Open minded skepticism

[DrKrettin]

 

You can have close minded skeptics who are emotionally attached to their worldview and you can have skeptics who have a truly open mind. That is the distinction I am making here.

 

So we have different definitions of "sceptic". I have always understood this as somebody who suspends judgement until there is evidence, and always prepared to modify their view when required by new information. How do you define the term? (Apologies if you have already done so, but this thread is a bit dense.)

[Phi for All]

You can have close minded skeptics who are emotionally attached to their worldview

 

No. That's not skepticism AT ALL. Please don't redefine words to fit your idea, that's intellectually inefficient. Terminology is more important than you think.

[MattMVS7]

 

No. That's not skepticism AT ALL. Please don't redefine words to fit your idea, that's intellectually inefficient. Terminology is more important than you think.

 

I think I see what you mean here. Skepticism would be defined as the proper way of judging the merit of certain claims and it would, therefore, make no sense to say a person is a close minded skeptic because if they are close minded, then that goes against the very definition of being a skeptic.

[imatfaal]

 

No. That's not skepticism AT ALL. Please don't redefine words to fit your idea, that's intellectually inefficient. Terminology is more important than you think.

 

Hmm ... In Philosophical terms, I am not so sure that you cannot be a closed or open minded sceptic.

 

Philosophical scepticism is not incredulity in the absence of proof - it is the belief that proof cannot be forthcoming in said particular scenario. I think one could be agreeable to persuasion regarding the possibility of empirical evidence (an open-minded sceptic) or be firm in one's conviction that proof cannot be forthcoming - perhaps misguidedly - and unable to be persuaded regarding any potential proof (a closed minded sceptic). To give an example - I do not believe in the possibility of scientific proof of the supernatural; because as soon as there is empirical evidence the phenomenon in question is no longer supernatural by definition (the supernatural part of it will probably have been shifted to one place more remote on a spectrum of abstraction).

 

Scientific Rationalism / Scepticism is not the same thing really and is much more a term referring to the twin aspects of refusing to believe without evidence and the ability to be persuaded once evidence is presented.

[goldglow]

Death is oblivion or it is not death, and because we cannot face that, we invent such nonsense as reincarnation , resurrection, and heavenly reward etc ( and hellish punishment for the poor sinners! ) If nothing ever dies there can never be anything new. It's not as bad as it may seem though - we are all immortal because we'll never know we are dead...... and in the words of the great philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti: " Death is the end of everything and the beginning of everything. "

[Barrie]

On 4/11/2017 at 3:07 AM, Phi for All said:

 

I've only heard of Dean Radin. IMO, he and other parapsychology researchers fail in their rigor as scientists by assuming that statistical anomalies that can't be explained are automatically evidence that psi energy is at work somehow. Any significant departure from the norm is labeled paranormal, which sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

 

Methodology is important in science. And it's shown that there are no testable, repeatable forms of psychic abilities. No contact from the great beyond. No evidence of an afterlife. So there could be, but there could just as well be nothing. If there is an afterlife, we have no evidence of an interface with it.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 3:07 AM, Phi for All said:

 

I've only heard of Dean Radin. IMO, he and other parapsychology researchers fail in their rigor as scientists by assuming that statistical anomalies that can't be explained are automatically evidence that psi energy is at work somehow. Any significant departure from the norm is labeled paranormal, which sort of begs the question, doesn't it?

 

Methodology is important in science. And it's shown that there are no testable, repeatable forms of psychic abilities. No contact from the great beyond. No evidence of an afterlife. So there could be, but there could just as well be nothing. If there is an afterlife, we have no evidence of an interface with it.

I see here only references to Dean Radin and Pim van Lommel.

In " The Afterlife Experiments " by Gary E. Schwartz Ph.D. , he carried out double-blind experiments using mediums to contact dead relatives , and received results of over 80% accurate information .

This can indicate either some sort of telepathy between the medium and the person requesting information, or a very elaborate fraud, but another possibility is that they actually succeeded in contacting souls from the afterlife .

Edited June 16, 2019 by Barrie
Typo

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Barrie said:

 

I see here only references to Dean Radin and Pim van Lommel.

In " The Afterlife Experiments " by Gary E. Schwartz Ph.D. , he carried out double-blind experiments using mediums to contact dead relatives , and received results of over 80% accurate information .

This can indicate either some sort of telepathy between the medium and the person requesting information, or a very elaborate fraud, but another possibility is that they actually succeeded in contacting souls from the afterlife .

I'll go for option 2. There has to be some sort of scientific hypothesis that describes a possible mechanism before it can be considered.

Edited June 16, 2019 by StringJunky

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Barrie said:

 

I see here only references to Dean Radin and Pim van Lommel.

In " The Afterlife Experiments " by Gary E. Schwartz Ph.D. , he carried out double-blind experiments using mediums to contact dead relatives , and received results of over 80% accurate information .

This can indicate either some sort of telepathy between the medium and the person requesting information, or a very elaborate fraud, but another possibility is that they actually succeeded in contacting souls from the afterlife .

How about a link to this? I found a book, which means not peer-reviewed research.

Option 4 would be a poorly-executed experiment, e.g. counting successes in a non-rigorous way, so as to inflate the number of “accurate” events.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Barrie said:

 

I see here only references to Dean Radin and Pim van Lommel.

In " The Afterlife Experiments " by Gary E. Schwartz Ph.D. , he carried out double-blind experiments using mediums to contact dead relatives , and received results of over 80% accurate information .

This can indicate either some sort of telepathy between the medium and the person requesting information, or a very elaborate fraud, but another possibility is that they actually succeeded in contacting souls from the afterlife .

If they were really contacting souls in the afterlife, why wouldn't the accurate results be 100%?