'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

...snip...
To believe that only two such possibilities exist is close-minded. Someone could be mistaken without being delusional. They could have tested themselves, but their own tests were flawed in some way. Someone could apply without believing in their powers but rather in an attempt to attain help in testing. That doesn't make them a fraud if they are upfront about their reasons for applying. There is also the possibility that someone might possess the powers claimed and still fail the test. Even Babe Ruth didn't hit a home run every time he was up at bat.


...snip...

Don’t understand your objection to the use of “deluded” since all “deluded” means is to firmly believe in something that is untrue. Whether you’ve come to believe that something false is true (I’ll not be drawn into a “semantic argument” about “true” ) by careful testing or sloppy testing makes no difference to whether you are deluded or not. If you believe in something that is untrue then you are deluded. So if someone can’t do something they think they can do they are deluded and therefore any one applying for the challenge who hasn’t been able to do what they said they could do was either deluded or made a fraudulent claim.

Is your objection because the word is quite often used as an insult?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

quote:
There are some myths about science and scientists that need to be dispelled. Science gets mistaken as a body of knowledge for its method. Scientists are regarded as having superhuman abilities of rationality inside objectivity. Many studies in the psychology of science, however, indicate that *SOME* scientists are at least as dogmatic and authoritarian, at least as foolish and illogical as everybody else, including when they do science. In one study on falsifiability, an experiment was described, an hypothesis was given to the participants, the results were stated, and the test was to see whether the participants would say, "This falsifies the hypothesis". The results indicated denial, since most of the scientists refused to falsify their hypotheses, sticking with them despite a lack of evidence! Strangely, clergymen were much more frequent in recognizing that the hypotheses were false.


Marcello Truzzi
http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Precisely. So much for the open mindedness of scientists

I like how you pick a single statement (an incorrect one to boot) from a man that you probably don't agree with very much and hold it out to The Odd Emperor like it was carved by the finger of god while he dictated from a burning bush.

I would submit to you that some scientists do fit this description, many do not. I would further submit that being dogmatic and closed minded is *not* scientific. Those falling under this description are not truly engaged in science at all. Just like an aircraft pilot operating a car is not *piloting,* but he’s still a pilot.

Using the words of Marcello Truzzi this way (by the way) *is itself* dogmatic and closed minded.

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

Don’t understand your objection to the use of “deluded” since all “deluded” means is to firmly believe in something that is untrue. Whether you’ve come to believe that something false is true (I’ll not be drawn into a “semantic argument” about “true” ) by careful testing or sloppy testing makes no difference to whether you are deluded or not. If you believe in something that is untrue then you are deluded. So if someone can’t do something they think they can do they are deluded and therefore any one applying for the challenge who hasn’t been able to do what they said they could do was either deluded or made a fraudulent claim.

Is your objection because the word is quite often used as an insult?

The words deluded and delusional are not exactly the same. One can be deluded (i.e. - believing something that is not true) without being delusional. Delusional implies a mental instability that simply being deluded does not.

Beth

 

[DrWoo]

Huh?

In what way is an accurate description of past events "prejudiced"?

Because it maintains the belief that the future is bound to be determined by a small number of applicants of an already controversial challenge. Misa's statement is proof of closed mindedness and prejudice. It pre-judges future applications.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Because it maintains the belief that the future is bound to be determined by a small number of applicants of an already controversial challenge. Misa's statement is proof of closed mindedness and prejudice. It pre-judges future applications.

No it isn't, no it isn't and no it doesn't.
Three wrongs don't make a right, even in binary.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

The words deluded and delusional are not exactly the same. One can be deluded (i.e. - believing something that is not true) without being delusional. Delusional implies a mental instability that simply being deluded does not.

Beth

I have to disagree since that is just one of the ways delusion can be used. Whilst delusion is often used in the sense of someone having a psychological instability that doesn’t mean someone can’t also use it to simply mean a false belief (since “delusion” is a synonym for “false belief”).

 

[Beth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

I have to disagree since that is just one of the ways delusion can be used. Whilst delusion is often used in the sense of someone having a psychological instability that doesn’t mean someone can’t also use it to simply mean a false belief (since “delusion” is a synonym for “false belief”).

Allright, you may disagree. However I think that the usage of "delusional" in the original quote was that of implying psychological instability of claimants, not that they merely hold a false belief.

Further, it's only one of 3 examples I gave of situations wherein a person might be something other than delusional or fraudulent and still be an applicant to the challenge. Thus even if your interpretation is correct, it does not negate the point I was making - that people do exist who are claiming the title of skeptic but are actually closed-minded, not skeptical.

Beth

 

[turtle]

Let's just stick with your answer then. You chose the mirage over the "ghost" option. You chose the SCIENTIFIC explanation over the PARANORMAL explanation.......wow, amazing. That's pretty inconsistent considering you prefer to accept a paranormal explanation for premonitions over a scientific explanation. The mirage answer was of course the right answer. Whether you like deserts or not is irrelevant.

No it's not. I hate the sand, and hot sun. Yeck. In my little world, it's quite relevant.

Both "disappearing" pools of water and "premonitions" have a scientific explanation, yet you only accept a scientific expalnation for one. Link for scientific explanation of deja-vu/premonitions:
http://niazi.com/Neurons/djv.htm
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000F0615-85C1-1CD9-B4A8809EC588EEDF

Great, except we're talking about ghosts, not premonitions, not deja-vu.

How is it YOUR belief system allows for one but not the other? In fact, the last time we discussed the cause for premonitions, you dismissed the scientific view without really understanding what it was. Yes I can provide the link to that thread if needed.

If you have the need to persist in believing I don't "really understand what it was" nothing I can do about it.

Whether you don't see many "ghosts of pools of water" in the desert is irrelevant as well, it's the believer's belief system that would allow for "ghosts" anywhere, and a ghost for anything. Why do reports of "ghost" sightings have a clothed ghost? Like a pool of water, clothes are inanimate, no soul, yet they appear along with the ghost.
Even trains can have a ghost according to some belief systems:
http://ncghosts.t35.com/train.htm

Sure. And? Re read my posts. Some of what we call "ghosts" could possibly be some sort of imprint, which would explain "ghost trains." Some theories suggest the energy that is the ghost manifests itself that way to us. Who knows?

Yes, I know, you don't want to play repeat theatre about your episodes of "premonitions". But I will say this, perhaps as a gesture good faith, can you post your previous writings for those premonitions you already discussed. You could scan them (only the relevant parts, of course) and then post them on the forum. I'm sure someone would help you out with the technical details, I know I could, if necessary.

Dude, do you want to discuss ghosts, premonitions, trains, green cheese, pools of water, or deja-vu? Which is it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Until you can provide scientific evidence of ghosts, it's really nothing worth talking about.

 

[Chocolate Chip]

No it's not. I hate the sand, and hot sun. Yeck. In my little world, it's quite relevant.

Irrelevant, it's a hypothetical setting, turtle

Great, except we're talking about ghosts, not premonitions, not deja-vu.

I was inquiring as to your belief system and why it was inconsistent concerning paranormal and scientific explanations to events. Has nothing to do with green cheese, ghosts, psi, or any of that really. It has to do with YOUR belief system.

Sure. And? Re read my posts. Some of what we call "ghosts" could possibly be some sort of imprint, which would explain "ghost trains." Some theories suggest the energy that is the ghost manifests itself that way to us. Who knows?

What do you think it is? Could these "Ghost Trains" be actual ghosts, or unexplained "imprints". Or perhaps hallucinations, or sounds of some other train mispercieved by the listener?

Dude, do you want to discuss ghosts, premonitions, trains, green cheese, pools of water, or deja-vu? Which is it?

Dudette, I think it would be interesting to discuss the inconsistencies in your belief system, that's what I've been trying to do, you seem to be missing my point? Why do you have a paranormal explanation for some events such as ghosts, psi, but then a scientific explanation for something like a mirage? A mirage is not graspable, but is a scientific fact. A "ghost" is not graspable, but you rule out a scientific explanation.