ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags skepticism

Reply
Old 11th October 2018, 08:31 AM   #241
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,479
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I've seen plenty of very passionate defenders of the skeptic idea amongst those who've been around here, in these forums, for a very long time.
For sure. However I get the impression that people who go overboard are often newbs. For instance, starting a thread to mock woos when the thread starter is a serial offender.

Pardon me if this has already been discussed but there's another category of rookie: nutjobs who latch onto skepticism as justification for their nutty beliefs, e.g. truthers, GW deniers, and pedophiles.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2018, 08:41 AM   #242
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Ah. You think that, do you? That's different from what kellyb and Hlafordlaes have said here on this thread.

To be clear -- in case you haven't read all of this thread, and especially my comments -- I'm in full agreement with your larger point. However, as far as I am concerned, there was this element of doubt : It is obvious (to me) that an overwhelming majority here on these forums subscribe to 'our' view of what skepticism is -- which is a view that agrees with what you say. But the question that remains unanswered (or at least, not quite unanswered, but unsubstantiated) is this : Do self-described skeptics outside of these forums also subscribe to "our" view, that is, to "our" particular usage for the term "skepticism"?

You seem to saying, here, that many self-described skeptics think differently. Do you mean here in these forums, or do you mean skeptics outside of these forums?

If you mean within these forums, then obviously that is your subjective take. And one obvious way to substantiate that would be hold a poll.

But if you mean outside of these forums, then can you substantiate that? (I don't mean literally back that up, I don't mean actually go to the trouble to produce 'evidence' in the form of quotes, et cetera. I mean, can you simply discuss which particular skeptic spaces, online or offline, you've visited, from where you carry off this impression?)
Not everyone is guilty obviously but I think itís a rampant problem in mainstream skepticism both in these forums and elsewhere. Consider 2 approaches.
1) I believe X so I challenge the people who believe Y for evidence, then critique their evidence
2) I look at the evidence for X, I look at the evidence for Y and decide which makes the more compelling case, or decide that nether makes a strong enough case to reach a conclusion.

IME we see a lot more of 1 than 2 in mainstream skepticism even though itís almost no different than the process used by those the skeptic is attempting to refute. Itís relevantly easy to find respected skeptics who insist thatís how skepticism is supposed to be done even though when it comes right down to it the thought process is little different than the woo-woo theories the skeptic is trying to debunk.

You may get some marginal difference like the changes in phrasing so they can claim ďIím not trying to promote any idea so I donít need to provide evidenceĒ. When you take a step back and look at the overall pattern, however, itís usually clear what the person supports.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 05:26 PM   #243
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 58,724
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I know what the dictionary has to say but I have no idea how this word is "officially" defined in ISF.
What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2018, 11:40 PM   #244
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,583
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?
I, for one, thought "guillotine" meant something else.

__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 04:11 AM   #245
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,178
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
I, for one, thought "guillotine" meant something else.

Well, they are both potentially lethal.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 101_Anthony_Pettis_vs_Charles_Oliveira.0.1472349179.jpg (78.3 KB, 1 views)
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:35 AM   #246
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 13,176
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What makes you think that ISF uses different definitions of words than the rest of the world?
Read this thread and all of the threads that argue about the meaning of atheism and you might get an idea of what I am referring to.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.