Believer, skeptic, or what?

[Sam Harris]

Feb 17, 2013 6:31:48 GMT 9.5 paul said:

What if a human were programmed to be skeptical. Would there be any way out?

Sadly people are not programmed for skepticism. They learn patterns of thought.

"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." - Sam Harris.

[Isaac Asimov]

“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.” - Isaac Asimov.

[Christopher Hitchens]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens.

[paul]

Where the curious might investigate it seems that the skeptic dismisses.

[Thomas Jefferson]

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling.themselves the priests of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson.

[Robert G Ingersoll]

“Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.” - Robert G. Ingersoll.

[Carl sagan]

"Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.” - Carl Sagan.

[LVX]

Mar 3, 2013 18:27:00 GMT 9.5 paul said:

Where the curious might investigate it seems that the skeptic dismisses.

Investigate what where there is no evidence?

[paul]

Some say that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer.

Yesterday I was reading a book on electro-gravitics as applied to air and space craft and the proposition was made that NASA is a front designed to distract attention from military development of some fancy technology. This apparently includes early warning satellites placed around other planets.

users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm

[paul]

So in what should a skeptic believe?

[evidence]

Credible evidence.

www.skepdic.com/evaluatingevidence.html

[paul]

I was wondering in what skeptics believe.

They seem to believe in conventional science as taught in high school including Einstein particularly but being wary about quantum theory with its "spooky" action at a distance as that leads away from materialistic science.

They do not seem to believe in the existence of secret military technology other than minor improvements on commercially available technology.

I think perhaps they believe in government to the point of denying that governments have conspiracies, but perhaps allow that political parties do conspire.

They may also believe that there is no reality behind any religion - especially the idea that gods may have visited.

This then requires that the human race is now smarter than ever before in order to discount all traditional histories - particularly those that report sky peoples teaching humans.

Is there also a belief that humans are inherently selfish?

And with a universe that is inanimate matter, there is a sense perhaps of being alone in an unfeeling universe.

Not an enviable situation.

Is it possible to escape such a system of belief?

[mgc]

i believe (lol) that believers and non-believers r much alike. in my experience it is often tribal mentality that fuels a position of belief or disbelief rather than truth. the only alternative is to keep an open mind.

[Carl Sagan]

Jun 3, 2013 7:48:02 GMT 9.5 paul said:

I was wondering in what skeptics believe.

They seem to believe in conventional science as taught in high school...

On what do you base your opinion? How many scientists have you met?

Scientists tend to be drawn to their subjects because of a deep and abiding respect for truth. They are generally both open minded and sceptical.

"At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."insert quote here

[paul]

Perhaps you would like to outline your beliefs as a skeptic.

[Bertolt Brecht]

Jun 3, 2013 18:33:47 GMT 9.5 paul said:

Perhaps you would like to outline your beliefs as a skeptic.

My conditional beliefs encompass Natural sciences, Earth sciences, Life sciences, Social sciences, Formal sciences and Applied sciences.

Perhaps you would like to outline your beliefs as an askeptic. Then again, error is infinite. 

The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.

[paul]

So if I understand correctly the skeptic believes mainstream science and rejects those who are skeptical of that science - even if they are scientists.

[mgc]

many skeptics r not scientists themselves and have no idea what theyre talking about. of all people, skeptics prolly have the hardest time coping with a worldview that is susceptible to constant change. skeptics that have settled in their worldview could almost be described as religious when it comes to accepting something new. i prefer to see myself as a skeptic with agnostic tendencies. (not the latin version!)

[conditional belief]

Jun 3, 2013 20:34:51 GMT 9.5 paul said:

So if I understand correctly the skeptic believes mainstream science and rejects those who are skeptical of that science - even if they are scientists.

Mine is a CONDITIONAL belief. Perhaps the best answer to your warped question is to contrast science with pseudoscience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Conditional belief in mainstream science is supported by the practice of it being rigorously tested. Reputations in science are made by individuals actively seeking to refute prevailing opinions

[paul]

Is cold fusion still pseudoscience?