Critiquing the "Skeptics"

[uwot]

I believe that looking deeper into these things ("psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy") may actually give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and how the world works. It's only because modern science relies too heavily on empiricism that they are simply dismissed as "quackery" or "crackpot",

Frankly, WanderingLands, your complaint is not against science, but against nature. Scientists can only report on empirical data, what they see; it is nature that doesn't do the things you wish. As the saying goes: Don't shoot the messenger.

and instead relying too heavily on mechanistic science and mechanistic ways of life that are too limiting and very detrimental to the human being living in this modern society.

Strictly speaking, it is mechanistic philosophy, rather than science. Again, contrary to your demands, science does not rely on causal or ontological claims.

[WanderingLands]

Frankly, WanderingLands, your complaint is not against science, but against nature. Scientists can only report on empirical data, what they see; it is nature that doesn't do the things you wish. As the saying goes: Don't shoot the messenger.

That's really quite an ad hominem that you are making, because I am only saying that empiricism has its limits and that modern science is suffering from this limit. It does not at all equate with 'being against nature' by any means, especially when what I am trying to do is make sense of it myself.

Strictly speaking, it is mechanistic philosophy, rather than science. Again, contrary to your demands, science does not rely on causal or ontological claims.

You repeat this same mantra over and over to the point of nausea. I don't really care for what the so-called 'criteria' or the paradigm of current scientific academia, or any institution at all. I only care about researching on my own and thinking on my own. It shows herd mentality coming from whatever school you belong to when you repeat this to someone who is obviously not adhering to it.

[WanderingLands]

I used to hang around skepticism sites many years ago and my impression was that they provided very useful, thoughtful information that allowed anyone with a fair unprejudiced attitude and sound reasoning, to have a good insight into each subject. I only opened a couple of the sites you provided in your first post and I didn't find in them anything out of place or excessive in form or content, as you have portrayed. I'm sure there will be, as in any text with a narrative style and a content, personal likes or dislikes from readers, but in a general sense, these remain within standard narrative styles. Even The Arm Chair Pontificator, which might be the exception because of its satirical style, has not really crossed the line. Let's be also reminded that they are not (nor they are intended to be) specialized scientific papers to be peer-reviewed by other specialists, but general knowledge articles for the general population with a particular standpoint on myths and science. Since I can easily guess, from what you have said in your last posts, what's your standpoint on these issues, I can understand that you will not like these sites. They're, figuratively speaking, your enemy.

Anyway, I must say you have made a useful contribution to the world by providing these links, which I didn't know before. I'm readily bookmarking them to be up to date in the latest news on hoaxes and myth busting. Thank you for that!!

You should also look at the other links that I've provided in the OP, where there's documented cases of censorship, smear campaigns, and childish attacks made by these people. It's quite laughable that you say that they are good of content, because quite frankly it is very obvious that they are just attackers who are nothing but gatekeepers who defend what society promotes.

As you may have guessed yourself, I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in any of these things, I don't think they will give us any deeper understanding, but just the opposite, so most of the time I don't have any other option but dismiss it as quackery and crackpot. I do realize, however, that modern science relies too heavily on empiricism, not giving its proper place to Philosophy (it's the most unfortunate thing that an outstanding science figure as Neil deGrasse Tyson participates on this public slaying of Philosophy). But don't get me wrong, by philosophy I don't mean Woo-Woo, the popular name for different types of quackery and crackpot, disguised as something serious.

No doubt you are indeed a 'skeptic' as in a person who follows the community who calls themselves 'skeptics'. However, I find the community to be quite immature in trying to "combat" various "quackeries"; they do nothing but dismiss it as "quackery" and "crackpot", and at times not even actually looking at these things but just parroting the sayings of the academic institutions and government.

I disagree. Even though I may have oversimplified on purpose these man-like features to highlight the fact that is easy to be skeptical about this depiction, the truth is that a similar depiction is iconic in Christianity. I invite you to do a search on "god" in Google Images, you won't be disappointed. The bearded guy will appear all over, which is just a measure of how much an image has become popular because artists have made it succesful and sticks in people's minds.

No doubt will I find pictures of God as a man with a beard and dress by searching Google Images, but that is quite a weak reason to believe that the Christian God is exactly like that. You should know that this is also a satirical and fallacious portrayal done, in part by the 'skeptics', as part of a campaign against religion and Christianity, and a very childish campaign most definitely. This goes back to my point that you need to look into Theology and Esotericism for explanations of this, because you will find that there's more to religion than just 'superstition', if you were to apply the art of metaphor, hyperbole, and other literary devices in literature to understanding scriptures and religious beliefs.

Theology is not a science, but just a method or trying to rationalize superstitions, so I don't think it will give me a good insight into what is really behind so called "sacred scriptures". I do know, however, real sciences that have studied the Bible, its authors, its sources, the actual dates when particular texts were written, and how it was composed in general. So I guess I have a decent understanding of how it should be interpreted, at least under the one criteria or approach that I find relevant: the historical one, because I really cannot give much weight to the different doctrinary, arbitrary and dogmatic interpretations found under the religious approach.

The word 'science', first of all, is more broad then what is conceived of in today's world; it simply means "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information" in Old French (taken from Etymonline website; search "science"). So since Theology is about the knowledge of God, scriptures, and religious creeds and dogma, then Theology can technically count as a science. You should also know that Theology goes hand in hand with philosophy, particularly Metaphysics, where they answer the deep questions of the ultimate cause and/or possible purpose of the Universe; the question of God, in the case of Theology.

Another point that I shall address is that although using historical dating is undoubtedly useful for knowing about when the scriptures where written, and where its sources come from. However, what you are favoring does not address the actual content of the scriptures; it does not address how or why the scriptures were written in a seemingly mythological way and not in a more sober historical way. Therefore, I believe that it is good that we should tap into Theology: to know the ideas of the Theologists, and to also make sense of the scriptures ourselves to get a deeper understanding.

I'm sorry, but there's no truth in any of these claims. It's just plain superstition. It has no application in real life, other than misguiding people and replacing opiates. Sometimes it may turn complex and sophisticated, but that doesn't make it less naive. If I'm very doubtful of Freudian psychology, even much more of Jungian, tainted with all this absurd mysticism that brings it to the border of pure quackery.

You are merely saying the same thing, that 'there's no truth to 'esotericism', without evidence or explanation to back it up. For example, what makes Jungian and Freudian psychology absurd? What makes it all superstition? Why is there no application of it in today's society?

[Gee]

Uwot;

Please consider my following responses:

I believe that looking deeper into these things ("psychic/paranormal phenomena and homeopathy") may actually give us a deeper understanding of ourselves and how the world works. It's only because modern science relies too heavily on empiricism that they are simply dismissed as "quackery" or "crackpot",

Frankly, WanderingLands, your complaint is not against science, but against nature. Scientists can only report on empirical data, what they see; it is nature that doesn't do the things you wish. As the saying goes: Don't shoot the messenger.

This is so much bullshit, that I find it difficult to believe that I actually have to respond to rebut it. Everyone here should already know what empirical evidence actually is. If you don't, go to Wiki and look up "empirical evidence". What is "empirical data"? Statistics? Please don't say yes, because that would mean that WanderingLands is correct, as statistics are about averages or norms, so it would prove that empirical data means "group think" and that this is what science is using.

I used to have a great deal of respect for science, and still do for actual real scientists, but the nonsense that passes for "science" in these skeptic's forums and newsletters is just silliness. They take a commonly held belief, wrap it in a few facts, and declare it unrebuttable science. It is laughable. From what I have seen, these "skeptics" links are a pile of misinformation -- no more, no less.

and instead relying too heavily on mechanistic science and mechanistic ways of life that are too limiting and very detrimental to the human being living in this modern society.

Strictly speaking, it is mechanistic philosophy, rather than science. Again, contrary to your demands, science does not rely on causal or ontological claims.

You got that right. I study consciousness and was recently in a science forum where they routinely move threads on consciousness from the Philosophy Forum to the Speculations Forum. Not sure why they do that unless they are speculating on whether or not they are conscious. (chuckle chuckle)

Back to the point, I did a thread on Superstition and the Supernatural where I discovered that their claims were not based in causal or ontological ideas. They were based in religion. I argued rather effectively that their concepts of consciousness were in fact based in religion. But they hate religion. Talk about your schizoid ideas.

G

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Frankly, WanderingLands, your complaint is not against science, but against nature. Scientists can only report on empirical data, what they see; it is nature that doesn't do the things you wish. As the saying goes: Don't shoot the messenger.

That's very good. I've never seen it worded like that. Wish I'd thought of it.

[Ginkgo]

You got that right. I study consciousness and was recently in a science forum where they routinely move threads on consciousness from the Philosophy Forum to the Speculations Forum. Not sure why they do that unless they are speculating on whether or not they are conscious. (chuckle chuckle)

They probably did this because the science section only deals with scientific explanations for consciousness, as opposed to philosophy and religion. Keeping in mind they would probably include any philosophical explanation that supports the science of consciousness, i.e. neurophilosophy.

[cladking]

Frankly, WanderingLands, your complaint is not against science, but against nature. Scientists can only report on empirical data, what they see; it is nature that doesn't do the things you wish. As the saying goes: Don't shoot the messenger.

That's very good. I've never seen it worded like that. Wish I'd thought of it.

Don't lose sight of the fact that was nature does can be reported in an infinite number of ways. The sun doesn't go down at night but the earth revolves to hide it behind the horizon. Also don't forget that even a witch or a shaman can bend his words to fit around reality. Much of "science" is simply bending the descriptions to agree with a single perspective of an observation.

There's nothing "wrong" with science but most practitioners can't see their limited perspective nor that a tool determines the job that can be done.

There's nothing wrong with "skeptcism" but many people on the net seem to think it actually means blind adherence to some specific belief or perspective. They believe there are an infinite number of worlds with an infinite number of pyramids built with ramps and will shout down non-believers.

[Gee]

You got that right. I study consciousness and was recently in a science forum where they routinely move threads on consciousness from the Philosophy Forum to the Speculations Forum. Not sure why they do that unless they are speculating on whether or not they are conscious. (chuckle chuckle)

They probably did this because the science section only deals with scientific explanations for consciousness, as opposed to philosophy and religion. Keeping in mind they would probably include any philosophical explanation that supports the science of consciousness, i.e. neurophilosophy.

Ginkgo;

You have to know that I like you. You are always polite, well spoken, and are not afraid to read and learn, so you are interesting to talk to, but in this case, you are also dead wrong. Your above statement is exactly the kind of thing that the "skeptics" would state. They take a popular opinion, wrap it in a few "facts", or more likely a few "big words", and declare it to be science. It is nonsense because of the following facts:

1. When a person uses the word "probably" in a sentence, they are talking about opinion or conjecture, not fact.
2. There is no "science of consciousness".
3. There can be no branch of science called Consciousness, because consciousness is an unknown, so science can not open up a branch of science to study nothing.
4. Neurology studies the brain and central nervous system.
5. Philosophy studies the unknowns.
6. They did not remove these threads from the "science section". They removed the threads from the Philosophy section where they belonged because consciousness is an unknown.
7. Science does not have "explanations for consciousness". What they have are some very bad, cherry picked, ideas and theories.

It is my opinion that "neurophilosophy" is simply an example of science trying to get philosophy to accept and validate it's theories. Science does not study what consciousness is, they study how to control it, and they are becoming quite effective. Consider all of the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in confusion during Desert Storm. Our planes had been flying low over them for days dropping some sort of substance on them. Thanks to neurology, we have a gas that temporarily disconnects people's short term memory, so that they do not know where they are or why they are there or what they are supposed to be doing.

Also consider that new technology has been created that works on people's hearing. It has been discovered that teens hear some pitches that older people do not, so companies are experimenting with a transmitter that will discourage teens from hanging out by their buildings. The teens don't know why they want to leave, as the sound is below their awareness. This works really well because most teens do not have Constitutional Rights, and no one else would know about it.

So I agree with WanderingLands. Science is using philosophy like a mistress to validate itself in much the same way that religion used philosophy during the Dark Ages. The skeptics are used to discourage thinking, just as the clergy was used to discourage thinking in the Dark Ages. So I expect that the results of philosophy allowing itself to be used will be similarly dismaying.

G

[Ginkgo]

You have to know that I like you. You are always polite, well spoken, and are not afraid to read and learn, so you are interesting to talk to, but in this case, you are also dead wrong. Your above statement is exactly the kind of thing that the "skeptics" would state. They take a popular opinion, wrap it in a few "facts", or more likely a few "big words", and declare it to be science. It is nonsense because of the following facts:

1. When a person uses the word "probably" in a sentence, they are talking about opinion or conjecture, not fact.
2. There is no "science of consciousness".
3. There can be no branch of science called Consciousness, because consciousness is an unknown, so science can not open up a branch of science to study nothing.
4. Neurology studies the brain and central nervous system.
5. Philosophy studies the unknowns.
6. They did not remove these threads from the "science section". They removed the threads from the Philosophy section where they belonged because consciousness is an unknown.
7. Science does not have "explanations for consciousness". What they have are some very bad, cherry picked, ideas and theories.

It is my opinion that "neurophilosophy" is simply an example of science trying to get philosophy to accept and validate it's theories. Science does not study what consciousness is, they study how to control it, and they are becoming quite effective. Consider all of the Iraqi soldiers who surrendered in confusion during Desert Storm. Our planes had been flying low over them for days dropping some sort of substance on them. Thanks to neurology, we have a gas that temporarily disconnects people's short term memory, so that they do not know where they are or why they are there or what they are supposed to be doing.

Also consider that new technology has been created that works on people's hearing. It has been discovered that teens hear some pitches that older people do not, so companies are experimenting with a transmitter that will discourage teens from hanging out by their buildings. The teens don't know why they want to leave, as the sound is below their awareness. This works really well because most teens do not have Constitutional Rights, and no one else would know about it.

So I agree with WanderingLands. Science is using philosophy like a mistress to validate itself in much the same way that religion used philosophy during the Dark Ages. The skeptics are used to discourage thinking, just as the clergy was used to discourage thinking in the Dark Ages. So I expect that the results of philosophy allowing itself to be used will be similarly dismaying.

Hi Gee,

I am just the messenger in relation to a scientific explanation for consciousness, it is not really my preferred option. I basically see the materialist explanation as only providing part of the solution.

Wanderinglands is pretty much saying what most people have known about science since Newtonian mechanics marked the division between natural philosophy and science (possibly even earlier). So yes, Wanderinglands is correct, philosophy has been and still is the handmaiden of science. There is at least one credible explanation for this and this explanation can be found in the historical aspects.

Prior to science as we know it there were many competing theories of mind. This was know as the mind body problem and the problem still persists to this day. In historical terms almost every significant philosopher had a theory of consciousness. There are too many to mention, so Ill mention but a few. Of most significance were Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Malebranche and Huxley, just to name a few.

Take any two philosophers and compare their metaphysics, let us say Spinoza and Leibniz. Both their theories are very logical and very precise showing a high degree of rationality. The only problem is they put forward opposing theories of consciousness. In other words, they both can't be correct, so how do we test or decide the correct theory? The answer is we can't because, like most metaphysical theories, they cannot be proven true or false in terms of testability. One is as good as the other depending on your preferences.

Fortunately this is the case for all but a couple of these theories.Science has been able to reformulate aspects of at least two of these theories and devise a means of putting them to the test in order to obtain experimental results. Unfortunately, science doesn't test Descartes theory of mind and body; not because they don't like him, but simply because there is no experimental way of doing it.

I understand there are a number of complains by certain people that science should take these things seriously and include such theories in their research. This would be very nice, but the problem is that to do so one would no longer be doing science. I don't see any value in criticizing science for what it does.

[Wyman]

Fortunately this is the case for all but a couple of these theories.Science has been able to reformulate aspects of at least two of these theories and devise a means of putting them to the test in order to obtain experimental results.

What are you referencing here?

[Ginkgo]

Fortunately this is the case for all but a couple of these theories.Science has been able to reformulate aspects of at least two of these theories and devise a means of putting them to the test in order to obtain experimental results.

What are you referencing here?

Over the centuries many different metaphysical solutions have been given to explain the mind/body problem and consciousness in general. With the advent of science and neurological techniques science became sympathetic to all but a few of these ideas. The survivors in scientific terms would be epiphenomenalism and dual aspect theory linked to materialism. There is also monism, unity theory and binding theory.

Recently binding theory was rejected as being an inadequate candidate for consciousness.

[Gee]

Ginkgo;

Apparently when I was nice and polite and tried to point out that you were spewing nonsense, you did not get the message, so I will be clear.

They probably did this because the science section only deals with scientific explanations for consciousness, as opposed to philosophy and religion. Keeping in mind they would probably include any philosophical explanation that supports the science of consciousness, i.e. neurophilosophy.

When you wrote the above, I responded with seven points where the facts showed that your above statement was nonsense. You had the choice of rebutting my points or apologizing for spewing nonsense as there is absolutely no truth in your above statements, but instead you chose to simply side-step the issue. This is what the "skeptics" do, they simply believe whatever they want -- the facts bedamned -- and they call it science.

I am just the messenger in relation to a scientific explanation for consciousness, it is not really my preferred option.

This is an outright lie. Do you have any idea of how many times you have written the words, "that is not how science does it" or "that is not accepted by science" or "that does not follow scientific methodology"? Are you aware that this is not a science forum? Have you ever stated that something is "not acceptable to philosophy"? Do you have any idea of what methodology is acceptable to philosophy? Do you know why science can't do philosophy?

. . . philosophy has been and still is the handmaiden of science. There is at least one credible explanation for this and this explanation can be found in the historical aspects.

Bullshit. Science is the child of philosophy, as is religion, neither are above philosophy. In the West, we have no respect for truth or wisdom, but philosophers have to survive somehow. They are either the idle rich, or very poor, or they sell their services to religion or science.

Wealthy and powerful people will pay religion for power, prestige, and a ticket through the Gates of Heaven. Wealthy and powerful people will pay science for power, prestige, and a healthier and longer life. Wealthy and powerful people will pay a philosopher for consultation and advice, as long as the advice is comfortable; then they will feed him hemlock when it is not comfortable advice.

Neither religion nor science has shown the self-control necessary to retain philosophers without also trying to destroy the opposing discipline, so philosophers have to continually switch sides.

Prior to science as we know it there were many competing theories of mind. This was know as the mind body problem and the problem still persists to this day. In historical terms almost every significant philosopher had a theory of consciousness. There are too many to mention, so Ill mention but a few. Of most significance were Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Malebranche and Huxley, just to name a few.

I can't believe that you spent most of the last year posting in my thread "Pure Consciousness?" and still feel the need to patronize me with the above statements. It is also very clear that you have no idea of what my thread is about.

Take any two philosophers and compare their metaphysics, let us say Spinoza and Leibniz. Both their theories are very logical and very precise showing a high degree of rationality. The only problem is they put forward opposing theories of consciousness. In other words, they both can't be correct,

Yes they can both be correct. The problem is not with Spinoza or Leibniz, it is with the word "rationality". Rationalization is a tool used by science, it is almost useless in philosophy.

I understand there are a number of complains by certain people that science should take these things seriously and include such theories in their research. This would be very nice, but the problem is that to do so one would no longer be doing science. I don't see any value in criticizing science for what it does.

You are confused -- again. Read the top of this post. Do you see where it says "Critiquing the Skeptics"? Does it say "Critiquing the Scientists"? No. For someone who seems to have such reverence for science, you sure don't like to deal with the FACTS.

There are people called "skeptics" who take a few facts or ideas, wrap them around their own personal beliefs, and call it science. Are you one of them?

G

[Conde Lucanor]

You should also look at the other links that I've provided in the OP, where there's documented cases of censorship, smear campaigns, and childish attacks made by these people.

OK, I moved on to the other links. Let me be straightforward about it: I condemn any censorship of this kind. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to say even the most stupid things (and no one has the ultimate power to decide what is not to be published for being stupid and claim it to be the absolute truth). Being a victim myself of censorship in religious debates and other subjects (just recently I was blocked and labeled "misogynist" by a fellow atheist and feminist for opposing a law I considered discriminatory), I can attest to the incompetence of some moderators and people that is chosen as arbitrators in intellectual disputes, and they are choses despite their fragile tolerance, poor judgement and lack of good moral standards. But that just proves that human limitations and weaknesses can show up everywhere, whether is a religion or science forum. We should condemn them as we see them, but we need to be careful about generalizations: just because I was censored, doesn't mean I can claim that all religion advocates or feminists are unavoidably prone to conspire in a censorship campaign.

It's quite laughable that you say that they are good of content, because quite frankly it is very obvious that they are just attackers who are nothing but gatekeepers who defend what society promotes.

You are mixing different things here. The first round of links in your list were skeptics' sites and I found them reasonably well-balanced. If you can point at specific instances where we can find the behavior that you depict, and in sufficient numbers as to say that it is a pattern of such community, maybe you could have a point, but so far, we only have mere generalizations and no details whatsoever.

The second group of links portrays a very different scenario. We are not dealing here with internet sites or organizations representing skeptics:

1) TED Talk is definitely not a skeptic's or atheist organization. It has featured Bill Graham and you tell me what difference it makes against Rupert Sheldrake. But one thing for sure: TED made a blunder with this one. They should have known Sheldrake's background on crackpot and nonsense, it was not like he showed up with something new. So applying censorship after they had selected him for the show (and they had all the right not to select him at first), was a stupid mistake. But nothing to do with TED representing skepticism or atheism.

2) The second link just leads to an article which is nothing but a catalog of conspiracy theories, nothing that much different from your average conspiracy theory site or the Protocols of Sion. Let's give it a fair treatment and say that it's not crackpot. Still it just states opinions about government and corporations using science as a puppet, but no specific mention of skeptics doing what you described in the initial post of this thread.

3) The 3 last links are about a Physics forum. On this I will just say what I already said before: I condemn these practices, no matter from which side of the spectrum they come from. But here you make the mistake of assuming that Physics = scientists = skeptics = atheists. It can't hardly be argued that the science profession is monopolized by skeptics or atheists, although it would be reasonable to find many scientists in the skeptic or atheist community, but that correlation does not mean causation. The CSC fellows at the Discovery Institute they call themselves scientists (and some actually have degrees). That does not prevent them from believing in the supernatural. So, at best, you would have a case against Physics, not against an organization or "community" of skeptics or atheists per se, if there's really such a thing.

[Ginkgo]

Apparently when I was nice and polite and tried to point out that you were spewing nonsense, you did not get the message, so I will be clear.

When you wrote the above, I responded with seven points where the facts showed that your above statement was nonsense. You had the choice of rebutting my points or apologizing for spewing nonsense as there is absolutely no truth in your above statements, but instead you chose to simply side-step the issue. This is what the "skeptics" do, they simply believe whatever they want -- the facts bedamned -- and they call it science.

In relation to you points one and six. I am sorry that I had a guess as to why posts were moved in the particular forum you mention. So yes, it is conjecture on my part as to why they were moved. I put forward my conjecture because you seem a little puzzzled as to the reasons. I am sorry I won't do it again.

This is an outright lie. Do you have any idea of how many times you have written the words, "that is not how science does it" or "that is not accepted by science" or "that does not follow scientific methodology"? Are you aware that this is not a science forum? Have you ever stated that something is "not acceptable to philosophy"? Do you have any idea of what methodology is acceptable to philosophy?

Yes I am aware this is not a science forum.

Yes, I have posted on numerous occasions that the wrong methodology is being used to support a particular philosophical argument. The reason I am able to do this is because I know the methodologies of science and philosophy very well. I think I have demonstrated this adequately in a large number of posts I have made in the past.

Do you know why science can't do philosophy?

No, but I am afraid to have a guess because I could run the risk of being called a liar.

Bullshit. Science is the child of philosophy, as is religion, neither are above philosophy. In the West, we have no respect for truth or wisdom, but philosophers have to survive somehow. They are either the idle rich, or very poor, or they sell their services to religion or science.

Yes I know, I was agreeing with Wanderinglands.
edit

I can't believe that you spent most of the last year posting in my thread "Pure Consciousness?" and still feel the need to patronize me with the above statements. It is also very clear that you have no idea of what my thread is about.

This isn't the "Pure Consciousness" thread it is "Critiquing the Skeptics"

I am not trying to patronize you, just expand your knowledge in this area.

Yes they can both be correct. The problem is not with Spinoza or Leibniz, it is with the word "rationality". Rationalization is a tool used by science, it is almost useless in philosophy.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Both Spinoza and Leibniz are in the rationalist tradition. Both used a innate ideas and apriori reasoning to deduce their theories. If you don't believe me then you can google it.

You are confused -- again. Read the top of this post. Do you see where it says "Critiquing the Skeptics"? Does it say "Critiquing the Scientists"? No. For someone who seems to have such reverence for science, you sure don't like to deal with the FACTS.

Upon reading the OP again,I have changed my mind. It does actually deal with science and history. Wanderinglands was critiquing science and history among other things.
edit

There are people called "skeptics" who take a few facts or ideas, wrap them around their own personal beliefs, and call it science. Are you one of them?

Probably, but I think we have both demonstrated that point adequately over the course of consciousness threads.



I'm not sure what you are expecting me to say in relation to your second point except the very thing you don't want me to say. Yes, there is a science of consciousness. I am not imagining it, the literature is extensive.

I am not sure what I have done to offend you, but if it makes you happy I won't offer my advice in future threads you post.

Could I make just one suggestion. Investigate the Rationalist versus the Empiricist tradition in Western philosophy. I am sure you will find it useful.

[Gee]

Ginkgo;

I apologize for my little temper fit. I usually control myself better than that, but find this issue with "skeptics" very frustrating. Please consider my following responses which may help you to understand the source of my frustration -- which isn't really you.

In relation to you points one and six. I am sorry that I had a guess as to why posts were moved in the particular forum you mention. So yes, it is conjecture on my part as to why they were moved. I put forward my conjecture because you seem a little puzzled as to the reasons.

I was not even slightly puzzled as I had their number early on. They believe that neurology's explanation that consciousness "emerges" from the brain is the only game in town, so they throw everything else into speculations. Simple. They are working off of belief.

If I did not fully understand their little minds, I could not have accomplished 15 pages on the supernatural and consciousness at that forum. But I did and the thread was reaching 9,000 hits when I last checked even though no one has posted on it for about six months. I used strategy and tricked them into reading it. (chuckle) I did manage to bring up a few points that they are still scratching their heads over, which is good. Thinking should be allowed, not belief -- especially in a science forum.

But apparently you were puzzled by their behavior, so you tried to reason out their idiocy. I took that as support of their idiocy, which is why I became angry.

Yes, I have posted on numerous occasions that the wrong methodology is being used to support a particular philosophical argument. The reason I am able to do this is because I know the methodologies of science and philosophy very well. I think I have demonstrated this adequately in a large number of posts I have made in the past.

Yes, you know a great deal about methodologies and philosophy, but your understanding is limited. I understand a great deal about philosophy, but my knowledge is limited. This is why I value your input.

Do you know why science can't do philosophy?

No, but I am afraid to have a guess because I could run the risk of being called a liar.

Not by me -- if you say that it is a guess, rather than imply by omission that it is fact.

Yes they can both be correct. The problem is not with Spinoza or Leibniz, it is with the word "rationality". Rationalization is a tool used by science, it is almost useless in philosophy.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Both Spinoza and Leibniz are in the rationalist tradition. Both used a innate ideas and apriori reasoning to deduce their theories. If you don't believe me then you can google it.

You are discussing "rationalism" where the philosopher uses innate ideas and reasoning to deduce their findings. I am talking about "rational" where it is not rational that they can have different theories and both be correct. We are talking past one another.

I don't give two toots about what methodology they used, which I know is almost blasphemy when talking to you. I see methodologies and schools of thought as just that, schools of thought, to be taught by professors in universities. Every methodology and "ism" has at some point produced truth, or they would not still exist, so my thought is that they all have some value under some circumstance. It does not change the fact that Spinoza and Leibniz can both be correct even if their theories differ.

I'm not sure what you are expecting me to say in relation to your second point except the very thing you don't want me to say. Yes, there is a science of consciousness. I am not imagining it, the literature is extensive.

No you are not imagining it, you are misconstruing it. Neurology studies consciousness, as does psychology, and psychiatry, and physics, and biology, and animal behavior studies, and chemistry, and a host of others including the new neuroscience. There is very extensive literature, but all of these studies combined are still not studying consciousness -- they are studying bits and pieces of it. There can be no branch of science called Consciousness, because they still do not know WTF it is, and they will not learn until there is a valid Theory of Consciousness which will explain all of these studies, religion, and the paranormal.

At least neurology has given up on the idiocy that it is in the brain, and they have called in support from other branches of science. It is a start. There are two ways to look at this; either most of the people who have studied consciousness in that last few thousand years are kind of stupid, or consciousness is vast and hugely complex, so all of those people are just seeing parts or aspects of it. I vote for the latter explanation. Consciousness is not simple, it is not pure, it is not magic, and it is not "God"; it is huge and complex.

Could I make just one suggestion. Investigate the Rationalist versus the Empiricist tradition in Western philosophy. I am sure you will find it useful.

Here we go again. Why the "versus"? And why do I have to limit my thinking to Western philosophy? Is there some rule that says I can only study reality from one perspective and methodology? If so, we are never going to understand consciousness.

This is what bothers me most about the "skeptics". They limit their thinking and expect that they are correct anyway. They believe in science, but a belief in science destroys science. I respect science too much to tolerate that kind of stupidity.

G