Why be skeptical?

[PsySpi]

"Isn't it better to balance the spheres of Emotion and Science? Being overly scientific and skeptical harms our world, we loose the beauty of emotion and the ability to clearly see. We become closed to the true wonders of the universe" - A wise man.

Isnt there a case for not being skeptical sometimes an unlikely idea is presented? Isn't it sometimes better to follow your SOUL?

[Admin]

That sounds like a recipe for self-delusion.

Personally, I want to know things not just believe in them. Skepticism is the best way of separating truth from wishful thinking.

It depends on what one wants I suppose.

I fail to see how skepticism "harms" our world. Does understanding the physics behind the formation of a rainbow detract from its beauty?

I think not. In fact, it only adds to it.

[Mojo]

"Isn't it better to balance the spheres of Emotion and Science?

Could you be a little more specific about what you mean here?


Being overly scientific and skeptical harms our world,

How?


we loose the beauty of emotion

It is quite possible to appreciate beauty and maintain a sceptical viewpoint.


...and the ability to clearly see.

It is by blinding yourself to reality, not by maintaining a sceptical viewpoint, that you will lose the ability to see clearly.


We become closed to the true wonders of the universe" - A wise man.

Can you name him? Does this "wise man" you claim to be quoting actually exist, or are you just trying to give your own opinion a spurious authority?


Isnt there a case for not being skeptical sometimes an unlikely idea is presented?

How would you know which new ideas had merit, and which were nonsense, without applying scepticism?


Isn't it sometimes better to follow your SOUL?

What has this got to do with being sceptical?

[vbloke]

"Isn't it better to balance the spheres of Emotion and Science? Being overly scientific and skeptical harms our world, we loose the beauty of emotion and the ability to clearly see. We become closed to the true wonders of the universe" - A wise man.

Isn't there a case for not being skeptical sometimes an unlikely idea is presented? Isn't it sometimes better to follow your SOUL?


I'm interested in understanding this universe we live in. Emotions don't help me do that, only reason does.
Emotion clouds judgement and gets in the way of objectiveness.
Skepticism means you don't take things at face value - things that seem too good to be true usually are and you can end up being deceived, harmed or ripped off.
I look up at the night sky and see stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other wonders - I know how these things are formed, how they work and how they 'die'. That does not stop me from going outside on a clear night and looking up for the sheer enjoyment and wondrousness of it.
Does knowing how a flower grows take away from it's beauty? No. It means you can appreciate it on many more levels that just aesthetics.

[Mongrel]

I'm just wondering why bleevers insist on some signature 'wackiness' in their posts, wth is up with the seemingly random bolding?

[vbloke]

maybe it's to highlight something important because it signifies that they're thinking things through and not being idiots

[Mojo]

I'm just wondering why bleevers insist on some signature 'wackiness' in their posts, wth is up with the seemingly random bolding?


If you look up the winner of this year's IgNobel prize for Literature, you'll find that it was awarded for research that found that "writers who use long words needlessly and choose complicated font styles are seen as less intelligent than those who stick with basic vocabulary and plain text".

[Dr B]

"Isn't it better to balance the spheres of Emotion and Science? Being overly scientific and skeptical harms our world, we loose the beauty of emotion and the ability to clearly see. We become closed to the true wonders of the universe" - A wise man.

Isn't there a case for not being skeptical sometimes an unlikely idea is presented? Isn't it sometimes better to follow your SOUL?


Who said it was a wise man? There is no reason to assume who ever said anything quite as fluffy as that is capable of clear thought or wisdom.

Why is being scientific seen as being uncreative or unemotional? Scientists do need to be unemotional when investigating facts - but some resultant theories, equations, math, logic, is truly beautiful at least to me. I never fail to amazed by what scientists and engineers can do.

Has anyone seen that new hotel in Dubai thats on a tower in the sea???? Fantastic feat of engineering. O0

[wollery]

I think that studying the world in a scientific manner adds to the magic. There's nothing more wondrous than uncovering the mysteries of the Universe and the rules that govern it.

[PsySpi]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?
Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?
How can emotion be explained scientifically?

and also-
By "knowing how the trick is done" don't we sometimes ruin its magic?


The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".

[vbloke]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?

Examples?


Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?

No. But we can dismiss ones that science has proven wrong.


How can emotion be explained scientifically?

Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural impulse-produced mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response to move an organism to action.


and also-
By "knowing how the trick is done" don't we sometimes ruin its magic?

I know how a lot of magic tricks are done - it doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anyway - I appreciate the legerdemain and the skill involved as well as the spectacle of a trick well done.


The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".


Are you sure he even existed then, or are you just enamoured of the soundbite to the detriment of it's actual origin? It may have never been said by a "wise man" at all, just someone who wanted to push their own point of view.

[Dr B]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?

What about them? You seem to be assuming the absence of an explanation is equal to a paranormal explanation or something like that. We need positive evidence to support a theory, contention or claim.


Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?

No - and science does not claim to do this - so I am not sure what your point is. Science deals with probability and plausibility. Its more to do with - what explanation is the most likely based on the best available evidence? You are also making a logical error here. Have a look around the website and forum and you will see many of these discussed and explained - take a look, I think you will find it very interesting.

If I claimed to be able to run 100m sprint in 4 seconds - but i refuse to be tested in a race - does that mean my claim is true? Does that mean I should get a medal? ???


How can emotion be explained scientifically?

Depends on what you want to know. We know what neurotransmitters are important and what brain areas are crucial - this knowledge came from science. I see no contribution coming from anywhere else, though I could be wrong.




The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".


Nonsense - its fluffy nonsense. Best stick to sources you know or can cite - ones that also actually say something are also useful. O0

[PsySpi]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?

Examples?
The spirit world, life after death, spirit guides, Divine cosmic forces, The lesser Gods and angels, God himself...




Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?

No. But we can dismiss ones that science has proven wrong.



When has science ever proved any of the above wrong?




How can emotion be explained scientifically?

Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural impulse-produced mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response to move an organism to action.



Prehaps, but if is is subjective how can it be objective?




and also-
By "knowing how the trick is done" don't we sometimes ruin its magic?

I know how a lot of magic tricks are done - it doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anyway - I appreciate the legerdemain and the skill involved as well as the spectacle of a trick well done.


But haven;t you lost the mystery of the trick in the process?




The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".


Are you sure he even existed then, or are you just enamoured of the soundbite to the detriment of it's actual origin? It may have never been said by a "wise man" at all, just someone who wanted to push their own point of view.


I'm sure he existed and he was known as wise when he lived.

[vbloke]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?

Examples?
The spirit world, life after death, spirit guides, Divine cosmic forces, The lesser Gods and angels, God himself...

and your proof that these things are real is..?






Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?

No. But we can dismiss ones that science has proven wrong.



When has science ever proved any of the above wrong?

When has it proved them right?






How can emotion be explained scientifically?

Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural impulse-produced mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response to move an organism to action.



Prehaps, but if is is subjective how can it be objective?

Emotion isn't objective - it's intensely personal.






and also-
By "knowing how the trick is done" don't we sometimes ruin its magic?

I know how a lot of magic tricks are done - it doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anyway - I appreciate the legerdemain and the skill involved as well as the spectacle of a trick well done.


But haven;t you lost the mystery of the trick in the process?

No.






The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".


Are you sure he even existed then, or are you just enamoured of the soundbite to the detriment of it's actual origin? It may have never been said by a "wise man" at all, just someone who wanted to push their own point of view.


I'm sure he existed and he was known as wise when he lived.


Your proof of this is..?

[tkingdoll]

Not to mention underlining things on the internet when they are not links.

OK, hands up who clicked that! ;D

Personally I don't have a soul.

Oh, and see Richard Feynman for insight into seeing the beauty of the world through the eyes of science.

[PsySpi]

But what about all the things that are real, but cannot be explained by science?

Examples?
The spirit world, life after death, spirit guides, Divine cosmic forces, The lesser Gods and angels, God himself...

and your proof that these things are real is..?

Personal Experience.
Only possible explanation.
Best of all possible explanations.
Physical experience.
Psychic Experience
Widespread belief.
I Can find things out from the spirit world, and my spirit guide, that I would not otherwise possibly know.








Can you ever truly dismiss a concept because science hasn't proved it?

No. But we can dismiss ones that science has proven wrong.



When has science ever proved any of the above wrong?

When has it proved them right?



Not yet. But its heading there. It just needs to learn new ways of detecting and to listen to subjective evidence.









How can emotion be explained scientifically?

Emotion, in its most general definition, is an intense neural impulse-produced mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response to move an organism to action.



Prehaps, but if is is subjective how can it be objective?

Emotion isn't objective - it's intensely personal.



Exactly. And yet its still there.







and also-
By "knowing how the trick is done" don't we sometimes ruin its magic?

I know how a lot of magic tricks are done - it doesn't mean I don't enjoy them anyway - I appreciate the legerdemain and the skill involved as well as the spectacle of a trick well done.


But haven;t you lost the mystery of the trick in the process?

No.



Many would disagree there.








The "wise man" lived a long time ago. His only known name is "a wise man".


Are you sure he even existed then, or are you just enamoured of the soundbite to the detriment of it's actual origin? It may have never been said by a "wise man" at all, just someone who wanted to push their own point of view.


I'm sure he existed and he was known as wise when he lived.


Your proof of this is..?


Answer is above.

[PsySpi]

Personally I don't have a soul.


All living things have souls.

[tkingdoll]

Personally I don't have a soul.


All living things have souls.


No they don't.

See the problem? You are saying they do, and I am saying they don't! My word, what a dilemma.

You can't speak for any living creature but yourself, so let's say that you have a soul and I don't, OK?

Incidentally, if you still believe I have a soul, would you like to buy it?

[PsySpi]

Personally I don't have a soul.


All living things have souls.


No they don't.

See the problem? You are saying they do, and I am saying they don't! My word, what a dilemma.

You can't speak for any living creature but yourself, so let's say that you have a soul and I don't, OK?



That doesn't change the facts.



Incidentally, if you still believe I have a soul, would you like to buy it?




It would be immoral and impossible to do so. A soul cannot be owned, it IS you. You cannot therefore sell it.

[tkingdoll]

Oh, facts, is it?

Facts can be proven. So, please present your proof for the existence of a soul.

If you have no proof, then it is not a fact, I'm afraid.

What about if I said it's a fact that I don't have a soul? It doesn't get us anywhere to claim our beliefs are facts unless we can prove them, yes?

Regarding selling my soul, by whose standards is it immoral?

[PsySpi]

Oh, facts, is it?

Facts can be proven. So, please present your proof for the existence of a soul.

If you have no proof, then it is not a fact, I'm afraid.

What about if I said it's a fact that I don't have a soul? It doesn't get us anywhere to claim our beliefs are facts unless we can prove them, yes?


What else is "you" but your soul?

What else is capable of surviving death?

What else is my spirit guide?

Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.


Regarding selling my soul, by whose standards is it immoral?



The divine superessence and lord of all that is, he who men call God.

[median]

PsySpi, some counter-explanations ???


What else is "you" but your soul?


Perhaps the emergent property of neural activity.


What else is capable of surviving death?


Definitions of death and the possible form of surviving would need to be specified even if were to assume this is the case. I have seen some definitions stretched so much that almost anything would appear to be possible. :o


What else is my spirit guide?


Possible hallucination or delusion?


Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.

This is referred to as argumentum ad ignorantium (proving that something exists because the negative cannot be proven). It is a fallacy.

[PsySpi]

Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.

This is referred to as argumentum ad ignorantium (proving that something exists because the negative cannot be proven). It is a fallacy.





Why is it a fallacy?

[tkingdoll]

My opinion:

PsySpi is yanking our chains - playing the skeptics for fools to see us waste our time on definitions he/she is already aware of.

[PsySpi]

My opinion:

PsySpi is yanking our chains - playing the skeptics for fools to see us waste our time on definitions he/she is already aware of.




I asked why is it a fallacy, which is a valid question.

It looks bad for skeptics if anyone who disagrees is classed as a time waster.

I am prehaps wasting time a little since I know where Id like this to head, I was just waiting for someone else to steer it in that direction.

I was heading to-

Why does the requirement of proof lie with the claiment? Doesn't the person who says "the requirement of proof lies with the claiment" now have the requirement of proof to prove so?

So by its own definition, it is up to the skeptics to prove that the requirement of proof is on the claiment.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.

This is referred to as argumentum ad ignorantium (proving that something exists because the negative cannot be proven). It is a fallacy.





Why is it a fallacy?


OK, I'll play too. Here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

You perpetrate another howler immediately after, in suggesting that, if the soul provides an explanation of certain things, it must be the best explanation. It may in fact be the worst of all available explanations.

You don't say what type of explanation the soul provides, nor do you provide evidence for the existence of any paranormal occurrences it is supposed to explain.

[PsySpi]

Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.

This is referred to as argumentum ad ignorantium (proving that something exists because the negative cannot be proven). It is a fallacy.





Why is it a fallacy?


OK, I'll play too. Here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

You perpetrate another howler immediately after, in suggesting that, if the soul provides an explanation of certain things, it must be the best explanation. It may in fact be the worst of all available explanations.

You don't say what type of explanation the soul provides, nor do you provide evidence for the existence of any paranormal occurrences it is supposed to explain.




But at the same time you cannot dismiss the soul through lack of evidence.

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."

[Lord Muck oGentry]

My opinion:

PsySpi is yanking our chains - playing the skeptics for fools to see us waste our time on definitions he/she is already aware of.




I asked why is it a fallacy, which is a valid question.

It looks bad for skeptics if anyone who disagrees is classed as a time waster.

I am prehaps wasting time a little since I know where Id like this to head, I was just waiting for someone else to steer it in that direction.

I was heading to-

Why does the requirement of proof lie with the claiment? Doesn't the person who says "the requirement of proof lies with the claiment" now have the requirement of proof to prove so?

So by its own definition, it is up to the skeptics to prove that the requirement of proof is on the claiment.


I have just offered an answer to your first point ( our posts seem to have crossed).

As for the burden of proof, it lies with whichever party makes an unrestricted existential assertion, such as " There exist paranormal events". Or, for that matter, " There exist black swans" or " There is at least one double star." Since no number of failed attempts to observe such things can establish that they do not exist, the burden rests on the party asserting that they do exist.

The burden does not rest on the first party to "make a claim", since that claim may be just the denial of a burdenbearing claim. What matters is the logical nature of the claim, not the question who first made a claim.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Can you prove that you do not have a soul? A soul explains a multitude of paranormal occurences and also consiousness and self. Therefore it is the best explanation.

This is referred to as argumentum ad ignorantium (proving that something exists because the negative cannot be proven). It is a fallacy.





Why is it a fallacy?


OK, I'll play too. Here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

You perpetrate another howler immediately after, in suggesting that, if the soul provides an explanation of certain things, it must be the best explanation. It may in fact be the worst of all available explanations.

You don't say what type of explanation the soul provides, nor do you provide evidence for the existence of any paranormal occurrences it is supposed to explain.




But at the same time you cannot dismiss the soul through lack of evidence.

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."


Again, our posts seem to have crossed.

For an answer, see my last post. I do not suggest that lack of evidence for souls proves that they do not exist: I suggest that lack of evidence for souls proves that the burden has not been discharged.

Of course, it would help if we knew exactly what sort of things souls are meant to be, as well as what sort of things they are meant to explain. But that is up to you.

[Mongrel]

But at the same time you cannot dismiss the soul through lack of evidence.

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."


You can't have it both ways - either there is evidence for a soul or there is not, all non-anecdotal evidence at the moment points to not. In my opinion, at some point, you've got to declare "Unless some astounding new (and repeatable) evidence is bought to the table I'm supremely confident the answer is No"

So the best way to answer your question is "No, but if strong evidence is presented I'll be happy to re-examine my position"

Edit - fixing the quote tags

[Admin]

Why does the requirement of proof lie with the claiment?


PsySpi, you owe me £1,000.

Is that true until you disprove it or should I back up the claim with evidence? What would a court of law make of my claim?

[Admin]

But at the same time you cannot dismiss the soul through lack of evidence.

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."


Rubbish.

Lack of evidence is only meaningful should such evidence be expected to be found.

Something untestable, like the "we all have souls" claim is actually a meaningless claim. If some form of testable property were to be claimed to prove that souls exist then we can test for it. Simply to claim that we 'have' them is a matter of faith - and thus not subject to science or skepticism.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But at the same time you cannot dismiss the soul through lack of evidence.

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."


You can't have it both ways - either there is evidence for a soul or there is not, all non-anecdotal evidence at the moment points to not. In my opinion, at some point, you've got to declare "Unless some astounding new (and repeatable) evidence is bought to the table I'm supremely confident the answer is No"

So the best way to answer your question is "No, but if strong evidence is presented I'll be happy to re-examine my position"

Edit - fixing the quote tags


Mongrel,

I think we're getting to the heart of the matter. If there were evidence, we'd have heard about it by now, either here or elsewhere. But since there isn't any such evidence, we find only attempts to displace the burden.

[Dr B]

So at best the answer to "do I have a soul?" Is "Maybe."


Wrong - the best answer is it is the most unlikely of all the explanations. There is no need to entertain an idea if there is no evidence for it AND there is confirmatory evidence for alternatives (you ignore the latter point). Please see my above posts and read some of the really useful information this site has to offer. I think you will find it really interesting (and I mean that quite sincerely) O0

[Dr B]

The real answer to your question of, "why be skeptical" is - to reduce, as much as possible, the chance I may accept false truths and be deluded. A skeptic could ask -why believe things, as a central core of your personality, when there is no tangible scientific evidence for them? Are you not in danger of deluding yourself? If not, how do you know? What safeguards do you have in place?

If you genuinely want to explore these issues, and I hope you do, then please follow the links others have provided above. Better still, read around the website here. John, Teek and Mark have all done an excellent job on providing information that will make you think - even if you do not agree with it. Now, surely encountering information that makes you think, and challenges your world-view has got to be a good thing.

Finally, as discussed all over this forum - skepticism is not a belief system - it is a tool or procedure. I prefer the term critical thinking to skepticism - but thats just me. Being skeptical or thinking critically does not force you to accept any idea blindly from the start or arrive at a particular idea at the end. It allows you to explore the ideas and see which are most likely to be correct. You cannot have an idea based in skepticism - it is because of skepticism that your idea is more likely to be correct but it will be based on evidence, facts, argument and reason. O0

Skepticism is a process, not a theory.

[Cuddles]

Not to mention underlining things on the internet when they are not links.

OK, hands up who clicked that! ;D

I hate you. ::)