I've quickly come to realise on this forum, that while some Skeptics here think the same as me, others do not.
I get really sick of people who believe in psychics, mediums, UFOs, ghosts, etc. saying to me, "you should be open minded about it".
As a Skeptic I consider myself far more open minded than these people, as not only will I not accept their beliefs as fact, I look for alternative answers, but never entirely rule out the possibility that they may be right. To be skeptical is to doubt.
However, there's a few people I've crossed swords with on here, who act no differently from avid believers in the paranormal. They are unshakable in their opinions, and are not even prepared to allow any room for doubt, even when they are not in full possession of the facts.
Shouldn't any good Skeptic allow for Skepticism, even in their own beliefs?
As Rudyard Kipling said:
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too"
Have you read John's excellent and concise page on "the open mind", and the distinction between open-mindedness and credulity?
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p..._open_mind.php
TC,
I know that Blake is a dangerous man to quote in a company of skeptics- but bugger it!
" Opposition is true friendship."
Skeptics don't always agree with one another, so don't take offence if they don't agree with you.
Oh, I almost forgot to say- welcome! :-)
Originally Posted by The_Corinthian
I doubt it.Shouldn't any good Skeptic allow for Skepticism, even in their own beliefs
Btw - interesting topic of conversation, Corinthian ( as a 'newbie' here, I guess I should probably let the thread develop a little before wading in with my own thoughts ).
Hi,
Being out spoken I found John Jackson’s “The Open Mind” to be a speculative generalisation and nothing more.
Perhaps we should consider the mind or should I say the mindset of people that make such sweeping statements?
BillB
Last edited by BillB; 17th October 2007 at 01:57 AM.
Hi,
CorinthianAs a Skeptic I consider myself far more open minded than these people, as not only will I not accept their beliefs as fact, I look for alternative answers, but never entirely rule out the possibility that they may be right. To be skeptical is to doubt.
Really ? ? ? ? ? ?
CorinthianHowever, there's a few people I've crossed swords with on here, who act no differently from avid believers in the paranormal. They are unshakable in their opinions, and are not even prepared to allow any room for doubt, even when they are not in full possession of the facts.
So what makes you any different to these alleged unshakable in opinion type people?
Is Muttley really a Sheep Dog?
BillB
Last edited by BillB; 17th October 2007 at 02:15 AM.
I am very willing to change my views on science matters. Scientists are not infalible and if a theory different to one I accept is explained with all the evidence, reproducable results etc, etc, I will believe it. Or at least accept it's possibility.
When it comes to boogey men and astrology and such, I have no room for change. Time after time these things are proven to be rubbish.
So I guess I'm open to reason but closed to fancy.
Zero: Do you think Muttley is really a Sheep Dog, because it seems to wag its tail rather a lot? You might understand them Sheep Dogs from being down under, but I guess it’s very much high-tech these day’s, with the poor dingo being replaced by the whirlybird!!
To what do you refer?
Muttley the cartoon character or Muttley the member?
Metaphorically speaking!!
???
I'd say it seeks to make a simple but important point, and does so with clarity.
Unlike "Being out spoken". Do you mean "outspoken", "out-spoken", or some other meaning which has eluded me?
Whistle, shout "Come by!", and see what happens.
M.
You'll have to point out where I've contradicted myself, because I just can't see it.Hi,
Really ? ? ? ? ? ?
Corinthian
So what makes you any different to these alleged unshakable in opinion type people?
I hadn't, but I have now and I'd say it very articulately says what I'm saying. Good to know I'm far from alone in thinking this. :)
If someone claims to be in touch with the dead, it is open-minded to consider that their claim might be true. It is also open-minded to consider alternative explanations for what they report. It is then a question of looking at the evidence to see which possibility is most likely. So, you start from an open-minded position and end up with a conclusion based on evidence. If this conclusion is that it is unlikely that the person was really communicating with the dead, this is the point where the claimant may accuse you of having a closed mind. What they are really saying, in effect, is that they disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, which is a different matter entirely.
MRTIf someone claims to be in touch with the dead, it is open-minded to consider that their claim might be true. It is also open-minded to consider alternative explanations for what they report. It is then a question of looking at the evidence to see which possibility is most likely. So, you start from an open-minded position and end up with a conclusion based on evidence. If this conclusion is that it is unlikely that the person was really communicating with the dead, this is the point where the claimant may accuse you of having a closed mind. What they are really saying, in effect, is that they disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, which is a different matter entirely.
Yes I agree but I sometimes wonder if we are (metaphorically speaking) to the dead on this forum? :-\
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks