Skepticism and "A message from mom"

Well I did think about adding on ...and gone to heaven, but they wouldn't believe it  

In any case, with Mama Linda armed with a shotgun it could be sooner than we think

The consequence of taking this sceptical stance is profound. It implies that materialism too must be placed under the sceptical microscope. It too must be questioned. It is no longer to be taken on trust. I think this is a step too far for most 'sceptics', a step they dare not take.

Exactly! That's why I made the point about the Lewontin "rant". Just as a reminder, here's part of that quote from Richard Lewontin in his review of the Carl Sagan book, "The Demon-Haunted World".

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

As we're shifting topics I think I'll change the thread name, and then post the Prescott blog thing in a new thread up top for those who want to talk about the particular case.

Also - how does one stop receiving notifications for a thread one has created. I'm not subscribed to this thread, and my defaults (AFAICTell) are not set to subscribe.

thanks!

Sci

[Ninshub]

I don't know the answer to the technical question, Sciborg. I'll ask the others.

As we're shifting topics I think I'll change the thread name, and then post the Prescott blog thing in a new thread up top for those who want to talk about the particular case.

Also - how does one stop receiving notifications for a thread one has created. I'm not subscribed to this thread, and my defaults (AFAICTell) are not set to subscribe.

thanks!

Sci

Sorry, my fault for the topic shift - and the need for the move to the Skeptic vs Proponent forum. I'll try not to derail your new thread. 

Sorry, my fault for the topic shift - and the need for the move to the Skeptic vs Proponent forum. I'll try not to derail your new thread. 

Ah I didn't mean it as criticsm, threads go where they will just like any conversation.  

I just figure some people might want to discuss the original article, and some might want to discuss the topic of skeptic mentality.

Ah I didn't mean it as criticsm, threads go where they will just like any conversation.  

I just figure some people might want to discuss the original article, and some might want to discuss the topic of skeptic mentality.

Yeah, understood. I didn't think criticism either, just aware that I did move the conversation it a different direction.

I don't get why the evidence that is presented here, in thousands of books or in millions of personal anecdotes are rejected so readily and seemingly without consideration. It just smacks of religion to me. A blind reverence for a worldview that cannot allow a hint of the supernatural. That is not skepticism, it is dogma.

This is one lens I use to evaluate posters in this community and elsewhere.  Steve, for example, consistently dismisses this type of evidence.  Anything that doesn't come with the scientific community's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" is consider bunk.  Not worth consideration or time.

That is, utterly, dogmatic.  It is the definition of scientism to my view.  Like all 'isms its a faith-based perspective.  Proponents will hide behind the "science has proven itself over time" mantra, but any real scientist will acknowledge that means, literally, nothing about the next unknown phenomena.

I haven't "met" anyone who would meet a true skeptic definition since I have never meant anyone devoid of bias.  So, I simply try to appreciate those who are self aware and open about their biases but are still willing to engage.

This is one lens I use to evaluate posters in this community and elsewhere.  Steve, for example, consistently dismisses this type of evidence.  Anything that doesn't come with the scientific community's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" is consider bunk.  Not worth consideration or time.

That is, utterly, dogmatic.  It is the definition of scientism to my view.  Like all 'isms its a faith-based perspective.  Proponents will hide behind the "science has proven itself over time" mantra, but any real scientist will acknowledge that means, literally, nothing about the next unknown phenomena.

I haven't "met" anyone who would meet a true skeptic definition since I have never meant anyone devoid of bias.  So, I simply try to appreciate those who are self aware and open about their biases but are still willing to engage.

The trouble is that we are somewhat closeted here and Steve is but one voice which is generally exposed for the dogmatism it delivers. Yet, outside of this forum Steve would be indistinguishable from many other voices. As I said earlier, we can understand how that voice has become an echo of the "official line" from academia and, to a large extent, science - not to mention prominent people in the media from news reporters to stand-up comics. I believe that there has been a systematic conditioning going on for a couple of hundred years - at least since the time of Darwin.

I'm not saying that we know better or that we have an open door to the truth: we all have (and should have) doubts. All I'm saying is that we at least have had the desire and opportunity to look at evidence - albeit critically yet, hopefully, with an open mind. That should be the measure of a skeptic - not automatic dismissal due to conditioned dogmatic responses or fashionable cynicism.