scientific method and skeptics) usually I have seen it as "preferred" rather than "correct". Afterall, noone knows if a theory is correct, hence it is a theory.

When analysing a UFO sighting, given the choice between a complicated alien invasion and deluded human perception, Occam would suggest that human failure is to blame, because that is the simplest explanation.He misses the "usually" - as in "usually to blame".

Unfortunately, history has shown that Occam's Razor is baloney (excuse me, bologna) and has lead to many fatal errors.Occam's razor is a matter of rationality and probability - not of being "correct" or not all the time.
This is an appeal to emotion - and a clear misunderstanding of the Razor.

Take the shape of the world.
... <snip> ...
To him, Occam's Razor is a convenient rationalization to help him avoid ideas that he just can't handle right now. Not to help avoid at all - it is an assessment of theories fitting existing evidence.

Even if you accept that the Earth is round, Occam's Razor doesn't help you explore it.Irrelevant - that is not its purpose.
Occam would have never predicted that there was a whole other continent between Europe and Asia.Irrelevant - it is not intended as a predictive tool.

Throughout human history and our own personal lives, exploration messes us up like that. Just when we think we have everything all worked out, reality throws something unexpected at us, something that doesn't fit into our neat theories.Hence we explore. And this has no bearing on the scientific method or Occam's razor.

This is why it is so dangerous to be an ideologue. If you commit yourself totally to a theory, be it Skepticism or conservatism or social darwinism or any other "ism", then you are not going to be prepared for contradictory information when it comes in.Absolutely agree - although skepticism is NOT a theory, as implied above.

The real world defies all theories. When you visit someplace like Area 51, you can have some ideas to begin with, but then you need to stop, look and listen. You have to lay aside your theories and let the world teach you what is really going on.Never been. Would like to, though.


Personally - this diatribe is nothing but a misunderstanding of the Scientific Method and also of Occam's Razor in order to appeal to emotion.

The only point the author got right, imo, is that living your life as an ABSOLUTE skeptic (not that I know any who do) will not get you anywhere - but at least it will help to weed out bogus claims and charlatans.

You're actually quite nice, Q.

Thank you.

Perhaps my position should crumble, but that's in the past.

You're actually quite nice, Q.

Just don't let it get out, as it would blow my cover. :D

I found this quote on the internet and just wondered what everyone thought about this man’s view of Skepticism and how it might apply to religion.I was a member of CSICOP for many years and am still a skeptic with a little S. What I think about this man is that he does not understand skepticism or science.I became, instead, a Skeptic. UFOs were not realThat is not what we say at all. We say that almost all UFO sightings have been debunked and that the rest have not been proven to be anything more than unidentified, as the name suggests. Considering all the amazing natural and man-made phenomena that take place in the sky, there is no compelling reason to suppose that these are vehicles from another planet. Especially as it becomes ever less likely that they could be from one of our neighboring planets. Relativity tells us that an interstellar journey will take thousands or even tens of thousands of years and/or utilize a prodigious amount of fuel, no matter what level of civilization launches it. The premise, "If two UFOs are spotted together, they cannot be interstellar spacecraft," is true beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard used in our legal system.All religions were falseWe don't say that either. We simply say that their premises of supernatural beings and events have not only not been proven but fall into the category of "extraordinary assertions requiring extraordinary substantiation," and therefore that segment of their religion, if it is taken seriously and not as a metaphor, is a matter of faith which falls outside the bounds of rational thought.All psychics were charlatansRandi himself was diligent about tracking down practitioners of the paranormal and testing them. All we can say is that all psychics, mediums, astrologers, palmists, water dowsers, and others who have been tested failed the tests. Since most of them talk the same talk it is reasonable to assume that the rest of them are too. We recognize that people are easier to help if you couch your advice in language they relate too, and that's why the many practitioners of these professions who have actually helped people have simply delivered their psychotherapeutic counsel in the language of the paranormal. Most people don't really grasp the idea of metaphor and you have to work with the clients you've got. I know a shrink who said the best advice he ever got was from an astrologer. In his case she could tell when he walked in that he didn't believe in the woo-woo so she just sat him down and talked like a normal person. He had no doubt that she had helped hundreds of people who did believe in woo-woo by talking woo-woo to them.

My dog believes that when I leave the house I spend all day slaying huge succulent animals and chopping them up into dog food. I can't possibly disabuse him of that notion but it doesn't make me a fraud.Haunted houses didn't frighten me a bit.Just because they're not haunted by evil spirits doesn't mean that something awful hasn't happened there. If a bunch of people died in the same house I would probably not visit it.I believed the pronouncements of C. Sagan, who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If I did not have positive proof for something, then it did not exist.Sagan was a popularizer of science and he played fast and loose with scientific language. The writer was apparently not aware that only mathematicians "prove" their theories. Scientists merely test them against the available evidence to see if they are disproven, and integrate them into the principles of their discipline once the probability of them being disproven is acceptably small. The proper statement of this is, "Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation." This means that when a person who slept through high school biology (if they even teach it in high school any more), and hasn't noticed that birds have the vestigial scales of their reptilian origins all over their feet, starts telling us the he understands why the theory of evolution is flawed, we ask him to present some strong evidence or reasoning that supports his assertion--not just a couple of ambiguous fossils and a passage in a "history" that was passed down orally for hundreds of years before it was even written. If he refuses to to that then the probability of him being right is so close to zero that it would be downright irrational to waste time listening to him.I believed in the scientific method, and I saw myself as completely rational. When I found that other people had irrational beliefs, I tried to enlighten them, figuring that reason would improve their lives. Time after time, this got me into a heap o' trouble. I came to understand that people with irrational beliefs don't like to have their beliefs challenged, and they would rather kill you (or fire you, or accuse you of something you didn't do) than accept any change in themselves. I became, by necessity, a closet Skeptic, scoffing quietly to myself but not daring to speak my views in public.Sure, this happens to all of us. Galileo was persecuted and history now counts him as a hero. Before I go on, I must take a moment to apologize for my Skeptical period. It is another of the addictions I am recovering from. What I failed to understand was that Skepticism itself was a religion, with its own set of sacred tenets taken without proof.Already he lapses into the language of the crackpot. "Science is a religion." We can pretty safely stop reading here. This argument has been voiced a thousand of times and refuted a thousand and one times. This had better be pretty damn good or I'm going to be very angry at you for wasting my time dredging up a dead argument. I must say so far you have been trying my patience with statements about skepticism and science that are totally incorrect. One of these assumptions is that the world would be a better place if only the irrational beliefs of the public were debunked. If we could disprove all religion, then reason would take its place; most wars and discrimination would be avoided, and people would begin to live together in harmony.We don't need to obviate all religions, just the Abrahamic ones. Their pathetic binary model of the rich and complex human spirit constrains that spirit and causes it to fester until it contains more evil than good. At almost regular intervals the adherents of each monotheistic religion rise up en masse and commit acts of unpardonable horror. Only six civilizations arose independently on this planet and each one is/was an irreplaceable treasure of ideas, art, philosophy and expressions of the human spirit. The Abrahamists totally obliterated half of them, in the name of their religions. Muslims destroyed Egypt (okay some of its artifacts survived) and Christians did in the Aztec and Inca (they were truly "obliterated"). This transcends genocide; there is no greater "sin" than the destruction of an entire civilization. This is something that can never be repaired, never atoned, never forgiven. For this I say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are cancers on this planet. I do not include Buddhism, Hinduism (if there is such a thing), Baha'i, Shinto, Rastafarianism, and all the other faiths in this condemnation.

Note that my objections are based on the real-world observable evidence of what these religions have accomplished, not on their dogmas. Something about monotheism motivates its adherents to intolerance and violence on a regular basis that transcends the occasional acts of intolerance and violence perpetrated by the other human communities such as Genghis Khan and the Khmer Rouge.(Communism was in many important ways a descendant of European Christian philosophy so I put it in the other column, and in any case it doesn't measure up to the sins of the religions themselves.)If you believe that, then I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you. A dedicated Skeptic, like J. Randi, spends his career disproving the claims of psychics, not realizing that for every one he shoots down, there will be ten others to take his place.The point is not to exterminate psychics, but to bring attention to them. As I mentioned above, some of them are not criminals because they are really trying to help people. For that reason I have reservations about a pogrom :)Another fallacy of the Skeptics is that you need scientific proof for something before it becomes real or worthy of attention. Life is too short for scientific proof, and if you try to live your life like this, then it is going to be a very rigid and impoverished one.This is just bullshit and this person has revealed his poor understanding of science. Scientific theories cannot be proven. Write that ten times on the blackboard and then tattoo it on the inside of your eyelids. I went to enough CSICOP meetings to know that they are scientists and never say something this unscientific.The scientific method is concerned with the testing of ideas, but the Skeptics never talk about where those ideas come from. Sure, you need to test an engineering concept rigorously before building a bridge upon it, but until this need arises, ideas don't need to be proven.Ideas do not need to be proven. They must be tested until they fail to be disproven and are consistent with all observations and the entire body of integrated scientific principles logically derived from them.To make the scientific method work, somebody has to be creative to begin with. Somebody has to make the conceptual leap that bread mold might kill bacteria before the principle can be tested. To create those breakthrough ideas requires a certain amount of blind faith. You have to be willing to explore, fantasize, wonder and wander for a while without judging. If you scoff at every lamebrained idea that comes along then you are never going to recognize the one lamebrained idea that might work.He's getting pretty close to the edge. This is rambling, not a particularly well focused description of science. Skeptics often refer to something called Occam's Razor when trying to debunk some far-out claim. Occam said that if there are two explanations for some phenomenon, the simplest theory is usually the correct one.Okay, that's it. This is a false translation of Ockham's Latin original. The essence of it is that you should test the simplest explanations first because it is a more efficient way to arrive at the truth. If the simplest explanation cannot be disproven, then we underake the more difficult task of disproving the more outrageous one, which will become easier because of all the handy things we learned during the exercise of attempting to disprove the simplest one.

This argument has gone over the edge. This person does not understand science, he fails to grasp the components of the scientific method, and he slanders skeptics. I am not going to waste more of my time reading this drivel on the odd chance that he went to college before he finished writing it and will suddenly start sounding like he knows what he's talking about.

Are his comments on Occam's Razor valid or not? his use of Occam's razor is quite clearly at fault, Occams is the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity. they don’t predict anything, all Occam's suggest is that given the evidence you do have, you don’t go that one step to far.
so when the man mentions Columbus, he neglects to point out that given they had evidence that the world when x-far one way it was logical to say that it was the same the other way, which meant it was the simplest solution.
It was only because of people irrational beliefs and superstitions that some thought otherwise.
saying we better not do a thing, because the world is flat, is going that one step to far, do you think.

I was a member of CSICOP for many years

Well in that case you should be ashamed of yourself. CSICOP underhandedly distort the truth and manipulate data!

CSICOP were a fraudaulent organisation until unmasked by the astrologer Michel Guaquelin..and then..and only then did they have the courage to drum out the miscreants.

Only after it had been proven clearly and on the way to the law courts. All Establishments are bent and are biased towards their own kind, as any fule know.

I just find it very funny how these so-called skeptics completely ignore the testimony of a great many people whom previously had security clearance to work with nuclear weapons and beyond. Also the people whom you would logically associate with a high probability of viewing UFOs on a more likely occurance - Pilots, Astronauts, ATCs, radar operators.

I personally laugh at the absolute ignorance of ignoring these testimonies and frankly some pretty hard evidence over the years. I suspect people might be floored in a few decades how people today could be so ignorant despite the information out there, easily available, despite U.S government denial/coverup. I personally do not care if i'm seen as a laughing stock, where as skeptics seem very much more concerned with this. I think some of this has a lot to do with general personality.

A great deal of what's quoted in the original post is pure nonsense - probably better than 90% of it.

The guy who wrote that "testimonial" obviously has no clue how the Razor works or how it's applied. And also knows no more about the scientific method than you would expect from a small child.

Skepticism is actually a very good thing. It prevents intelligent people from believing in nonsense like astrology, fortune tellers, palm readers, ghosts, goblins and the like. It also saves a TREMENDOUS amount of resources (time money, effort) that would otherwise be wasted on crackpot ideas. Many men, and possibly a few women, have squandered a large portion of their lives trying to do things like contact the dead and invent perpetual motion or free-energy machines.

In what way does it 'prevent' them...by mind control? Sceptics don't make a blind bit of difference to anything...although let allow R-O his delusions of grandeur.

If anything they're a bunch of weirdo's. Who else would spend a life time researching ghosts and UFO's?..lol what a joke! I should know I've met them and I've spoken to them..

...put it this way Sir Patrick Moore is an expert about the Moon. Sadly he's as daft as a brush in every other regard.:D

Sceptics don't make a blind bit of difference to anything...
If anything they're a bunch of weirdo's.

Still having reading/ comprehension problems Billy?
Read Only wrote "scepticism", not "sceptics".

I'm awfully sorry, Olly..I didn't realise that you weren't skeptics.

Are you merely pretending to be skeptics?

Of course everyone treats tales of hauntings and UFO's with some scepticism...why do people spell it Skepticism. Is it an americanism. Are we all Americans on here..I associate skepticism with the odd little pamphlets published so I accept an honest mistake.

Scepticism is of course the correct spelling.

I'm awfully sorry, Olly..I didn't realise that you weren't skeptics.

Are you merely pretending to be skeptics?

Of course everyone treats tales of hauntings and UFO's with some scepticism...why do people spell it Skepticism. Is it an americanism. Are we all Americans on here..I associate skepticism with the odd little pamphlets published so I accept an honest mistake.

Scepticism is of course the correct spelling.

Yes, that's the way it's spelled across the pond from you. No more incorrect than color/colour.

the problem with skeptics is that they are not skeptical enough. a real skeptic must be skeptical about skepticism too. you wouldn't want be so gullible that you would swallow a whole thought system without proof would you?

when you start to doubt skepticism, it selfdestructs. the skeptical view "i'll believe it when i see it" is replaced with "i'll see it when i believe it".

It prevents intelligent people from believing in nonsense like astrology, fortune tellers, palm readers, ghosts, goblins and the like.

it's not nonsense. i know it sounds insane but: there are people with x-ray vision.

Are we all Americans on here..

american is a better language than english. english sounds annoying and they say "bloody" all the time.

american is a better language than english.
I prefer to speak Scottish.

it's not nonsense. i know it sounds insane but: there are people with x-ray vision.
Source?

american is a better language than english. english sounds annoying and they say "bloody" all the time.
Bloody wrong!

Hinglish is the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinglish

Bloody right. :)

Source?

i read it in a book.

Yes, that's the way it's spelled across the pond from you. No more incorrect than color/colour.

Ah yes...but then why is the English version of the Skeptical Enquirer called the Skeptic.

I always think of it as a generic title.

the problem with skeptics is that they are not skeptical enough. a real skeptic must be skeptical about skepticism too. you wouldn't want be so gullible that you would swallow a whole thought system without proof would you?

when you start to doubt skepticism, it selfdestructs. the skeptical view "i'll believe it when i see it" is replaced with "i'll see it when i believe it".



it's not nonsense. i know it sounds insane but: there are people with x-ray vision.



american is a better language than english. english sounds annoying and they say "bloody" all the time.

Bloody Hell, your darn right, Dude!

Actually I'm with the Yanks in spelling things in an uncomplicated way..as in colour...although then theres the PC brigade and 'People of Color'.

Yer can't win, boy.

the problem with skeptics is that they are not skeptical enough.

i know it sounds insane but: there are people with x-ray vision.

Is that tantamount to nutters not being insane enough? :rolleyes:

Yeah i think you have to be very aware that what passes for skepticism these days is really a dogma-driven form of selective pseudo-skepticism.
Id really like to see a true renaissance happen for skepticsism. where everything is held to the same level of scrutiny (not just the stuff that conflicts with your personal sensiblities). At the moment its all confirmation bias and blind propaganda.

Do you mean, this type of skepticism?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66207

What does an enquiry about hypnosis have to do with a debate on skepticism? sorry youve lost mi meight.

Sorry, I thought your post above was actually serious. My bad.

when you start to doubt skepticism, it selfdestructs. the skeptical view "i'll believe it when i see it" is replaced with "i'll see it when i believe it".

it's not nonsense. i know it sounds insane but: there are people with x-ray vision.


That IS insane... :bugeye:

Sorry, I thought your post above was actually serious. My bad.
Youre all smoke and mirrors.
Unstead of diverting attention away from yourself you should try and bring your own sensiblities alittle closer to centre-stage.
Trace back the steps where you felt implicated/offended in my initial post and use that as foundation to realise your own self-skepticism.
Its the only way, otherwise youre going to be hop scotching around your own irrationalism the rest of the life, and you dont seriously want to end up like that do you?

So, you were serious?

Asking for evidence and demonstrations to extraordinary claims is equivalent to 'pseudo-skepticism?'

No i think thats perfectly healthy and should be encouraged, my point was skepticism cant be selective it has to be consistant.
So being skeptical about say 'ufos' or 'ghosts' is perfectly acceptable, but you still have to exercise skepticism when it comes to things like m-theory, dark matter, black holes etc.
When people say 'oh im a huge skeptic' quite often through conversation you find that theyre not atall.
What they really mean is 'i dont believe tarot cards, telepathy, astrology etc' Which is fine.
But that doesnt make you a skeptic, you can 'not believe' in lots of stuff without ever invoking any kind of rational process atall.
And its this non-belief in the absense of rationalism that is often held up as skepticism these days, and its this that id term 'pseudo-skepticism'

A beautiful clarification. Thanks.

no probs!

Thank you, to everyone for your comments!


I think that I might be inclined to agree with him on this one point (below). It is pretty simplistic, but is it just possible that there might be some small measure of truth to it?

"The real world defies all theories."

What think you?

Yes..it centainly defied the 'theory of everything' s I predicted 6 yrs ago on the science forum of the BBC..i was roundly scoffed at.

Thankfully inbetween beatings off his wife..Prof Hawking now agrees.

I can only guess what the BBC forums Staff did with your posts.

Http://sciforums.stryderunknown.co.uk/images/kbt.jpg