PsychoSarah,
Ok... single source, 50's definition, wrong word... that's all great but ultimately it's the idea we are trying to communicate that counts.
And when you fail to communicate that idea reliably, it ruins your credibility and no one gets the message. Stop calling it skepticism, for the sake of clarity, call it "defeatism through skepticism".
It's one thing to doubt whether an idea of an observed being is true to it's nature, but it is entirely another to state flat out state that one don't know and can't know.
Depends on how you define "know". If you define it by a 100% certainty of being correct, then yes, it is actually impossible to "know" anything. If you define it as reasonable certainty backed by evidence, then we can "know" plenty.
If one cannot be certain then everything is up for grabs.
Not quite. We can eliminate ideas. I suppose the only thing that might count for the first definition of "know" above, is that we can "know" what ISN'T correct. So, not everything is up for grabs. Evidence further distinguishes the most likely to be correct conclusions from likely inaccurate ones, hence why the germ theory of disease completely dominates over the idea that demons cause disease.
We live in a universe without rules and the scientific method cannot apply.
Any "rule" we talk about is something we apply in an attempt to explain how our universe works. We came up with it after making observations. Only a cynical fool would think that not being 100% certain is the same as "all ideas might as well have a free for all on equal footing". Ideas can still having varying reliability without any of them being 100% absolutely ensured to be accurate.
Yet you yourself subscribe to this very method of scrutiny by your own admission. You like science and the knowledge it brings therefore, you cannot be a skeptic (or cyniac, or defeatist, or whatever term you choose).
I am not a defeatist, but I still contend that 100% certainty both cannot exist, and fooling yourself into thinking it does just hurts you. I am, however, highly skeptical, when you use the correct definition of the word rather than the one you have plopped before me. I don't have to be a defeatist as a result of not thinking absolute certainty exists, because that is in fact my current state of mind. I am living evidence that your reasoning is incorrect.
I also am found of the method when it is used correctly within its proper limits and this where our argument centers... what is empirical science's limits?
In summary, science is limited to studying that which can be measured and observed objectively. For example, how a fertilizer affects the growth of plants falls into the realm of science. As an example that falls outside that realm, morality serves as an example. Not only is it a highly subjective concept, but it can't even be conclusively objectively evidenced to exist beyond our mental perceptions. For items such as this, philosophy is the best tool we have. However, when it comes to things such as deities, they can't be scientifically demonstrated to exist or be disproven as of yet with the tools that we have, so people make the mistake of thinking that the existence of deities is a philosophical debate, when really, for all intents and purposes, it should fall under science. Since philosophy doesn't distinguish better possibilities from lesser ones, it never is conclusive in whatever people arrive at with it.
Whether you like it or not there is a school who's underlying basis of thought is to deny all knowledge.
I don't doubt that, but I am not a part of that group, and neither are you, so why should I care?
I'm sure there were skeptics prior to Descartes but he formally introduced and cemented the concept into schools of learning.
Not really, I had barely even heard of the guy before our conversation. Beyond the "i think, therefore I am" quote tossed around in media, I knew absolutely nothing about him, and I have taken 2 college philosophy classes.
It is very unfortunate we sit in a school to learn from a person who thinks it's impossible to know anything for certain... and, they are certain of this!
I think you have a distorted idea of how relevant this guy is to what is taught in school.
As I've said this tends to be a line of thinking that anti-theists hold too. Not that there aren't Christians and people from other groups who hold to such contradictory thinking. Nevertheless it is something I come up against and it is self-defeating to argue it as I think you've just agreed.
Anti-theists and atheists are not one and the same, and most of the atheists on here are not antitheists. I actually hate them, with a passion.
The very definition of a materialist is one who says "...that once something is measurable, it qualifies as part of the material world, and that uncertainty is an inherent trait of anything beyond the material." So you've not said anything I have not. If you insist I must prove my "god theory," or belief in the immaterial or supernatural realms, by the method of empirical science; or in other words, "demonstrate" as some have insisted of me, knowing in behind that word is the meaning "WITH the scientific method alone," then you are a materialist. You stack the deck against myself and those who hold to these ideas yet the very method you've chosen as the only means to knowledge cannot prove or disprove the existence of immateriality, the supernatural realm or God. It is an irrational circular reasoning to be blunt.
you'd want physical evidence for bigfoot, wouldn't you? also, i am more open than that.
In contrast, the philosophical method is fit exactly to "handle" the immaterial and supernatural realms.
there actually is no thought process that is good at handling the supernatural. it's concepts are too solid for philosophy to work, and too fluid for science to work.
It's method does bring certainty as does the scientific method.
it doesn't by definition, whether you like it or not, this statement is flat out wrong. I never know what to do beyond saying that in situations where a person is practically saying "2+2=5.
In fact neither method needs another person to validate it's truthfulness as each of us equiped with a mind to acquire this. The reason we involve others in the scientific or philosophic search for knowledge is to help avoid error which we are prone to. It is not that we are incapable of acquiring truth. We want to avoid error because it can be hard to catch on our own but again, it is not impossible. We desire to accumulate knowledge faster, with less error, so we work together. Nevertheless, each of us quite capable of being certain about our knowledge the real world. We all start with walking around sense, common sense as it is called, then we work to gain a deeper understanding with either of those methods. So this is what I claim and I dispute the contrary.
feeling confident doesn't make you right. conviction under false pretenses is functionally worse than being bogged down by doubt. Demonstrate to me exactly how people are so accurate in their thought processes that they SHOULD feel so comfortable about their own evaluations that they should always think asking people about their observations is unnecessary.
