Why do you think I gave you such a hard time about your “joke”?
Oh, I don’t know could it be because you resent me for exposing the lies of the man you worship? Your earlier comments in this thread certainly show you are still bitter about it.
By the way, you seem to have missed another joke, but I’m sure that someone will be along soon to explain it to you.
Hmm. Well, two points
- I don’t think ‘refusals to accept’ are ‘doubts’; I think one ‘doubts’ when one feels
there is not enough evidence to support a proposition; ‘refusal to accept’ implies that no evidence would be accepted, or, if accepted, deemed sufficient.
And I think that is a fundamental difference, not just a quibble over terminology.
- “Skeptic” is generally used to describe a quality of the person, not the matter at hand. To refer to the definitions: “[a] disposition to incredulity”, “One who instinctively or habitually doubts”; this is not the same as disbelieving a specific assertions or assumptions.
Again, I think that fundamental.
I may have my doubts about the assumptions in an economic theory, or firmly believe that Malthusian economic are wrong; neither position makes me a skeptic.
A better example for this board: I do not think atheists are skeptics. I think they are atheists.
So, I say no. Some HDers may be skeptics, but HDers are not skeptics simply because they are HDers.
Both, it appears.
I don’t think it is possible to discuss anything in depth without touching on semantics. We are a highly verbal race; most of us can not think without words. Words often define the idea.
Is J.T. Carroll (whose essay I linked in Post #113) a skeptic? If not, what label would you assign? If so, how is he different from HDers?
You know, the way you set up questions look a lot like essay questions in a text book or on an exam …
… you’re not scamming me into helping on a paper, are you? Because I charge a lot for that.
"If so", he differs froms HDers in that he is a skeptic. I am arguing that HDers are not.
Given that I am answering on the basis of the linked pages only, I have no way of knowing if the author is a skeptic. However, in section two, the author indicates the intention to focus on skepticism on a specific issue. Cry foul: a skeptic has a ‘disposition to incredulity’ on everything, not a specific theory or set of beliefs.
I am not one to assign labels, but the author writes as an apostate. He would prefer the term ‘Rationalist’.
I really can’t evaluate how he differs from an HDer without reading the book and checking out the references down to the original sources. Assuming the references are valid and the interpretation is not skewed? The author does not seem to be attacking a group or groups of people defined by innate or cultural characteristics. The introduction suggests the author will present verifiable rebutals.
However, I feel I am misreprenting myself in this discussion. I confess that I haven’t examined a lot of HD ‘literature’. I’ve tried, but life is just too short. If you had directed me to a page in which ‘holocaust’ had been replaced with ‘supernatural phenomenon’, I would not be able to tell.
(If it matters to the discussion, I think I may be conflating HDers with ‘all people who disbelieve in something so widely held to be true by reasonable, educated, or intelligent people that contracting their claims with specific primary data is difficult’.)
Heh, it’s been a long time since I needed to write a paper. This is just a conversation on a message board.
I picked Carroll for a few reasons. One is that he styles his site “The Skeptic’s Dictionary.” Another is that he addresses particular issues, mostly of the paranormal stripe, so his isn’t some broad epistemological theory. Third, he doesn’t just express doubts about these issues, he thinks the positions disputed are hogwash. To my eye, he differs from HDers only in that he challenges things most of us agree are hogwash, whereas HDers are on the other side of that fence.
Frankly, I’m trying to see your point, but I don’t. If you’re saying the label skeptical applies only to someone with an attitude of doubt as to all things, that’s not general usage. See the M-W definition (“an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object”). More importantly, if we are to reserve skeptical to the ground you espouse, what then are we to call Carroll, HDers, moon hoaxers, Young Earthers, atheists, 9/11 conspiracists, folks who believe Shakespeare didn’t write the plays appearing under his name, etc.? Without an alternative label, skeptical is what most of us will use, whether you like it or not.
Finally, I will note that, when we started down this road, I thought the issue was whether folks with agenda-driven doubts or refusals to believe are skeptics. That’s what askeptic disputed, as did you. Again, I need an alternative label. Otherwise, I’m going to be lazy and go with common usage. I’ll discard most of them on substance, but not on the facile ground that they’re not entitled to call themselves skeptics.
You are going to think I am being quibbelous here.
There is a difference (I think common usage would support me here) between being “a skeptic” and being “skeptical”; “skeptic” is absolute, and “skeptical” may be qualified (with “about”).
As for the important question,
“Is there a fundamental difference between, for example, HDers and debunkers of psychics, irrespective of whether one disgrees with the position espoused?”,
yes, I think there is.
I’ll think about it so more, and see if I can present a defensible argument.
There is a difference between one who holds the philosophical position of skepticism and HDrs. The Skeptic, as apposed to someone who is skeptical as to the holocaust, is even skeptical of his own skepticism. Whereas HDrs while espousing skepticism as to the holocaust are not in the least bit skeptical of their silly alternate beliefs. I guess the solution is to call people who hold a philisophical position of skepticism towards all things, big “s” Skeptics.
Further thoughts: HDrs differ from skeptics in that they absolutely believe something. Whereas a skeptic may in fact harbor doubts as to the actuality of the Holocaust he would not go so far as to deny it. The skeptic questions things and demands proof, the Deniers have no questions. In other words even if an HDer was taken back in time and shown the Holocaust, he would still deny it. Not that he actually believes it did not happen, for him the truth is irrelevant.
J666: FWIW, M-W defines a skeptic as “1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism; 2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles.”
askeptic: The answer, quite simply, is that the words have several usages, some of which imply only doubt, where others can imply disbelief. Indeed, I would say the terms are much more often used in the latter sense.
Darn, I thought **Seethruart **had returned. 
(It is OK to mention him now since someone early did mention him in the thread)
So, as a veteran of the cheesy moon landing denier threads, I have to say that yes we landed on the moon.
And I have to say by experience that the moon landing deniers are not skeptics but believers… of something.
I think **askeptic ** is correct.
- deleted * Nevermind.
Yeah, and some people who eat fish call themselves ‘vegetarians’.
However. There is a difference between Doubters and Disbelievers, you would agree? And askeptic, GIGObuster, and I think ‘Skeptics’ are ‘Doubters’.
I’ve been composing a very thoughtful post in reply to the question I tried to pose below, and then GIGObuster nailed it in ten words.
“… moon landing deniers are not skeptics but believers… of something.”
(I didn’t even get the question right.)
Agenda-driven-skeptics (the ‘skeptical’ in my terminology) are, in the examples used so far, Believers; sometimes they believe in Conspiracy Theories, and sometimes they believe in highly developed and well evidenced scientific theories.
I think that AD-skepticism often leads to a general disposition to incredulity; I think that a general skepticism can lead one to campaign for a certain agenda, such as keeping ID out of grammar schools.
Furthermore, non-skeptics can practice skepticism, and question evidence and assumptions about fundamental beliefs, or about ‘common knowledge’.
Of course, no matter how one defines ‘skeptic’, lies and misrepresentations have nothing to do with it.
I’ll go with Merriam-Webster and common usage as I observe it. (See many examples above.) Ya’ll can believe whatever you like.