The good things about using skeptical reasoning

[bioWheel]

LOL! Bear...

'Bear' is a good one. I had a friend tell me he liked 'American Idle' - not sure which is better. You might say I'm skepticle about both.

 

[abandonconflict]

The major problem with reliance on personal experience is that we know that our experiences are not a true reflection of reality. Our brains are extremely prone to being fooled. If experiences were proof, then magicians would be considered gods. A good skeptic understands this and must therefore dismiss personal experience unless it can be backed up by other means.

Our experiences are the only true reflection of reality. Unfortunately, we are only capable of experiencing a small sliver of the full range of reality, as Plato's cave allegory suggests. If I have been led from the cave, and I come back in, I can not prove to someone in there that what I have seen outside the cave is real, I have only experienced it.

According to the objectivist view which falls into Aristotelian philosophy, that only that which can be measured is real, I am lying, imagining or just crazy.

So are you viewing the world the way Aristotle would or the way Plato would? Or both? If both, are you doing it in a way so as mainly a skeptic or as a meek person, ready to devour new feelings, perspectives and experiences.

As I see it, you are viewing your life this way--both, to unite Plato and Aristotle is rare and wonderful, why ruin it by doubting yourself. It is experience that you are here for, you don't have to then doubt the rest of the experiences that are provable, just be willing to experience the full range of reality, for you may yet have that chance.

This skepticism, it is limiting. It is saying, you can't trust your own eyes and you can't consider what you experience to be knowledge. You are accepting limitations and science may concur with a subjective reality.

 

[kpmarine]

Our experiences are the only true reflection of reality. Unfortunately, we are only capable of experiencing a small sliver of the full range of reality, as Plato's cave allegory suggests. If I have been led from the cave, and I come back in, I can not prove to someone in there that what I have seen outside the cave is real, I have only experienced it.

According to the objectivist view which falls into Aristotelian philosophy, that only that which can be measured is real, I am lying, imagining or just crazy.

So are you viewing the world the way Aristotle would or the way Plato would? Or both? If both, are you doing it in a way so as mainly a skeptic or as a meek person, ready to devour new feelings, perspectives and experiences.

As I see it, you are viewing your life this way--both, to unite Plato and Aristotle is rare and wonderful, why ruin it by doubting yourself. It is experience that you are here for, you don't have to then doubt the rest of the experiences that are provable, just be willing to experience the full range of reality, for you may yet have that chance.

This skepticism, it is limiting. It is saying, you can't trust your own eyes and you can't consider what you experience to be knowledge. You are accepting limitations and science may concur with a subjective reality.

No, you can trust your own eyes, for the less than extraordinary bits. When you see a man fly overhead under his own power though... that warrants a second look. If you can recreate a situation that you saw for other people, then it's less likely to be imaginary.

"You are accepting limitations and science may concur with a subjective reality."

This one bothers me the most. You are asking me to trade a possibility of something proving it's worth in the future, for something that can be repeatedly be proven to multiple people. It seems like you'd have to have a pretty high opinion of yourself to just accept the validity of anything you see. The fact is, if you want accuracy, you have to sacrifice some flexibility.

 

[abandonconflict]

No, you can trust your own eyes, for the less than extraordinary bits. When you see a man fly overhead under his own power though... that warrants a second look. If you can recreate a situation that you saw for other people, then it's less likely to be imaginary.

"You are accepting limitations and science may concur with a subjective reality."

This one bothers me the most. You are asking me to trade a possibility of something proving it's worth in the future, for something that can be repeatedly be proven to multiple people. It seems like you'd have to have a pretty high opinion of yourself to just accept the validity of anything you see. The fact is, if you want accuracy, you have to sacrifice some flexibility.

I'm not asking you to trade anything, nor am I asking you to take empirical measure and testing out of scientific endeavor, I'm just asking you to believe your eyes.

 

[abandonconflict]

• I very definitely have a memory of my birth. I did not know it was that, of course ... until at the age of seven I relayed the whole thing to my mama, who made me tell the delivering doctor. They were both impressed. cn​
  
  

According to science, this is impossible. I believe you though.

Furthermore, to the skeptics here who wish to unite objectivism with methodological skepticism, I just want to remind you, Descartes was very much a subjectivist.

*edit* that is relevant because he was the very author of methodological skepticism.

 

[cannabineer]

• I very definitely have a memory of my birth. I did not know it was that, of course ... until at the age of seven I relayed the whole thing to my mama, who made me tell the delivering doctor. They were both impressed. cn​
  
  

According to science, this is impossible. I believe you though.

Furthermore, to the skeptics here who wish to unite objectivism with methodological skepticism, I just want to remind you, Descartes was very much a subjectivist.

I was unaware science had a way of studying these things. I am enough of a curmudgeon that i have trouble considering psychology to be a science. It's all statistics, of which I take the Clemensian view. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I was unaware science had a way of studying these things. I am enough of a curmudgeon that i have trouble considering psychology to be a science. It's all statistics, of which I take the Clemensian view. cn

Yeah they say the brain is not developed enough, there is a general scientific consensus about it, they also all agree, horse piss is yummy.

 

[abandonconflict]

I think these objectivists are too caught up in methodology. Like when I point at something for my dog and he stares at my finger with no regard for what I am pointing at and therefore doesn't notice the wonderful full moon he ought to be howling at.

Or like the faculty who suspended this kid, who saw a lady carrying books into a school.

Forget the rules, trust your fucking gut, at least sometimes it can be right, where measurable knowledge is just plain wrong.

 

[mindphuk]

Our experiences are the only true reflection of reality. Unfortunately, we are only capable of experiencing a small sliver of the full range of reality, as Plato's cave allegory suggests. If I have been led from the cave, and I come back in, I can not prove to someone in there that what I have seen outside the cave is real, I have only experienced it.

According to the objectivist view which falls into Aristotelian philosophy, that only that which can be measured is real, I am lying, imagining or just crazy.

So are you viewing the world the way Aristotle would or the way Plato would? Or both? If both, are you doing it in a way so as mainly a skeptic or as a meek person, ready to devour new feelings, perspectives and experiences.

As I see it, you are viewing your life this way--both, to unite Plato and Aristotle is rare and wonderful, why ruin it by doubting yourself. It is experience that you are here for, you don't have to then doubt the rest of the experiences that are provable, just be willing to experience the full range of reality, for you may yet have that chance.

This skepticism, it is limiting. It is saying, you can't trust your own eyes and you can't consider what you experience to be knowledge. You are accepting limitations and science may concur with a subjective reality.

I am not discussing a philosophical position, I am merely pointing out something that rational thought has demonstrated, that our personal, individual experiences are not actually a reflection of reality. Everything we experience is shaped by models that our brains created when we were growing up. Claiming that experience is the only true path to reality is demonstrably false and claiming otherwise is a conversation stopper. Our brains trick us all of the time. Our brains create things that aren't there, visually, auditory, even taste has its illusions.

Humans have existed for well over 100,000 years by most estimates. People have come up with all sorts of explanations for the reality behind what we experience. How come it is only in the last few centuries, since the scientific revolution, that we actually have answers that have actually been tested, and continue to be tested daily by the use of technology based on those explanations? Mankind has looked to the stars and wondered, only in the last 100 years did we progress enough to be able to write mathematical equations explaining exactly what a star is and how it is powered. This is no accident, this is clear progress and the same methodology that teaches us these things tells us that what we experience inside our brains cannot be trusted.

 

[mindphuk]

[video=youtube;mf5otGNbkuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc[/video]

 

[abandonconflict]

I am not discussing a philosophical position, I am merely pointing out something that rational thought has demonstrated, that our personal, individual experiences are not actually a reflection of reality. Everything we experience is shaped by models that our brains created when we were growing up. Claiming that experience is the only true path to reality is demonstrably false and claiming otherwise is a conversation stopper. Our brains trick us all of the time. Our brains create things that aren't there, visually, auditory, even taste has its illusions.

Humans have existed for well over 100,000 years by most estimates. People have come up with all sorts of explanations for the reality behind what we experience. How come it is only in the last few centuries, since the scientific revolution, that we actually have answers that have actually been tested, and continue to be tested daily by the use of technology based on those explanations? Mankind has looked to the stars and wondered, only in the last 100 years did we progress enough to be able to write mathematical equations explaining exactly what a star is and how it is powered. This is no accident, this is clear progress and the same methodology that teaches us these things tells us that what we experience inside our brains cannot be trusted.

The bolded statement is very closed minded. This is as much a philosophical position as anything else and indeed all of the advancements of science you describe are a result of a philosophical position called methodological naturalism. I do not for a second dispute that this has been the only path from archaic right brain superstition into modernity. However, can you name a single advancement that did not have origins in the imagination of the thinker? Could Darwin have made a discovery about evolution had he no imagination, no willingness to think outside the box? It was left brained logic and empirical testing that allowed him to form a theory, but it began as intuition and imagination.

That being said, we still have our right brains. Your argument hinges on objectivism, the idea that reality exists whether we observe it or not. I am philosophically contending otherwise. We simply haven't learned to use our brains, it is too early in the scheme, we aren't there yet.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Instead of disagreeing and leaving it at that, he will say you are absolutely wrong. Thats just how it goes with these people. OR he can stay true to his words and stop the conversation, dont get your hopes up though lol.

 

[Heisenberg]

"It is my contention that scientific skepticism is an intellectual discipline and a cognitive skill set more than anything else. It is also a philosophy, a value system, and an approach to knowledge – but these are hollow without the knowledge and skills to apply that philosophy." -Steven Novella

"Our brains evolved to value utility over accuracy" - Steven Novella

 

[abandonconflict]

[video=youtube;mf5otGNbkuc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5otGNbkuc[/video]

Posting this video is rather revealing about what you think of this debate. You seem convinced that you adhere to a way of thinking that is the only possible path to knowledge and that is simply incorrect. I think that adherence to anything is limiting. When I contend that experience is the only reality, I am not saying that I know because God told me, I am saying that reality is subjective. I am cognizant of the cold hard fact that humans are limited, so please, don't iterate it for me, I'm fully capable of grasping the concept you are conveying by reading it.

That being said, what I have in mind when I say reality is subjective, is the observer effect and the Heisenberg principal of uncertainty. I'm not contending that the advancements of methodological naturalism were any less valuable than they were. I'm not at all saying that anything supernatural is real either.

 

[kpmarine]

I'm not asking you to trade anything, nor am I asking you to take empirical measure and testing out of scientific endeavor, I'm just asking you to believe your eyes.

I didn't question whether or not I saw myself buttering a bagel this morning; I believe all the things that I see and know to be reasonable. Like I said, I only question what I see when it violates the status quo for such events (i.e. A man walks on water instead of sinking.). Apparently, I don't understand your question.

 

[abandonconflict]

I didn't question whether or not I saw myself buttering a bagel this morning; I believe all the things that I see and know to be reasonable. Like I said, I only question what I see when it violates the status quo for such events (i.e. A man walks on water instead of sinking.). Apparently, I don't understand your question.

I haven't seen that either. I can admire willingness to question one's self, that takes as much courage as questioning status quo.

 

[kpmarine]

The bolded statement is very closed minded. This is as much a philosophical position as anything else and indeed all of the advancements of science you describe are a result of a philosophical position called methodological naturalism. I do not for a second dispute that this has been the only path from archaic right brain superstition into modernity. However, can you name a single advancement that did not have origins in the imagination of the thinker? Could Darwin have made a discovery about evolution had he no imagination, no willingness to think outside the box? It was left brained logic and empirical testing that allowed him to form a theory, but it began as intuition and imagination.

That being said, we still have our right brains. Your argument hinges on objectivism, the idea that reality exists whether we observe it or not. I am philosophically contending otherwise. We simply haven't learned to use our brains, it is too early in the scheme, we aren't there yet.

You are aware that we don't just use one half of our brain for certain things, right? Darwin thought outside of the box, yes. He also gave reasons that were testable and reasonably able to be disproven, in the event they were false. There's a difference between blind beleif in everything you see, and rational belief in something that can be proven. You're blurring the line between a belief based on reason and a belief based on something only you are aware of, however unintentional it may be.

In response to your question, I am forced to ask you one: Can you name a single technological advancement that is not based on something science has effectively explained the function of? Sure, someone imagined a device you can play video games on; without ohm's law though, nobody would have a clue how to power it.

 

[abandonconflict]

You are aware that we don't just use one half of our brain for certain things, right? Darwin thought outside of the box, yes. He also gave reasons that were testable and reasonably able to be disproven, in the event they were false. There's a difference between blind beleif in everything you see, and rational belief in something that can be proven. You're blurring the line between a belief based on reason and a belief based on something only you are aware of, however unintentional it may be.

In response to your question, I am forced to ask you one: Can you name a single technological advancement that is not based on something science has effectively explained the function of? Sure, someone imagined a device you can play video games on; without ohm's law though, nobody would have a clue how to power it.

Not a single one, you're correct, the advancements made from now on will depend on advancements already made, even if the dominant philosophy of science (methodological naturalism) changes. I also wasn't suggesting we use half or any other fraction of the brain, I was using the bicameral brain model.

I'm not pushing creationism or demonic possession or Atlantis or anything like that. I'm just not going to get stuck in a way of thinking, no matter how far it has carried us. Many of the things we attribute to technology would have seemed supernatural decades ago. Looking at our political systems I can say with certainty that our ways of thinking will need to undergo much more advances and some of that will be driven by discovery. We may just find that we have the power to shape our reality.

*add by edit* The only part of the OP with which I disagree is the suggestion that one should not trust a personal experience. I have not had any supernatural experiences, but that doesn't mean I would give the priest hood of scientism discretion over how my experiences shape my world view.

 

[Heisenberg]

If experience is the true path to reality then why do we see colors differently from one another? Why do we have two blind spots in our vision that our brain is unaware of? Is reality happening in those blind spots? What about the range of sound we are unable to hear? Why does sauerkraut taste good to some people and bad to me? Is it experience that is subjective, or reality? Our experience of reality is a construct of the mind. Damage or alter the brain, and the experience changes.

All discoveries begin with imagination, instinct or intuition, but those which culminate in science are the ones that become pertinent to reality. This is why germ theory is important, useful knowledge, while fearing black cats crossing your path is junk knowledge.

 

[abandonconflict]

If experience is the true path to reality then why do we see colors differently from one another? Why do we have two blind spots in our vision that our brain is unaware of? Why does sauerkraut taste good to some people and bad to me? Is it experience that is subjective, or reality? Our experience of reality is a construct of the mind. Damage or alter the brain, and the experience changes.

All discoveries begin with imagination, instinct or intuition, but those which culminate in science are the ones that become pertinent to reality. This is why germ theory is important, useful knowledge, while fearing black cats crossing your path is junk knowledge.

If reality is not subjective, what is flavor? What is color? What is discovery? They ARE experiences.

I enjoy altering the mind for different experiences.

Experiences are all I have.

To the bolded: NO, I would not say they are the only ones pertinent to reality, that is the only point I disagree with. I would say they are the only ones that are pertinent to collective factual knowledge and technological advancement. All of my experiences are pertinent to my reality. I will continue to sharpen my senses and explicate my experiences myself, but I do admit, I have never experienced anything that could not be explained within the construct of methodological naturalism. If I do have such an experience, I will no longer adhere to said construct.