You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #2: I'm not sure about this. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
dtexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-18-11 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not sure about this.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -The Trouble with Skepticism Speck Tater  Nov-18-11 12:27 PM   #0 
  - When both sides think you're an idiot, sometimes you just are one.  Cronus Protagonist   Nov-18-11 12:30 PM   #1 
  - I'm not sure about this.  dtexdem   Nov-18-11 12:30 PM   #2 
  - Keep up the good work! :) Healthy skepticism is vital. nt  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 03:31 PM   #11 
  - Such as...  zipplewrath   Nov-18-11 12:37 PM   #3 
  - A few examples...  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 02:48 PM   #6 
  - You have a broad description of skeptic  zipplewrath   Nov-18-11 03:44 PM   #12 
     - And skeptics redefine "skeptic" to exclude each failure, thereby...  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 06:30 PM   #19 
        - Fine, then provide us with evidence  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 07:27 PM   #24 
           - OK. You win. You're right. I change my mind. nt  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 07:50 PM   #25 
              - Translation: I have no evidence to back up my claims  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 07:54 PM   #26 
                 - Yup. You're right. You're always right. I conceed. nt  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 08:25 PM   #29 
  - Two examples: Wegener and Copernicus.  Jim__   Nov-19-11 06:09 AM   #36 
     - I like your examples  zipplewrath   Nov-19-11 04:06 PM   #38 
     - So where does this "known" problem  skepticscott   Nov-19-11 04:18 PM   #39 
        - "Large changes require the accumulation of more evidence, which takes more time"...  MarkCharles   Nov-19-11 04:26 PM   #41 
           - Strange too  skepticscott   Nov-19-11 05:25 PM   #42 
     - The rejection of Wegener had to do with geologists being overly deferential to physicists...  Odin2005   Nov-21-11 09:11 PM   #48 
  - *shrug* No one is perfect. Anyone can make a mistake. nt  Deep13   Nov-18-11 12:42 PM   #4 
  - Skeptic and Cynic  PATRICK   Nov-18-11 12:44 PM   #5 
  - See Carl Sagan's 'The Burden of Skepticism'  pokerfan   Nov-18-11 02:55 PM   #7 
  - +1000 Exactly my point. People who call themselves skeptics are often utterly closed minded. nt  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 03:30 PM   #9 
     - That is simply self-contradictory. Skeptics' first obligation is  MarkCharles   Nov-18-11 03:49 PM   #13 
  - I have my doubts about that.  jeepnstein   Nov-18-11 03:16 PM   #8 
  - Good for you! :) nt  Speck Tater   Nov-18-11 03:30 PM   #10 
  - First of all  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 04:57 PM   #14 
  - Well stated! Thank you!  MarkCharles   Nov-18-11 05:03 PM   #15 
  - Right. When skeptics  frogmarch   Nov-18-11 05:26 PM   #16 
  - And how exactly do you define  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 05:37 PM   #17 
     - Donald Menzel was an  frogmarch   Nov-18-11 06:35 PM   #20 
        - "without any evidence to support their claims"  MarkCharles   Nov-18-11 06:38 PM   #21 
        - I'm an atheist, so  frogmarch   Nov-18-11 06:43 PM   #22 
        - I'm waiting too. Been waiting over fifty years for evidence.  Manifestor_of_Light   Nov-19-11 04:25 PM   #40 
        - Sorry, but you're dead wrong about Klass  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 07:19 PM   #23 
           - Klass was  frogmarch   Nov-18-11 08:36 PM   #30 
              - All of which fails to show any instance  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 09:02 PM   #31 
                 - No, and I didn't ever argue that evidence was  frogmarch   Nov-18-11 09:30 PM   #34 
                    - Just above, you said about Klass  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 09:48 PM   #35 
                    - What's your deal?  frogmarch   Nov-20-11 05:58 PM   #43 
                       - I can understand why you'd want to call it nitpicking  skepticscott   Nov-20-11 06:30 PM   #44 
                          - Klass  frogmarch   Nov-20-11 07:29 PM   #45 
                             - So can you cite ONE case  skepticscott   Nov-20-11 08:09 PM   #46 
                    - I see what you are saying, but if a more reasonable and plausible explanation is to be found...  cleanhippie   Nov-20-11 09:13 PM   #47 
  - +1  freshwest   Nov-18-11 06:02 PM   #18 
  - Word of advice, don't criticize a subject that you aren't versed in...  Humanist_Activist   Nov-18-11 08:04 PM   #27 
  - +1,000,000  MarkCharles   Nov-18-11 08:13 PM   #28 
  - Good news  skepticscott   Nov-18-11 09:04 PM   #32 
  - ...  NMMNG   Nov-18-11 09:09 PM   #33 
  - Your understanding of skepticism is on par with your understanding...  Silent3   Nov-19-11 02:48 PM   #37 
  - Not at all - in fact skeptics ADMIT their failures, and re run the tests  Taverner   Nov-22-11 11:49 AM   #49 
  - If a skeptic thinks he's always right, then he's not a skeptic :-P  Demstud   Nov-22-11 01:10 PM   #50 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC