Logical Reason Skeptics have No Discernment

[Omni]

deleted---

[Gaia]

The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business. We never know when the RCMP are listening:silent:

[Cidersomerset]

I think many sceptics just lack imagination...




http://user1883220.sites.myregisteredsite.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/coincidencetheories.JPG
http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad346/jakesteel1/Ron%20Paul/tumblr_mbary28STR1rogvkmo1_1280_zps0e3c4da9.jpg
http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/cache_43200645.jpg.png

[OMG]

You nailed that one Omni...good job! :clapping:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p170/nowiam/Almost_There_by_kelc.jpg (http://s128.photobucket.com/user/nowiam/media/Almost_There_by_kelc.jpg.html)

[Anchor]

Spot on, also made me think of this quote:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
- Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy 1979

At times when there is no proof, no data, no guidance, no certainty in what you can glean from the noise of life - except your own inner voice; you will need faith and confidence in your own "ultimate" discernment. Without it, you will be lost, stranded and afraid.

Those people that demand proof for everything (and I used to be one of them, so I think I know this quite well) are trapped in the construct of the material senses and also quite open to manipulation.

[joeecho]

Without skepticism nothing is questioned and into the dark ages one goes, maybe forever.

[Omni]

deleted---

[Cidersomerset]

Quote Posted by joeecho (here)
Without skepticism nothing is questioned and into the dark ages one goes, maybe forever.

Reasoned skepticism is vital, that's not what I was talking about.


We are all sceptics on Avalon otherwise we would not be here.
Its the nuances and degree in which ever subject or topic we
are discussing......

1... A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sceptic

==========================================

I presume you mean sceptics who only accept mainstream consensus
on whatever subject/topic at that time, unless changed by establishment
or scientific sources.

[Innocent Warrior]

Excellent point Omni, it's intellectual laziness to dismiss a balanced, open minded and flexible approach to being informed.

I think what Joe is getting at is that skeptics have a balanced approach and that without scepticism we nosedive into being gullible. A more suitable word for your point would be cynic. Cynics remain ignorant to anything that conflicts with their beliefs and dismiss anything else as being gullible. Not balanced at all and no more constructive than being gullible. Scepticism is excellent, it's a balanced approach by people who are willing to challenge their currently held beliefs, if appropriate, if that's what the information at hand suggests.

[neutronstar]

They are always asking for proof and facts right? And deny everything without proof and that is a public domain fact, right?

The fact of the matter is proof and facts require no discernment. Skeptics have no discernment, it is why they cannot connect dots. They cannot weigh the dots and see a full picture because the dots are not proven.

So anytime a skeptic ridicules you for being a "conspiracy theorist" just use the arguement that they have zero discernment if all they focus on is proof/facts. Proof is discernment on easy mode, in fact it negates discernment.

Note: Facts and Proof are nice sometimes so I'm not downing the importance of them...
Note #2: In saying "Skeptics" I am not saying Skeptics of one subject, I am talking about the Chronic kind of skeptic.

Skeptics are simply people with a believe system that cannot be challenged. It is a fixed belief system. No argument can be won with them if you threaten that. It is that simple and it is useless to try.

[joeecho]

They are always asking for proof and facts right? And deny everything without proof and that is a public domain fact, right?

The fact of the matter is proof and facts require no discernment. Skeptics have no discernment, it is why they cannot connect dots. They cannot weigh the dots and see a full picture because the dots are not proven.

So anytime a skeptic ridicules you for being a "conspiracy theorist" just use the arguement that they have zero discernment if all they focus on is proof/facts. Proof is discernment on easy mode, in fact it negates discernment.

Note: Facts and Proof are nice sometimes so I'm not downing the importance of them...
Note #2: In saying "Skeptics" I am not saying Skeptics of one subject, I am talking about the Chronic kind of skeptic.

Skeptics are simply people with a believe system that cannot be challenged. It is a fixed belief system. No argument can be won with them if you threaten that. It is that simple and it is useless to try.

You have that backwards. Belief systems, fixed or other wise, hate the skeptic. Why? Because they see right through the beliefs one way or another. That is the biggest threat to any belief system......to be found wanting.

The one thing belief systems hate the most is to be trifled with, gee, I wonder why that would be?

[joeecho]

Without skepticism nothing is questioned and into the dark ages one goes, maybe forever.

Reasoned skepticism is vital, that's not what I was talking about.

All the types of skeptics/ skepticism arrives at the same place eventually, it's only the way they get there that is different.

[neutronstar]

They are always asking for proof and facts right? And deny everything without proof and that is a public domain fact, right?

The fact of the matter is proof and facts require no discernment. Skeptics have no discernment, it is why they cannot connect dots. They cannot weigh the dots and see a full picture because the dots are not proven.

So anytime a skeptic ridicules you for being a "conspiracy theorist" just use the arguement that they have zero discernment if all they focus on is proof/facts. Proof is discernment on easy mode, in fact it negates discernment.

Note: Facts and Proof are nice sometimes so I'm not downing the importance of them...
Note #2: In saying "Skeptics" I am not saying Skeptics of one subject, I am talking about the Chronic kind of skeptic.

Skeptics are simply people with a believe system that cannot be challenged. It is a fixed belief system. No argument can be won with them if you threaten that. It is that simple and it is useless to try.

You have that backwards. Belief systems, fixed or other wise, hate the skeptic. Why? Because they see right through the beliefs one way or another. That is the biggest threat to any belief system......to be found wanting.

The one thing belief systems hate the most is to be trifled with, gee, I wonder why that would be?

No, I think you might be confusing belief systems with religion or something. We all have a belief about the way the world is. It is fixed belief or a flexible belief (meaning we can change our mind ). There really is only one thing that I can say is a fact, and that is that I am having an experience. I can't be sure that what I am experiencing is real, but the experience is real. That is the only thing anybody knows for 100% certainty. Everything else is a belief. There is no scientific experiment you can do to prove that what you're experiencing is real.

[joeecho]

I can't be sure that what I am experiencing is real, but the experience is real.

The experience cannot be real to you unless you first believe 'experience' is real and then you will believe THE experience is real without question.

[neutronstar]

I can't be sure that what I am experiencing is real, but the experience is real.

The experience cannot be real to you unless you first believe 'experience' is real and then you will believe THE experience is real without question.

No the experience itself is real, because I am having it. The I being the awareness or whatever you chose to call it. I just have no way to prove what I am experiencing, even the body that I appear to be in, is real. It could all just be an illusion. Which is what eastern philosophy has said for millennia.

I am not sure if I am explaining it very well. The world that I appear to be in may just be an illusion but I am experiencing it whether it is real or not, follow?

[joeecho]

The world that I appear to be in may just be an illusion but I am experiencing it whether it is real or not, follow?

Then your carousel awaits.

[Omni]

deleted---

[Innocent Warrior]

Not in my experiences. You seem to miss the demographic of pseudo-skeptic, just as lost as fundamental religious folks when it comes to finding the truth.

That would be because a pseudoskeptic is not a skeptic.


Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a term referring to a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.
Source. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism)

[betoobig]

From another perspective we could say that the point is jumping from a 3D way of thinking (proof , data, believes) to a 5D way where the key is knowing thus trust arises and believes are not needed anymore. That is why disclousure is so important, becouse it will mean an automatic increase in concioussness, individual thus collectively. We well know we are but one big family travelling through out space full of neighbours. Skeptives are the ones having the worst time of their lives due to the collapse of their believes. Let´s enjoy the ride full of trust becouse we know.
Much love
thanks Omni, love you.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

with believes, discerment is impossible

[Rich]

Well logic is a tool for discernment.
Only thing that doesn't need discernment is
true Reality because it is self evident.

[Clear Light]

Without skepticism nothing is questioned and into the dark ages one goes, maybe forever.

Reasoned skepticism is vital, that's not what I was talking about.

All the types of skeptics/ skepticism arrives at the same place eventually, it's only the way they get there that is different.

Not in my experiences. You seem to miss the demographic of pseudo-skeptic, just as lost as fundamental religious folks when it comes to finding the truth.

Oh, here is where I agree with you Omniverse, inasmuch as we each have our own stories to tell right ? But perhaps there are different "levels" to what "truth" is eh ? :wink:

Now I cannot deny you your "truth", nor do I wish to, and perhaps this is what I find is so "valuable" with the Avalon "Forum" because it provides a space where each of us "truthers" (for want of a better word) are able to give honest expression to our minority "views" of what matters most in our Lives eh ? :thumbsup:

[greybeard]

I think being aware that there is an absolute truth and a relative truth give one the ability be sceptically on the one hand and use discernment on the other hand, then on a personal level use--what ever works for one self.
It is perfectly possible to see both sides of any story--choice--situation.
Different strokes for different folks.
Im not skeptical as such --I just want to know what works, what is life supporting.
Im not gullible, so a healthy lets look at this and see, is valid for me.
This looking and seeing uses logic but goes beyond this ---"it feels right" also comes into it, that feel good might be discarded in the weight of contra evidence.

Chris

[Baby Steps]

We 'weirdos' are accruing success after success, as or 'take' on reality is proven time after time to be superior to straight rationalists and skeptics.

The ones I know, who I am at pains to retain within my sphere, tend to be quite clever and scientific. In almost all cases, they are programmed with a healthy paradigm regarding REASON and EVIDENCE, but they indulge in a disgracefully lazy habit of not questioning properly the information that they consume in general, as rigorously as they might in their professional lives. They seem to live by the increasing thread-bare hypothesis that they can trust the information fed to them in the MSM as balanced and true. Dear brain boxes, your hypothesis has been revealed to be wrong-now what do you prose to do about it???

Even more irritating is that they without exception ,when presented with information the conflicts with their construct of reality (built from faulty information) DISMISS it, without asking for evidence, or conducting research. That is who they are, people who choose the soft path when looking at reality, but pretend (to themselves) that they are rational.

CONTRAST THIS WITH THE WEIRDOS:

We are intelligent enough to value evidence, science and fact. But we recognise that within our corrupted system there is the potential for misleading information to become perceived reality. So we add other things into our information matrix when constructing our models:

- Alternative media
- Any view point that is contrary to the mainstream view
- Fringe academic information
- science that is non mainstream, it may have been falsely discredited , ignored, or marginalised for corrupt reasons
- Spiritual wisdom, intuition, 'knowing'.
- Whistle blower information
- Reportage that comes from the ground, real people, real experiences, that conflict with the mainstream narrative.

Being paranoid & intelligent, we can understand the reasons why information is falsified, as we understand the general level of corruption hidden under the surface.

We have a broader sample of information, we run it through our own broader filters, we acknowledge that NON MSM info includes a higher proportion of BS, but also KEY TRUTHS. we then construct our own individual reality. TIME AND AGAIN, our view has been shown to be superior. That is having an effect on others. They come and ask questions. They still ridicule, but they are thinking!

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.2ij3y662j


The Intellectual Yet Idiot


What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism — in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.
________________________________________
The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.
Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only will he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.
The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.
Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.
The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.
He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.
But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

Not a IYI
________________________________________
Postscript
From the reactions to this piece, I discovered that the IYI has difficulty, when reading, in differentiating between the satirical and the literal.
PostPostcript
The IYI thinks this criticism of IYIs means “everybody is an idiot”, not realizing that their group represents, as we said, a tiny minority — but they don’t like their sense of entitlement to be challenged and although they treat the rest of humans as inferiors, they don’t like it when the waterhose is turned to the opposite direction (what the French call arroseur arrosé). (For instance, Richard Thaler, partner of the dangerous GMO advocate Übernudger Cass Sunstein, interpreted this piece as saying that “there are not many non-idiots not called Taleb”, not realizing that people like him are < 1% or even .1% of the population.)

Note: this piece can be reproduced, translated, and published by anyone under the condition that it is in its entirety and mentions that it is extracted from Skin in the Game.

[betoobig]

The one manipulating us trough out milenias know us better than we do. SO we have to aproach everything diffenrtly, like Greybeard said the "feels good" sense, higher intuition, if not we are holding ourselves back.
Much love

[Clear Light]

I think being aware that there is an absolute truth and a relative truth give one the ability be sceptically on the one hand and use discernment on the other hand, then on a personal level use--what ever works for one self.
It is perfectly possible to see both sides of any story--choice--situation.
Different strokes for different folks.
Im not skeptical as such --I just want to know what works, what is life supporting.
Im not gullible, so a healthy lets look at this and see, is valid for me.
This looking and seeing uses logic but goes beyond this ---"it feels right" also comes into it, that feel good might be discarded in the weight of contra evidence.

Chris

Ah, with regards to Relative / Absolute "truth", I would suggest the Relative is like "the story of me", i.e. what I have experienced and thus what I know is true, whereas Absolute "truth" is like seeing where all these thoughts / ideas / opinions / conclusions arise from, which IMHO is one's Empty Mind eh ?

Now if I am bodily and mentally relaxed (at ease), then there isn't very much "going on" ... very few thoughts appear but what is interesting (I find) is the appearance of "chains of luminosity" (like small transparent spheres or sometimes they have a dark circumference) in the field of my visual perception !

This is never something I can "make" happen, it only seems to happen in the "absence of me", like when my "conceptualising mind" is at rest (or has momentarily dissolved). As I understand it, this is what's known as the "Natural State" and the appearance of such visual "effects" are the manifestation of its potentials !

From what I have read about such things, in the context of Dzogchen, they are called "Thigle".

Perhaps I am not the only one at Avalon who is seeing such things eh ? :wink:

[joeecho]

Well logic is a tool for discernment.
Only thing that doesn't need discernment is
true Reality because it is self evident.

Reality has no qualifier including the obvious.

[joeecho]

The skeptic denies all including 'itself', what is it leaving room for in doing so?

The non-skeptic will not get it because there is no room to receive.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qu5hfQVsd4

Drop the dog ma, drop the dog.

[Sueanne47]

I have to live with ignorance all the time, if it wasnt for Avalon I'd go insane! if there is an England+Scotland football game on, my hubby is all over it. If I mention anything I want to discuss I found on Avalon with him, this is what I end up doing every time > :tape:

The royal family are criminals! (knights of malta/freemasons) yet the huge crowd at wembley were singing loud the national anthem of the queen. I dont think we could ever penetrate the ignorant mindset!

34575

34576

[TargeT]

The one manipulating us trough out milenias know us better than we do. SO we have to aproach everything diffenrtly, like Greybeard said the "feels good" sense, higher intuition, if not we are holding ourselves back.
Much love

I bet those people out rioting after trumps election "feel good" about what they are doing.

This opens a bad door to self justification with out self analysis; intuition should not avoid scrutiny, nothing should.

The skeptic is the savior of society, I hold skepticism & logic above all else & cannot see why this would be considered a bad thing.

the opposite is blind acceptance, faith; and we have more than enough historical examples to show where those types of mentalities take us.

[Innocent Warrior]

I don’t think those rioters feel good, I think they feel scared, they may feel empowered by rioting because they’re pi**ed off and sometimes we feel good doing crap things when we’re pi**ed off but the driving emotion isn’t positive. Positive emotions are a key to transcending TPTW games, fear is a key to their success.

I’m confused at how some of us are in disagreement on the topic of skeptics, one would think that it’s a prerequisite for being the sort of character who would join Avalon, like Cider wrote. Perhaps the confusion comes in with the definition because it’s used out of context so much? It’s just a person who has the inclination to question things, a kind of vetting, before accepting them as true. Maybe it is me who has misunderstood the definition, correct me if I’m wrong.

If we’re in disagreement because we’re actually disagreeing about being a skeptic then I’m baffled. I’m a deeply sceptical person. But that’s what ensures my sovereignty, keeps me free from undesirable external influence. It is fair to say I view new information with suspicion but I have an open mind, I’m flexible with my beliefs (they are a mere tool after all) and will accept the information as true or more accurate if it is, even if it’s in conflict with my current beliefs. I don’t understand what could possibly be wrong with that. Maybe it's a personality type conflict?