Rational skeptics are by nature conservative, they require substantive proof that something works before accepting it. But, they have no agenda. They will be patient in examining something before dismissing it. If a method does pass rigorous analysis, they will take it on board and incorporate it into the broad body of mainstream accepted knowledge. They are the heroes of science and discovery.

By contrast, proving something to an irrational skeptic is almost impossible. They use a number of tricks which are essentially hostile to the critical analysis. In particular, they generally comment on matters they have no practical experience of. The motivation of the irrational skeptic is ego gratification rather than the search for truth

1) I think method A is absurd. Therefore it is absurd. Therefore I do not need to examine it.

2) Advocate of method A promotes a method I think is absurd, therefore he is absurd. Because promoter of method A is absurd, his method must be absurd. (Blur Circular Logic)

3) I do not need to attain practical experience of circumstances in which method A may be employed, because method A is absurd.

4) We should not consider the possibility that method A actually works, because it may harm the naive (Of course, irrational skeptics actually preach almost exclusively to the converted, to buy easy credibility. You will never find an irrational skeptic trying to talk a mark out of parting with their life-savings on some scam. What is the point? Who of the intellectual elite would know?)

5) If it is proven that method A is not absurd, to the extent that I no longer pretend otherwise without losing credibility (the Achilles heel among irrational skeptics), then I will say:

a) The method is unworkable under most practical circumstances.

and/or

b) The method is difficult for an ordinary person to exploit.

and/or

c) The potential gain or benefit is small for the effort expended.

Note: the above can be applied to almost anything. A strong case can be made for saying that b-c apply to many methods that are scientifically valid, for example. Because the definitions a-c are conveniently vague, the irrational skeptic can imply the practical value of method A is close to zero, whatever its actual value. Its impossible for an advantage play method to exist which does not meet one of these criteria, since it would be corrected by the market if one these factors did not apply.

6) Generally speaking, I will misquote advocate of method A, because I have not examined his sources properly, or because I wish to misrepresent the opinions of the advocate of method A. Once those perverted opinions are established in the public mind as fact, then debunking method A becomes simple.

7) Look at me.

I possess the superficial trappings of, though not the substance, of academia, therefore you should respect what I say. Because you respect what I say, accept that method A is invalid.

9) You should respect my opinion on the non-viability of method B, because I successfully debunked method A, etc etc ad infinitum.

The ultimate consequence of the behaviour of the irrational skeptic is a general dampening of progress in the field of knowledge, which has serious consequences for all of society.

John May
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/428104

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge --
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute --
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Do you agree with what that article says? Are you willing to defend it?

The beginning of the article is a fail.


Rational skeptics are progressive not conservatives. Conservative does not change tradition. A rational skeptic is progressive in thinking, changing and improving as new facts come out.

A conservative will not change what works for him or her unless the thing is broken.

thehomer: Do you agree with what that article says? Are you willing to defend it?

Not necessarily(because it is more like a blanket definition)

The quote from Ayn Rand paints the picture more colorfully

A few more descriptions of what irrational skepticism looks like.

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . .
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . .
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

A man walks into a doctors office and announced "I am a dead man"
"Do you mean this literally?" the doctor asked
"Yes indeed" replied the man
"You cannot be dead" retorted the doctor, "dead people don't speak"
"But I am indeed dead even though I speak"
By this time the doctor was at his wits end but thinking of a way to convince the man that he was not dead he asked; "May I propose a little test?"
"Of course you may" replied the man.
"Do dead people feel pain?" asked the doctor
"Of course not" replied the man, "dead people cannot feel pain"
Immediately, the doctor took a little hammer and hit the man on the head.
"Aaaargh!!" the man screamed. "What was that for?"
"Did you feel pain when I hit you?" the doctor asked rather triumphantly.
"Yes I did" replied the man. "I guess dead people feel pain after all"

Mr_Anony:
Not necessarily(because it is more like a blanket definition)
The quote from Ayn Rand paints the picture more colorfully
A few more descriptions of what irrational skepticism looks like.

Go sit in your corner and continue reading your jewish folklores and claim they are objective history. A "mystic of spirit" like you can't understand what she was talking about. You quote her but you don't even know that she was talking about collectivists who put the society above the individual. You just found the quote and thought it supports your idiotic jewish mysticism and point of view. That quote you posted is about those who try to subjugate the will of the individual either to a god( mystics of spirit like you) or to society (mystics of muscle i.esocialists, some humanists, and all forms of collectivists). The "absolute" she says they deny is reality itself as it is.



[b]Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.[/b]

Mr_Anony:
Not necessarily(because it is more like a blanket definition)

The quote from Ayn Rand paints the picture more colorfully

A few more descriptions of what irrational skepticism looks like.

Doesnt irrational skepticism point towards you rhetoric on nairaland?


Anony; God is omnipotent

Mac ; Then God doesnt exist because omnipotence is a self-refuting paradox.

Anony; God's omnipotence is not a paradox. God exists and is omnipotent.

Mac at his wit's end comes up with an idea to show that an omnipotent god can not exist.

Mac; Can god create a rock that he can not move?

Anony; god s the almighty creator that does not bother with rocks. It is beyond him

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.


lmao, Anony, the bolded are some of the inanities you spew on this board daily!! Next time, quote platinga, cs lewis or any of your fellow christians.

Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.
John Galt (Ayn Rand)

...............lol, She must have met some people like you in her lifetime because this quote sums up your beliefs about morality and what love really means; especially when you start with your platitudes about the nature of your god and the sacrifice of himself to himself.

@thehomer, Here's something I'm willing to defend: An irrational skeptic is one who asks questions but doesn't seek an answer. The aim of his skepticism is not to understand but to undermine. Usually, the irrational skeptic does not have a basis from which he makes his counter arguments

Mr_Anony: @thehomer, Here's something I'm willing to defend: An irrational skeptic is one who asks questions but doesn't seek an answer. The aim of his skepticism is not to understand but to undermine. Usually, the irrational skeptic does not have a basis from which he makes his counter arguments

The moment you get debunked, you run to your corner and claim that others are blind to your points and unwilling to learn. You failed to realize that the moment that you started quoting Ayn Rand, you failed.

3 days to the debate in london!

Mr_Anony:
Not necessarily(because it is more like a blanket definition)

The quote from Ayn Rand paints the picture more colorfully

A few more descriptions of what irrational skepticism looks like.

What parts do you agree with?

While you may find those quotes from Ayn Rand funny, I really don't see what bearing they would have with whatever I would say.

Irrational skepticism is when when a person remains obstinate and refuses to open one's eyes and mind [/b]to the wonderous beauties and the eternal realms [b] of blind faith.

thehomer:

What parts do you agree with?

While you may find those quotes from Ayn Rand funny, I really don't see what bearing they would have with whatever I would say.

I gave you something I am willing to talk about in some posts prior (post 9). The thread is to describe who an irrational skeptic is. We can talk about that if you may.

Martian:

Go sit in your corner and continue reading your jewish folklores and claim they are objective history. A "mystic of spirit" like you can't understand what she was talking about. You quote her but you don't even know that she was talking about collectivists who put the society above the individual. You just found the quote and thought it supports your idiotic jewish mysticism and point of view. That quote you posted is about those who try to subjugate the will of the individual either to a god( mystics of spirit like you) or to society (mystics of muscle i.esocialists, some humanists, and all forms of collectivists). The "absolute" she says they deny is reality itself as it is.



[b]Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.[/b]

Lol, don't get your pants up in a bunch. I am not necessarily interested in what Ayn Rand had to say. I was only borrowing a quote from her to describe what an irrational skeptic is

MacDaddy01:

Doesnt irrational skepticism point towards you rhetoric on nairaland?


Anony; God is omnipotent

Mac ; Then God doesnt exist because omnipotence is a self-refuting paradox.

Anony; God's omnipotence is not a paradox. God exists and is omnipotent.

Mac at his wit's end comes up with an idea to show that an omnipotent god can not exist.

Mac; Can god create a rock that he can not move?

Anony; god s the almighty creator that does not bother with rocks. It is beyond him

Interesting, cause in the conversation you just described, the only skeptic in it is you (The only question asked in the conversation was asked by you). It appears I am the claimant in your scenario.

MacDaddy01:
The moment you get debunked, you run to your corner and claim that others are blind to your points and unwilling to learn. You failed to realize that the moment that you started quoting Ayn Rand, you failed.

Hmm.....debunked??
Was my definition wrong? please tell......

....the part about Ayn Rand: lol how did I fail again?

MacDaddy01: 3 days to the debate in london!

Yeah it should be nice

Mr_Anony:
Interesting, cause in the conversation you just described, the only skeptic in it is you (The only question asked in the conversation was asked by you). It appears I am the claimant in your scenario.

lol....I was mirroring your story about the doctor and the dead man. The dead man made a claim that was fake and so did you!

MacDaddy01:
lol....I was mirroring your story about the doctor and the dead man. The dead man made a claim that was fake and so did you!

Oh I see.............did I?

Mr_Anony:
Hmm.....debunked??
Was my definition wrong? please tell......

....the part about Ayn Rand: lol how did I fail again?

Ayn Rand?

Sorry but Atlas shrugs should not be taken too seriously as a book for real life and logic. While it serves as a good book listing the moral evils that can befall humanity or nation from a libertarian perspective, it is not something one should use literally to comment on skepticism.

MacDaddy01:

Ayn Rand?

Sorry but Atlas shrugs should not be taken too seriously as a book for real life and logic. While it serves as a good book listing the moral evils that can befall humanity or nation from a libertarian perspective, it is not something one should use literally to comment on skepticism.

As I said to Martian, I am not necessarily interested in what Atlas Shrugged is about, I was only interested in how well the quote I used conveyed the message I was trying to pass across.

@Mr Anony,are you not the one who says that people who do not believe in your god are absurd?
@Mr Anony,don't you know that most of the atheists in the house were once christians?

thehomer: Do you agree with what that article says? Are you willing to defend it?

that op seems to described what you just said.

First, you blanked out all possibility of rationality in the op and and proceeded to asked the above.

Not even selectively.

That was very narrow of you.

MacDaddy01: The beginning of the article is a fail.


Rational skeptics are progressive not conservatives. Conservative does not change tradition. A rational skeptic is progressive in thinking, changing and improving as new facts come out.

A conservative will not change what works for him or her unless the thing is broken.

^^^
this is more sane or a rational approached.

It attempt to show the merit or demerit of the op under consideration and can make his case hence.

Fine bro, at least one can understand where you are heading to and not being all together directionless.

Mr_Anony: @thehomer, Here's something I'm willing to defend: An irrational skeptic is one who asks questions but doesn't seek an answer. The aim of his skepticism is not to understand but to undermine. Usually, the irrational skeptic does not have a basis from which he makes his counter arguments

i dont know if this can be said to be true of Thehomer.

He seems to be different from martian and Logicboy on this forum.

A closer look at their approach on this thread will explain this.

Niflheim: @Mr Anony,are you not the one who says that people who do not believe in your god are absurd?
@Mr Anony,don't you know that most of the atheists in the house were once christians?

What has this got to do with the topic of this thread?

truthislight:

i dont know if this can be said to be true of Thehomer.

He seems to be different from martian and Logicboy on this forum.

A closer look at their approach on this thread will explain this.

Lol, I am not saying anything about thehomer, I am only describing to him what an irrational skeptic is.

plaetton: Irrational skepticism is when when a person remains obstinate and refuses to open one's eyes and mind [/b]to the wonderous beauties and the eternal realms [b] of blind faith.

at least you did address the op.

MacDaddy01: The beginning of the article is a fail.


Rational skeptics are progressive not conservatives. Conservative does not change tradition. A rational skeptic is progressive in thinking, changing and improving as new facts come out.

A conservative will not change what works for him or her unless the thing is broken.

Skeptics that doubt all epistemological tools and a grasp on reality, kinda sophists. It doesn't refer us.

Mr_Anony: I gave you something I am willing to talk about in some posts prior (post 9). The thread is to describe who an irrational skeptic is. We can talk about that if you may.

Sure I'm willing to talk about it. That is why I wanted to know the parts of the article you found compelling.