Humanities Section > Philosophy & Rhetoric General Discussion

The Nature of Skepticism

(1/7) > >>

Paolo:
A friend of mine defined Skepticism as ''being open to the possibilities'' and ''to never close oneself in certainties''.

Now, I short of knew this before he wrote it to me. But here was I thinking: the first sentence doesn't really boil down to ''consider everything''? Not engage in every claim, of course, especially those without preexisting evidence, but considering this definition, is it really a sin to ''consider'' that a saint's intact tongue MIGHT exist somewhere?

I am not trying to start up another topic about this, or to defend it, I am just using it as an example.

And to ''consider it all'' could be by extension an invitation to ''examine it all'', too. So it isn't excludent at all of assessing supernatural phenomena.

What do you think being a skeptic consist of, and what are 'methods' of skepticism?

Cassia:
Maybe you can can explain how somebody can prove anything supernatural with the natural sciences?

Mike Cl:

--- Quote from: Paolo on March 30, 2021, 05:36:15 AM ---A friend of mine defined Skepticism as ''being open to the possibilities'' and ''to never close oneself in certainties''.

Now, I short of knew this before he wrote it to me. But here was I thinking: the first sentence doesn't really boil down to ''consider everything''? Not engage in every claim, of course, especially those without preexisting evidence, but considering this definition, is it really a sin to ''consider'' that a saint's intact tongue MIGHT exist somewhere?

I am not trying to start up another topic about this, or to defend it, I am just using it as an example.

And to ''consider it all'' could be by extension an invitation to ''examine it all'', too. So it isn't excludent at all of assessing supernatural phenomena.

What do you think being a skeptic consist of, and what are 'methods' of skepticism?

--- End quote ---

Once again, your 'friend' is too vague in his statement about a subject.  What type of skepticism is he referring to:

Definition
In ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to search, to think about or look for; see also spelling differences) can refer to:

-an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
-the doctrine that true knowledge or some particular knowledge is uncertain;
-the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

In philosophy, skepticism can refer to:
-a mode of inquiry that emphasizes critical scrutiny, caution, and intellectual rigor;
-a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing;
-a set of claims about the limitations of human knowledge and the proper response to such limitations.

He needs to define what it is he is talking about.

When you ask:' ... is it really a sin...'  you are using religious talk that presumes a ton of ideas and suggestions that the religious simply accept on belief/faith.  I reject the idea of 'sin'--there is no such thing.   Just as there is no final authority of what is moral/ethical or not.

Can a 'saints' (what is a saint anyway, Paolo???) tongue be 'intact'?  What does that mean??  Mummified?  Sure, there are quite a few of those in existence around the world.  Go to Egypt and you can see some.  But what do you mean by an 'intact  tongue'??  You use the term supernatural--there is no such thing.  If it is not 'natural' then it simply is not.  Can you name a single thing that is beyond nature??  I will  answer for you--you cannot, for it does not exist.  It is a religious term used by the religious  to answer the question of ' how come?' ; rather than say 'I don't know', they use the term supernatural.   

Hydra009:

--- Quote from: Paolo on March 30, 2021, 05:36:15 AM ---A friend of mine defined Skepticism as ''being open to the possibilities'' and ''to never close oneself in certainties''.

Now, I short of knew this before he wrote it to me. But here was I thinking: the first sentence doesn't really boil down to ''consider everything''? Not engage in every claim, of course, especially those without preexisting evidence, but considering this definition, is it really a sin to ''consider'' that a saint's intact tongue MIGHT exist somewhere?
--- End quote ---
First off, the burden of proof is on the person seeks to establish the existence of a miraculously intact tongue or other extremely abnormal occurrence running counter to what's currently known.  Scientists do this by rigorous study and data backing up new understandings of the world.  Religious people...take a very different approach, essentially "trust me, bro" to put it simply.  This is far from acceptable.

And while yes it's true that skeptics should keep an open mind about gods and magic and unicorns and ESP and ghosts, the reality is that none of these things are taken the slightest bit seriously without some sort of evidence.  For me personally, all I want is some sort of evidence that this phenomenon exists outside of your own head.  That's it.  Give me that and we'll talk.  Give me the run around, shift the burden of proof, and play rhetorical games instead of showing proof - all that looks very suspicious and damages your credibility significantly and leads inevitably to the conclusion that you're just claiming something that you want to believe is true rather than something that is actually true.

aitm:

--- Quote from: Paolo on March 30, 2021, 05:36:15 AM ---A friend of mine defined Skepticism as ''being open to the possibilities'' and ''to never close oneself in certainties''.


--- End quote ---
I have never considered skepticism as “being open to possibilities”. I call that “gullible”

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version