Is Skepticism Ridiculous?

[Philosophy Now]

Michael Philips asks whether anyone can really believe skeptical arguments.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/Is_ ... Ridiculous

[WanderingLands]

Yes!

[HexHammer]

This article is a brilliant example of why normal people and any buisness doesn't want philosophers, as they can't preceive the simple concept of relevance and are mostly considerd retards.

[Conde Lucanor]

Michael Philips asks whether anyone can really believe skeptical arguments.

This statement is itself ridiculous. Asking not to believe in skeptical arguments is the same as asking to be skeptic about skepticism, so what you throw away through the window comes back through the door and bites your ass.

Skepticism is perhaps the only sane, mature approach to everything. Belief is all the opposite. Children are natural believers and we begin to see signs of maturity when they can discern fact from fiction.

[Blaggard]

This article is a brilliant example of why normal people and any buisness doesn't want philosophers, as they can't preceive the simple concept of relevance and are mostly considerd retards.

2 questions,

1) have you actually read the article?

2) Business doesn't want philosophers because business doesn't want to think about the future and how to develop more pragmatically in the long term, it just thinks about itself and profit, the share holders. So yeah no shit. Probably why the worlds economies are so fucked up, business doesn't give a shit about moral or social issues, the long term or who it is harming, it is a cut throat business where the profit margin is the only thing you want to see; well not all business of course, there are a few businesses who want to make the world a better place. But anyway no shit Sherlock: Hex rides in again and states the obvious without actually tackling the issues at hand, you must wonder at this point if he will ever make a point, you must know of course, he wont, like most people who have all the answers, when challenged they can not. Having all the answers is of course all very well, but no one is going to learn anything from you. In an uncertain world, people who have all the answers, should and probably could of changed the world. They can't because of course they don't have any answers really, they are just self assured about nothing at all. And a place holder for someone who can change anything. The 3 Daves roll on telling us how it is, and revealing nothing.

[WanderingLands]

Michael Philips asks whether anyone can really believe skeptical arguments.

This statement is itself ridiculous. Asking not to believe in skeptical arguments is the same as asking to be skeptic about skepticism, so what you throw away through the window comes back through the door and bites your ass.

Skepticism is perhaps the only sane, mature approach to everything. Belief is all the opposite. Children are natural believers and we begin to see signs of maturity when they can discern fact from fiction.

Not always - there is a difference between a healthy scepticism that which is both open-ended to all sides and can accept answers, and an immature skepticism that just denounces everything and anything that doesn't agree with the presupposition of that mindset. Plus, myth and fiction is another component of human beings and their relationships to existence. Without it, life would be boring and we wouldn't be able to fully articulate life with just an analytical component.

[Conde Lucanor]

Not always - there is a difference between a healthy scepticism that which is both open-ended to all sides and can accept answers, and an immature skepticism that just denounces everything and anything that doesn't agree with the presupposition of that mindset.

Actually, you may be right at some degree. Because, you know, there's nothing as an absolute, perfect believer, one that believes in every possible claim. In essence, a believer must be skeptical about a lot of things in order to advance its own claims, to bring them up front shadowing all the other claims he/she doesn't want us to believe, so that we believe his. When a person says: "I believe this claim", he/she is implying: "I don't believe these other claims". There's a skeptic In every believer's closet. And there you have our immature skeptic: one that denounces anything contrary to his/her unsubstantiated presuppositions, randomly selected from the world of naive speculations, or arbitrarily imposed as myth and religion by inherited culture. We see them in internet forums, where they stand first in line against science, systematized rational philosophy and any realistic, material explanation of the universe.

A mature skeptic, on the other hand, is defined precisely by avoiding any presuppositions. He/she will no assert anything unless is backed by substantial evidence or logically demonstrated, while at the same time acknowledging that there are many things we don't know yet. He/she rejects the false presupposition from believers that any of the gaps in our knowledge can be filled with the first fairy tale that comes at hand.

Plus, myth and fiction is another component of human beings and their relationships to existence. Without it, life would be boring and we wouldn't be able to fully articulate life with just an analytical component.

Of course that myth and fiction have a place in many human endeavors, as they can be instrumental, a means to achieve something of value for men. I have no problem with fiction in arts and acknowledging that art is somehow related to existence. But there's one endeavor in which, however, myth and fiction fall out of place: the search for truth, understanding reality. They have no room in science and rational philosophy.

[WanderingLands]

Actually, you may be right at some degree. Because, you know, there's nothing as an absolute, perfect believer, one that believes in every possible claim. In essence, a believer must be skeptical about a lot of things in order to advance its own claims, to bring them up front shadowing all the other claims he/she doesn't want us to believe, so that we believe his. When a person says: "I believe this claim", he/she is implying: "I don't believe these other claims". There's a skeptic In every believer's closet. And there you have our immature skeptic: one that denounces anything contrary to his/her unsubstantiated presuppositions, randomly selected from the world of naive speculations, or arbitrarily imposed as myth and religion by inherited culture. We see them in internet forums, where they stand first in line against science, systematized rational philosophy and any realistic, material explanation of the universe.

A mature skeptic, on the other hand, is defined precisely by avoiding any presuppositions. He/she will no assert anything unless is backed by substantial evidence or logically demonstrated, while at the same time acknowledging that there are many things we don't know yet. He/she rejects the false presupposition from believers that any of the gaps in our knowledge can be filled with the first fairy tale that comes at hand.

So basically you say that a mature skeptic avoids all propositions, and yet still clings on to the proposition that everything is material and can be explained by mere empirical science? If you want to be a true skeptic, I'd say that even the materialist thinking should be brought to as equal question, as materialist science is as much as a belief system, just the same as things like superstition.

Of course that myth and fiction have a place in many human endeavors, as they can be instrumental, a means to achieve something of value for men. I have no problem with fiction in arts and acknowledging that art is somehow related to existence. But there's one endeavor in which, however, myth and fiction fall out of place: the search for truth, understanding reality. They have no room in science and rational philosophy.

Myths contain a ton of questions and teachings that have carried on into philosophy and existence. For example, many of the myths have developed out of making sense of natural forces, which is why the gods of antiquity were named after stars and planets, and contained qualities that were derived from the seasons of the earth and the forces (ie. air, water, earth, fire). There are also teachings and questions which philosophy has carried on, such as the question of divinity, and the teachings of morals and human nature.

[uwot]

Myths contain a ton of questions and teachings that have carried on into philosophy and existence. For example, many of the myths have developed out of making sense of natural forces, which is why the gods of antiquity were named after stars and planets, and contained qualities that were derived from the seasons of the earth and the forces (ie. air, water, earth, fire).

You have got this completely arse about tit. This'll put you straight: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

[Ginkgo]

So basically you say that a mature skeptic avoids all propositions, and yet still clings on to the proposition that everything is material and can be explained by mere empirical science? If you want to be a true skeptic, I'd say that even the materialist thinking should be brought to as equal question, as materialist science is as much as a belief system, just the same as things like superstition.

May as well address this quote as well.

Science is not a belief system like superstition. The key difference when it comes to science versus superstition is that science is about testing the things you believe to be true about the world. Thinking you know the answer means nothing; the ability to put your knowledge to the test is the important difference.

A skeptical view of science has always been an important part of the scientific method. For science to progress there must always be those people who are skeptical of the prevailing orthodoxy. Opposed to the skeptical view of science is consensus science, or those who support the prevailing orthodoxy. Both skepticism and consensus are the reasons why science continues to provides answers and the reason science progresses.

As the Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt says, "Consensus is as good as it get in science".

[WanderingLands]

Myths contain a ton of questions and teachings that have carried on into philosophy and existence. For example, many of the myths have developed out of making sense of natural forces, which is why the gods of antiquity were named after stars and planets, and contained qualities that were derived from the seasons of the earth and the forces (ie. air, water, earth, fire).

You have got this completely arse about tit. This'll put you straight: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches

No need; I have already read your article. It's well written, but has its flaws because Greek philosophy was a lot more than about empiricism. Pythagoras, for instance, had a holistic and occultic worldview. He believed in the Harmony of the Sheres and the divine nature of music, and also believed in metempsychosis. The Pythagoreans also performed Orphic rites, and also believed in a divine creator. A few websites can inform you more on this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/ETP/index.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphism_(religion)

Another thing is that you did not completely address what I said. I suggest looking into comparative religion and into the ancient world. Here's one good website called Biblioteca Arcana.

http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/

[Impenitent]

So basically you say that a mature skeptic avoids all propositions, and yet still clings on to the proposition that everything is material and can be explained by mere empirical science? If you want to be a true skeptic, I'd say that even the materialist thinking should be brought to as equal question, as materialist science is as much as a belief system, just the same as things like superstition.

May as well address this quote as well.

Science is not a belief system like superstition. The key difference when it comes to science versus superstition is that science is about testing the things you believe to be true about the world. Thinking you know the answer means nothing; the ability to put your knowledge to the test is the important difference.

A skeptical view of science has always been an important part of the scientific method. For science to progress there must always be those people who are skeptical of the prevailing orthodoxy. Opposed to the skeptical view of science is consensus science, or those who support the prevailing orthodoxy. Both skepticism and consensus are the reasons why science continues to provides answers and the reason science progresses.

As the Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt says, "Consensus is as good as it get in science".

believing that the future will resemble the past is superstitious...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition

-Imp

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It is when you spell it with a k, instead of a c.

[Ginkgo]

believing that the future will resemble the past is superstitious...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition

-Imp

It is important to understand the distinction that exists between superstitious causation and natural causation. Especially how natural causation relates to physics.

The dictionary definition doesn't adequately deal with the distinction.

[Impenitent]

there remains no logically necessary connection between events...

one man's cause...

-Imp