you can discard it and just assume.. SHE´S PSYCHIC! just because they did one right
they would get the million
but they would need to do more tests in order for us to believe it
then again. if they got the ability, a second test wouldnt be so difficult.
Statistics: Posted by derrida — 03 Jan 2011, 03:40
]]>
As for what is skepticim: there are different meanings for the word. The generally accepted meaning by most skeptics - and certainly those representing organized groups - is the withholding of belief without sufficient reliable evidence.
You're going to get all sorts of views on internet forums: some intelligent, others less so. Some are jerks, others not. That's to be expected. There are all types out there so best not to generalize.
Statistics: Posted by Arouet — 02 Jan 2011, 14:21
]]>
There was one response however to that question which made me reconsider my stance on what being a sceptic really is. One individual responded: "Your question is ridiculous because sceptics are supposed to reject evidence and already don't accept psi as a real phenomenon. This question is like asking what would you think if the impossible happened and how would you react to it". I looked up the term 'sceptic' in one of my old dictionaries and I found this: "Sceptic=(noun) one who doubts the truth of any doctrine or system; one who doubts the existence of God or revelation; an adherent of philosophical skepticism; (adj), doubting; denying revelation". That one answer combined with the actual meaning of the term sceptic/scepticism seems to be a religion of fundamentalist disbelief rather than disbelief or doubt until presented with enough evidence like the definition of skepticism/skeptic that this website uses. It already seems what is termed as a 'pseudosceptic' on this site is what the true meaning of a real skeptic should be to begin with. For this reason I'm not sure if I would classify myself as a sceptic anymore. Maybe 'critical' or 'free thinker' would be one of the better terms to describe myself. I'm fully aware however that most self described critical thinkers have an ideology that seems synonymous with debunking unorthodox concepts (which I can fully justify to a reasonable degree).
I guess I'm always evaluating my stance on many topics. I used to consider myself a dualist but the term 'dualism' reeks of a completely inexplicable transcendental concept. I like to use this term instead that I've read about on the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom website: 'enlightened physics'. This is the same thing with the term 'sceptic' which reeks of its own brand of religion worshipping physicalism. A true freethinker (unlike a sceptic) will still be sceptical but open minded enough to support a different stance when presented with enough evidence. A true sceptic or even an obscurant on the other hand will never accept anything they're not comfortable with and may even have an obligation (because of funding, peers,etc) to actively debunk. True science does work by debunking but there is a line between debunking and fundamentalist disbelief.
Statistics: Posted by Paradox — 02 Jan 2011, 12:20
]]>
by the way.. i am spot on what i said..
Statistics: Posted by derrida — 11 Dec 2010, 11:40
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>