Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Spirituality & Mysticism
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Believers vs. Skeptics
    #15310927 -

Lately, I've been doing a research paper on ESP.

For resources, I've not only been looking all over the internet, but I was going through the old archives of the Shroomery. With a +10 year history, I assumed that this topic had been done to death: and it has been. :lol:

Something that always strikes me though is this parallel between Believers and Skeptics. The arguments always seem to boil down to something like this.

Believer: There is more than meets the eyes. Telepathy exists.
Skeptic: Prove it.
Believer: Well, there's some research on it, but it's a bit skewed or ambiguous. A lot of it is un-rightfully dismissed.
Skeptic: Then why should I, or the scientific community as a whole, take it seriously?
Believer: Well, you have to verify it for yourself. Look into.
Skeptic: I don't see any evidence.
Believer: You're being close minded.
Skeptic: You're deluded by wishful thinking.
Believer: . . .
Skeptic: . . .

This just frustrates me because I feel that both parties end up hurting themselves. Ultimately, they're interested in the same thing. They're both interested in truth.

I always feel that even the two terms used to define each party is counter productive. They outright say, "I'm a believer!" or "I'm a Skeptic!" Someone who labels their self as "Skeptic" seems to shut themselves out. I'm defining Skeptic by the same definition as Michael Shermer's (Founder of the Skeptic's Society) definition: One who investigates paranormal claims, pseudoscience and fringe groups, and cults and claims of all kinds between science and pseudoscience, and non-science, and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, and plain old nonsense." To me, this definition seems to limit someone. Before the investigation even begins, it automatically has this attitude, "Oh god, here we go again... another paranormal claim."

On the flip side, someone who defines themselves as a believer seems to just accept any claim without too much critical thought. To add to this, I always see (Even on these boards) that the two attack each other.

Whenever a well known T.V. Psychic is caught as being a fraud: Skeptic: Told ya! I knew it all along. People are deluded into believing anything! Believers are so childish.

Or when there's a report of ESP, you see: Believer: Remember when you PS&P guys laughed at me? I have personal experience. I know what's true. Now I get the laugh. :haha:

I find it ridiculous how each of them always take stabs at each other. Whenever someone like the James Randi Foundation asks someone to back up their claim, they always have these really passive aggressive comments like, ". . . Unless you're a fraud. . . I'm not saying your a fake, I mean, I want to believe but. . ."
What they need is a synthesis of each other. We need skepticism to inquire into the nature of reality. With out skepticism, we come into this state believing that Goblins are riding Unicorns around. If we don't have an open mind, we limit our reality to what is "safely known" and assumed, and we don't end up thinking outside of the box. Without either of them, they're useless.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: r72rock]
    #15311272 -

r72rock said:
What they need is a synthesis of each other. We need skepticism to inquire into the nature of reality. With out skepticism, we come into this state believing that Goblins are riding Unicorns around. If we don't have an open mind, we limit our reality to what is "safely known" and assumed, and we don't end up thinking outside of the box. Without either of them, they're useless.


:thumbup:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: r72rock] * 1
    #15311420 -

I see skepticism and open-minded as more similar than different.  Its a closed mind that shuts out evidence to preserve pre-existing beliefs.  The most close minded people I have seen on this forum are the regulars of spirituality and mysticism.

Show the skeptic evidence of ESP and they will consider it.  Show the believer evidence against ESP and they shut it out.  The skeptics are the ones with the open minds.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: DieCommie]
    #15311647 -

DieCommie said:
I see skepticism and open-minded as more similar than different.  Its a closed mind that shuts out evidence to preserve pre-existing beliefs.  The most close minded people I have seen on this forum are the regulars of spirituality and mysticism.

Show the skeptic evidence of ESP and they will consider it.  Show the believer evidence against ESP and they shut it out.  The skeptics are the ones with the open minds.


DieCommie said:
I see skepticism and open-minded as more similar than different.  Its a closed mind that shuts out evidence to preserve pre-existing beliefs.  The most close minded people I have seen on this forum are the regulars of spirituality and mysticism.

Show the skeptic evidence of ESP and they will consider it.  Show the believer evidence against ESP and they shut it out.  The skeptics are the ones with the open minds.


I disagree. I would be considered a believer on this forum because I believe that enlightenment exists.

However when it comes to things like ESP I think it's ok to say "I'm not sure. It's possible."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: DieCommie]
    #15312264 -

DieCommie said:
I see skepticism and open-minded as more similar than different.  Its a closed mind that shuts out evidence to preserve pre-existing beliefs.  The most close minded people I have seen on this forum are the regulars of spirituality and mysticism.

Show the skeptic evidence of ESP and they will consider it.  Show the believer evidence against ESP and they shut it out.  The skeptics are the ones with the open minds.



Agree for the most part.  Skeptic does not = non believer.  The skeptic wants to be shown.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander]
    #15312476 -

Well a true sceptic would deny you ever know anything at all... and I think thats probably the best route to take.

That way it makes more sense when people ask for evidence, because it seems like a silly 'bet' to make given that no one trully knows anything. The best bet is to go for the least number of assertions, so there are the least number of things you can get wrong.

Thus occams razor usually limits the world to things like science.

But science is limited in itself, and if you have a personal experience which shows you something that is very significant, then it might show that science is simply inadequeite at describing reality. In this case, occam's razor doesnt help the scientist, because of a simple reason: the scientific description of the world is no longer the simplest sufficient explanation, because its not a sufficient explanation at all.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Noteworthy]
    #15312486 -

The only problem I have with personal experience is when someone presents it to me as evidence for what is true for others or true in general.  And with personal experience there is still the problem of interpretation.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Noteworthy]
    #15312525 -

the REAl definition of skeptic isss:

skeptic
    also sceptic, 1580s, "member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (1)). The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1610s. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Greek revival and is preferred in U.S.

        Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]

So the people you mention, including that Randi --they are not real skeptics, they are pseudosceptics! They are there to support the materialistic paradigm, and it does not matter WHAT evidence you presented them, they would equestion it, and change thee goalposts, because they are gatekeepers for the mechanistic-physicialist-materialistic worldview. So....dont waste effort on em is my advice. Their role is to sit on their sorry fat arses and have YOU rukin round for evidence that they never look at, and would dismiss anyhow. They belong to the Cult of Scientism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: zzripz]
    #15312886 -

they would equestion it, and change thee goalposts,

This statement has no truth in it.  But it does say something about the author.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: DieCommie]
    #15312910 -

DieCommie said:
I see skepticism and open-minded as more similar than different.  Its a closed mind that shuts out evidence to preserve pre-existing beliefs.  The most close minded people I have seen on this forum are the regulars of spirituality and mysticism.

Show the skeptic evidence of ESP and they will consider it.  Show the believer evidence against ESP and they shut it out.  The skeptics are the ones with the open minds.


I see what you're saying. My major point though was that just as a "believer" isn't always skeptical and shuts out information like you're saying, a "skeptic" is guilty of shutting out information as well. I'm basically trying to say that what each believes ends up shaping the end result. [My other major point was that they both attack each other, when they shouldn't.]

I totally agree with what you're saying. Show a "believer" evidence against ESP, and for the most part, they will ignore it. What I'd add though, is if you're trying to show a skeptic ESP, for the most part, their paradigm won't allow for it. I think that they're both guilty of the same thing.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: r72rock] * 1
    #15313016 -

a "skeptic" is guilty of shutting out information as well.

It's true that a skeptic may shut out information but that is not what makes them a skeptic.  A true believer on the other hand believes by faith and not evidence so they will almost always shut out information that does not agree with their faith.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander]
    #15317207 -

Icelander said:
It's true that a skeptic may shut out information but that is not what makes them a skeptic.


I'm not trying to say that's what makes a skeptic. I'm trying to say that their skepticism may end up interfering with what they'd like to see. Most of them claim that they'd like to be proven wrong, but I think their belief is what's holding them back. At the same time skepticism shouldn't be thrown out.

An idea within ESP is that if a tester doesn't believe that ESP works, then it has no chance of working. I think of it as one of William James' points of faith.

In a situation in which belief in a true proposition is necessary for getting at the evidence in support of its truth, you are entitled to believe.


Icelander said:
A true believer on the other hand believes by faith and not evidence so they will almost always shut out information that does not agree with their faith.


Believers are also guilty of this. If it doesn't fit within their paradigm, then it's usually discarded. I think overall, both of their beliefs limit them.

Overall, the probability of both of them being wrong is highly likely. :lol:


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: r72rock]
    #15317227 -

I'm trying to say that their skepticism may end up interfering with what they'd like to see.

I would hope so.  This is what skepticism does when it works without bias.  Again skepticism is not a problem if applied without personal bias.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander]
    #15317534 -

Quote:
Icelander said:
I would hope so.  This is what skepticism does when it works without bias.  Again skepticism is not a problem if applied without personal bias.


But that in itself is impossible by this definition-
Quote:
definition: One who investigates paranormal claims, pseudoscience and fringe groups, and cults and claims of all kinds between science and pseudoscience, and non-science, and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, and plain old nonsense."



Because as it says- It's under the presupposition that it's 'plain old nonsense' which is a personal bias.

It works better for this one..
Quote:
"member of an ancient Greek school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge,"


Because this takes into account, that to even accept anything as real, we must make the presupposition that our senses are even accurately depicting reality for us in the first place. It's all we have to base anything off of.. and it's still a personal bias. So I can see where they would "doubt the possibility of real knowledge"

(But there is even a catch there- Because the/our awareness that is even conscious of these senses of ours, is presupposed to it's own reference of expression of awareness/consciousness..)

Something occurred to me while reading this thread..

These words "Skeptic" and "Believer" use like this, are ideologies, and that's where we will come into issues to begin with. Not only are they drastically opposing, but as mentioned before, they both will inhibit one from the discovery of Truth..



r72rock - Your OP is right on the mark, and a way we can all help ourselves (and reap the added benefits for us all) is to realize where we buy into ideologies, and recognize how they are limiting us..


--------------------
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side.

"Adapt.
Adjust.
Accommodate."

"Professional help is being thought." - Bill Hicks

It would be hilarious... if it wasn't so sad...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander]
    #15318225 -

Icelander said:
This is what skepticism does when it works without bias.  Again skepticism is not a problem if applied without personal bias.


This is what I was attempting to get at. :laugh:

FunkMasterShroom said:
But that in itself is impossible by this definition-
Quote:
definition: One who investigates paranormal claims, pseudoscience and fringe groups, and cults and claims of all kinds between science and pseudoscience, and non-science, and junk science, voodoo science, pathological science, bad science, and plain old nonsense."



Because as it says- It's under the presupposition that it's 'plain old nonsense' which is a personal bias.



Yeah, that was another one of my points. I think it automatically comes off as limiting.

FunkMasterShroom said:
Something occurred to me while reading this thread..

These words "Skeptic" and "Believer" use like this, are ideologies, and that's where we will come into issues to begin with. Not only are they drastically opposing, but as mentioned before, they both will inhibit one from the discovery of Truth..



I think that's on the mark. :cool: Like you stated, it's good to see where we're limiting ourselves with ideologies and breaking out of them.


--------------------
Current favorite candy: Peanut Butter Kisses

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: FunkMasterShroom]
    #15318751 -

This would be like saying that a scientist has to have a personal bias.  Just because you find some nutty statement or definition of skepticism does not mean it's at all accurate.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander]
    #15320277 -

Icelander said:
This would be like saying that a scientist has to have a personal bias.  Just because you find some nutty statement or definition of skepticism does not mean it's at all accurate.


:confused:
I'm really not sure what you are referring too.

What I am suggesting, is that we cannot guarantee that anything is an absolute, accurate depiction of reality.
Everything is based upon subjective presuppositions of sensual perception..
??

Which brings me back to this-



--------------------
Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side.

"Adapt.
Adjust.
Accommodate."

"Professional help is being thought." - Bill Hicks

It would be hilarious... if it wasn't so sad...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: FunkMasterShroom]
    #15320740 -

What I am suggesting, is that we cannot guarantee that anything is an absolute, accurate depiction of reality.
Everything is based upon subjective presuppositions of sensual perception..
??

I believe this and still consider myself a skeptic.  I think you really misunderstand what a skeptic is in the "real" world.  IMO we go with the best guess based on the preponderance of evidence.  That's all there is to it.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Icelander] * 1
    #15321467 -

i'd say that the majority of skeptics ive encountered are just lazy know it alls.  Instead of requesting evidence why not go out and gain some personal experience? People often rely on science to show them things that it is unable to produce, and in turn say that it's impossible strictly based on the shortcomings of the scientific community.


--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it
I clench my fists and beat it
I light my torch and burn it
I am the beast I worship....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Believers vs. Skeptics [Re: Olympus Mons]
    #15321585 -

Yeah that makes sense.  Lets never ask for evidence of anything. :thumbup:

All the skeptics I let into my life have plenty of experience and are far from lazy.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Spirituality & Mysticism
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel*
( 1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )		 zorbman 183,574 1,020 03/15/18 06:53 PM
by BrendanFlock
* Alien/Human Relations v2.0
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 24,747 65 12/23/22 02:19 AM
by doolhoofd
* What religion are you?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 undecided 26,941 183 08/30/24 06:48 AM
by Nehl
* Charles Manson: as a prophet and a shaman
( 1 2 3 4 ... 19 20 )		 The Whale 33,686 391 07/27/13 10:54 AM
by hidenseek1
* We are angry with our leaders.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )		 teknix 17,484 236 09/30/13 08:43 AM
by zzripz
* God did it
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 2,716 29 02/10/15 06:50 AM
by cbub
* A dream experiment -- UPDATE 10-05-05! RESULTS ARE IN!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 trendalM 20,364 87 10/10/05 11:26 AM
by Ego Death
* The 2010 Crop Circle Season
( 1 2 all )		 c0sm0nautt 1,662 29 08/11/10 05:13 PM
by Holoverse

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Asante, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, Northerner, DividedQuantum
5,198 topic views. 1 members, 39 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 18 queries.