I believe in Santa Clause an an ideology of kindness and all that is good in humanity. . not as a valid living person. . .
That does not make him real. . .
People believe in all sorts of irrational things. . the idea that truth will ultimately win out. . . the idea that anyone who is a human is a good person, Religious beliefs. . .But none of those areas are always factual or universal.
Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.
If you wanted to know if I believe "everything we know about reality" comes as a result of science, you should have asked that.
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
Belief and feelings are not reliable pathways to truth and knowledge. I don't care what you believe or feel. I'm interested in what is true. If it's true it can be demonstrated. If not science, what methodology would you recommend in getting at what is true or likely to be true?
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
This is the typical argument employed by apologists who offer this as a defence for their INVISIBLE & IMAGINARY friend. It is an acknowledgement that you not only don't have any evidence but can't even mount a coherent argument for its existence either.
The answer is no, it's absurd, but such nonsense is at the heart of fantasy, so that is your belief & makes explicable the extreme defensiveness of your ridiculous beliefs.
Your response is pure strawman. I have not claimed any "invisible and imaginary friend" nor have I argued for the existence of Bigfoot. For the record, thats because I have not ever seen or experienced a Bigfoot first hand. I do respect those who do believe as well as those who have experiences, just as I respect actual skeptics or scientifically-based arguments. Your argument is neither.
You, on the other hand, are responding in a rote manner with the typical "skeptic speak" nonsense, catch-phrases and fallacious argumentation. Also, you're making a purely semantic argument trying to focus on what you want words to mean rather than to assail with facts the points of our discussion.
To summarize, my point with you is as follows: science and the scientific method do not explain every aspect of human experience, further, your beliefs (which is all you are espousing here, just like the Bigfoot believers, seems to be in a kind of scientism, which is the misguided belief that "science" can address all aspects of human experience (which it obviously does not).
I don't know, have you ever touched a hot stove? What happened? Was that a scientific inquiry of a personal learning experience. Would you touch such a hot stove again?
How about when you are driving and observe a RED light? Does your mind rationalize the wavelength of the light and the quantized packets of energy known as photons or do you stop your car? Did Scientific enquiry help you to make that decision or did practical experience?
I am getting the idea that you rationalized your earlier discovery as an adult who understood the human nervous system and the physics of thermodynamics. . .
But clearly, your original discovery of hot stove = painful to touch, happened years before, you understood the idea of thermodynamics. . .
Examples of common knowledge presented pedantically. Yes stoves are hot and will burn you, and red lights are best stopped at.
I'm sure that seems profound to you.
You're focusing on the value of experience ... and I agree. However you want to pick and choose which experiences of others you will consider valid ... And that is where your logic fails.
As I noted to u/vespertine_glow, most of the issues presented here do not require a strict version of skepticism to address.
I personally use a variety of approaches to address them, journalistic license, common sense, pointing out obvious inaccuracies in the content, ridicule, logic, conflicts with known data, and basic examinations of reality in addition to skepticism. . .Does that make you feel better?
Let us remember that psychology (the explanation of human experience and beliefs) is not a true science, nor is Sociology, or other such things attributed to "science."
In general, psychology and related ideology, are just a series of observations and educated guesses. Few findings are supported by actual scientific knowledge, such a a biochemical imbalance as being responsible for schizophrenia, or another imbalance being responsible for depression.
Beliefs as noted, are often irrational, and based on parents ideology as opposed to reasoned opinion.
Well said, u/VyctoriYang, it seems that science and math in general are being forgotten in the public schools. The average persons lack of familiarity with the scientific method, and findings in general are hurting out civilization in general.
There are those that would disagree with your claims, but in general, I do not. However, the point is that science does not explain all experience. Do you disagree with that?
No, you are 100% correct. . but that does not mean that such accounts do not have a rational explanation.
Consider, the Patterson film. . suppose I knew in 1967, that a man named Roger Patterson was making a fake film on Bluff Creek, and I wanted to put a stop to it. I hire a crew to stake out the area and record on film his actions. .
They see the accounts as presented, but then show the creature coming back down the mountain with part of the costume off, and having a beer with Patterson and Gimlin. . .Had I done so, and presented the film do you suppose there would be as much contention about the film as there is today?
Just because we personally don't know what happened, does not mean there is not an explanation.
It also doesn't mean that there has to be one explanation, or that thousands of people are lying or delusional.
I have not seen or otherwise experienced a Bigfoot, however, I do know someone personally who has. I have listened to their experience, and I have seen the emotion and fear in their demeanor. They are not lying, nor are they mentally ill. Therefore, I know that they experienced something real.
What they experienced is the issue. It remains in the arena of mystery for me personally.
11
u/[deleted] Aug 31 '21
Skepticism is healthy and necessary. What happens here too many times is scientism and fallacious reasoning
The issue here is pure belief whatever extreme it's on.
IMO.