Christian Vets

[New Foundland]

---

Members don't see this ad.

edit: I guess my entire point (besides to alleviate my boredom as I wait for Gibbs samples to be generated) is that skepticism is absolutely critical, but there is really a point where it becomes pathological and pedantic. And that's what leads to things like 9/11 truthers and people who don't believe that AIDS is a result of infection with HIV and all manner of conspiracy theorists.

I'll stay out of the religion part of this debate (i've heard it all before a hundred times), but this is a strawman characterization of "Skepticism".
Skepticism does not mean "doubting X". Skepticism is about rigorous critical and scientific appraisal of all available evidence and then arriving at an outcome or viewpoint based on that evidence.

Holding a minority viewpoint does not a Skeptic make.
Refusing to believe in a certain story, doctrine, or ideology, does not a Skeptic make.


9/11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts are a product of too little skepticism, not too much.
These conspiracy beliefs are pure ideology, and exist in the absence of properly conducted skepticism. The true "Skeptical community" is more outspoken against conspiracy theorists than any other group of people, and they are in most cases brilliantly tactful and efficient in their opposition to such fringe beliefs.. Just as they are to non-evidence-based pseudosciences..


There is no point where (scientific) skepticism "becomes pathological" and leads to belief in utter BS...

You seem to confuse skepticism with cynical and stubborn disbelief..


This is as ridiculous as citing Buddhist sects involved in wars, and then proclaiming that "there is really a point where Pacifism becomes pathological and leads to war"

Do not associate Skepticism and 9/11 truthers in the presence of someone who is devoted to Skepticism..
You awake a sleeping part of me 😀

 

[nyanko]

I'll stay out of the religion part of this debate (i've heard it all before a hundred times), but this is a strawman characterization of "Skepticism".

It's not a strawman. You're attributing an incorrect meaning to my use of the word "skeptic," as evidenced by the fact that you are capitalizing the word in your use of it. Not that quoting the dictionary is all that original or Earth-shattering, but...

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

It's not a strawman. You're attributing an incorrect meaning to my use of the word "skeptic," as evidenced by the fact that you are capitalizing the word in your use of it. Not that quoting the dictionary is all that original or Earth-shattering, but...

Psh. I'm skeptic of the dictionary

😛

😉

 

[New Foundland]

It's not a strawman. You're attributing an incorrect meaning to my use of the word "skeptic," as evidenced by the fact that you are capitalizing the word in your use of it. Not that quoting the dictionary is all that original or Earth-shattering, but...

"noun
1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions."
A little vague, but actually doesn't disagree with my interpretation.
I understand that a common use of "skepticism" is as synonymous with doubting.
But this is a vague definition, as to just say "to doubt" does not detail the reasons for doubting.. To doubt a concept that lacks any supporting evidence is in line with my interpretation of skepticism.. To doubt a concept in spite of scientific supporting evidence is not..

But let's just quote the first line of the wikipedia entry and end it right here 😉

Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions

I did mention scientific skepticism in my post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
I guess arguing against a common use of a word will get you nowhere, but I'd still contend that my use is much more useful in practice, as a position of unconditional "doubting" without taking into account the tangible evidence for or against the concept in question is absolutely laughable and gets you nowhere.
That's just my interpretation I suppose.


Also, I'd cite the Greek origin of word as congruent with my interpretation.
The Greek word skeptikoi means seekers or inquirers.

 

[nyanko]

The Greek word skeptikoi means seekers or inquirers.

I'd argue that truthers and the like quite fancy themselves to be very progressive seekers and inquirers. 😉

 

[New Foundland]

I'd argue that truthers and the like quite fancy themselves to be very progressive seekers and inquirers. 😉

Which is why they'll happily accept a label of "skeptic" at any given opportunity.
Diligent consideration of the scientific method is what makes the difference. Nothing is ever 100%, but when we play on the side of Team Science ( 😛 ), we are playing with the probabilities on our side. A body of evidence is never fully complete (which allows people like 9/11 truthers to make cheap points and fill in junk science where the tangible evidence is lacking), but it's all we have to best ascertain the state of "reality" wrt a given issue.


Do I really have to continue on praising the merits of the scientific method to veterinary medicine students? I think not, so I'll save myself the time.

Back to square one..

You said "skepticism" is "critical", before you go on to say it can be taken too far..
What about it is critical, if you're merely talking about indiscriminate doubting?
What good is doubting, if you are not doubting in accordance with the state of the available scientific evidence?

So therefore I would contend that the statement you made suggested that you agreed to some extent with my interpretation of the word "skeptic".

Skepticism, as you wish to define it (without the scientific method as its primary basis) is absolutely not "critical" in the least.
So I'd ask you to either accept that evidence plays a key factor in skepticism (i.e. grant my definition of the word at least some merit), or explain why you praised (your definition of-) skepticism as critical in the first place ?
😀