I got your attention, right?!! :)
Well, I leave science be for a moment and claim something else.
Me: Religion is bad!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: Religion does more bad than good!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: The world would be a better place if we replaced religion with science!
Someone: How do you know that? Who is that we? With what authority do you speak as a we and for all the world? How do you intend to replace religion? Can science do normative claims?
That is the short version and a practical example of what it means to be a skeptic. It is also why skeptics can be a pain in ***.
I as a human of course act and do stuff, but the moment someone goes we and the world, I go skeptic. That has nothing in particular to do with religion or politics, rather the moment someone in practice "plays" we and the world, I "bite" as a skeptic.
Someone: Why do you do that? Can't we agree that world would be a better place if we all became rational, logical, coherent and only used evidence and dropped beliefs?
Me: How do you know that this is possible?
Now I will answer, if you want to discuss how we might achieve a better world; i.e. I will try to be positive. But if you intent to go the route of in effect - "I only accept non-subjective evidence" I will "bite". That is philosophy, not science and it has been tried and it doesn't work.
So yes, I will try to be positive and not skeptical/negative about a better world, but I don't do - "I know with rationality, logical, objectivity, coherence and evidence and without subjective beliefs how we can achieve a better world".
It has been tried for over 2000 years now, both in philosophy and religion and it doesn't work!!!
So if you think you can do it using science, you are in all likelihood not doing science, but philosophy and/or religion. You just haven't realized it!
With regards
Well, I leave science be for a moment and claim something else.
Me: Religion is bad!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: Religion does more bad than good!
Someone: How do you know that?
Me: The world would be a better place if we replaced religion with science!
Someone: How do you know that? Who is that we? With what authority do you speak as a we and for all the world? How do you intend to replace religion? Can science do normative claims?
That is the short version and a practical example of what it means to be a skeptic. It is also why skeptics can be a pain in ***.
I as a human of course act and do stuff, but the moment someone goes we and the world, I go skeptic. That has nothing in particular to do with religion or politics, rather the moment someone in practice "plays" we and the world, I "bite" as a skeptic.
Someone: Why do you do that? Can't we agree that world would be a better place if we all became rational, logical, coherent and only used evidence and dropped beliefs?
Me: How do you know that this is possible?
Now I will answer, if you want to discuss how we might achieve a better world; i.e. I will try to be positive. But if you intent to go the route of in effect - "I only accept non-subjective evidence" I will "bite". That is philosophy, not science and it has been tried and it doesn't work.
So yes, I will try to be positive and not skeptical/negative about a better world, but I don't do - "I know with rationality, logical, objectivity, coherence and evidence and without subjective beliefs how we can achieve a better world".
It has been tried for over 2000 years now, both in philosophy and religion and it doesn't work!!!
So if you think you can do it using science, you are in all likelihood not doing science, but philosophy and/or religion. You just haven't realized it!
With regards
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1pkBOHB
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire