Why be a skeptic

[Tinker Grey]

Learn to accept reality as it is:

 

[Silmarien]

I got kicked out for not being a dogmatic materialist. Can I get my membership dues refunded?

 

[Everybodyknows]

I got kicked out for not being a dogmatic materialist. Can I get my membership dues refunded?

Sorry no. Your membership dues are immaterial.

 

[quatona]

Learn to accept reality as it is:

I agree that scientific work requires the skeptical approach.
Personally, I have completely different priorities in life, though. (I´d pick Shakespeare over Newton any day. ).
Yet, I am glad that there are others who commit themselves to science/skepticism.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The word Skeptic is derived from a school of philosophy that essentially denied that knowledge could be accrued, or that rational belief was even possible.

Most people that call themselves Skeptics today, are nothing of the sort. Most assume some things with unwavering fidelity - such as sense-data reflecting reality, or the infinite repeatability of conclusions if circumstances are the same, or that inferences we draw are valid, etc. in materialists; vs. more Philosophically skeptical individuals who adopt some version of Absurdism.

Precious few, if any, Skeptics exist in my opinion. Adopting and defending one specific worldview, does not make you a Skeptic (It makes you skeptical of other worldviews though). To be a Skeptic means to question our accepted dogmas or thought paradigms, but few truly do this. I think you should question and investigate everything, which of course includes the validity of our own sense-data, our personal viewpoints and Self, and the system or method we used to derive this from. Skepticism is the friend of all human endeavours, in my opinion, but a limited and bastardised form often gets highjacked as if a part of Scientific Method. Skepticism is the enemy of all methodology, of all attempts at reality testing - for at some point a line in the sand must be drawn and skepticism laid aside, or nothing could truly be said on anything at all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I got kicked out for not being a dogmatic materialist.

I doubt that.

 

[Silmarien]

I doubt that.

I was an atheist existentialist and postmodern deconstructionist. We got along fine when I still hated religion, but exhibit the slightest bit of appreciation for mystery and the accusations of "woo" begin. Start reading Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers and you might as well show yourself the door. Point out that naturalism is also an unfalsifiable assumption and expect to get burned at the stake.

Agnostic theists tend to not get a seat at the skeptic table. People mostly try to pretend we don't exist. Makes the propaganda easier, I suppose. Not my problem anymore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Learn to accept reality as it is:

I'd rather incorporate my 'skepticism' into my willingness to learn and thereby explore as many of the possibilities for learning that reality may offer me. I have one life to live; I think I owe it to myself to be an ongoing explorer and to see what can be seen and to understand what can be understood. So, I'm a card-carrying proponent of BioLogos ...

There. Said it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was an atheist existentialist and postmodern deconstructionist. We got along fine when I still hated religion, but exhibit the slightest bit of appreciation for mystery and the accusations of "woo" begin. Start reading Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers and you might as well show yourself the door. Point out that naturalism is also an unfalsifiable assumption and expect to get burned at the stake.

Agnostic theists tend to not get a seat at the skeptic table. People mostly try to pretend we don't exist. Makes the propaganda easier, I suppose. Not my problem anymore.

Well, I was half-making a joke, because skeptics doubt things.

And half commenting in earnest. I don't know what skeptic organization you were kicked out of, but one of the luminaries of the modern skeptical movement was Martin Gardner, who was an unrepentant deist, and nobody ever questioned his seat at the table.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I was half-making a joke, because skeptics doubt things.

And half commenting in earnest. I don't know what skeptic organization you were kicked out of, but one of the luminaries of the modern skeptical movement was Martin Gardner, who was an unrepentant deist, and nobody ever questioned his seat at the table.

Oh, I was being facetious about the membership part. "Card carrying skeptic" and all. I've just noticed a lot of kneejerk hostility and irrational dogmatism in the movement since walking away, especially online. And I've gotten some horrified reactions from friends who've found out that I went back to church, so it has been a very interesting sort of social experiment.

It's also worth noting that there are different versions of skepticism. I'm a philosophical skeptic, not a scientific skeptic, so one of the things I am skeptical of actually is the positivist approach to knowledge that scientific skeptics insist upon. Which tends to cause conflict and a surprising amount of anti-intellectualism.

As for Martin Gardner, I just looked him up and came across this from his autobiography: "When many of my fans discovered that I believed in God and even hoped for an afterlife, they were shocked and dismayed." And then there was the outcry when Antony Flew declared himself a deist, so it really is not all sunshine and roses for people in the skeptic community who reject atheism. Group mentality is always a problem, especially when dealing with a group of people who adamantly refuse to admit that they're a group at all!

 

[quatona]

Oh, I was being facetious about the membership part. "Card carrying skeptic" and all. I've just noticed a lot of kneejerk hostility and irrational dogmatism in the movement since walking away, especially online. And I've gotten some horrified reactions from friends who've found out that I went back to church, so it has been a very interesting sort of social experiment.

It's also worth noting that there are different versions of skepticism. I'm a philosophical skeptic, not a scientific skeptic, so one of the things I am skeptical of actually is the positivist approach to knowledge that scientific skeptics insist upon. Which tends to cause conflict and a surprising amount of anti-intellectualism.

As for Martin Gardner, I just looked him up and came across this from his autobiography: "When many of my fans discovered that I believed in God and even hoped for an afterlife, they were shocked and dismayed." And then there was the outcry when Antony Flew declared himself a deist, so it really is not all sunshine and roses for people in the skeptic community who reject atheism. Group mentality is always a problem, especially when dealing with a group of people who adamantly refuse to admit that they're a group at all!

Yeah, it´s inconvenient when people disagree with you, isn´t it?

 

[Silmarien]

Yeah, it´s inconvenient when people disagree with you, isn´t it?

No, I don't like echo chambers. But it's inconvenient when people retreat into a reactionary herd mentality, no matter what they happen to believe. Impossible to avoid entirely, but the first step is always admitting that it exists.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I don't like echo chambers. But it's inconvenient when people retreat into a reactionary herd mentality, no matter what they happen to believe. Impossible to avoid entirely, but the first step is always admitting that it exists.

How do you tell an echo chamber from a set of people who happen to hold to same positions?

 

[Silmarien]

How do you tell an echo chamber from a set of people who happen to hold to same positions?

That is an echo chamber. Quite literally.

But I'm not accusing anyone of being in an echo chamber. Quatona's takeaway from my post seemed to be that I disliked disagreement, which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Disagreement is good. Being exposed to and understanding other views is good. Being shocked and horrified to find out that someone you respect has different religious views than you is not so good.

 

[durangodawood]

That is an echo chamber. Quite literally.

But I'm not accusing anyone of being in an echo chamber. Quatona's takeaway from my post seemed to be that I disliked disagreement, which had nothing to do with what I was saying. Disagreement is good. Being exposed to and understanding other views is good. Being shocked and horrified to find out that someone you respect has different religious views than you is not so good.

I dunno. An echo chamber is people who need constant reinforcement from like minds. But I dont think every group of like minded people is so dependent as that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Learn to accept reality as it is:

So...what kind of Skeptic are you, Tinker: 1) Critical, 2) Substantive, 3) Direct, or 4) Iterative? And is your skepticism more 1) Cartesian, 2) Humean, or 3) Pyrrhonian? And do you tend to be more Global or Local in your evaluations? Is it partial or total; practical or theoretical; moderate or radical; questioning knowledge itself or instead the processes of justification?

OR....are we simply talking about the run-of-the-mill 'religious skepticism'?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So...what kind of Skeptic are you, Tinker: 1) Critical, 2) Substantive, 3) Direct, or 4) Iterative? And is your skepticism more 1) Cartesian, 2) Humean, or 3) Pyrrhonian? And do you tend to be more Global or Local in your evaluations? Is it partial or total; practical or theoretical; moderate or radical; questioning knowledge itself or instead the processes of justification?

OR....are we simply talking about the run-of-the-mill 'religious skepticism'?

I haven't researched those terms, so I don't know. I think it is generally wise to not accept propositions without evidence. Too, one ought to be cognizant of one's biases and work to offset them when considering new ideas. One should regularly review one's baseline for critical thinking.

Certain kinds of questions don't merit the effort. My neighbor bought a car? That's a general part of life in these United States. My neighbor bought a Lamborghini ... I'm gonna need to see both the car and title (inasmuch as my neighbor cares about what I think).

I am not a classical skeptic; I think things are knowable.

 

[Silmarien]

I dunno. An echo chamber is people who need constant reinforcement from like minds. But I dont think every group of like minded people is so dependent as that.

Oh, I wouldn't put it like that. I ended up in an extremely liberal echo chamber just because of the types of schools I went to. It wasn't a matter of needing constant reinforcement, but the result was the same: little to no input from the outside world, people with really polarized opinions, etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't researched those terms, so I don't know. I think it is generally wise to not accept propositions without evidence. Too, one ought to be cognizant of one's biases and work to offset them when considering new ideas. One should regularly review one's baseline for critical thinking.

Certain kinds of questions don't merit the effort. My neighbor bought a car? That's a general part of life in these United States. My neighbor bought a Lamborghini ... I'm gonna need to see both the car and title (inasmuch as my neighbor cares about what I think).

I am not a classical skeptic; I think things are knowable.

So, it sounds like you're generally a Humean skeptic, one with a strong Evidentialist inclination. Ok.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, it sounds like you're generally a Humean skeptic, one with a strong Evidentialist inclination. Ok.

If you say so.

ETA: I've been called worse.