Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
Personally I think you have a limited understanding of what drives the Skeptical community.
I also find it telling that you won't except an authoritative point of view even if that view is from a person from your own side. It seems the only point of view that's right is yours.
I'll clue you in on one of the concepts that drives the skeptical community. It is to understand the universe as it actually is not how we wish it to be no matter how satisfying and reassuring that may be.
"Truth" is a dirty anglosaxon 4 phenome word.
By "truth" most people mean "What I believe!"
It can also mean phenomenal "fact", like an apple falling, or day and night.
Beyond phenomena, there are thoughts, like "the sun rises" or "the earth rotates". The former appears to be phenomenally true from our earthbound perspective, if we have never thought about a ship sailing off the horizon. The later appears to be more phenomenally true from more perspectives. This is
Beyond this we eventually reach logical truth, a system of premises that are self-consistent, but need have no connection to phenomena. In all my life, I think I have found only four "premises" that cohere into a logical set and have the adding virtue of being referential to physical phenomena.
"I like to say that Truth is fuzzy and variable and impossible to pin down, but it's also utterly simple. Truth is what's left behind after you stop lying."
A beautifully human definition. Problem is, all language is only a model, and thus false to fact in some way. I talk of factoids and beliefs, and distinguish between that which is probably accurate, probably not, and intentional falsehoods. Only the last are "lies" and quite a lot of error remains after it is removed. Peace
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests