What Has Happened to Skepticism?

[ImmortalFlame]

Not at all. I'm saying a skeptic can't call a belief certainty.

Why not? A skeptic can still hold some positions with certainty.

 

[1137]

Why not? A skeptic can still hold some positions with certainty.

How so? A true skeptic would doubt ALL certainty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How so? A true skeptic would doubt ALL certainty.

Then there's no such thing as a "true skeptic" and using that term is meaningless. A skeptic is any person who refuses to accept a specific claim at face value or without sufficient rational justification to accept it. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be certain about anything.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Being a skeptic doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be certain about anything.

No, that is exactly what the term means. And "true skeptics" certainly do exist; standard physicalists just aren't an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, that is exactly what the term means. And "true skeptics" certainly do exist; standard physicalists just aren't an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

No, that's philsophical skepticism. We're dealing with the general term "skeptic", not with "philsophical skepticism".

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

No, that's philsophical skepticism. We're dealing with the general term "skeptic", not with "philsophical skepticism".

But the whole point presented by the OP (if I understand correctly) is that pop skepticism (i.e. materialism, denial of the paranormal) lacks the depth or consistency of philosophical skepticism.

 

[George-ananda]

Ah - sour grapes.

wrong phrase...I am not jealous of anything they have

They don't accept your low standard of evidence, so there must be something wrong with them.

I consider my standards objective and reasoned and I have come to the strong opinion that the pseudo-skeptics are not even interested in fair objective analysis. Of course we have disagreed on this many times so why should now be any different.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But the whole point presented by the OP (if I understand correctly) is that pop skepticism (i.e. materialism, denial of the paranormal) lacks the depth or consistency of philosophical skepticism.

No, the point of the OP is equating that a lack of philosophical skeptism = a lack of skepticism. That's not how skepticism works - it's far broader than mere philosophical skepticism.

 

[1137]

But the whole point presented by the OP (if I understand correctly) is that pop skepticism (i.e. materialism, denial of the paranormal) lacks the depth or consistency of philosophical skepticism.

You're correct. Honestly I thought I was clear on that *shrug*.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so? A true skeptic would doubt ALL certainty.

... to a warranted degree. Epistemological navel-gazing aside, we can treat certain claims as practical certainties while still acknowledging that our positions are subject to change if better information presents itself, since the question of whether better information is likely to present itself is a question within the purview of skepticism, too.

In any case, the fact that we can't have knowledge with perfect certainty doesn't mean we should just consider all claims as equally valid.


A claim like "I can buy bread at the supermarket" has a level of support that, say, the claims of homeopathy do not... even though there are plenty of times when supermarkets failed to have bread or stopped existing altogether.

 

[Adramelek]

I can believe in a most likely scenario while still doubting myself and admitting I don't know.

I have found that even though there are things I am convinced of, there are times when I do question (Quest-ion) myself and my own beliefs. I think its part of how I grow both in intellect and in being.

 

[idav]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

My wife and I were having a conversation about this the other day. We are of the mind to ask people to "prove it" even if(especially if) we like what we hear.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I consider my standards objective and reasoned.

Everyone does.

Nobody is the villain or the fool in their own narrative.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was having a long talk with a friend the other day about modern days "skeptics". It seems to us that most people who take the title really aren't all that skeptical. Skepticism, instead of being the deep seated doubt it once was, seems to have become identical with the acceptance of atheistic materialism and unassailable doubt for anything else. I'm wondering if we're alone in noticing this, and what the cause is.

Has skepticism really changed, or merely your perception of it?
I ask because I see social changes all the time, but I know that the biggest change is not in what is seen, but how I see it.

Quote time.....
A man's got to know his limitations.
(Dirty Harry)

 

[Augustus]

Everyone does.

I don't. I mean I try my best, but know that I can't correct all of my biases.

(Of course I think know I do this better than everybody else though )

 

[George-ananda]

Nobody is the villain or the fool in their own narrative.

This is true, The quality of our beliefs are directly proportional to our ability to think clearly and objectively.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is true, The quality of our beliefs are directly proportional to our ability to think clearly and objectively.

Actually, I think I read once that our ability to reason and think logically isn't as computerized in our brain as we think, but rather is dependent on emotions and beliefs. In the end, our mind is only getting an image or reflection of reality, so it has to "believe" the different properties of the world. Essentially, the states of the brain are all "belief" states. It imagines the world based on the sensory inputs. We really only deal with different levels of uncertainty in live. Beliefs are lower level certainty, while knowledge is where we're more certain. Or somethin'...

 

[George-ananda]

Actually, I think I read once that our ability to reason and think logically isn't as computerized in our brain as we think, but rather is dependent on emotions and beliefs. In the end, our mind is only getting an image or reflection of reality, so it has to "believe" the different properties of the world. Essentially, the states of the brain are all "belief" states. It imagines the world based on the sensory inputs. We really only deal with different levels of uncertainty in live. Beliefs are lower level certainty, while knowledge is where we're more certain. Or somethin'...

I understand but I do believe we can sit clearly and at least reduce the effect of emotions and bias in our deliberations. We have no perfect computer program but we are all we got.

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand but I do believe we can sit clearly and at least reduce the effect of emotions and bias in our deliberations. We have no perfect computer program but we are all we got.

Sure. We can try to do our best, but I think it's impossible to completely get rid of it.

 

[atanu]

Has skepticism really changed, or merely your perception of it?
I ask because I see social changes all the time, but I know that the biggest change is not in what is seen, but how I see it.

Suppose a man has never experienced dream and sleep states of consciousness. If I tell him about those states he will likely ridicule me.

Now, the experience of divinity, of singularity, of the realm that is devoid of 'I - You' dichotomy is a different consciousness level. One who is skeptical of objective reality of the mundane waking state actually should intuit the provisional-transient nature of the waking state experience and its objects and should be open to other forms of consciousness.

But it is commonly not so. What goes as skepticism today rather is a clinging to sense experiences as objectively real, without bothering to investigate the nature of the experiencer.

It does not matter but. Eventually when material prosperity and satiation will fail to remove the sadness of life, one is bound to question.