Skepticism and "A message from mom"

That's a humble self acessment and yet everything you wrote in the above reply excludes you from being a true skeptic. I've yet to meet a true skeptic.

What is a true skeptic then?

What is a true skeptic then?

My first thought was that this is a diversion but actually your question is in line with mine at the start. I'm also interested to know what being a skeptic means to someone who calls himself a skeptic. And I don't mean dictionary definitions, I mean in terms of worldview and exclusions from that worldview for whatever reasons.

It was only with the advance of "modern science" which was kind of like a sanitising 'sweeping brush' in some respects (as regards making such stories taboo) that they disappeared from acceptable conversation. I'm not saying the application of "science" wasn't a necessary step forward, of course it was and it liberated the working class (to some extent) from hardship and drudgery and the overbearing influence and hypocrisy/illogical jurisdiction of the Churches.

I've wondered about this some time, perhaps I should check in with some historians (Kripal maybe?). Davd Griffin has written, with some degree of sourcing, that the Church actually aligned with the materialist-mechanists b/c the idea of the living, spiritually infused world of the esoterics/occultists was a threat to its power.

My first thought was that this is a diversion but actually your question is in line with mine at the start. I'm also interested to know what being a skeptic means to someone who calls himself a skeptic. And I don't mean dictionary definitions, I mean in terms of worldview and exclusions from that worldview for whatever reasons.

I think once you start cutting off the extremes like solipsism you end up with a reasonable, reasonably educated person. (You doubt the extremes extreme skepticism leads to) Naturally such people will disagree as they will have different anecdotes, different experiences, read different things.

My friends [& I] went to a woman who was a "sensitive" in March and out of all of them I (who initially got the tickets and thus could be researched) was the least convinced. The others were largely convinced that there was an afterlife their loved ones now reside in.

It was $25/person, so not too steep a price to learn the secrets of Eternity. If they wanted to go back I wouldn't stop them, but if the price was raised to something like $300/person I'd tell them to really consider if it was worth it. Not necessarily b/c the woman is a fraud, but to at least consider either that possibility or that there's nothing more she can say beyond the initially meeting.

IMO that's a reasonable response, dwelling in the "Maybe". Creative Agnosticism is what R.A.Wilson called it...

I've wondered about this some time, perhaps I should check in with some historians (Kripal maybe?). Davd Griffin has written, with some degree of sourcing, that the Church actually aligned with the materialist-mechanists b/c the idea of the living, spiritually infused world of the esoterics/occultists was a threat to its power.


I think once you start cutting off the extremes like solipsism you end up with a reasonable, reasonably educated person. (You doubt the extremes extreme skepticism leads to) Naturally such people will disagree as they will have different anecdotes, different experiences, read different things.

My friends [& I] went to a woman who was a "sensitive" in March and out of all of them I (who initially got the tickets and thus could be researched) was the least convinced. The others were largely convinced that there was an afterlife their loved ones now reside in.

It was $25/person, so not too steep a price to learn the secrets of Eternity. If they wanted to go back I wouldn't stop them, but if the price was raised to something like $300/person I'd tell them to really consider if it was worth it. Not necessarily b/c the woman is a fraud, but to at least consider either that possibility or that there's nothing more she can say beyond the initially meeting.

IMO that's a reasonable response, dwelling in the "Maybe". Creative Agnosticism is what R.A.Wilson called it...

I've always had an aversion to people who charge for psychic readings, etc. I'm quite willing to accept that my aversion is unreasonable - people make a living from their talents in all walks of life. However, there were, for me, associations which made the whole business a little distasteful. One of the more disturbing - again, for me at least - was the association of psychics with the world of entertainment: there seemed to be a kind of shared environment and also a sense of performance which only served to invite accusations of trickery. I think that these associations go back many years to the time of carnival fortune tellers, etc., but Geller did the field no favours with his blatant showmanship throughout his career.

So that is one of my many claims to being a skeptic, albeit with an open mind. I'm still interested to hear why some are so closed-off to any possibility of spiritual or psychic phenomena as to constantly repeat the "no evidence" mantra. Some, it must be conceded, merely close their eyes and shut their ears to any suggestion of evidence but others, such as those who contribute here, are exposed to such evidence daily yet still maintain that wall of certitude.

So that is one of my many claims to being a skeptic, albeit with an open mind. I'm still interested to hear why some are so closed-off to any possibility of spiritual or psychic phenomena as to constantly repeat the "no evidence" mantra. Some, it must be conceded, merely close their eyes and shut their ears to any suggestion of evidence but others, such as those who contribute here, are exposed to such evidence daily yet still maintain that wall of certitude.

I think there's a spectrum even in the skeptical movement, between people who question quality of evidence without making hard claims and people who are just fanatics for any paradigm that might close the door on the "supernatural".

I believe it was Johannes who posted the spectrum of proponent to skeptic on Skeptiko. I tried to find it but seems he might've also deleted his account rather than remain a member. Ah well it was pretty funny...

What is a true skeptic then?

I imagine a true skeptic would be someone that questions yet reserves all final judgements.

My first thought was that this is a diversion but actually your question is in line with mine at the start. I'm also interested to know what being a skeptic means to someone who calls himself a skeptic. And I don't mean dictionary definitions, I mean in terms of worldview and exclusions from that worldview for whatever reasons.

Your question can be answered through self examination of the reasons that you used to affirm and confirm your worldview. You see Karmarling your trouble comes down to this: when you don't understand your opponents position you don't fully understand your own.

I imagine a true skeptic would be someone that questions yet reserves all final judgements.

Your question can be answered through self examination of the reasons that you used to affirm and confirm your worldview. You see Karmarling your trouble comes down to this: when you don't understand your opponents position you don't fully understand your own.

Really? Yet another ad hom? You do realise the irony of accusing others here of lack of understanding (and I mean anyone, not just me)? Or the irony of advising self-examination?

I mean - do you have any concept of irony at all?

I suspended your ignore status for this thread because I was interested in whether you might offer a genuine, thoughtful response. I should have known better.

Really? Yet another ad hom? You do realise the irony of accusing others here of lack of understanding (and I mean anyone, not just me)? Or the irony of advising self-examination?

I mean - do you have any concept of irony at all?

I suspended your ignore status for this thread because I was interested in whether you might offer a genuine, thoughtful response. I should have known better.

I would try to reason with you why it's not an ad hominem, but your mind is made up.
 
I've listened to you over the years and many others over decades and what I've discovered is you and persons like you are unable to step into the shoes of people whom are identified as skeptics. That's not to say skeptics are any better at it. Now, before you raise objections consider this. If you did understand what how skeptics think then they'd not be inscrutable and you'd not have asked the question. Back to what I wrote the question that is implied in my previous post is not one of introspection. It is an appeal to this: can you argue from the skeptical perspective as well as you argue the psi sympathetic position?

You've suspended my ignore status for this thread. Golly gee, aren't you magnanimous. Now if you would place me back on your ignore list.

You do realise the irony of accusing others here of lack of understanding (and I mean anyone, not just me)? Or the irony of advising self-examination?

I mean - do you have any concept of irony at all?

I suspended your ignore status for this thread because I was interested in whether you might offer a genuine, thoughtful response. I should have known better.

I'm admittedly curious - do you wonder about skeptical thought processes because you think of them as some kind of gatekeepers, or out of simply curiosity?

Because the gatekeeper role, if it ever really existed, seems to be fast fading along with the movement's base. It's probably best to just to let the skeptical movement die out in peace.