Is there a clear division?

steddyeddy

I have been good friends with a guy who might be described as a skeptic in lot of issues but is more open minded in other issues. I wouldnt describe myself as a skeptic but would be more reluctant to believe in things that in things that go against the laws of physics. What I would give creedence to is the possibilty of new animals being discovered.

Between the two of us because of me giving creedence to the idea of say bigfoots possible reality there is friction between us. I suppose to get to the point I would ask two questions.

1.Is the clear line between skeptic and believer, say someone who believes in god but not mediums, ufos ect or me who believes in bigfoot but not the yeti ect?
2. Would you avoid forming friendships with people because they wouldnt fit into the category of skeptic?

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

1.Is the clear line between skeptic and believer, say someone who believes in god but not mediums, ufos ect or me who believes in bigfoot but not the yeti ect?

There's a bit of an internal debate among skeptics regarding the god issue. On the one hand, some say that it's a belief that's not based on evidence, and as such it's 'unskeptical' to believe in god/s. On the other hand, the god question is not a testable hypothesis, it is outside of this universe, and so it is not a scientific question. It's not like there is a load of data on one side of the issue, and someone is still refusing to believe it, like say the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine. If someone wants to believe in something untestable (like invisible pink unicorns or something), then there's not much you can say scientifically other than that there is no evidence. I'm not sure where I come down on the issue, from a skeptical point of view (I'm an atheist myself, but I don't know how religious issues fit into the debate)

I think that was kind of tangential. You were more asking about testable but unproven things, and otherwise skeptical people believing in them. I think alot of skeptics would be somewhat sympathetic to cryptozoology. There's nothing inherently outrageous about believing that there's yet undiscovered creatures, especially in the ocean. You lose me when you talk about bigfoot running around the United States, but in general discovering new animals is fairly plausible, and there's plenty of precedents. I don't think the same can be said of things like ESP, mediums, ghosts, exorcisms, etc. They don't make much sense, given what we know about the world. Similarly subjects like homeopathy and acupuncture don't make sense given what we know about chemistry and biology. UFOs are IMO closer to cryptozoology than to homeopathy. Most scientists would probably be of the opinion that there is life on other planets, possibly intelligent life. But there's just no good evidence that they have arrived here. The best that believers come up with is an unexplained light or something like that. Unexplained =/= supernatural or paranormal.

I guess there's a bit of a spectrum of beliefs, and depending on how deeply into them you are, you might or might not lose credibility because of them. A few prominent skeptics have expressed doubts about anthropogenic global warming, and were criticised for it, but are still respected in general.

steddyeddy wrote: »

2. Would you avoid forming friendships with people because they wouldnt fit into the category of skeptic?

If I did that then I wouldn't have any friends left! Many of my friends are very much true believers, and lap up every single paranormal claim. We've had debates before and it just ended in tears, so tbh I just won't be discussing it with those people anymore. They're not receptive to the points I make, and I'm seemingly closed-minded for not believing in the stuff too. So be it. It doesn't often come up, so there's no reason why I wouldn't be friends with them.

Having said that, I would like to know more people of a skeptical mindset, hence why I'm gonna try and get more involved in the skeptical community over here

Major Lovechild

Hmmmm!

GodlessM

Dave! wrote: »

On the one hand, some say that it's a belief that's not based on evidence, and as such it's 'unskeptical' to believe in god/s.

Well that's the thing isn't it, faith is pretty much defined as a believing in something without a need for proof.

To answer the OP, I wouldn't exclude a person because of different beliefs in anything; that's very much the starting point for half the wars going on in the world today after all if you think about it. But I don't think there ever needs to be a fine line. On the contrary, the one thing that really annoys me on this forum especially are the posters who insist that their own personal belief is and that there is no other opinion that matters or could be (won't say names, but I think some of the regulars know the kind). The thing people need to remember is everyone is entitled to their own belief and to tell them it IS wrong, as if it is fact, is plain being a d^*k.

MrStuffins

I find the whole "skeptic" term weird anyway.

To call me a Skeptic is almost like saying I have some sort of condition that makes me not believe in whatever it is they believe in. It's not something that's in me that makes me a "Skeptic", I am the one of the default position. I am "skeptical" about some things, but not "a Skeptic."

Dave!

MrStuffins wrote: »

I find the whole "skeptic" term weird anyway.

To call me a Skeptic is almost like saying I have some sort of condition that makes me not believe in whatever it is they believe in. It's not something that's in me that makes me a "Skeptic", I am the one of the default position. I am "skeptical" about some things, but not "a Skeptic."

It's just a label. Some people resist it because they equate the term with "cynic", or "closed-minded". If you approach claims with a skeptical, scientific mindset, and value objective evidence and logic highly, above personal experience and anecdote, then you are a skeptic. Whether or not you choose to use the term yourself is a personal decision. I probably would say something like "scientifically minded/inclined" myself, but there's a thriving skeptical community that uses the term, and I'm fine with it.

Biologic

steddyeddy wrote: »

a skeptic in lot of issues but is more open minded in other issues.

It might be slightly off topic but I don't fully understand this sentence. I hear it alot that people can either be skeptical OR open minded, hinting that skeptics are inherently closed minded. I'd argue the opposite. I'd consider myself a skeptic and very open minded. I think by definition a skeptic needs to be open minded to consider alternative explanations in situations where most people are happy to blindly accept an unlikely explanation (ie: the placebo effect applied to homeopathy). It's much more closed minded to ignore hard evidence and continue a belief in something which is essentially just make believe.
Anyone?

Dave!

Yeah it's a bit of a false dichotomy. I would think that everybody would be happy to identify themselves as skeptical, surely that should be the default?

Biologic

I totally agree. I think it would be the default if people were given an opportinity to make an uninfluenced decision. I think if someone is raised in a religious environment which also entertains alternative "medicine" they hasn't got much hope, but that same person raised on facts and a secular education is very unlikely to decide to believe in all that stuff.

Oryx

I wouldnt describe myself as either a believer or skeptic, as I tend to be both, depending on what Im looking at, and Im open to correction anyway. Very rarely do you find people firmly and deeply within either the 'skeptic' or 'believer' camps. People seem to have a mix of viewpoints depending on what theyve read, learned, or experienced. Your understanding of something is based on your knowledge of it. People can be skeptical of one thing and believe another, and those viewpoints can change.

Unless youre talking about closed minded people on either side, who decide their view and refuse to develop it further. Those are the only kind of people I cant deal with, the ones who have all the answers, of either belief, or science. Thankfully Ive met very few.

Skepticism is not a view in itself, its a questioning state of mind.

steddyeddy

There's a bit of an internal debate among skeptics regarding the god issue. On the one hand, some say that it's a belief that's not based on evidence, and as such it's 'unskeptical' to believe in god/s. On the other hand, the god question is not a testable hypothesis, it is outside of this universe, and so it is not a scientific question. It's not like there is a load of data on one side of the issue, and someone is still refusing to believe it, like say the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine. If someone wants to believe in something untestable (like invisible pink unicorns or something), then there's not much you can say scientifically other than that there is no evidence. I'm not sure where I come down on the issue, from a skeptical point of view (I'm an atheist myself, but I don't know how religious issues fit into the debate)

I think that was kind of tangential. You were more asking about testable but unproven things, and otherwise skeptical people believing in them. I think alot of skeptics would be somewhat sympathetic to cryptozoology. There's nothing inherently outrageous about believing that there's yet undiscovered creatures, especially in the ocean. You lose me when you talk about bigfoot running around the United States, but in general discovering new animals is fairly plausible, and there's plenty of precedents. I don't think the same can be said of things like ESP, mediums, ghosts, exorcisms, etc. They don't make much sense, given what we know about the world. Similarly subjects like homeopathy and acupuncture don't make sense given what we know about chemistry and biology. UFOs are IMO closer to cryptozoology than to homeopathy. Most scientists would probably be of the opinion that there is life on other planets, possibly intelligent life. But there's just no good evidence that they have arrived here. The best that believers come up with is an unexplained light or something like that. Unexplained =/= supernatural or paranormal.

I guess there's a bit of a spectrum of beliefs, and depending on how deeply into them you are, you might or might not lose credibility because of them. A few prominent skeptics have expressed doubts about anthropogenic global warming, and were criticised for it, but are still respected in general.

Thanks for clearing that up dave, I asked because dawkins describes himself as a skeptic. I agree with what you said and in fairness there isnt a lot of opposittion to cryptozoology from prominent skeptics , even richard dawkins states that cryptrozoology is on the probable side. I was unsure myself in regards to the issue of religeon. The term skeptic seems to be used within established scientific fields eg the latest hominid fossils in china are modern human and not homo heidelbergensis ect with as much fervour as a skeptic argueing against dowsing. I think zoology is abused eg calling a ghost animal (dont laugh) a legitimate field of enquiry with in zoology. I have met some great skeptics in america (not that theres none in ireland. theres great ones on this forum alone but I havent met them) and some of them think that the term skeptic is abused eg no new animals wil be discovered, or there is no life on mars but I think they are in the minority (and more prevelant in the states).

If I did that then I wouldn't have any friends left! Many of my friends are very much true believers, and lap up every single paranormal claim. We've had debates before and it just ended in tears, so tbh I just won't be discussing it with those people anymore. They're not receptive to the points I make, and I'm seemingly closed-minded for not believing in the stuff too. So be it. It doesn't often come up, so there's no reason why I wouldn't be friends with them.

Having said that, I would like to know more people of a skeptical mindset, hence why I'm gonna try and get more involved in the skeptical community over here

Well I think in fairnes my friend just likes a good arguement and so do I. Our debates also ended in tears and thats not even in relation to bigfoot ha ha.

steddyeddy

GodlessM wrote: »

Well that's the thing isn't it, faith is pretty much defined as a believing in something without a need for proof.

To answer the OP, I wouldn't exclude a person because of different beliefs in anything; that's very much the starting point for half the wars going on in the world today after all if you think about it. But I don't think there ever needs to be a fine line. On the contrary, the one thing that really annoys me on this forum especially are the posters who insist that their own personal belief is and that there is no other opinion that matters or could be (won't say names, but I think some of the regulars know the kind). The thing people need to remember is everyone is entitled to their own belief and to tell them it IS wrong, as if it is fact, is plain being a d^*k.

Good point belief is belief. I have never had a problem on this forum regarding anyone I would label a d1ck but I have had people on here dictate scietific procedure to me and belief while coming from a fraudulent scientific standpoint.

Major Lovechild

Oryx wrote: »

I wouldnt describe myself as either a believer or skeptic, as I tend to be both, depending on what Im looking at, and Im open to correction anyway. Very rarely do you find people firmly and deeply within either the 'skeptic' or 'believer' camps. People seem to have a mix of viewpoints depending on what theyve read, learned, or experienced. Your understanding of something is based on your knowledge of it. People can be skeptical of one thing and believe another, and those viewpoints can change.

Unless youre talking about closed minded people on either side, who decide their view and refuse to develop it further. Those are the only kind of people I cant deal with, the ones who have all the answers, of either belief, or science. Thankfully Ive met very few.

Skepticism is not a view in itself, its a questioning state of mind.

:eek:

Oryx

Major Lovechild wrote: »

:eek:

Youve been asked before not to post like this ML. If you have a point make it. Using words, in a coherent order, if possible.

steddyeddy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I find the whole "skeptic" term weird anyway.

To call me a Skeptic is almost like saying I have some sort of condition that makes me not believe in whatever it is they believe in. It's not something that's in me that makes me a "Skeptic", I am the one of the default position. I am "skeptical" about some things, but not "a Skeptic."

In fairness its not a good trait in the scientific process to consider yourself in the default posistion. I think the mistake people make is to consider science a debate rather than a inquiry.

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness its not a good trait in the scientific process to consider yourself in the default posistion. I think the mistake people make is to consider science a debate rather than a inquiry.

Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the 'default position' to assume that the null hypothesis is true (ie. the claim is false), and then as the evidence mounts, you adjust your position? And then if new evidence or data emerges suggesting a different interpretation, you adjust your position accordingly.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this. Isn't the 'default position' to assume that the null hypothesis is true (ie. the claim is false), and then as the evidence mounts, you adjust your position? And then if new evidence or data emerges suggesting a different interpretation, you adjust your position accordingly.

Well the default position in science for unsubstantiated claims is "we dont know yet". A true scientist is undecided and objective I think to claim to "know" something is fraudulent is real would be dangerous as any arguement I would put forward would be bent to the thesis of true or false. I could have a belief that say there is at least one more mammal to be found in the oceans. Now this is likely but untill I have proof I dont know for sure. Another person could say there are no large animals to be discovered in the ocean because we havent found any ect, which is often cited as a defaut position.

I know ghosts are real and I know ghosts are not real are equally incorrect. I would much rather put forward scietific explanation for why people are seeing ghosts, which there are plenty. That is much more scientific than I do or dont know.

Dave!

But it kind of goes without saying that we don't know these things, so you have to decide based on the balance of evidence whether they are likely to be true/exist or not.

It's like the whole atheist/agnostic/theist thing. Some people contend that agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take, as we cannot know. But I would say that a religious person does not "know", nor does an atheist. It's impossible, hence why 'agnostic atheist' and 'agnostic theist' are more correct terms. Given the lack of positive evidence for the existance of god/s, I'd have to say that 'agnostic atheist' is the reasonable position.

Similarly we obviously don't know if, say, unicorns exists or not, so you take a position based on the available evidence. If there's no positive evidence for their existance, then it's reasonably to say that the current weight of evidence does not support the assertion that they exist. That's not to say that investigation should cease, or that that's the final word on the matter, but that given our current available knowledge, it's not reasonable to contend that they exist.

Atheism is the lack of positive belief in a god, not the positive belief in a lack of god.

I think I just coined that sentence (though not the sentiment), I don't know if it makes sense or not

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

But it kind of goes without saying that we don't know these things, so you have to decide based on the balance of evidence whether they are likely to be true/exist or not.

It's like the whole atheist/agnostic/theist thing. Some people contend that agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take, as we cannot know. But I would say that a religious person does not "know", nor does an atheist. It's impossible, hence why 'agnostic atheist' and 'agnostic theist' are more correct terms. Given the lack of positive evidence for the existance of god/s, I'd have to say that 'agnostic atheist' is the reasonable position.

Similarly we obviously don't know if, say, unicorns exists or not, so you take a position based on the available evidence. If there's no positive evidence for their existance, then it's reasonably to say that the current weight of evidence does not support the assertion that they exist. That's not to say that investigation should cease, or that that's the final word on the matter, but that given our current available knowledge, it's not reasonable to contend that they exist.

Atheism is the lack of positive belief in a god, not the positive belief in a lack of god.

I think I just coined that sentence (though not the sentiment), I don't know if it makes sense or not

I like that I wish all skeptics shared your view though