News Skeptic (a Personal Debate With Yourself)

[LuckyDuck]

How far does that word go? How far down the rabbit hole does one go before seeing the bottom? Biases do get in the way. How far down do you go from being popular to unpopular in your skepticism? Yes, you questioned A, B and C, but if you go further down into things, can you really reach Z? Or do you have to back off, for the sake of keeping social?

Is there such thing as a professional skeptic? I don't mean someone who debates professionally. I don't even mean it as a payed job. I mean in the sense of being skeptical of everything. Questioning, doing the research, getting to the core of the matter and covering all grounds? What a commodity that would be.

It's all in how we interpret. What did the author mean when they wrote "the drapes are blue"? If only we could ask the author what they meant. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't. Interpretation varies, assuming becomes the go-to model in trying to figure out what they meant.

How far down are you willing to go?

LD

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Questioning, doing the research, getting to the core of the matter and covering all grounds? What a commodity that would be.

Not sure what the last question means, or even the whole post but this comment, i question EVERYTHING! I research everything. I teach myself everything.

I think being a skeptic is good, it means you dont just blindly believe whats in front of you and do the research yourself. In any topic, i find that a good thing! Researching until you satisfy your own mind to an answer!

Not sure if thats on topic and i appogize if its not.

 

[Justmehere]

Yes, you questioned A, B and C, but if you go further down into things, can you really reach Z?

If B and C were questioned and found to not be valid, perhaps one would arrive not at Z... but 42.

 

[Stickler]

...Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, usually?

I listened to someone claim that one of these subs, he did not specify, was sunk on purpose:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)

...So that we ( the United States ) could have an undersea launching platform for nuclear missiles...

My thoughts:

• We have and have had nuclear missiles in Europe. We don't have any reason to want missiles on the floor of the Atlantic. Europe is way closer to the presumed target of the 1960's, the USSR.
• Is ANY of the missile system likely to work at all after marinating in saltwater for a few years? I'm inclined to doubt that.
• HOW would it be triggered from land? The subs are deep.
• If we wanted an undersea platform for launching missiles...we could have sneaked around and secretly made that happen.We would be more likely to get something effective for that if we created it purpose made.
• We could certainly do all that without killing a crew of highly trained navy crew, or destroying a very valuable submarine.

...Upon application of simple logic, the " we sunk them on purpose ! " fails pretty badly. You'd have to show me documents proving the claim.

Alex Jones believes in a Grand Conspiracy...and what he does is to take information, sometimes very interesting information...and shoehorn that into his Grand Conspiracy.

...One can explain the human social world pretty well by positing lots of interlocking, competing and/or semi-co-operating smaller conspiracies. You don't need a grand one.
If there is a grand one, it does not appear to really be working.

I would be remiss if I did not note...find multiple, legit sources before you believe something probably did occur. ...there is a lot of bullcrap on the Internet.

 

[Kintsugi]

I think philosophers are professional skeptics. In the example you gave, a philosopher might challenge themselves to consider the meaning and substance of blue drapes. A literary critic could go many ways. Some would want to know what the author meant. New Critics would not, because New Critics don't believe that the author and her experiences should enter the dialogue about her work. But a New Critic might wonder what the blue drapes signify in the overall theme of the work based on other blue occurences within the text or other drapes, for that matter.

Anyway, this thread seems really strange to me. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Blue drapes don't seem to have anything to do with skepticism the way that the belief in mediums, psychics, or religion has to do with skepticism?

 

[lostforgottensoul]

Blue drapes don't seem to have anything to do with skepticism the way that the belief in mediums, psychics, or religion has to do with skepticism?

Thats what i was thinking. I was confused :tdown:

 

[LuckyDuck]

Blue drapes don't seem to have anything to do with skepticism the way that the belief in mediums, psychics, or religion has to do with skepticism?

Sometimes what someone says is misinterpreted. In order to understand what the person is saying, one must either ask the source to know what they were saying or know when to say "I don't know what they meant" because of the trap of interpretation. If you can't 100% back things up, it is open to skepticism. Even if it doesn't feel good.

To misinterpret someone is to misrepresent them and their thoughts.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iTRZNhZGJkE/TdjpS-44TrI/AAAAAAAAAJg/LS2aJFqLCL0/s1600/english.jpg

 

[Kintsugi]

All language is open to interpretation. It is a medium of ambiguities--rarely if ever one of precision. That's the fun of language and the pitfall of communication.

 

[EveHarrington]

I am not sure exactly what you are looking for in a response, so I will just talk about my personal experience.

I know someone who would probably call herself a professional skeptic. She very much prides herself in being skeptical of well, almost everything.

I personally believe that there is such a thing as healthy skepticism. Too little skepticism and one blindly follows/believes anything placed in front of them. Too much skepticism could lead to trusting nothing and no one.

Back to the professional skeptic I know. I believe that her skepticism is indeed linked to how bitter she is. She questions everything and won't believe in anything without proof. I think that a healthy amount of faith (without absolute proof) in something, anything can be good for you.

And for me personally, I equate skepticism with an inability to trust (without 3.5 million different points of proof). When I'm skeptical of everything I am in a non-trusting state of mind. When I am less skeptical, I am able to put trust into things.

This is just my take based on personal dealings with a very skeptical person. Again, I believe it's all about balance.

 

[Friday]

Is there such thing as a professional skeptic? I don't mean someone who debates professionally. I don't even mean it as a payed job. I mean in the sense of being skeptical of everything. Questioning, doing the research, getting to the core of the matter and covering all grounds? What a commodity that would be.

Skeptical by avocation?

Yep... That's pretty much known as science ;)

Moderation with all things, neh? IMO-IME

Pathology - Will believe anything
Gullible
Naïveté
Faith(ful)
-------------------- Trust
Skeptical
Cynical
Jaded
Pathology - Will believe nothing

 

[LuckyDuck]

@EveHarrington Yes, lots of yes's on what you wrote.

The trust part is difficult, especially with new things. But trust can equally be taken away without skepticism. Take me, for example. I was raised in a cult that labelled anyone who wasn't part of the cult in league with Satan. Anyone who I got to know through school (I left the cult in my 20's), no matter how good their intentions were, was out to get me.

My first true skeptical thought that I can remember was that of questioning the core beliefs of the cult. It gave me slowly yet surely trust back in humanity, in people, in the world.

3.5 million different points to proof is not skepticism. It's close-mindedness. You don't want your brain to fall out, and that can happen if you don't allow anything in because the ears become big slides for it to just slither through.

LD

 

[LuckyDuck]

Skeptical by avocation?

Yep... That's pretty much known as science ;)

Moderation with all things,...

Science is more definitive than restrictive. Knowing the self can be fooled, but also being skeptical of claims and through rigorous testing being able to ascertain if a hypothesis can be turned into theory is more akin to machine. ;)