PDA

View Full Version : How to be a good skeptic?



Alex Laker
6th February 2012, 00:15
I have found during my awakening that term skeptic is almost like an insult. At least, it has negative connotations to many of us here on Avalon. To be called a skeptic is hurtful, or can be intentioned as so, because it feels that while you have what you consider to be very alternative views, just because your views are not as 'alternative' as someone else's, you are somehow less spiritually wanting or in search of answers - you are just trying to rain on everybody's parade. It is okay to ask for hard evidence of something, to want proof.

On the contrary, if hard evidence is not forthcoming, then I believe it is wrong to accuse the claimant of an event of being fraudulent, unless there is hard evidence of that being the case. There can personal opinion and discernment too, but these should not be used to sway the opinion of others on the matter. Only hard evidence should ever change your mind. This does not mean that we should'nt be intrigued or sympathetic when someone comes forward with information that has affected them emotionally, and which they clearly believe.

To be skeptical is absolutely in our human nature. Those who cry with disdain towards 'skeptics' who constantly look for evidence, are themselves equally skeptical for they are wary of the intentions of others.

In my view, the question 'How to be a good skeptic?' is equally phrased as 'How to be a good truthseeker?' or 'How to be a good human?'. Because that is why we're all here. To seek the truth. We all have the same intentions. So how do we be a good skeptic?

Do not reject the claims of another due to lack of hard evidence. Only do so when hard evidence to the contrary becomes available.

Show sympathy towards those who claim to have experienced emotionally moving things. Converse with them as if it did really happen, even if you don't know it to be true and maybe this way you will learn what the truth really is.

Don't let anyone ever try to bully you into believing something else. Whether that be with threats, or simply because they appear more intelligent than you. This means nothing.

If you don't understand something that someone else lays down as proof, don't accept it as so. Ask for explanations, get other people who you trust to give you their opinion. At the root of it, nothing is beyond our comprehension. This ties in with the above point.

Personal discernment and resonance are fine. These do not require proof. This is your own personal truth, and saying 'this resonates with me' is not a valid reason to reject other opinions.

There is belief (that which resonates with you without proof), and there is knowledge (that which you have reproducible proof of). In one's own mind it may feel as if those two things are one and the same, but when giving outward perspective, we must know the distinction between the two.

Remember our shared humanity, and that we are all capable of the same gullibility and apprehensiveness from time to time. Therefore respect every opinion.

If all else fails, agree to disagree.

In a similar vein, I invite you all to discuss respectfully how to be a good skeptic. You may disagree/agree/resonate with/disharmonise with/find disgust in/find pleasure in anything that I have written, and please tell me so.

Whiskey_Mystic
6th February 2012, 00:22
I always like it when Mel Fabregas says his tagline "Be skeptical, but don't close your mind."

NewFounderHome
6th February 2012, 00:35
There is a lot of this on the forum right now, it hasn't been always like that.

Alex Laker
6th February 2012, 00:40
There is a lot of this on the forum right now, it hasn't been always like that.

A lot of what specifically? If you're referring to skepticism, then surely that has always been the case?

If you are referring to the sudden calling for a restoration of judgmental balance, then in my opinion it's about time.

If it is neither of the above, then I need more clarification.

Cidersomerset
6th February 2012, 00:52
i like Mel and was listening to his interview with Robert Stanley earlier about UFO's in Washington and more,and i may put it up
as a thread later when i look into his site.....(digressing.lol)

Skeptics...I don't mind people questioning anything in principle , and by deffinition a lot of what we discuss overlaps and
contradicts each other so it would be odd if everyone agreed with everything , a recent personal example is I resonate
with Billy Meier, other members do not ...we have to agree to disagree imho, and try not to get into a overheated debate
that deteriates into sillyness.....



There are lots of threads i don't feel attracted to,but I would not dream of going on them and disagreeing for the sake
of it...but some I do participate and may put a differing view, I do not think I'm a skeptic just a friend asking a question
or offering a alternate outlook.....

'So be open minded ,but be prepared to disagree if it does not feel right ,prefferably in a constructive manner....Steve

Alex Laker
6th February 2012, 01:03
i like Mel and was listening to his interview with Robert Stanley earlier about UFO's in Washington and more,and i may put it up
as a thread later when i look into his site.....(digressing.lol)

Skeptics...I don't mind people questioning anything in principle , and by deffinintion a lot of what we discuss overlaps and
contradicts each other so it would be odd if everyone agreed with everything , a recent personal example is I resonate
with Billy Meier, other members do not ...we have to agree to disagree imho, and try not to get into a overheated debate
that deteriates into sillyness.....



There are lots of threads i don't feel attracted to,but I would not dream of going on them and disagreeing for the sake
of it...but some I do participate and may put a differing view, I do not think I'm a skeptic just a friend asking a question
or offering a alternate outlook.....

'So be open minded ,but be prepared to disagree if it does not feel right ,prefferably in a constructive manner....Steve

I guess skepticism is a very deep dark tunnel, and everyone is lost at various stages along it, no longer able to communicate with others further along, and the light just gets further and further away. But that's it. Once and even if you reach the end of the tunnel, you realise that actually you learned nothing along the way, and nothing is knowable. Then your mind is opened into the vastness that is outside the tunnel.

To be a fully realised skeptic is to have an open mind. Perhaps things can be more likely than others, but in the end it all comes down to whether you want to know it. That is your belief.

Cidersomerset
6th February 2012, 02:20
Believer or skeptic . when you look at the deffinitions they are polar opposites....

skep·tic/ˈskeptik/
Noun:
A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.

be·liev·er/biˈlēvər/
Noun:
A person who believes that a specified thing is effective, proper, or desirable.
An adherent of a particular religion; someone with religious faith.

The one thing I've learned from the news and media especially here in th UK
eveything is either good or bad, black or white, when in reality most things are
somewhere inbetween...and what I have learned from Avalon there is no one truth
or alternate answer from science,religion or authority....

We are learning things about reality, space, new planets found everyweek.
technology,energy a whole host of stuff that is surpressed or announced
low key then forgotten, because TPTB are not ready to relinquish their hold
over us, but things are quickening and the flood gates are buckling and
I think we are on the verge of a mass awakening , in the face of the
elites who will do their utmost to prevent it,,,,,,,,,

This scenario may or may not happen but it does not make me a believer
or non believer set in stone....Just how I see it today ......A few weeks/months
down the line events may alter my view,,,,,We seem to get stuck in a dogmatic
position when reality is not necessary, what we have been led to believe it is..

We are looking for answers thats why we are here, if not we would be watching
soaps , sports etc, which have a place in entertainment , but have now dumbed down
the masses by being overused like a drug and many are addicted to Cory,
Emmerdale and Depressed Enders......I think we are living hopefully on the brink
of enlightenment and a new paradigm only time will tell....

Carmody
6th February 2012, 02:37
There is a lot of this on the forum right now, it hasn't been always like that.

A lot of what specifically? If you're referring to skepticism, then surely that has always been the case?

If you are referring to the sudden calling for a restoration of judgmental balance, then in my opinion it's about time.

If it is neither of the above, then I need more clarification.

Everyone wants to move forward in this scenario.

Not everyone has dealt with personal experiences in paranormal, psychic, or dimensional activity.

For those who have not, then some of the claims get to feel ..quite outrageous. As someone who has lived psychic experiences all my life, I don't have a problem with them. I have to practice discernment in that area as well, as the mind can be tricky, at best.

A wise person who is dealing with paranormal or dimensional aspects would be wise to question what is in front of them as any person would. However, on their side is...experience, no matter how small or convoluted said experience might be.

Of one has no psychic experiences then the area becomes a minefield in mere seconds, and they have a major portion of potential realities that are blocked from them. They are blocked by their own minds, not external forces. However, for them, this 'psychic thing' is like trying to negotiate a live minefield blindfolded with no feeling in the limbs or control of them. An insane proposition, it would be.

So.... it is small wonder that they immediately claim a lack of skepticism in others.

The Good Rabbi says it well:

"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot." --Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

And the psychic (or person with the complex and multi level experience) is two steps ahead in the area of basic understandings and hopefully...discernment. However, we can't count on discernment in such areas.

The skepticism is here, in spades. However, that appears to be absent to many as they simply don't have the experiences and due to this..absence of 'experience' they don't have the mental change in their minds required -to get to the next steps. YET. But... in the meantime, they are two steps off.. and can sometimes see others as..crackpots.

However, in that 'idea' of paranormal, psychic, alien, dream, precognition, whatever the experience may be for the individual....I do not let them off the hook of assessing their data for having been properly run through a scientific mill of proofing and discernment.through how the given person may present themselves and their given scenario, I expect them to advertize their capacity for discernment within the given communication, via the very context of the communication.

Explaining the entire context I speak about would take months and in the end would be best served as a personal journey of helping one get past their own mental blocks on their own personal development. It can't be distilled to a few words on a forum. Asking for such would be akin to asking for freedom, world perfection, infinite energy and dimensional spaces..to appear on your doorstep... while you go down to the pub to have a beer.

If one wants to understand this stuff ...well... you get back as much as you put out and even in the same flavors.

Essentially, if one does not understand this post then they are outside of the frameworks for the entire question, and banging on the wrong door with the wrong query.

DNA
6th February 2012, 03:30
I'm glad I learned how to practice detachment in my youthfull years. Detachment versus indulgent behavior. What is this? It is learning to know yourself, to understand your own proclavities for limiting the world and earning praise from your internal dialogue for successfully categorizing the world and limiting it to a known and understood perspective.

The world will never be known and catergorized, the world is a mystery, and practicing detachment is using it on one self, to distance that part of the mind that needs to THINK it understands the world with discerning intellect. Detachment is learning to let go of the idea that you can explain everything, detachment is allowing yourself to feel the mystery of the world, to welcome mystery, and to relagate the greater part of reality to a state of suspended disbelief. You no longer have to believe or disbelief, it is just data, you take it in and you compare it with other data, there is no belief.

Omni connexae!
6th February 2012, 03:38
thread reminded me of this video I saw the other day

dmP9XozKEV0

Carmody
6th February 2012, 04:34
the trick is to always up the ante in the peaceful move, the 'back down the emotional and mental tension' move. responding in kind or upping the pressure means that one has failed themselves. contrary to western thinking, one has failed themselves and failed all around them.

Such a thing (dropping the tention type move or communication) is true advancement of (and in) the given individual and will be reflected in the given further communications. This is called maturity, among other things.

I responded strongly in the 'atrocious' thread the way I did, in order to be out of my comfort zone and to prevent the thing from descending into a 'pile on' of any one given poster upping the prior given poster in forms of negativity and or ridicule.

Edit. I looked at the first few seconds of the video above.

one thing.

Don't bring Randi here. He was a joke. The man was a magician with no credentials of any kind. His challenges and their requirements are unacceptable in scientific circles, regarding any act of proofing. Any drug trials or scientific proofing done under his protocols, would fail. This is a known thing.

Again, don't bring Randi here, his aim was debunking of any advanced thinking that the PTB wanted to be to be removed from the public eye. Plain and simple.

Don't bring Randi here.

He is dead, and I will continue to kick him.

modwiz
6th February 2012, 04:57
The Good Rabbi says it well:

"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot." --Rabbi Shlomo Riskin



Three steps or more ahead and you are a threat. :croc:

Omni connexae!
6th February 2012, 05:52
Don't bring Randi here.

:confused:


His challenges and their requirements are unacceptable in scientific circles, regarding any act of proofing. Any drug trials or scientific proofing done under his protocols, would fail.

any examples? what exactly don't you like about his testing criteria?


Again, don't bring Randi here, his aim was debunking of any advanced thinking that the PTB wanted to be to be removed from the public eye. Plain and simple.

Hadn't even heard of the guy. he isn't even in the video? o.O

at any rate, the truth speaks for itself.


He is dead, and I will continue to kick him

ok...

Mad Hatter
6th February 2012, 14:15
The skeptics hat is one of many I am perfectly comfortable with. It is after all the basis for any form of rigorous enquiry into what might be so which can only start from the position of assume nothing.

I find especially curious those that have an aversion to the skeptical approach yet lay claim to discerning ability. Oxymoron anyone?

"When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir." John Maynard Keynes

panopticon
6th February 2012, 14:40
G'day All,

I don't view there is anything wrong with asking questions.
Galileo asked questions... Einstein asked questions... Buddha asked questions...
I reckon we're in esteemed company if we question...

The way that the asking is done is what "ruffles feathers".

Asking important things like "who, what, where, when, how and why" can assist in understanding for all concerned.
To not ask questions produces a group consensus that is often just a new barrier to understanding.

I am skeptical of many things and question even more things. I wear the "skeptic" moniker happily and view it as a compliment, so I guess much of the OP doesn't apply to me. :p
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

Carmody
6th February 2012, 17:49
Don't bring Randi here.

:confused:


His challenges and their requirements are unacceptable in scientific circles, regarding any act of proofing. Any drug trials or scientific proofing done under his protocols, would fail.

any examples? what exactly don't you like about his testing criteria?


Again, don't bring Randi here, his aim was debunking of any advanced thinking that the PTB wanted to be to be removed from the public eye. Plain and simple.

Hadn't even heard of the guy. he isn't even in the video? o.O

at any rate, the truth speaks for itself.


He is dead, and I will continue to kick him

ok...

I apologize for being a bit , shall we say..strightforward.

The deal is that the podium (or was it at the the intro of the video?), it says: "randi.org"

But I won't really back down on the attitude about James Randi. He's gone and I'm sure his other self is a bit shamefaced, but I also suspect he was sent here to learn a hard lesson on how it is to incarnate as a ..well....total ass.

the point is that the limits of one's capacity for discernment is an EMOTIONAL issue, not one of logic.

The PROBLEM is that most skeptics, do not understand the aspects of human psychology that is n play in their own baseline perception systems, with regard to their personal wiring of their minds.

skeptics tend to work within the paradigm of 'small boxes of data' which are isolated, which means they fail to see the grander picture. they fail to see the integration of the system.

The whole thing boils down into the point that the 'scientific method' was a thing enacted to allow 'zipperhead' teaching to enter a protocol and area (systems of analysis and correlation) that was previously a realm of the multi-talenented or Renaissance type person.

A long story which I have outlined the history of, on this forum at various times and places.

Peace of Mind
6th February 2012, 17:57
Respect is always warranted, however presentation of such claims maybe more important than what the skeptic may think about such material. When the material at hand is presented without the concerns of the readers in mind…then it is in my mindset that these claims are made by attention seekers or deceivers. Why make claims that can’t be proven? Why are these claims important? If those 2 questions can’t be logically answered…then you may be on the verge of being on the receiving end of a con.

Peace

winston smith1971
6th February 2012, 20:29
Surely some of the best researchers (Jim Marrs, David Icke etc.) were skeptical about the mainstream projection of events and history so they looked into it and found the truth.

Strat
7th February 2012, 08:06
Don't bring Randi here. He was a joke. The man was a magician with no credentials of any kind. His challenges and their requirements are unacceptable in scientific circles, regarding any act of proofing. Any drug trials or scientific proofing done under his protocols, would fail. This is a known thing.

Again, don't bring Randi here, his aim was debunking of any advanced thinking that the PTB wanted to be to be removed from the public eye. Plain and simple.

Don't bring Randi here.

He is dead, and I will continue to kick him.

Can you link me to examples where he sets people up to fail? He has exposed horrible people as frauds who were exploiting others for money. His exposure of Popoff was incredible.

For those not familiar: Peter Popoff was a mega church pastor. People would come to him for healing because they felt he had a divine connection to god. You know, the whole lay hands on someone during a sermon and scream "In the name of God you are healed!" He also knew everything about the person he would heal; specific details about their illnesses and even their street address. Everyone would cheer and empty their pockets.

James Randi went to his church with a radio scanner and discovered Peter Popoff's wife was speaking to him via an ear piece. Before every sermon some folks would fill out cards that had all their info. She was feeding him this info. James Randi caught every single word she said to him with the radio scanner. Check it out:

q7BQKu0YP8Y