Has Science & Skepticism Gone Against Each Other?

[NinjaPuppy]

Sooooo does that make you a "pseudo-believer" when the subject is the paranormal?

In a way it does. By definition "pseudo" = false. If skeptics claim that there is no proof to anything paranormal, then it seems to me that it would be a perfect description. We believe in what skeptics claim is false.

[really?]

Sooooo does that make you a "pseudo-believer" when the subject is the paranormal?

In a way it does. By definition "pseudo" = false. If skeptics claim that there is no proof to anything paranormal, then it seems to me that it would be a perfect description. We believe in what skeptics claim is false.

What skeptics claim is doubt.

[NinjaPuppy]

What skeptics claim is doubt.

I stand corrected. I should have said that what debunkers and pseudoskeptics claim is false.

[ProfWag]

Craig was right. Skeptics do not admit that they are wrong. Can you show us articles by Randi or Shermer admitting that they were wrong about something?

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/10/i-was-wrong/
Now, admit YOU were wrong about something...anything...Scepcop.

[Arouet]

Arouet,
If skepticism is not about taking positions, then how come Michael Shermer says that "There is no such thing as the supernatural" and that "I conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist"? Isn't that taking positions? Or is he not a true skeptic? Is Shermer wrong about anything, in your opinion?

Craig was right. Skeptics do not admit that they are wrong. Can you show us articles by Randi or Shermer admitting that they were wrong about something?

Its not that skeptics can't take positions, of course they can. But they should use skeptical techniques in coming up with those opinions.

Scepcop I've posted more than a dozen examples refuting your vast generalizations about certain skeptics. You have not acknowledged a single one. I've even, I believe, posted Shermer in his own words on bigfoot. You have ignored it and repeat your accusations as if I never wrote anything. I've posted comments by both Randi and Shermer acknowledging that psi or bigfoot might be real, just that there is insufficient evidence to believe in it.

Go back to this thread viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1379 actually read it, and tell me if YOU acknowledge that you were wrong about these guys?

[caniswalensis]

Arouet,
If skepticism is not about taking positions, then how come Michael Shermer says that "There is no such thing as the supernatural" and that "I conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist"? Isn't that taking positions? Or is he not a true skeptic? Is Shermer wrong about anything, in your opinion?

Craig was right. Skeptics do not admit that they are wrong. Can you show us articles by Randi or Shermer admitting that they were wrong about something?

If I may, I believe Arouet was pointing out that skepticism is not a position, It is a method. Of course skeptics have positions on things. Everyone does. The thing that seperates skeptics or critical thinkers is the method they use to arrive at their positions.

A simple google search revealed an article by Dr. Shermer in which he admits to being wrong about two things:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/10/i-was-wrong/

Of course the larger point of his article is that he decries people who refuse to admit they are wrong. Winston, it seems like you and Dr. Shermer have some common ground after all.

[Craig Browning]

I learned many years ago that there is a huge difference between "belief" and "knowing"... people can't change what they "know" and that is why I can't shift my position; far too many instances in which the views of science and rationalism fall short. As I've said in the past, too many things that cannot be replicated by them and as a result I become the target of ridicule and accusation... the one that gets bullied by those one's that can't step up to the proverbial plate. But the door is always opened just as it is for christianity; they day my questions are answered Bull Shit free, will be the day I change my views... I'm not holding my breath.

Sooooo does that make you a "pseudo-believer" when the subject is the paranormal?

I've never concealed this fact; I'm 93% skeptic with 7% believer for sake of keeping life interesting

I've shared many times on this forum in fact that as someone that "believes" I bend over backwards when teaching Metaphysics, to get the students to take off their pink shaded glasses and get the wool out of their ears so they can EXPERIENCE the greater reality vs. their fantasies about it all. I've pissed off numerous pagan groups and new age types time and again and yet, I've had literal "elders" from within either community take me out for coffee and assuring me that what I'm trying to get them to recognize is the truth... the "high mysteries" of the Occult, if you would.

Magick, as it was understood by our distant ancestors and is embraced by sooo many of today's desperate populace, WAS SCIENCE... the intelligent view as to what was what when the intelligent people of the day hadn't anything else to go by. Over the centuries much of this evolved and became augmented and as recently as 600 - 800 years ago, started becoming a new thing -- actual science; physics, optics, botany, chemistry and even psychology (human behavior) ALL evolved out of these mystical traditions, both high & low. This is one reason I'm guilty for some word play when it comes to the issue; seeing the idea of "Magick" as being another term for "Science" as it was used in times long, long ago.