Alternative explanations

jonbravo

easychair wrote: »

Well, you are free to choose either being credulous, being sceptical, or being cynical. I can't decide for you, but for me the only intelligent position is to be sceptical, which is to say to only believe something when there is proper proof for it. But you'll have to decide for yourself.

It comes back to the question of, "can you believe in something" being credulous,sceptical,or being cynical..all 3..And thats a question i don't feel i have an answer for right now!?
The intelligent position is to hold back from labels.....of such kind, at least thats what i feel to be right.
everyone knows the story of the little boy that cry'd Wolf when they were young, there would be no story if this father put the fear of death into that boys head with a boot!
there is a time to be sceptical yes! and a time not to be...maybe this isn't the time nor a great example..but maybe you'll understand my stance,right now.
now i want to discuss alternative explanations...that may include theory i hear.:)

easychair

jonbravo wrote: »

It comes back to the question of, "can you believe in something" being credulous,sceptical,or being cynical..all 3..And thats a question i don't feel i have an answer for right now!?

I don't have to "believe" that I am typing on a keyboard, and I don't have to believe that when I type a letter on the keyboard it will appear on the screen. I know I am typing on a keyboard and I know the letters will appear on the screen.

Thats because there is enough proper proof for me to know it to be true, therefore i don't have to believe it.

We have to believe things when there is insufficient proof to know them to be true. So I might want, fro example, to believe homoeopathy works, but I know paracetamol does.

jonbravo

easychair wrote: »

I don't have to "believe" that I am typing on a keyboard, and I don't have to believe that when I type a letter on the keyboard it will appear on the screen. I know I am typing on a keyboard and I know the letters will appear on the screen.

Thats because there is enough proper proof for me to know it to be true, therefore i don't have to believe it.

We have to believe things when there is insufficient proof to know them to be true. So I might want, fro example, to believe homoeopathy works, but I know paracetamol does.

your getting their ... thats right, you don't have to believe in everyday objects we use as tools.

maccored

easychair wrote: »

A credulous person will believe something without proper proof.

A sceptic does not believe something without proper proof.

A Cynic will not believe something even when shown proper proof.

Which is the only intelligent position to take?

I'd beg to differ on that. A cynic WILL believe something when shown the proof, but not before hand. A sceptic may believe something to be a load of balls, but they'll still reserve some judgement. to be sceptical doesnt mean you dont believe something, it means one is highly doubtful about something .... big difference. A cynic is a faultfinder whereas a sceptic is a doubter.

leddpipe

pedantic semantics :rolleyes:

Oryx

Ok, this was meant to be about alternative explanations but is now just a debate on the definition of cynic and skeptic which has already been done here ad nauseum. Closed.