Nixiam
Bluelighter
I'd say so, climate change is quite founded, but there is speculation. Requires more critical thinking than supernatural really. And is more relevant.
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Something for the Sceptics
- Thread starter Ninae
- Start date
Vagina Lover
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,513
A sceptic is a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions and arguments, which seems to be a more fitting term, in my opinion, for an anthropogenic climate change denier, as there is sufficient evidence for a valid, cogent, and sound argument of anthropogenic climate change occurring through scientific reasoning.
Since there is no sufficient evidence for the "supernatural", it seems to be more fitting that the term "critical thinker" would be used for one who denies the existence of the supernatural through metaphysical reasoning.
Since there is no sufficient evidence for the "supernatural", it seems to be more fitting that the term "critical thinker" would be used for one who denies the existence of the supernatural through metaphysical reasoning.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Saying there is no sufficient evidence is true and requires hardly a sense of critical thinking. That in and of itself I think defeats supernatural arguments, which doesn't take very much critical thinking, and is often an argument made by skeptics.
Then again, I guess you can make critical or skeptical arguments for the same subject, meaning I wouldn't consider skepticism and critical analysis mutually exclusive.
Then again, I guess you can make critical or skeptical arguments for the same subject, meaning I wouldn't consider skepticism and critical analysis mutually exclusive.
Vagina Lover
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,513
Saying something is true, because someone tells you it is so, is different to analysing the evidence yourself and forming a view.
Analysing religion and associated proposed/supposed supernatural phenomena requires critical thinking, as there are so many different views to take. In my opinion, the most reasonable spiritual view is agnosticism. This takes into account all material phenomena, in order to make a judgment that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God based on the physical, observable world. There is an element of metaphysical reasoning inherent in this judgment. This leaves open the possibility that new information or evidence may arise in the future, which could allow one to change views, which is one of the main precepts of critical thinking.
On the other hand, forming a view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, which uses the abundance of available evidence to form a judgment based on scientific reasoning, is objective and can take the form of a deductive argument, using the elements of soundness, cogency, and validity, as there is so much objective evidence supporting this argument. If one were to question, doubt, or outright ignore this evidence, then they could be regarded as a sceptic, as opposed to a critical thinker who would most likely form the view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, while still remaining open to new evidence as it arises. There are, of course, inductive arguments which have been used to form the bulk of the scientific reasoning behind the argument that anthropogenic climate change is, in fact, occurring. Once again a critical thinker, in this case, would most likely support or argue that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, rather than being a sceptic and concluding that it is not occurring.
I would agree that scepticism could be rightly seen as an element of critical thinking, but critical thinking is much broader and encompasses objective analysis in order to form a judgment or opinion. This often can't be done when one ignores evidence in order to form a sceptical view. It is often the case that a critical thinker may begin with a sceptical view, but in order to be thinking critically, in the most widely accepted sense, one would need to remain open to new evidence. The evidence for supernatural phenomena most often requires metaphysical reasoning, which gives rise to thinking critically in an abstract sense.
Analysing religion and associated proposed/supposed supernatural phenomena requires critical thinking, as there are so many different views to take. In my opinion, the most reasonable spiritual view is agnosticism. This takes into account all material phenomena, in order to make a judgment that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of God based on the physical, observable world. There is an element of metaphysical reasoning inherent in this judgment. This leaves open the possibility that new information or evidence may arise in the future, which could allow one to change views, which is one of the main precepts of critical thinking.
On the other hand, forming a view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, which uses the abundance of available evidence to form a judgment based on scientific reasoning, is objective and can take the form of a deductive argument, using the elements of soundness, cogency, and validity, as there is so much objective evidence supporting this argument. If one were to question, doubt, or outright ignore this evidence, then they could be regarded as a sceptic, as opposed to a critical thinker who would most likely form the view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, while still remaining open to new evidence as it arises. There are, of course, inductive arguments which have been used to form the bulk of the scientific reasoning behind the argument that anthropogenic climate change is, in fact, occurring. Once again a critical thinker, in this case, would most likely support or argue that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, rather than being a sceptic and concluding that it is not occurring.
I would agree that scepticism could be rightly seen as an element of critical thinking, but critical thinking is much broader and encompasses objective analysis in order to form a judgment or opinion. This often can't be done when one ignores evidence in order to form a sceptical view. It is often the case that a critical thinker may begin with a sceptical view, but in order to be thinking critically, in the most widely accepted sense, one would need to remain open to new evidence. The evidence for supernatural phenomena most often requires metaphysical reasoning, which gives rise to thinking critically in an abstract sense.
No, it doesn't, not at all. That just shows you're badly informed. It's statements like that that give scepticism a bad name to people with actual spiritual experience.
There's no "evidence" like you talk of, anyway. It's not a field for tangible, material evidence. There is experimental evidence (and intellectual, when something makes sense to you).
But in reality there has been done more than enough research to prove supernatural phenomena exist by now, I don't think that really can be argued.
Last edited:
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
For it to be proven there needs to be double blind experiments with reproducible data.
Come back to me once you have that
Come back to me once you have that
Well, this got off in the wrong direction. I wasn't trying to say there's anything wrong with either scepticism or critical thinking, that didn't even occur to me.
My line of reasoning was more like "How can people belive there are no spiritual principles at work, or occult practices going on, when you really look at human history and the many consistent practices and beliefs at different parts of the world at different times?"
To me that's indicative of something or forms a pattern, but I guess people are more interested in defending their side. Anyway, the comments were really meant for someone who would have read it, or you don't have the context and is just making an automatic reaction.
My line of reasoning was more like "How can people belive there are no spiritual principles at work, or occult practices going on, when you really look at human history and the many consistent practices and beliefs at different parts of the world at different times?"
To me that's indicative of something or forms a pattern, but I guess people are more interested in defending their side. Anyway, the comments were really meant for someone who would have read it, or you don't have the context and is just making an automatic reaction.
Foreigner
Bluelighter
Most pseudo-skeptics accuse you of having got your ideas from somewhere else. It never occurs to them that personal, first-hand experience can play a role, and among those who consider it, they'll just accuse you of having an active imagination. The whole point is to corral you to a conclusion that they have no proof for either, though their faith in materialism leads them to believe they're right without having to prove it.
It's condescending to claim that nobody uses deductive reasoning when analyzing phenomena in their lives. Likewise, it's equally condescending to suppose that all phenomena can be explained, and that this explaining should be forthcoming in line with particular standards. That leaves no room for the honest truth of mystery, or the imagination.
And anyway, it's difficult to provide proof along the full spectrum of experiences. Someone who has no psychic faculties isn't going to be able to observe the proof of what the psychic sees regularly. It's like a blind person claiming that sight isn't real to someone who sees because they themselves have never seen. It's why most genuine psychics would never take a Randi test, because the test is rigged to favour skepticism; it makes no attempt to work with psychics to design a test based on the experience of their faculties, faculties which are outside of Randi's range.
Standards of proof are therefore determined based on a person's faculties, talents and proclivities. Beyond that, the systematization of concepts refers to the the self-authorization of philosophy and all its branches, which presupposes a higher authority only to grant that very authority to itself. Without this presupposition, no philosopher would be capable of claiming that his/her concepts are better than others, they are more correct, more sufficient. As rationality and science have their origins in philosophy, they are not immune to this.
In other words, there is always going to be a basic premise taken on faith, in order to explain the rest. If we accept the a priori primacy of a system, then the rest is explainable. People who argue within philosophy, rather than share, are doing so because they believe their self-referent authority is greater than someone else's, that somehow theirs is the more axiomatic.
What these (most) people don't realize is that their axioms are arrived at by the same methods as anyone else's. There's nothing universally objective about it.
It's condescending to claim that nobody uses deductive reasoning when analyzing phenomena in their lives. Likewise, it's equally condescending to suppose that all phenomena can be explained, and that this explaining should be forthcoming in line with particular standards. That leaves no room for the honest truth of mystery, or the imagination.
And anyway, it's difficult to provide proof along the full spectrum of experiences. Someone who has no psychic faculties isn't going to be able to observe the proof of what the psychic sees regularly. It's like a blind person claiming that sight isn't real to someone who sees because they themselves have never seen. It's why most genuine psychics would never take a Randi test, because the test is rigged to favour skepticism; it makes no attempt to work with psychics to design a test based on the experience of their faculties, faculties which are outside of Randi's range.
Standards of proof are therefore determined based on a person's faculties, talents and proclivities. Beyond that, the systematization of concepts refers to the the self-authorization of philosophy and all its branches, which presupposes a higher authority only to grant that very authority to itself. Without this presupposition, no philosopher would be capable of claiming that his/her concepts are better than others, they are more correct, more sufficient. As rationality and science have their origins in philosophy, they are not immune to this.
In other words, there is always going to be a basic premise taken on faith, in order to explain the rest. If we accept the a priori primacy of a system, then the rest is explainable. People who argue within philosophy, rather than share, are doing so because they believe their self-referent authority is greater than someone else's, that somehow theirs is the more axiomatic.
What these (most) people don't realize is that their axioms are arrived at by the same methods as anyone else's. There's nothing universally objective about it.
That hits it right on the nail. But you know it will make no difference to certain people, and they'll just keep recycling the same, maybe forever.
It makes me sad seeing people having so little regard for the truth. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone or making them agree with me. Somehow that's what everyone assume, as that is all they themselves care about.
What bothers me is people living in spiritual ignorance, in ignorance of the truth in general, and being happy that way. Not even bothering to do any real research, which in this subject takes years and years, and is not just about taking a position based on some superficial information.
It makes me sad seeing people having so little regard for the truth. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone or making them agree with me. Somehow that's what everyone assume, as that is all they themselves care about.
What bothers me is people living in spiritual ignorance, in ignorance of the truth in general, and being happy that way. Not even bothering to do any real research, which in this subject takes years and years, and is not just about taking a position based on some superficial information.
Vagina Lover
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,513
"Pseudo-skeptic" - that's an interesting term, I like it! 
But I prefer using "pseudo-profound bullshit", though this is a term which is used for the misinformation that is spouted by those that depend on idealist conceptualisation to rationalise a life which lacks enough substance to keep them fulfilled
But I prefer using "pseudo-profound bullshit", though this is a term which is used for the misinformation that is spouted by those that depend on idealist conceptualisation to rationalise a life which lacks enough substance to keep them fulfilled
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
Why would you be bothered if someone else is happy?
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Someone may not believe supernatural things are at work due to the essence of the pseudoscience being largley founded on sticks rather than concrete.
However I am incredibly open to the idea of superntatural activity.
I think the negative meaning of the word "Skeptic" is someone who tries to spoil any spiritual enlightenment of people (even if he doesn't realise it). Although I also think this is a form of crime, that will come back to them, and that's why it upsets me so much. Because it's a lose/lose on both sides.
No one
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 49
Personally, I do not believe in the "supernatural" per se, I don't think anything is beyond the powers of nature. (within reason of couse, obviously, there are no super heroes on this planet) Just because humans don't understand something, or quantify it, doesn't make it magic.
So, if ghosts and like actually exist, it is perfectly within the realms of nature.
So, if ghosts and like actually exist, it is perfectly within the realms of nature.
Yes, but it depends what you would qualify as the realms of nature. If you look you can find the idea of an etheric plane, astral plane, casual plane, buddhic plane, atmic plane, etc. I think it's more that the science of these parts of reality isn't normally shown to us
Nixiam
Bluelighter
All that has been created naturally.