I think the proof of skepticism would be that the non-septic claims to be gnostic about something, therefore the onus is on him to prove his knowledge. Since invariably alleged knowledge has at its backbone some unproven assumption, the skeptical position is validated.
Skepticism in one sentence
- Thread starter Global Skeptic
- Start date
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Nah, incomprehensible poetry is a continental thing. Incomprehensible calculus is a distinctly analytic style. They both share the same basic purpose of excluding the uninitiated, of course, but the go about it in very different ways.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
What definition of "skeptic" are we going with here?
Because the word has been sort of co-opted by the crazy, fringe, and extreme. See global warming "skeptics".
They aren't skeptics. They have an agenda.
Because the word has been sort of co-opted by the crazy, fringe, and extreme. See global warming "skeptics".
They aren't skeptics. They have an agenda.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
It sends a shudder of revulsion down my spine to see the use of formal logic in analytic philosophy analogised with the project the OP is engaged in...
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
I mean, I consider myself a Skeptic and all (with a capital S), but I feel skeptical towards this interpretation of Skepticism and non-Skepticism.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Philosophy: making simple things extremely complicated.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The world is complicated and philosophy can help describe it.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Also a valid definition for "scientist", as it happens.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Scientist: natural philosopher.
Global Skeptic
King
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 618
Hi Borachio. There are some scientists who take offense to being linked to the rest of philosophy and thus that science is a form of philosophy and in one sense it is always fun to tease them with that modern science is the intellectual work(methodology) of philosophers, cue Karl R. Popper.
For the rest of you, if and when RL permits I will post more.
With regards
GS
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Hi Borachio. There are some scientists who take offense to being linked to the rest of philosophy and thus that science is a form of philosophy and in one sense it is always fun to tease them with that modern science is the intellectual work(methodology) of philosophers, cue Karl R. Popper.
For the rest of you, if and when RL permits I will post more.
With regards
GS
It's amusing how certain academia take snobbish pride in their respective fields (especially when demonizing the others) and two places I oftenmost see that happen are the natural sciences, economics and jura. But I guess that's just a humanist hippie speaking or whatever those people claim.
Personally I find it ******** to pride your field over other areas, especially in the regard of feeling offended when being linked to obvious connections. And those scientists you speak of, well, they're not going to revolutionize scientific methodology as they probably don't quite understand the philosophical framework of it.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
What about explaining the rational using irration? That seems to make the most sense, if it can't go the opposite way.
As far as I know Popper hasn't really had any effect on how science is done. He hasn't even described properly how it is done, his successors did it better.
Also, even if he had created the methodology of science, it wouldn't mean that the science is his intellectual work. Physics for example rests on mathematics, but it would be pretty odd for mathematicians to say that physics is their achievement.
Global Skeptic
King
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 618
It's amusing how certain academia take snobbish pride in their respective fields (especially when demonizing the others) and two places I oftenmost see that happen are the natural sciences, economics and jura. But I guess that's just a humanist hippie speaking or whatever those people claim.
Personally I find it ******** to pride your field over other areas, especially in the regard of feeling offended when being linked to obvious connections. And those scientists you speak of, well, they're not going to revolutionize scientific methodology as they probably don't quite understand the philosophical framework of it.
It goes both ways. Let me give you an absurd example:
Some (naturalistic and hard data)scientist, but not all scientists: I don't do philosophy, philosophy is meaningless!
Me: You have no hard data or observational facts as "we observe", because you are "reporting as a subject" your 1st person thinking and emotions. That is not science if science is "we observe", rather it is philosophy as "I think".
The rest is a "cat-fight" over the authority over words, i.e. some but not all scientist believe they hold authority over reality:
Some scientists: Reality/the universe/everything is physical!!! (I won, I hold authority over what reality is).
Me: No!!! You are doing philosophy and you are playing outside the field science! Get used to it!
More later!
Akka
Moody old mage.
I really don't see what "1 = P AND (NOT P)" has anything to do with skepticism. Is it supposed to make any sense ?
Skepticism in one sentence would rather be "How and why ?".
Skepticism in one sentence would rather be "How and why ?".
Global Skeptic
King
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 618
"1 = P AND (NOT P)" is absurd and skepticism is at it core reductio ad absurdum on "everything, something, something else and/or nothing including reductio ad absurdum" and the realization even if that is absurd, reality goes on.
"Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one". Guess who that one is attributed to.
To speak the truth, it looks to me, and probably to many other posters here too, that you are going through some sort of shadow boxing here: You aren't presenting a case of your own, but taking punches at some statements you have once heard, or thought someone could say, and waiting for someone get in the ring with you.
But if your position is so dear to you, wouldn't it be better to make a good case for it? Write a post where you state clearly what exactly is your position, what kind of scepticism is that you support, and what you are against. That's something we could have better discussion on.
I had my doubts that this thread would be about my posting style.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Similar threads
