|
|
Post by sherbetconspy on Nov 26, 2009 11:41:11 GMT
Hi all,
As a new member I was wondering if there is such a thing as being too skeptical?
After a dodgy "woo" start many years ago (serves me right for reading Von Daniken) I am now at the other end of the spectrum but am seen by some to be cynical (is there a difference ?)
I will admit that sometimes my arguments become a bit strident when I hear some obvious nonsense but I worry that I may not be getting my case across by being too skeptical.
On the other hand it's difficult to remain silent and listen to some of the B*ll**ks out there.
I would be interested in anyone elses take on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 26, 2009 12:09:21 GMT
You can never be to skeptical.
Skepticism is a methodology not a belief.
Cynicism is infact the opposite of Skepticism.
I do understand how you feel though, sometimes something is obviously stupid that it is hard to just remain skeptical, when you just want to shout b***cks
Edited to get it right
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 26, 2009 13:10:10 GMT
Skepticism is a position not a belief. Skepticism is not a position (!) Skepticism is a methodology, a process of inquiry and not the position of non-belief. What is Skepticism?People who use the terms 'skeptic' and 'skepticism' to indicate their position on matters (be it non-belief, denial or opposition) are simply displaying their ignorance as to what skepticism actually is. Think of anti-vaccination groups who call themselves 'vaccination skeptics' - they take the position of opposition/non-belief/denial but that's clearly not skepticism (the process of rational inquiry). |
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Nov 26, 2009 14:23:28 GMT
Yes skepticism is certainly the process of inquiry. For me as a sceptic cynicism is as bad as blind faith and is certainly very different from skepticism though sadly many people mistake the two. Can you be too skeptical? I see no evidence you can  |
|
|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 26, 2009 16:02:58 GMT
If you mean can you be too logical and rational then no I don't think you can. However if by "too skeptical" you mean too overbearing in your debates with others to the point where they simply ignore everything you say, then I think yes, you can.
Its a matter of picking your battles if its just general conversation with friends or colleagues; if someone wants to buy a copper bracelet let them, a lecture on how unscientic they are isn't going to help anyone. However if you meet someone who doesn't want to immunise their child then I think its important to have the debate.
I also think its important to not belittle people or make out that they're stupid. For example most people have simply never considered or investigated psychics and so if asked if they believe them will probably give an answer like "There's probably something in it". Its really unfair (not to mention irrititing and smug) to then harp on to that person about cold reading and confirmation bias. In the same way someone could ask me "How do you think Man U are doing this season?" and seeing as I know absolutely nothing about football beyond the fact that Man U are generally successful I'd go "Probably quite well". I'd be mightly pissed off if that person then ridiculed me and rolled out a load of facts and statistics proving that Man U are doing terribly and I probably wouldn't listen to much more that that person had to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyyoungman on Nov 26, 2009 16:03:19 GMT
Oh and welcome to the forum  |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 26, 2009 16:42:00 GMT
My position is I am skeptical of certain claims.
Sound slike a position for me
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 26, 2009 17:03:17 GMT
My position is I am skeptical of certain claims. Sound slike a position for me Then you are wrong. And you are misrepresenting skeptics and skepticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 27, 2009 9:08:55 GMT
I accept I am wrong, but who really cares?
I dont represent skeptics or skepticism, I represent myself.
I am not an academic, I am not a professor,i am just a normal bloke who does his best.
I will make mistakes, I will forget certain things, but banging on about the exact meaning of skepticism and so on, is missing the point of the message we are trying to make.
I am sorry for getting it wrong and i will try to remember the right way in future.
|
|
|
|
Post by bujin on Nov 27, 2009 11:18:02 GMT
Hi all, As a new member I was wondering if there is such a thing as being too skeptical? After a dodgy "woo" start many years ago (serves me right for reading Von Daniken) I am now at the other end of the spectrum but am seen by some to be cynical (is there a difference ?) I will admit that sometimes my arguments become a bit strident when I hear some obvious nonsense but I worry that I may not be getting my case across by being too skeptical. On the other hand it's difficult to remain silent and listen to some of the B*ll**ks out there. I would be interested in anyone elses take on this. It's not a problem with being too sceptical, if there is such a thing (which there isn't). It's a problem that people don't like being told that their beliefs are nonsense, and will become very defensive if you challenge those beliefs. You will struggle to get your case across if you approach it in the wrong way - by being blunt with your "opponent" and telling him/her that he/she is wrong to believe that stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 27, 2009 11:38:36 GMT
I accept I am wrong, but who really cares? Me! I dont represent skeptics or skepticism, I represent myself. But you do represent skepticism whether you actively mean to or not. banging on about the exact meaning of skepticism and so on, is missing the point of the message we are trying to make. I think it's a very important to get the nature of skepticism across to people as once they grasp what it is, they will see where you're coming from and also acquire the ability to spread the message further. Just stating that "X is a fraud" and expecting people to accept such an assertion at face value is actually no different to someone proclaiming "I'm a psychic" - neither assertion has any reasoning shown behind it and it simply reinforces the (false) skeptic vs believer dichotomy as being one opinion vs another. There is such a thing as Bad Skepticism!!! If we are to be educational in any way, shape or form then we must educate people on what skepticism is as well as tackling certain issues. And you don't need to be an academic and read up on the philosophy of skepticism and science to do it, you just need to grasp the basics. For example: Most people think of skepticism as doubt, but skepticism is doubt and inquiry. Leave off the 'inquiry' bit and yes, doubt is simply a position of non-acceptance - a position you can hold for no good reason. But with inquiry, you investigate the issue and form justified conclusions on the issue. Quite a difference! It's not doubt that defines skepticism (as most people believe) it's inquiry. Skeptics are inquirers/investigators not doubters. |
|
|
|
Post by fluffet on Nov 27, 2009 12:38:34 GMT
Hi Sherbet Welcome . I tend to look at it this way , if you take skepticism as being about inquiry into things to allow you to come to a provisional conclusion (one that can be reviewed based on new information available) then can you ever ask too many questions ? I personally dont think you can,surely the more you ask , the more you review and consider the facts, the clearer things will become and thats never a bad thing. If you however take skepticism as being about doubt alone , an overriding compulsion to doubt everything without ever really investigating it fully enough to warrant that doubt then yes ...you can become as blind in your need to doubt without question as others are in their need to accept without question. Thats how i see it at the moment ....open to correction Again just my understanding but id say it depends what those who see you as cynical think cynical means . If they apply the modern meaning of cynicism "to mean an attitude of jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people" then it cannot be confused with skepticism "Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by argument or evidence" Only you will know if either apply to yourself ,but as you can see they aren't the same and shouldn't be used as interchangeable words that mean the same thing by those that wish to label you one because you apply the other. Being skeptical wont inhibit you getting your case across, being cynical or not having a good enough argument or as LYM said being "too overbearing" or perhaps just being faced with someone who refuses to consider the evidence before them may result in a point lost forever on that person. Its incredibly hard sometimes when faced with something that is entirely without reason or factual evidence to NOT want to say "but why cant you see its b***cks !!!" but doing so rarely informs or changes their mind. I agree it is ....i guess its how we approach changing it or debating it with others thats the key |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Nov 27, 2009 17:46:43 GMT
I think we can be too skeptical at times, we all need to keep an open mind and listen to others points of view. I am willing to be convinced that there is a God, that some people can speak to the dearly departed, that M H is not a joke show[ this will take some convincing i know but what the hell] ;D lets go with the flow!!!!!!]. I can at times get so frustrated with people who have a closed mind. I include myself in this area, so I try that bit harder. I have to admit I am not always successful, but I keep trying. GOD if there is one I am led to believe loves a trier.  Welcome to the forum Sherbetconspy. |
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 27, 2009 18:44:09 GMT
I think we can be too skeptical at times, we all need to keep an open mind Why do you equate skepticism with closed mindedness? I am willing to be convinced..... If you mean that if you're prepared to accept things as being true if someone can provide you with good evidence, then that is exactly what skepticism is. |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Nov 27, 2009 19:01:49 GMT
Then I am right in my thinking . Some people can be very dogmatic and not even consider another point of view [closed mindedness] . I on the other hand as previously posted am willing to be convinced .
|
|
|
|
Post by asdfg on Nov 27, 2009 19:52:19 GMT
Then I am right in my thinking . Some people can be very dogmatic and not even consider another point of view [closed mindedness] . I on the other hand as previously posted am willing to be convinced . I agree, some people can be dogmatic and closed minded; but my question was: why do you equate that with skepticism? |
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Nov 27, 2009 20:09:17 GMT
Is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 21:23:04 GMT
No. It isn't. To be skeptical doesn't mean to be closed minded. A skeptic is somebody who is waiting to be convinced, that doesn't mean that they have completely shut their mind to the idea, but it also means that they aren't just going to blindly accept claims.
If somebody claims to not be skeptical of anything at all, then they're dangerousy naive because skepticism and cynicism can (and does) apply to all areas of our lives. Not just the supernatural.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Barb on Nov 28, 2009 9:12:27 GMT
I think I am seeing things more clearly now, thank you Hayley and Jigsaw.
|
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Nov 28, 2009 10:01:18 GMT
People who are closed minded are really no better then the believers who are blinded by their own biases and inability to see both sides of an arguement.
A true sceptic won't accept so called evidence at face value but a sceptic should also be wary of debunkers with agenda's designed solely to discredit.
It works both ways.
|
|
