Comments on: Philosophical vs. Scientific Skepticism

By: Conclave » Pyrrho’s Three Questions

Conclave » Pyrrho’s Three Questions — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:21:02 +0000

[...]

Pyrrho’s Three Questions

I wrote about philosophical skepticism elsewhere, but I just noticed this [...]

By: Conclave » Skeptic’s Are Idiots

Conclave » Skeptic’s Are Idiots — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:17:24 +0000

[...] ptic’s Are Idiots

Actually, I really like skepticism. But I prefer the philosophical kind to the scientific kind. Wikipedia has a f [...]

By: Occult Investigator » Byron Katie’s “The Work”

Occult Investigator » Byron Katie’s “The Work” — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:55:46 +0000

[...] ing more about using the thinking mind to overcome the problems of the thinking mind, a la philosophical skepticism. Or not, it’s hard to say fro [...]

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:50:05 +0000

It’s like psychologist Abraham Maslow once said: “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you end up treating everything as if it were a nail”.

Newtonian style scientific materialism swings a very big hammer indeed; it is a system of thought that seems quite powerful in it’s ability to predict and explain, it makes the world seem transparent, and there is a seductiveness in that, something that feeds narcissistic tendencies…not only is the world only as it appears to you personally, but your understanding of this makes you special. It elevates you above all of those around you who are too weak in character to accept the truth, which leads them to invent fantasy worlds built on wishful thinking and flights of fancy. Once you’ve embraced this kind of narrative, putting yourself in the heroes’ role, the slide into a kind of skepticism that is contemptuous of both contrary ideas and the people who embrace or explore them is a logical next step.

By: zacharius

zacharius — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:42:22 +0000

I think Descartes is rampantly misunderstood at times. His basic method was to doubt everything that it was possible to doubt. taken to it’s conclusion, you end up being able to doubt everything except the awareness that can doubt. if I can doubt everything except my own awareness, that in itself implies a difference between awareness and it’s object.

it’s like the old hindu thang:

the world is illusion,
brahman alone is real
brahman is the world

you have to doubt everything and stand as pure awareness before you can reintegrate with the manifest world and dissolve duality. essentially you have to fully grasp the sense of seperation before you can release it. otherwise you end up with a kind of narcissistic fusion state that lumps everything that exists under the same heading as your ego.

…at least from the traditional vedanta perspective.

By: Ran

Ran — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:54:16 +0000

Two comments: First, a little-considered flaw in Decartes’ “I think therefore I am” is the word “I”. Thinking might prove existence, but it nowhere near proves the separation between “self” and “other” that “I am” implies.

My position on experimental science is the same as Gandhi’s position on western civilization: I think it would be a good idea. Scientific truth is only barely subject to experiments. For example, tests have proven homeopathy over and over, and the “skeptics” reject the data because they can’t imagine, in their view of reality, how homeopathy could work. When you get into fringe science, you see this happening everywhere. It’s like your other post about reason as a whore: Most scientists use experimentation to verify what they already believe, and if it fails to verify it, they keep trying until it does, and stop there. The deeper problem is, we’re in a culture that craves closure, and in science, as in theology, there are only a few people who are really interested in exploring.