a third type of skepticism

#21
Truth is more complex than is epistemological truth, yes. But then again science does not purport to deal with all truth - only incremental prior art and its critical path of development.

Yes, metacriticism is necessary - in science and skepticism that is called now, 1. peer review and 2. stakeholder accountability. As a Buddhist I cannot apply skepticism to Confucianism or monetary policy for instance. That is simply debate of general philosophy and impulse. It is not science.

But social skepticism focuses on 'representing science' and, rather than doing peer review of study results, chooses which subjects are allowed to be studied to begin with - and this constrains that cadre of dark actors to a smaller footprint than you are addressing.

You are talking about philosophical debates, not skepticism. Skepticism is that philosophy which particularly pertains to the exercise of science.
Peer review is expensive in various ways. Who has to pay? We all do. But profit is laid down by policy and policy...well you see the problems? Right to the exercise of science -- which is power manifesting itself through social policy! Granted, lots of reasons to not use science or skepticism -- enter religion.
 
#22
Yes, a set of words for this is very appropriate... have at it!! I love that. When we find that new words are necessary - this is the first hint that one adequately grasps a subject. It is an intelligent critique and critical path development - the key flag of understanding.
I think i mostly set off the wrong flags initially. Its hard to convey positions effeciently unless there is a culture behind it. I know now i ought to name my ideas something else as it runs the risk of being appropriated into the fake news category.
 
#25
The last kind of skepticism has to do with social organization post capitalism. Because like it or not, reincarnation, aliens, after life or not, knowledge is unlimited and its control is the last resource that mankind can use to gain power over others.
Superqualia,
Who are those "others"? I'd like to understand what you are thinking about. Is it about some people gaining power over other people or about mankind gaining power over nonhuman entities? Do you think it is better if somebody controlled that knowledge or would you prefer that nobody controls it?
 
#26
Superqualia,
Who are those "others"? I'd like to understand what you are thinking about. Is it about some people gaining power over other people or about mankind gaining power over nonhuman entities? Do you think it is better if somebody controlled that knowledge or would you prefer that nobody controls it?
The premise behind skeptiko 2.0 is that something does oversee, create and distribute justice. But everyone can see empirically that doesn't happen on earth. No religion understands creation, nor does any philosophy have clear answers.

I don't claim there is no justice, just that we don't understand it. We are awful at it.

We are the others because something else made this world for a purpose that left us out. In new age spirituality, this is our creation. But if a future self made it, or god, or some advanced technocracy -- we are not them.

One NDE'r was asked by the light, "did you get what you wanted?"

But how can you know unless you had some idea of why you are here. Look around.

To answer, i believe in various forms of decentralization. Skeptiko does a great job of doing that by dethroaning priests of science and religion. But that leaves a power vacuum.
 
#27
Thank you, superqualia.

The premise behind skeptiko 2.0 is that something does oversee, create and distribute justice.
Are you, by "Skeptiko 2.0", referring to "The 5 Things You Need to Know About Skeptiko"? I listened into what Alex is explaining but I am not sure whether that is helpful here.

To answer, i believe in various forms of decentralization. Skeptiko does a great job of doing that by dethroaning priests of science and religion. But that leaves a power vacuum.
Are you concerned that the wrong people will try to fill that power vacuum, or are you concerned that whoever created our planet is doing a bad job in controlling us? Is that "third type of skepticism" something you fear or find abhorrent or is it something you desire or hope for?

I am following this thread because I am trying to find out more about the mindset of those individuals who are calling themselves "skeptics", falsely pretending to defend science, but I am somewhat lost. Did you intend to talk about them, too?
 
#28
Thank you, superqualia.



Are you, by "Skeptiko 2.0", referring to "The 5 Things You Need to Know About Skeptiko"? I listened into what Alex is explaining but I am not sure whether that is helpful here.



Are you concerned that the wrong people will try to fill that power vacuum, or are you concerned that whoever created our planet is doing a bad job in controlling us? Is that "third type of skepticism" something you fear or find abhorrent or is it something you desire or hope for?

I am following this thread because I am trying to find out more about the mindset of those individuals who are calling themselves "skeptics", falsely pretending to defend science, but I am somewhat lost. Did you intend to talk about them, too?
My perception is that the early shows were skeptical but now he is a believer. Oversimplied? yes.

No concern over the justice makers / creators etc. I am simply looking for unusually aware people. I am just a guy talking on a forum! :)

Bad skeptics? Like novella and randi?You can't really expect to overthrow a scientific paradigm with stories. Nor with good data. You need to know. To become part of the expected way of things.

If this universe is real, and the pain reminds me it is why do we need to eat living things? Its why i said its a living emulation. Well, one of many reasons. An emulation that feeds on itself! That's not the creation of a perfect being.
 
Last edited:
#29
My perception is that the early shows were skeptical but now he is a believer. Oversimplied? yes.
Now I can see why I am having problems grasping what you are saying. You are familiar with this forum while I am new. So, you know how it changed over time, but I don't.

Maybe this is the reason why I don't understand what you mean by "believer". I know "believers in god", "believers in science", believers in things which can only be discussed in forums for the open-minded, and I know different ways in which people use the term "believer". I know it is often used condescendingly for people who "believe in aliens" or who "believe in the influence of planets on our lives" or who "believe in homeopathy". (As a person who has experienced remote viewing and some other things that officially don't work, I do not use it that way.) And I assume that you do not use it that way either, but how exactly?

I am simply looking for unusually aware people. I am just a guy talking on a forum! :)
:) And you created a forum with an interesting headline.

Bad skeptics? Like novella and randi?You can't really expect to overthrow a scientific paradigm with stories. Nor with good data. You need to know. To become part of the expected way of things.
Which scientific paradigm and which stories are you thinking of? What are these individuals for you? I think that they are following some tactics and that they do not really have something to say.

If this universe is real, and the pain reminds me it is why do we need to eat living things?
Its why i said its a living emulation. Well, one of many reasons. An emulation that feeds on itself! That's not the creation of a perfect being.
Pain and predatory behavior seem to be key ingredients to ruining the experience here on Earth. And maybe to know would be the antidote. Is that what you want to talk about?
 
#30
Now I can see why I am having problems grasping what you are saying. You are familiar with this forum while I am new. So, you know how it changed over time, but I don't.

Maybe this is the reason why I don't understand what you mean by "believer". I know "believers in god", "believers in science", believers in things which can only be discussed in forums for the open-minded, and I know different ways in which people use the term "believer". I know it is often used condescendingly for people who "believe in aliens" or who "believe in the influence of planets on our lives" or who "believe in homeopathy". (As a person who has experienced remote viewing and some other things that officially don't work, I do not use it that way.) And I assume that you do not use it that way either, but how exactly?



:) And you created a forum with an interesting headline.



Which scientific paradigm and which stories are you thinking of? What are these individuals for you? I think that they are following some tactics and that they do not really have something to say.



Pain and predatory behavior seem to be key ingredients to ruining the experience here on Earth. And maybe to know would be the antidote. Is that what you want to talk about?
The materialist skeptics didn't doubt, they believed. Skeptiko believes -- also not doubt.

They have a point of view, a worldview, a point of contention which is held in abeyance. So they all have content. But you mean truth.

What is truth without a purpose? It's the difference between a machine that functions for its master and humankind that claims to understand and implement righteousness.

We have neither capital T truth or purpose. All we have is our home -- ourselves, and that is self-interest, perhaps for lonely eternity. So I mean to critique science, capitalism, democracy, as all are forms of authoritarianism. Not because they are all false but because their are no versions of those 'isms' worth saving. There is no safety if you are infinite. You will never have a perfect centered self but instead will ceaselessly change.

You might think that cannot happen. The world is in quite a mood lately. Science can eat itself. Capitalism can eat itself, and democracy? Well, we never had mob rule thank goodness!
 
#31
The materialist skeptics didn't doubt, they believed. Skeptiko believes -- also not doubt.
I don't know, can't see what it is they believe.

We have neither capital T truth or purpose. All we have is our home -- ourselves, and that is self-interest, perhaps for lonely eternity. So I mean to critique science, capitalism, democracy, as all are forms of authoritarianism. Not because they are all false but because their are no versions of those 'isms' worth saving. There is no safety if you are infinite. You will never have a perfect centered self but instead will ceaselessly change.
That made me think about this question: Do we lose our defense against / get prone to evil the moment we start assuming that this planet has been our ultimate destiny and that we? will end when we die? Is our robustness increased by feeling? - knowing? - assuming? that we are eternal / infinite and just changing our way of being? - form of existence? when our souls leave our bodies? (I put all those question marks there because the meaning of this thought varies strongly depending on the individual's perspective.) Is that what you are thinking about?
 
Top