# In regards to radical skepticism **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 11, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296 "2017-11-11T07:11:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/181 "2017-11-30T10:57:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’ve just took a second look at your most recent link, and having skimmed about a third of the way through the paper, it very much seems that Pyrrhonic skepticism is the state of being stoned out of one’s mind. Literally. You tool around doing things entirely based on the whims of your subconscious mind (which is apparently presumed to be able to handle the complexities and mundanities of modern life) while your consciousness spends the whole time literally failing to contemplate its navel because that would require too much troublesome synaptic activity. > > Now, I’m not one to underestimate the capability of the subconsciousness mind; more often than is perhaps wise I let my mind wander while driving a familiar route and trust everything to carry on in the absence of my attention. As best I can tell this is precisely the mechanism the Pyrrhonic skeptic expects to use to make sure that they don’t wander into traffic (give or take that I’m thinking about other things, rather than simply drooling). However I’m skeptical that this would work in practice as a constant mental state - even putting aside the times I’ve ended up at one destination when I wanted to go to another, my brain always gets jerked back to awareness when a sufficiently unexpected situation arises. It’s pretty clear that the subconsciousness doesn’t trust itself to make the kind of decisions that the Pyrrhonic skeptic intends it to. > > But let’s pretend for a moment it could - that you could literally tell your subconscious “I’d like to check out now” and your awareness of your senses would turn off and you’d become an uninformed and noncontributing passenger inside your head - forever. That sounds, well, pretty boring. But hey, I’ve got an active fantasy life, within the universe of the fiction books I write; I could probably handle several hours of solitary confinement sensory deprivation before I went batshit insane. And maybe being batshit insane would be somehow comforting for a while, or would eventually die down to a dull mindless white noise, as my mind quietly waited for the rest of my body to get around to dying. Presuming the process isn’t short-circuited by my overworked subconscious accidentally stepping in front of a bus or something. > > Putting aside how unappealing that sounds, it raises another, more ethical point. By shoving off the burdens of surviving daily life onto your subconscious, you are perforce forcing the subconscious to develop sufficient awareness to interact with the modern world. It will have to understand money, fitness, social interactions, going to a job and earning money, paying bills, getting to bed on time, dating rituals and safe sex practices. In order to operate in the modern world it will have to demonstrate the behaviors of a conscious individual - and there’s no appreciable difference between “functionally conscious” and “conscious”. So your subconscious mind will have to become another conscious mind. > > And if daily life is so horrific that you need to escape it by fleeing into your own head, how could you morally justify creating another conscious mind and forcing it to life life in your stead? That sounds incredibly selfish - and definitively demonstrates that Pyrrhonic skepticism quite literally cannot be a solution for everyone. For every person who adopts Pyrrhonic skepticism literally creates a new person who hasn’t! > > Unless you’re assuming you’ll walk in front of a bus and die within the first hour (honestly, a seriously credible outcome). In that case there’s no moral quandary at all - give or take the usual ones about messy suicides, anyway. > > If they’re saying that “reason is flawed” flows from “senses are flawed”, then they’re incorrect. Reason, that is to say the actual logic of reasoning, is a self-consistent system that isn’t dependent on anything at all, literally. Trust me on this; I’ve studied formal symbolic logic, and it cares literally not at all about which universe sensed or imagined it’s operating on. > > Err, they’re not charging money for their therapy, are they? 'All therapy is false! Except ours! You need _our_ therapy and no other therapy will do! Call now!" > > Not sure what you’re talking about with “nonevident”, but the word means “obviously true”. For example there are some truths we hold to be self-evident - that A implies Not Not A. Dude. You really think this block o’ text has an effect? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/182 "2017-11-30T19:08:37Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Dude. You really think this block o’ text has an effect? I write posts on the internet for my own amusement - I actually enjoyed organizing my thoughts and laying them out this way. I especially enjoyed the realization that the philosophical position that people should flee from their own senses is untenable (or at least extremely selfish) because it’s impossible for a person to do so without creating another conscious entity that doesn’t - so it’s impossible for all people to have done it. I like things that are absurd yet coherent. If **Machinaforce** reads my post and states he gained something from it, then great! I like inceptioning ideas into people, it’s fun. If they instead rebut with a coherent counterargument, then neat! I like counterarguments. If he dismisses or ignores my post, then no big deal. If couldn’t have survived on the internet this long if I had to change minds and hearts with every post. So as large and verbose as my post is, I feel no regret no matter what response it gets (if any). The writing of it was its own reward. (Also, if your problem with the post is specifically that it’s a “block o’ text” with too many words for your taste, that would make your username rather ironic.) ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/183 "2017-11-30T22:34:35Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Here is the arc of every Machinaforce dialectic: > > Step 1. Hey everybody! Here’s this new thing that I read which totally explains why there’s no point to life and living, like I’ve been saying all along! > Step 2. You people are all just fooling yourselves into thinking you’re living happy and productive lives. > Step 3. What do you mean this new thing I read on the internet is all wrong? It can’t be wrong! See, there’s a guy, with a blog, and book, and a school paper proving I’m right - you’re all living a lie! > Step 4. I’m not obsessing. Therapy is a crutch! You’re not helping. Why isn’t anyone understanding what I’m saying here? > Step 5. Okay, I admit, there’s this one problem with this not so shiny new thing. But how did any of you figure out life without even exploring this? How do you even know what to do after you wake up in the morning? > Step 6. Wait. I may have been wrong. What seemed a shiny new thing has lost all it’s novelty and is obviously flawed. Never mind all. > Step 7. Find next new thing. Rinse and repeat. > > See a pattern, Machinaforce? Now will you _consider_ therapy? If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/184 "2017-11-30T23:11:22Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I write posts on the internet for my own amusement - I actually enjoyed organizing my thoughts and laying them out this way. FWIW, I admired and enjoyed your post. (And agreed with it, too.) > [@](#): > > I especially enjoyed the realization that the philosophical position that people should flee from their own senses is untenable (or at least extremely selfish) because it’s impossible for a person to do so without creating another conscious entity that doesn’t - so it’s impossible for all people to have done it. I like things that are absurd yet coherent. . . . Like superhero movies! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/185 "2017-12-01T01:32:00Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy. We understand you perfectly well, based on the many identical threads you’ve started. In all the time here you’ve shown no sign of learning from these discussions, or even being willing to fully engage. It always falls back to “It’s all pointless” and frankly, shows you have no understanding of skepticism or any branch of philosophy. You’re not going to get any significantly different responses until you actually demonstrate some interest in learning from these threads. IMHO, **QuickSilver** has summed up all of your threads pretty accurately. Your complaint is duly noted and dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/186 "2017-12-01T01:55:59Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy. No, you don’t understand the problem of skepticism. You say the Phyronnists have a belief about skepticism, that radical skepticism will allow you to avoid suffering. Why aren’t you skeptical of this belief? When you imagine trying to implement their plan, as you understand it, you can’t avoid wondering if it will cause you suffering, rather than allow you to avoid suffering. And you’re right about that, because no philosophical school will allow you to avoid the suffering you’re undergoing, because your obsessive mind is what causes your suffering, not the object of your obsession. I guess you’re lucky it’s philosophy, it could have been germs, or the Jews. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/187 "2017-12-01T12:37:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So as large and verbose as my post is, I feel no regret no matter what response it gets (if any). The writing of it was its own reward. It’s totally your right on this, an anonymous messageboard. You keep spouting paragraphs and he’ll keep posting links. You and **Machinaforce** deserve each other. I would argue that there’s more value in challenging **Machinaforce** his circular obsessiveness rather than feeding it. Not that he’ll ever hear that. But you don’t care about that anyway, so knock yourself out. > [@](#): > > (Also, if your problem with the post is specifically that it’s a “block o’ text” with too many words for your taste, that would make your username rather ironic.) Dude, my username is **"Word"Man** not **"Words"Man** - I respect economy of thought and communication. You clearly don’t. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2017, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/188 "2017-12-01T22:30:09Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > It’s totally your right on this, an anonymous messageboard. You keep spouting paragraphs and he’ll keep posting links. You and **Machinaforce** deserve each other. > > I would argue that there’s more value in challenging **Machinaforce** his circular obsessiveness rather than feeding it. Not that he’ll ever hear that. But you don’t care about that anyway, so knock yourself out. If you’d actually bothered to read my post rather than just whining about how scarily large it was, you would know that I was taking the idea of Pyrrhonic skepticism and ripping holes in it. This is called “engaging the discussion” - and attacking the source of the obsession is the exact opposite of feeding it. On the other hand sitting around telling the OP that his threads are circular and pointless and that he’s a doodyhead is called “threadshitting” and does nothing to break any cycles he’s in. > [@WordMan](#): > > Dude, my username is **"Word"Man** not **"Words"Man** - I respect economy of thought and communication. You clearly don’t. I respect using enough words to communicate ideas with - even complicated ideas that require dozens of them. And all you’ve communicated to me is that any problems you had with my post are your damage, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/189 "2017-12-02T03:03:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Seriously, how are you getting that from what you just quoted me as saying? > > I said that you can – upon experiencing the sweet taste of honey – answer anyone who feels like asking by saying that, to you, “it tastes sweet.” Because, see, it _does_. And you went on to quote me as adding that, if it “tastes delicious,” then you should of course have no problem replying accordingly upon, y’know, enjoying it. > > Because, well, that’s what it _is_ to savor the taste of something you find to be sweet and delicious: you’re not detached from it; you’re experiencing it. > > (And, going back to what I said earlier: I sure as hell wouldn’t say you’re detached if you touch fire; I guess you could try to play the it’s-a-mere-appearance game, but I’d _also_ guess that you’d find you’re vividly living it anyway.) This is the reply in regards to the honey bit: Those who say that the Sceptics reject what is apparent have not, I think, listened to what we say. As we said before, we do not overturn anything which leads us, without our willing it, to assent in accordance with a passive appearance - and these things are precisely what is apparent. When we investigate whether existing things are such as they appear, we grant that they appear, and what we investigate is not what is apparent but what is said about what is apparent - and this is different from investigating what is apparent itself. For example, it appears to us that honey sweetens (we concede this inasmuch as we are sweetened in a perceptual way); but whether (as far as the argument goes) it is actually sweet is something we investigate - and this is not what is apparent but something said about what is apparent.[ Thus, attending to what is apparent," says Sextus Empiricus, “we live in accordance with everyday observances, without holding opinions… These everyday observances seem to be fourfold, and to consist in guidance by nature, necessitation by feelings, handing down of laws and customs, and teaching of kinds of expertise.” It is therefore clear that the Pyrrhonist is the exact opposite of the skeptic who is constantly worried about the reality of his perceptions and is extremely pragmatic, concerning himself with his circumstances and not with holding opinions about the nature of experience. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/190 "2017-12-02T03:08:32Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > No, you don’t understand the problem of skepticism. You say the Phyronnists have a belief about skepticism, that radical skepticism will allow you to avoid suffering. Why aren’t you skeptical of this belief? > > When you imagine trying to implement their plan, as you understand it, you can’t avoid wondering if it will cause you suffering, rather than allow you to avoid suffering. > > And you’re right about that, because no philosophical school will allow you to avoid the suffering you’re undergoing, because your obsessive mind is what causes your suffering, not the object of your obsession. I guess you’re lucky it’s philosophy, it could have been germs, or the Jews. Because from what the paper says in the beginning, their stance towards things seems to flow from logic. That since the methods by which we gather information are flawed that the logical thing is to withhold assent from doctrines about the nature of reality. I want to find something wrong with that line of reasoning, but it seems to make sense. The notion that the only thing we have is our senses and that we have no idea of how reality “really is” outside of them (like how they say that objects change based in relation to others or that they appear large or small) is true. What I don’t get is how from that you have science going one way and these guys going the other direction. I’m also wondering if people are reading the same thing I am in regards to these people. I know that not making beliefs and opinions doesn’t lead you anywhere. Their claim about laws and customs and to follow them is odd, since how else do those come about by beliefs and opinions. I would liken pyrrhonism to a parasite. Only it feeds off the very thing it criticizes, but left on its own it fails miserably. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/191 "2017-12-02T03:35:32Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > . . . their stance towards things seems to flow from logic. Are you not skeptical regarding logic? > [@](#): > > . . . Their claim about laws and customs and to follow them is odd, since how else do those come about by beliefs and opinions. Now you’re starting to get it. > [@](#): > > I would liken pyrrhonism to a parasite. Only it feeds off the very thing it criticizes, but left on its own it fails miserably. “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” “Don’t do that.” ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/192 "2017-12-02T10:51:42Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If you’d actually bothered to read my post rather than just whining about how scarily large it was, you would know that I was taking the idea of Pyrrhonic skepticism and ripping holes in it. This is called “engaging the discussion” - and attacking the source of the obsession is the exact opposite of feeding it. > > On the other hand sitting around telling the OP that his threads are circular and pointless and that he’s a doodyhead is called “threadshitting” and does nothing to break any cycles he’s in. You’re right, we have ample proof that **Machinaforce** is engaging sincerely and open to change. :rolleyes: He simply doesn’t change, which is why there are links to so many other **Machinaforce** threads that are just like this. Circular, obsessive sophistry. You’ve already stated that you’re just having fun spouting. **Machinaforce** ’s circular obsessive sophistry just gets you another whack at the tether ball. That’s all I hear: the sound of whacking. > [@](#): > > I respect using enough words to communicate ideas with - even complicated ideas that require dozens of them. And all you’ve communicated to me is that any problems you had with my post are your damage, not mine. Complicated ideas are worthy when they are pointed in worthy directions. Tackling his issues and links head on is feeding his beast - show us, how, in this case, that is worthy or been worthy in the countless other **MF** threads. I have started plenty of philosophy threads where I and many other Dopers wax on for blocks of texts. That is not the point here. We are not discussing my damage, we are discussing **Machinaforce** ’s OP, and my assertion that dancing his dance is not philosophy. I thought our motto was Fighting Ignorance, not Enabling Obsessviveness. **Trinopus** - “Then don’t do that” is at the core of every attempt to get **Machinaforce** on a healthier path, yes? Managing one’s thoughts - learning those techniques and processes so you “don’t do that” - are at the heart of every philosophical system. How has **MF** responded to comments in that direction? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/193 "2017-12-02T12:11:58Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > This is the reply in regards to the honey bit: Yes, that’s a reply. But it doesn’t tell me what _troubles_ you, with regard to it. That’s the whole point, right? You’re posting because something about that approach troubles you? You said it seems like a detachment from life? And this reply says – what? That such folks say “it appears to us that honey sweetens (we concede this inasmuch as we are sweetened in a perceptual way)”. And that they “live in accordance with everyday observances” by “attending to what is apparent”. Picture the least detached guy that you can imagine: wouldn’t _he_ attend to what’s apparent, while living in accordance with everyday observances and enjoying the sweetness of honey? If you hear that he goes in for “teaching of kinds of expertise”, would you be a bit surprised? How about if you heard that the guy who wasn’t detached _also wasn’t all that troubled_ – what would follow? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/194 "2017-12-02T15:04:05Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy. I’m sorry you don’t understand or want to hear the answer to your endless self-obsessed ponderous dithering on the _meaning of it all_. But therapy is your best and most likely answer. I don’t expect you to heed that advice. But the lack of understanding does not lie with my observations and conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/195 "2017-12-02T15:09:22Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > I would liken pyrrhonism to a parasite. Only it feeds off the very thing it criticizes, but left on its own it fails miserably. Step 6. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/196 "2017-12-02T18:02:21Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > . . . “Then don’t do that” is at the core of every attempt to get **Machinaforce** on a healthier path, yes? Managing one’s thoughts - learning those techniques and processes so you “don’t do that” - are at the heart of every philosophical system. How has **MF** responded to comments in that direction? Hardly at all. He doesn’t appear to be listening to anyone, and repeats his themes ad nauseam. But I agree with **begbert2** : I comment to engage with the person and the ideas when possible, but also just to express myself, and yet also for third parties who may be reading. **begbert2** ’s post succeeded in getting my attention, and approval. He wasn’t wasting his time, because someone read what he said and “got it.” There are different ways of “succeeding” at the games we play here on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/197 "2017-12-02T19:07:32Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > If you don’t have an argument to make against this kind of skepticism then stop commenting. You clearly don’t understand the problem of skepticism if the only answer you have is therapy. Since you ignore posts with arguments against the philosophy you cut and paste, I think this kind of post is quite appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/198 "2017-12-02T21:42:40Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Hardly at all. He doesn’t appear to be listening to anyone, and repeats his themes ad nauseam. > > But I agree with **begbert2** : I comment to engage with the person and the ideas when possible, but also just to express myself, and yet also for third parties who may be reading. **begbert2** ’s post succeeded in getting my attention, and approval. He wasn’t wasting his time, because someone read what he said and “got it.” > > There are different ways of “succeeding” at the games we play here on the SDMB. Man, I enjoy expressing myself on the 'Dope, too. I start threads when I need to - I don’t feed someone’s obsessive beast in a circle-jerk thread. I enjoy your posts. You really think _this_ thread fights **Machinaforce** ’s ignorance? Or that some connection with begbert makes this worthwhile? Really? I fucking hate it when Philosophy is just masturbation. We should think hard for good reasons. **Machinaforce** sets up poorly thought-out scenarios and refuses to acknowledge attempts to engage him. I call bullshit - and that is not the same as threadshitting. I submit that the OP question is only answerable in ways that the OP refuses to acknowledge. His endless tail chasing is my cite. How is that threadshitting? Own the OP, **Machinaforce** - you set up the question, I am speaking to it. Answer it directly. How should Managing One’s Thoughts factor into how one approaches philosophical questions? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/199 "2017-12-02T23:48:55Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > . . . You really think _this_ thread fights **Machinaforce** ’s ignorance? Or that some connection with begbert makes this worthwhile? Really? . . . No, and yes, respectively. What can I say? I liked **begbert2** ’s post. You’re certainly right in that this is all pretty much a waste of time…but so many of the threads here on the SDMB are that. The next time “free will” or “the Star Trek Transporter” or even “.999…” comes up, I’ll be in there slugging. To very loosely paraphrase Gomez Addams, “They say that a man who does the same thing over and over hoping for a different result is insane. And, with God as my witness, I am exactly that insane!” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/200 "2017-12-04T09:29:07Z")
The difference with the free will or transporter questions is that they’re just perennial favourites for shooting the breeze in harmless fun. Nobody’s ever sent me PMs after a transporter thread, strongly hinting they wanted to top themselves if I couldn’t make life make sense for them, is what I’m saying. Just so you understand who you’re dealing with, here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296.md?page=11)