2 of 8
2
In regards to Skepticism
Posted: 05 November 2017 02:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
TromboneAndrew - 04 November 2017 09:47 PM
Lausten - 04 November 2017 09:04 PM

Yeah well, just don’t. They weren’t that smart back then.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

LOL :-D

So you laugh, but what can you possibly have against Scientology! You hate skepticism,  so you should be able to swallow anything, lock, stock and barrel. Why not Scientology? How can you see anything wrong with it? What’s the problem? I could see it if you didn’t hate skepticism, but given your complete dismissal of it, why do you reject the opposite of skepticism? It would seem to be right up your alley. No skeptic I know would ever join Scientology. You would feel feel right at home there with lots of other people who also hate skepticism. Don’t you want to be with people who think the way you do? I don’t get it. If not Scientology, maybe Mormonism. There’s another religion for anti-skeptics. Come to think of it, all religions are anti-skeptic, but some more than others. If they weren’t they’d have no members. So I think your best bet is the most extreme religion there is that draws in other people like you who are extreme anti-skeptics. What’s the downside? Obviously you don’t want to take a chance on joining a religion only to find out there are hated skeptics in it! That would be horrible.

[ Edited: 06 November 2017 10:28 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
LoisL - 05 November 2017 02:19 AM
TromboneAndrew - 04 November 2017 09:47 PM
Lausten - 04 November 2017 09:04 PM

Yeah well, just don’t. They weren’t that smart back then.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

LOL :-D

So you laugh, but what can you possibly have against Scientology! You hate skepticism,  so you should be able to swallow anything, lock, stock and barrel. Why not Scientology? Hiw can you see anything wrong with it? What’s the problem? I could see it if you didn’t hate skepticism, but given your complete dismissal of it, why do you reject the opposite pf skepticism? It would seem to be right up your alley. No skeptic I know would ever join Scientology. You would feel feel right at home there with lots of other people who also hate skepticism. Don’t you want to be with people who think the way you do? I don’t get it. If not Scientology, maybe Mormonism. There’s another religion for anti-skeptics. Come to think of it, all religions are anti-skeptic, but some more than others. If they weren’t they’d have no members. So I think your best bet is the most extreme religion there is that draws in other people like you who are extreme anti-skeptics. What’s the downside? Obviously you don’t want to take a chance on joining a religion only to find out there are hated skeptics in it! That would be horrible.

This is about philosophical skepticism and the negation of being able to know anything.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pyrrho_and_pyrrhonism

The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed in the word acatalepsia, implying that one cannot possibly know the true nature of things. For any given statement the opposite may be advanced with equal reason. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to suspend one’s judgment (epoche). As Timon expresses it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, these results are applied to life in general. Since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, or “freedom from worry.”

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly one must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, one must ask how he is related to these things. Thirdly, one asks what ought to be her attitude towards them. Pyrrho’s answer was that things are indistinguishable, immeasurable, and undecidable and no more this than that, or both this and that, and neither this nor that. Therefore, he said, the senses neither tell truths nor do they lie.[2] Therefore one knows nothing. One only knows how things appear to him, but of their inner substance people remain ignorant.

The impossibility of knowing, even in regard to one’s own ignorance or doubt, should lead the wise one to withdraw into himself. He should avoid the stress and the emotions that naturally accompany vain imagination. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its ethical results may be compared with the ideal tranquility proposed by the Stoics and the Epicureans.

An alternate interpretation is that Pyrrho was not strictly speaking a skeptic according to the skeptic’s own standards—even though he was considered to be a skeptic in antiquity—but that he rather was a negative dogmatist. Having a view of how things are in the world makes Pyrrho a dogmatist; denying the possibility of knowledge makes his dogma negative.[3]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4180
Joined  2009-10-21

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 05 November 2017 05:22 PM

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history

Doesn’t it have some truth to it though? I mean since we only see things as they appear to us, how can we make claims about the nature of things?

Also you might want to check the talk page of the rationalwiki link.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 05:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1580
Joined  2010-04-22

What matters is cause and effect. If the appearance of some cause and effect is coherent, then it’s reasonable to act upon that information.

This Pyrrhonism sounds to me like more of a logical puzzle meant to be solved than a real suggestion on living.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4180
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 05 November 2017 05:28 PM
Lausten - 05 November 2017 05:22 PM

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history

Doesn’t it have some truth to it though? I mean since we only see things as they appear to us, how can we make claims about the nature of things?

Also you might want to check the talk page of the rationalwiki link.

I’ve answered this before.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2017 08:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 05 November 2017 06:42 PM
Titanomachina - 05 November 2017 05:28 PM
Lausten - 05 November 2017 05:22 PM

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history

Doesn’t it have some truth to it though? I mean since we only see things as they appear to us, how can we make claims about the nature of things?

Also you might want to check the talk page of the rationalwiki link.

I’ve answered this before.

Where?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4180
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 05 November 2017 08:40 PM
Lausten - 05 November 2017 06:42 PM

I’ve answered this before.

Where?

I went through “Is Life a Curse” thread, which is mostly about finding value in living, but there is still good stuff in there, like post 235 or the link in 241. Also, at 221, I said there are things I can’t quite describe, and you thought that was “interesting”, but we didn’t expand on it.

I’m sure I’ve linked to my Munchausen’s blog somewhere. Basically we are limited, we don’t know everything, but we can increase our probability of being accurate. Looked at from the other direction, it is extremely unlikely that we would be terribly wrong about what is real. The reason we survive is that we are right at least some of the time about what is going to happen or what the consequences of our actions might be.

http://winter60.blogspot.com/2015/05/out-of-philosophical-trilemma.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
LoisL - 06 November 2017 10:30 PM

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 06 November 2017 08:32 AM
Titanomachina - 05 November 2017 08:40 PM
Lausten - 05 November 2017 06:42 PM

I’ve answered this before.

Where?

I went through “Is Life a Curse” thread, which is mostly about finding value in living, but there is still good stuff in there, like post 235 or the link in 241. Also, at 221, I said there are things I can’t quite describe, and you thought that was “interesting”, but we didn’t expand on it.

I’m sure I’ve linked to my Munchausen’s blog somewhere. Basically we are limited, we don’t know everything, but we can increase our probability of being accurate. Looked at from the other direction, it is extremely unlikely that we would be terribly wrong about what is real. The reason we survive is that we are right at least some of the time about what is going to happen or what the consequences of our actions might be.

http://winter60.blogspot.com/2015/05/out-of-philosophical-trilemma.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

Albert stressed repeatedly that there is no limitation of the Münchhausen trilemma to deductive conclusions. The verdict concerns also inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain.

Therefore, certain justification is impossible to attain. Once having given up the classical idea of certain knowledge, one can stop the process of justification where one wants to stop, presupposed one is ready to start critical thinking at this point always anew if necessary.

This trilemma rounds off the classical problem of justification in the theory of knowledge.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 05:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4180
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:57 PM

Therefore, ....

You’re still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1014
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 07 November 2017 05:20 AM
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:57 PM

Therefore, ....

You’re still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything.

Except this philosophy itself is affecting my ability to do that, so much so that I cannot sleep. I wonder if they are right and nothing can be known, then what? What to do? I can’t shake the nagging thought that they might be right.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2017 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:41 PM
LoisL - 06 November 2017 10:30 PM

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.

Where do you draw the line between philosophical and practical skepticism? Apparently there comes a point when you become completely gullible and doubt nothing. No wonder you’re confused!

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1613
Joined  2016-12-24
LoisL - 07 November 2017 11:40 PM
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:41 PM
LoisL - 06 November 2017 10:30 PM

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.

Where do you draw the line between philosophical and practical skepticism? Apparently there comes a point when you become completely gullible and doubt nothing. No wonder you’re confused!

But you need to also consider how hideously misused “skepticism” is - it’s easy to see how some see it as skepticism = contrarianism and little more.

Then folks double down by pointing to Pyrrho but reading about his ideas and seeing people who idealize him in action and they seem little more than headfuks - robbing skepticism of rationality.

That’s why I think perhaps we ought to focus more on fundamental Critical Thinking Skill rather than mud fighting about what skepticism means to whom . . .

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 8
2