View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: Has the term "skeptic" been hijacked to mean its opposit

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 04 Oct 2011, 07:37

Aftter last post, froozen internet. Shut down, told had acessed secretss was bkocked. Reboot, total failure. Reduced to ebook. No music. Expletives bleeping deleted
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta






Re: Has the term "skeptic" been hijacked to mean its opposit

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2012, 19:17

Look what someone wrote in the Unexplained Mysteries Forum about how the term "skeptic" has been perverted into a psy op:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=235258

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:
1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?


All part of social conditioning; if you want to be thought of as acceptable and normal then you best better march along with the rest of the drones. Don't question, don't research, don't dispute.

This sort of mindset permeates every facet of society be it politics, education, religion or whatnot.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Has the term "skeptic" been hijacked to mean its opposit

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2012, 19:19

Kevin Ryan, a 9/11 truther who was fired when he blew the whistle on NIST using fraudulent methods in their testing, debated Michael Shermer and realized the same thing about his "skepticism". He writes in his blog about Shermer's behavior during their debate:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.
....................
My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”.
------------------
It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Has the term "skeptic" been hijacked to mean its opposit

Postby Arouet » 10 Dec 2012, 21:31

Scepcop wrote:Look what someone wrote in the Unexplained Mysteries Forum about how the term "skeptic" has been perverted into a psy op:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=235258

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:
1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?


All part of social conditioning; if you want to be thought of as acceptable and normal then you best better march along with the rest of the drones. Don't question, don't research, don't dispute.

This sort of mindset permeates every facet of society be it politics, education, religion or whatnot.


Here is the Merriam-Webster definition;

Definition of SKEPTIC

1
: an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2
: a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles


and skepticism:

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
See skepticism defined for English-language learners »
See skepticism defined for kids »
Examples of SKEPTICISM

She regarded the researcher's claims with skepticism.
It's good to maintain a healthy skepticism about fad diets.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Has the term "skeptic" been hijacked to mean its opposit

Postby really? » 10 Dec 2012, 22:06

Scepcop wrote:Look what someone wrote in the Unexplained Mysteries Forum about how the term "skeptic" has been perverted into a psy op:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=235258

According to the dictionary a sceptic (skeptic) is:
1. a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc, in general

What the hell happened?!!!

Now days a skeptic is a *snip* who parrots the mainstream of media and closed-minded science.

And the person who doubts authority is now a "Conspiracy Theorist".

What's going on?


All part of social conditioning; if you want to be thought of as acceptable and normal then you best better march along with the rest of the drones. Don't question, don't research, don't dispute.

This sort of mindset permeates every facet of society be it politics, education, religion or whatnot.


Arouet wrote:Here is the Merriam-Webster definition;

Definition of SKEPTIC

1
: an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2
: a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles


and skepticism:

Definition of SKEPTICISM

1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
See skepticism defined for English-language learners »
See skepticism defined for kids »
Examples of SKEPTICISM

She regarded the researcher's claims with skepticism.
It's good to maintain a healthy skepticism about fad diets.


You continuously demonstrate to us all you don't know the what skepticism is and isn't. Your brand of skepticism has much less to do with it and more to do with maintaining a particular world meme. Your brand of skeptical facts ( I use this word loosely) brings nothing to the table that can't be easily refuted. Yet you think the act of questioning puts you on some higher intellectual ground, it does not. Skepticism should bring you closer to the truth not maintain a self described outlook. I've posted a few articles that describe and define the motivations and reasons people like you continue to believe what they want to believe. You might want to read them.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Scepcop » 18 Dec 2012, 10:32

A skeptic is someone who doubts what they are told, and questions things with critical thinking. According to Wikipedia, the original meaning of skepticism is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]"

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

However, a skeptic in Western culture today is someone who uncritically accepts whatever the establishment tells them without question, takes whatever authority says as truth, and ridicules/debunks any opposing or dissenting views. They will defend the establishment version of things like religious fanatics, and will even lie, distort and falsify in order to do so. Their behavior is anything but objective or truth seeking. When the government lies or covers up, they will assist them in doing so, along with the mainstream media of course.

They falsely assume that government lies, conspiracies and cover ups aren't possible because people can't keep secrets (while ignoring whistleblowers, including those that were silenced). Therefore, everything the government says is automatically true by default to them, requiring no evidence or burden of proof. But anyone who believes in a conspiracy, no matter how validly based, is automatically wrong, regardless of the facts or evidence.

This is not the behavior of a skeptic, but of a propagandist establishment defender, or disinfo operative. Yet people who do this call themselves "skeptics", such as Michael Shermer, the JREF crowd, CSICOP folks, and others.

Others have noticed this as well. On my videos and forum, these comments were posted:

"The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."

"I've never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility."


Kevin Ryan, a whistleblower who exposed the fraudulent tests by NIST to cover up the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11, wrote this in his blog after a debate with "skeptic" Michael Shermer:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.

My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."


Thus, the term "skeptic" has been flipped to mean "one who accepts what they are told by authority without question and follows the groupthink party line" rather than one who "questions what they are told or thinks for oneself" which is the true meaning of the term. In essence, you are only allowed to be "skeptical" (ridicule and dismiss) of whatever the establishment doesn't want you to believe.

This appears to be a mind control attempt to convince people that skepticism or critical thinking is ONLY allowed when it is used to DEFEND the establishment and official version of things, and DEBUNK all opposing viewpoints.

What this means is that no matter how much proof is discovered that 9/11 was an inside job, or that a high level government conspiracy was responsible for the JFK assassination, a "skeptic" according to "organized skeptic groups", will use his/her "skepticism" to try to dismiss and debunk all conspiracy evidence, no matter how valid.

It is obvious that this is nothing other than a form of mind control by the establishment to get you to accept whatever they tell you, and to falsely believe that authority=truth, when in reality it doesn't of course.

Kevin Ryan made the same observation in his blog when he made this great accurate insight:

http://digwithin.net/2011/09/25/skeptic ... ving-brain

"This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”."


For more on this, see: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 02:02

What does any of that (even if it were accurate) has anything to do with skepticm.

Scepcop: modern philosophical skepticm is basically accepting proposition only when they are sufficiently evidenced based. Whether that is consistent with the original greek skeptics I don't know, but who really cares? Words evolve over time, that's the nature of language.

As for your other points, I've countered them before and you've ignored it, so I'm not going to bother doing it again.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 02:41

When you read Beowulf (the first known written English book as I understand it or close enough for our purposes!) or Shakespeare - do you bemoan how the English language has changed and curse all the English speakers throughout the world who have caused the language to evolve?

Here's an excerpt from Beowulf:

[1] Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
[2] þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
[3] hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
[4] Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
[5] monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
[6] egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
[7] feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
[8] weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
[9] þæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
[10] ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
[11] gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs god cyning!
[12] Ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned,
[13] geong in geardum, þone god sende
[14] folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat
[15] þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
[16] lange hwile. Him þæs liffrea
[17] wuldres wealdend, woroldare forgeaf;
[18] Beowulf wæs breme (blæd wide sprang),
[19] Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
[20] Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,


Or perhaps you think we should still speak as the first people to use language did - estimated at around 2,000,000 years ago?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 02:42

Ha! Just noticing that this thread has my very first post on this site on it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Dec 2012, 05:43

Arouet wrote:When you read Beowulf (the first known written English book as I understand it or close enough for our purposes!) or Shakespeare - do you bemoan how the English language has changed and curse all the English speakers throughout the world who have caused the language to evolve?

No. I curse the frickin' dimwit who changed the V to a U however. That one cheeses me off. And for the record, I've never read Beowulf or read any Shakespeare but I did go to visit Shakey's house in England. He wasn't home.

I also don't read poetry and I suck at that Haiku crap. I am however, great with composing dirty limmericks. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 07:11

Now you see, Ninja, how difficult it is to respond to something like this while saying nothing that could be construed as dismissive or rude? I mean, can anyone respond to this without using the word "nonsense"? I'm not sure, but I'll give it a shot:


justintime wrote:The analogy of the doughnut still applies. You see the hole in the doughnut and miss the doughnut.


Is this the same thing as missing the forest for the trees? I've never heard the donut analogy before. Not sure how you see the empty middle but not the surrounding donuts which create the middle, but ok.

The history of the language is less important than what it has done for the people who introduced it/spoke it. Today Britain is a island where the people are suffering from austerity measures hardly regal of a past Empire.


Now this seems like non- wait not going to say it. How about this: some would question whether this paragraph is coher- hmm, that still sounds harsh. Let's try: I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is related to the question we're discussing - that is: the evolution of language.

Now shift to the Americans who are trying to speak the language.


Trying to speak English? That they carried over from Britain? Ok.

comunication skills have cost them several wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) and a near collapse of the economy. Their mounting debt is staggering.


What does this gibber- erm, thought (that's better) have to do with what we were talking about?

Now compare that with countries where English is not the native language and my position crystallizes. Americans are hijacking a language that hijacked an Empire.


Balderd- ummm. Sir, I think you are incorrect that your point is crystallized or even cohe- um, um, ummmmmmmmm consistent with arguments that are constructed according the rules of lo- erm: I respectfully disagree that your point is crystallized based on your premises and argument structure!

Hah! Wasn't easy, but I did it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Dec 2012, 07:47

Arouet wrote:Now you see, Ninja, how difficult it is to respond to something like this while saying nothing that could be construed as dismissive or rude? I mean, can anyone respond to this without using the word "nonsense"? I'm not sure, but I'll give it a shot:
As my mother often said, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything.

justintime wrote:The analogy of the doughnut still applies. You see the hole in the doughnut and miss the doughnut.


Is this the same thing as missing the forest for the trees? I've never heard the donut analogy before. Not sure how you see the empty middle but not the surrounding donuts which create the middle, but ok.
I want Dunkin Munchkins now.

The history of the language is less important than what it has done for the people who introduced it/spoke it. Today Britain is a island where the people are suffering from austerity measures hardly regal of a past Empire.


Now this seems like non- wait not going to say it. How about this: some would question whether this paragraph is coher- hmm, that still sounds harsh. Let's try: I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this is related to the question we're discussing - that is: the evolution of language.

Now shift to the Americans who are trying to speak the language.


Trying to speak English? That they carried over from Britain? Ok.
First of all, Americans don't speaky the English-o, we speak Umerican with all sorts of accents and assorted ways to speak it. It's a conglomeration of English, Latin, French, etc.

comunication skills have cost them several wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) and a near collapse of the economy. Their mounting debt is staggering.


What does this gibber- erm, thought (that's better) have to do with what we were talking about?
Communication skills.

Now compare that with countries where English is not the native language and my position crystallizes. Americans are hijacking a language that hijacked an Empire.


Balderd- ummm. Sir, I think you are incorrect that your point is crystallized or even cohe- um, um, ummmmmmmmm consistent with arguments that are constructed according the rules of lo- erm: I respectfully disagree that your point is crystallized based on your premises and argument structure!

Hah! Wasn't easy, but I did it!

While I don't understand much of this entire conversation or where it's supposed to go, I'm guessing it's all about communication skills.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 07:50

NinjaPuppy wrote:While I don't understand much of this entire conversation or where it's supposed to go, I'm guessing it's all about communication skills.


I'm not sure justin is all that concerned about having what he says understood. I get the sense he rather prefers not to be understood!

(d'oh- that want't polite)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Dec 2012, 07:54

Arouet wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:While I don't understand much of this entire conversation or where it's supposed to go, I'm guessing it's all about communication skills.


I'm not sure justin is all that concerned about having what he says understood. I get the sense he rather prefers not to be understood!

(d'oh- that want't polite)

I can think of at least 3 other regular members here that are hard to understand. Justintime should fit in well around here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

Postby Arouet » 19 Dec 2012, 08:00

But do they do it on purpose?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest