Hastur, if your psychic friends don’t mind email correspondence, I’d like to ask them some things. theclaw10@home.com
I had said to Hastur:
SPOOFE responded:
Damn! You must be psychic!
It’s a gift. Maybe I should take up Randi’s challenge, eh?
I predict you’ll fail. After all, everybody knows that no real psychic would abuse his/her power by taking the challenge – even if they could then turn around and donate the million dollars to charity…
No, that’s blind faith. Faith itself means that you accept something without proof, and that’s a different matter altogether.
OK, JThunder, I’ll bite. What, to you, constitutes the difference between “proof” and “evidence?”
“Proof” is the thing you do in geometry class to validate the theorem that alternate interior angles are congruent.
“Evidence” is what supports a theory.
JThunder said:
Whoa, a blast from the past.
I actually already answered this shortly after somebody else made the same statement (like around page 1). I noted that the dictionary agrees with me. Check it out.
Now, Tracer, I know your opinion very well. I want JThunder’s opinion.
Heh heh.
Actually, I lied. Everyone knows that “proof” is the grade of really high-quality coins struck specially for coin collectors.
Nothing to do with alcohol, then?
Nope. And certainly nothing to do with test photographic prints made from a negative.
And I won’t even mention the periapt of proof against poison from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Or bullet-proof vests.
Reading through this thread last night I arrived at a couple of observations.
First, if you look at the definition of skepticism that was given at the beginning of this thread, I suggest that most of you are not skeptics but rather empiricists using a skeptical method.
“Pure” skepticism is not concerned about universals except to disprove their universal validity. Skepticism does not accept the validity of empirical proofs since such proofs are subject to the flaws of human sense perception. Skeptics are not concerned necessarily about whether or not they even exist: rather than starting with an axiomatic first assumption of existence, they attack all axiomatic statements for their false statements of universal principles. Skeptics don’t hold much stead in “common sense”. “Common sense” and “experience” got 7000 people killed a week or so ago. “Common sense” is what tells me that a bowling ball and a marble should fall to the earth at different rates. Of course there are various degrees and schools of skepticism: Descartes’ skepticism is unique and influenced by Thomism and scholasticism, among other things.
I am frankly encouraged by the amount of care and concern for humanity that has been shown in the majority of these posts. In stead of defending why some people attack those who irritate with those beliefs, the majority of you have discussed concern that those with gullible beliefs will come to harm. I affirm this fully. Reminds me of Voltaire.
It also reminds me of a fundamentalist undergraduate I once knew at a university where I once worked who was all gung-ho to get a sadomasochistic society banned from campus funding. He was getting a lot of flack about his beliefs, when what it came down to, pressed to the wall, was a deep concern that people would do physical harm to themselves in this group. I see that same kind of concern here: it’s admirable.
Oops. That was an anecdote: I’m sure I could find the Senate record if you wanted it… 
There is some new research out on skeptics and concern for safety. I am intrigued therefore by the reiteration among you of a concern for safety. It’s intriguing partly because pure skepticism is risk-taking: lacks a concern for personal safety and for the welfare of others. Skeptical argumentation admits to ‘no holds barred’ duelling: any method can be used in order to demonstrate the limits of validity of any axiomatic statement. The ensuing relativism of value systems based on rules means that a pure skeptic may be one step away from anarchy. A concern for safety usually comes from a value system held apart from skepticism.
From your general explanations, I arrived at this analogy:
There are two kinds of ‘righteous anger’ in play
-
Against the person who takes advantage of gullible children
-
Against the child who is gullible
Those of you who have children, parents or aging grandparents (I am thinking of my own grandfather who would write a check to any organization who asks him for money) know about Type 2 anger.
The question is whether the childlike person merits such anger (and the abusive language that comes with such anger and irritation).
On the (implied) question of the OP: I observe that a messageboard that declares itself to be “fighting ignorance since…” has adopted a rhetoric of battle. Ignorance is a malady needing to be cured; ignorance is the enemy. This crusading rhetoric gives the example of and permission to attack.
Ignorance is also pre-judged. Whereas skepticism tends to favor a negative logic and science, thus ironically the increase in ignorance (at least admission to it), many on this board are fighting ignorance in favor of a positive science.
The goal of skepticism, classically, is the destruction of axiomatic judgments in order to acquire peace of mind. Classical skepticism, furthermore, is a religion. [Pierre Hadot, at least, argues such].
I suggest that some of the posters to this board who claim skepticism are merely using a skeptical style to advance their empiricism and have additionally borrowed from pure skepticism the permission to destroy.
Nicely said, Katerina. One point:
You’re likely right. I think the “anger,” however, is closer to pure frustration. Not that frustration justufies rudeness, of course, but it does make it understandable.
Too, many people are prepared and determined to find offense, even where none is intended. “I hit him back first.”
Thanks, Andros,
(by the way, the only visual in my memorybanks for the name "Andros is that character from Stephen King’s The Stand in the made-for-tv miniseries–who was that?)
I seem to remember Montaigne observing that one of the tools in the radical skeptic’s bag of rhetorical tricks was “first strike.”
He places this offensive behavior in contradiction to the concern for safety.
But as for the REAL OP: what does the (pure) skeptic gain?
well, grief and misery would be the answer.
However, those professing a skeptical method (as opposed to skeptical style) would gain precisely what this messageboard seems to pursue: gain in knowledge and insight.