Author Topic: 1 Million bucks for any psychic demonstration  (Read 50881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

June 25, 2009, 02:03:29 AM
Reply #45

Watchtower

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Hundred-plus Club

  • 935
  • Karma:
    30
  • Personal Text
    Contemplative Panentheist
    • View Profile
Quote
In the absence of evidence, the rational option is remaining undecided.  People just find this uncomfortable, and would rather "make a decision", and so they often do so on an emotional basis.

I agree, but you violated the terms of the hypothetical.  When asked to give tithe to the Church of Spaghetti monster (or whatever) to save your soul, "I don't know whether I should tithe or not" doesn't really work.  You end up refusing.

Quote
The point is, under a strictly rational approach, things can be not-accepted without being disbelieved.  One can not-accept the Spaghetti Monster, and one can probably even conclude with good confidence that no one else has a reason to accept the Spaghetti Monster.  Also, for the sake of efficiency we can constrain our efforts toward those things that we have a reason to accept.  This is the proper application of Occam's Razor.

Lol, why are we even arguing?  I don't disagree with anything there, in fact non-acceptance without disbelief has been central to my arguments.  The thing is, the practical consequences of non-acceptance tend to align with those of disbelief when such consequences are forced to manifest.  To use another example, if you find a ticking watch on the ground that says 2:00, and you can tell it is some time in the afternoon, you can not-accept the truth of the clock without rejecting it.  It very well could be 2:00, but the watch could very well be wrong.  But if someone asks you the time, your honest answer is the same answer you give if you disbelieve the clock: "I don't really know."  Furthermore, if you are interested in the time, you are going to seek a trusted source rather than rely on the watch, which is exactly what you'd do if you disbelieved the watch.  Granted though, this speaks nothing of internal states of belief or disbelief, merely outward practical consequences.

In any case, like I said, the real point I was originally interested in making is that anyone who starts with an answer about which they are certain without ever honestly questioning, is not a skeptic.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 03:43:58 AM by Watchtower »
"For no matter how holy works may be, they do not make us holy because we do them, but in so far as we within ourselves are as we should be, we make holy all that we do, whether it be eating, or sleeping, or working, or what it may."

-Eckhart von Hochheim

June 25, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
Reply #46

Sethair

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 754
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    The souls of the True shall always remain strong.
    • View Profile
Ya know, we all hate this conversation. We hate this topic. But we are still arguing about it... Hmm....
▲ ▲

"We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune"

 My Blog 
My Art!!!

June 25, 2009, 10:04:20 AM
Reply #47

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 5000
  • Karma:
    172
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
I agree, but you violated the terms of the hypothetical.  When asked to give tithe to the Church of Spaghetti monster (or whatever) to save your soul, "I don't know whether I should tithe or not" doesn't really work.  You end up refusing.

Like I was explaining, I do not need to accept the premise of the hypothetical.  There are an infinite number of such possible hypothetical statements, and thus without any evidential basis, it is only prudent to accept the ones with some basis.

Lol, why are we even arguing?

1.  Because it makes us happy.
2.  Because you are using a slightly wrong definition of "skeptic".  (No, you.  No, you.)

Basically, you self-identify as a "skeptic", so you are trying to purify the word to purge it of the people we agree are idiots.  I have found the word's definition and usage to be associated with too much irrationality, and too many idiots, and thus I do not self-identify with the word.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

June 25, 2009, 11:14:17 AM
Reply #48

Aurafire

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1175
  • Karma:
    63
  • Personal Text
    Village Idiot
    • View Profile
This argument has followed the same logical conclusion as all arguments at Veritas. It goes on for awhile, and then it breaks down into the basics of arguing and not the argument itself. I shall conclude most post with a drive-by argument with kobok....I DISAGREE!! *speeds away in the sunfire*
Patience is never inherited nor acquired, but only practiced everyday.

June 25, 2009, 11:17:00 AM
Reply #49

Violet

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 1003
  • Karma:
    33
  • Personal Text
    Your friendly neighborhood Verigeek.
    • View Profile
And at the end all the noobies of Veritas post a reply to the topic to say that they agree with a random person.  :P
So, I agree with Aurafire.

~Tempestum

June 25, 2009, 01:22:37 PM
Reply #50

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
The word skeptic doesn't have to define being right or wrong. It simply defines anyone who does not believe regardless of the basis.

Both of you are skeptics of each other's argument.
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

June 25, 2009, 02:25:02 PM
Reply #51

kobok

  • Tech Team
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Veritas Council

  • 5000
  • Karma:
    172
  • Personal Text
    Veritas Council
    • View Profile
Both of you are skeptics of each other's argument.

As you pointed out with your own definition above, a skeptic is someone who habitually has such a tendency.  Someone who disbelieves a single statement does not automatically become a skeptic.  I certainly don't habitually disbelieve or disagree with Watchtower.
Latest article:  Construct Dynamics

Want to learn psi?  Check out our collection of psi articles.

June 26, 2009, 09:13:11 AM
Reply #52

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Quote
Oh really?  So if you get up in the morning and your clock says it's 8am, do you disbelieve it and check another one right away just to be sure?  Or if, say, your roommate says your mother called, do you believe your roommate and call your mother back, or is it more practical to disbelieve?  If you pick up a newspaper and it says the DOW is down by 100 points, do you believe it, or is it more practical to disbelieve the newspaper?
This only means that one has personal standards of evidence.  Your examples do not refute the concept of doubt, because they merely indicate a pattern of trust that is invested with them.
If the power were to go-out during the night, your alarm clock would be useless by the time you looked at it.  If the room-mate has never heard/seen your mother, he has no logical reason to believe that is who it really was-- which is also hearsay, and hearsay is not evidence.  If the newspaper is old, or if it was written in a country run by government propaganda (like China or Korea, and even America in some places), there is no reason to believe the paper.

Quote
The word skeptic doesn't have to define being right or wrong. It simply defines anyone who does not believe regardless of the basis.
Skepticism is a position of doubt, or uncertainty.  What you suggested is that it is a position before the claim was being made, which is what modern skeptics do, and I dont agree with it.
I'm skeptical about anything for which I have no evidence, but that doesnt mean I cant be convinced, or that I think there wont ever be evidence.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

June 26, 2009, 01:19:31 PM
Reply #53

Vegita

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 87
  • Karma:
    0
    • View Profile
Regardless by my definition a skeptic is someone who haven't been convinced.

In my opinion it is better to question first out of habit regardless of rational thought that lead up to it.

Hi guys, I've been away for a while, Personal things, Bought a house got married, you know life.

Tank is still at it I see.

Tank, you approach me in a capmsite and I tell you to stay away from my tent because there are hundreds of bees in there and if you open the door to it you will get stung. If you follow your logic, you ignore my warning, but not only that, you ignore the loud buzzing sound you hear when you approach my tent. So regardless of if you are skeptical of my warning please do not abandon rational thought ever.

V

June 28, 2009, 12:18:54 PM
Reply #54

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Regardless by my definition a skeptic is someone who haven't been convinced.

In my opinion it is better to question first out of habit regardless of rational thought that lead up to it.

Hi guys, I've been away for a while, Personal things, Bought a house got married, you know life.

Tank is still at it I see.

Tank, you approach me in a capmsite and I tell you to stay away from my tent because there are hundreds of bees in there and if you open the door to it you will get stung. If you follow your logic, you ignore my warning, but not only that, you ignore the loud buzzing sound you hear when you approach my tent. So regardless of if you are skeptical of my warning please do not abandon rational thought ever.

V
I would indeed question that because why would you have tons of bees inside a tent? Why would bees ever go into a tent? I mean do you have honey inside the tent or something? But wouldn't that mean more on the lines of a bear being inside your tent? I would believe a bear would be in your tent but not bees.

Please do not say anything that makes me think your being more narrow minded then how you already are. I can go as far as in saying there are no bees in my tent. You would hear the buzzing and go inside anyway and get stung.

Please do not regard yourself as rational.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 12:28:15 PM by Tankdown »
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

June 28, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
Reply #55

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Oh I forgot to give a reply to everyone else. My bad

As you pointed out with your own definition above, a skeptic is someone who habitually has such a tendency.
I didn't say that, not that I met to anyway. I wanted to say that a skeptic is someone who does disagree not on how they do it.

Someone who disbelieves a single statement does not automatically become a skeptic.  I certainly don't habitually disbelieve or disagree with Watchtower.
Would it matter?

Quote
The word skeptic doesn't have to define being right or wrong. It simply defines anyone who does not believe regardless of the basis.
Skepticism is a position of doubt, or uncertainty.  What you suggested is that it is a position before the claim was being made, which is what modern skeptics do, and I dont agree with it.
Actually its more on the lines of listening first or having a decision beforehand. I did not suggest that it was a position before the claim but rather it can be both ways depending on the individual conclusion if he has or has not listen to you.
I'm skeptical about anything for which I have no evidence, but that doesnt mean I cant be convinced, or that I think there wont ever be evidence.
I like to believe that anyone can be convinced with the right kind of true rationally; however as my words are about noble as yours it does not disguise you being a skeptic with everything or nothing.

I sort of think the word skeptic goes both ways.
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

June 28, 2009, 04:20:27 PM
Reply #56

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Quote
Actually its more on the lines of listening first or having a decision beforehand. I did not suggest that it was a position before the claim but rather it can be both ways depending on the individual conclusion if he has or has not listen to you.
Those two things contradict each other.  Either you have doubt, or you do not.  In the latter case, one does not have doubt, but a preconceived belief.  That isnt skepticism, it's ignorance or cynicism, which serves the same purpose that Randi claims is nonsensical.
I'm using a specific definition, which does not have anything to do with the conclusion.  Either something has evidence to support it, or it does not.  Where you place the conclusion in reference to the evidence (before or after) is what makes you a skeptic.  If you reject the premise without evidence, then you are not a skeptic but a believer of your own agenda.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

June 28, 2009, 05:03:58 PM
Reply #57

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Evidence is to the present argument may be irrelevant. That you may have to convince that person some other way from either uplifting him/her from that prejudice or revise and strengthen the present evidence.

What I gave has no doubt in it because it does not hold to the definition. It simply says that person rejects that view. The process on reasonable decision making has nothing to do with it.

For example I may 100% believe something is true but take on the side of caution for further evidence.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 05:08:32 PM by Tankdown »
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon

June 28, 2009, 05:23:12 PM
Reply #58

solstice

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • Dreamwalker

  • 2114
  • Karma:
    -7
  • Personal Text
    "Receive and transmit..."
    • View Profile
Quote
For example I may 100% believe something is true but take on the side of caution for further evidence.
Math fail.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2009, 06:34:18 PM by solstice »
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant: Success in Circuit lies.  Too bright for our infirm Delight. The Truth's superb surprise. As Lightning to the Children eased, with explanation kind.  The Truth must dazzle gradually, or every man be blind.
Tefeari: The Giant Impact Hypothesis is a theory

June 28, 2009, 05:32:00 PM
Reply #59

Tankdown

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 871
  • Karma:
    2
  • Personal Text
    Hows my logic?
    • View Profile
Quote from: Tankdown
For example I may 100% believe something is true but take on the side of caution for further evidence.
Math fail.
Well I have no reason to argue if you don't give anything.  :rolleyes:

quote fail
To do, become -Myself
<---Little demon