Skepticism - Not so negative after all

[zaira]

What is Skepticism?

Skepticism is an honest search for knowledge. It is an approach to claims akin to the scientific method. It is a powerful and positive method of inquiry which is used to evaluate claims and make decisions. It is used to search for the truth in matters and to make decisions that are based on logic, evidence and sound reasoning. Skepticism is based on a simple method: doubt and inquiry. The idea is to neither initially accept claims nor dismiss them; it’s about questioning them and testing them for validity. Only after inquiry does a skeptic take a stance on an issue.

There is more than one way to look at claims of all kinds:

Acceptance.

For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group.

This approach has the major disadvantage that claims and beliefs are not scrutinised and could well be false.

Denial.

This approach, a dogmatic one, is where a claim is dismissed without consideration because it does not fit in with a person's current understanding, belief system or world-view. No thought or scrutiny needs to be used; if the claim is not deemed acceptable for any reason, it is denied. The disadvantage to this approach is that if a claim were to be true, it would not be recognised as such.

Doubt and inquiry.

This method is skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire after the truth. The method involves:

Doubt.

Doubt is not the same as denial. Skeptics use doubt constructively; it is a provisional stance, the suspension of judgment: a position held until a claim can be assessed. The purpose of constructive doubt is to avoid hasty conclusions such as accepting or rejecting claims without justification.


Inquiry.

To inquire means to search for knowledge. This is the very heart of skepticism. If a claim is to be examined, evidence in support of the claim needs to be considered, but crucially, so do counter-claims and alternative explanations. Successful inquiry is the result of examining all of the evidence related to a claim and reaching a conclusion that is justifiable.

After inquiry, a skeptic will form a conclusion on an issue (should sufficient robust evidence have been available to justify one); however, this conclusion is a provisional one which may change if better or newer information comes to light. This aspect of holding a provisional position on matters gives skepticism the beneficial attribute of being self-correcting. There is no dogma with skepticism: no matter how sound a conclusion appears there is always room for it to be shown to be wrong by new evidence.

The advantage of this method is that claims are scrutinised. False and misleading claims stand a much better chance of being discovered as such; and any claim, whether ordinary, paranormal, or scientific, that seems unlikely but is nonetheless true, will have a good chance of being shown to be true.

The burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the concept that it is up to those making a claim to prove it, or provide good supporting evidence for it, rather than for others to disprove it. This is the same concept as how a court of law operates. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty; it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.

This is the approach to claims that skeptics take. A claim presented will be doubted (presumed unproved) until the evidence in support of it can be examined. If the evidence supports the claim, either completely or beyond reasonable doubt, the claim will be accepted; otherwise it will be rejected unless or until further evidence is presented.

What is evidence?

When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected.

It is because of the importance of the high quality of evidence required to support claims that one of the most popular forms of general evidence, personal testimony (or anecdote), is not accepted as being satisfactory to support a claim. Psychologists have identified many cognitive errors (reasoning, perception, memory, etc.) that we all possess which means that we can form many wrong conclusions about things no matter how sincerely we may believe them.


Popular misconceptions:

Skepticism is a belief system.

It’s not, it's a method. In fact it is quite the opposite of a belief system. Of course skeptics, people who use the skeptical method, often have opinions that are at odds with many people's beliefs; however, that does not make skepticism merely an alternative belief system.


Skeptics are closed-minded.

This criticism is normally made by those who believe in things that are either unproven or have been disproved. Such people think it is being 'open minded' to believe in things that have no evidence to support them. Believing in such things is not being open-minded, it's being credulous.


Skeptics do not believe in anything.

This misconception probably comes from philosophical skepticism; a branch of philosophy that questions whether absolute knowledge and certainty are possible. Modern skepticism is rational skepticism; the method of doubt and inquiry explained above.

Many people also make a fallacy of equivocation and confuse the word sceptical (to be doubtful) with skepticism (the method of inquiry) and assume that skeptics are simply doubters or disbelievers.


Skepticism is about opposing claims.

Skepticism is about examining claims, not opposing them. As explained, skeptics will doubt claims until they can be scrutinised; this, however, is the correct way to deal with new claims. There's no logical reason to accept or reject a claim before it has been examined - hence the suspension of judgment.

Of course skeptics do oppose many claims, such as many involving the paranormal and pseudoscience; this is not simply an automatic opposition to such claims however, it's because such claims have been examined and the supporting evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.


Skeptics are debunkers.

Bunk is another word for nonsense and means the opposite of something that is true or factual. To debunk something means to remove the nonsense from it and reveal what is true. Skepticism is not about debunking per se, but it is an important consequence of critical inquiry. In fact, contrary to popular understanding, the best way of showing that something is true is that it can resist attempts to prove it false: attempting to prove something as false is a robust way testing its validity.

The misconception here is not that skeptics sometimes end up debunking claims; but that the word 'debunker' is often used as a pejorative term. Debunking nonsense ideas, scams, hoaxes and misleading claims is of positive, not negative, value.

It should be made clear, however, that skeptics do not set out with the purpose of debunking claims (i.e. holding a preconceived position of a claim's falsity). Some claims will simply end up being debunked as a consequence of skeptical inquiry. That's an important distinction to understand.
Summary.

Skepticism is a method of inquiry, not a position on matters. It is a way of examining claims and making decisions. The idea is to apply the rules of logic and reason with critical thinking skills in assessing claims or issues and to form conclusions based on evidence, not on personal preference or prejudice.

This method makes it more likely that those who use it will reach correct conclusions on issues; which, of course, can be of great benefit in all walks of life: personal, business, health matters, recognising scams and misleading claims, finance, etc.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

well nothing wrong with that passage of statement at all.


Skepticism is about opposing claims.

Skepticism is about examining claims, not opposing them.

I think you should fix up that part though :D

I am sure your thread will cause a shitstorm because if someone of the "open minded" calibre opposes what a skeptic has to say then said skeptic becomes "part of the plot" or "conspiracy".

[john white]

Oh its fine in broad principle, though limiting onseself by being dominated by one hemisphere of the brain does short change the holisitic potential of the whole, and there might be remarkable individuals who make the application of the sceptical model a matter of highest personal integrity, but its just not the case out there in reality: if one wishes to observe the self policing of the herd, a sceptics website is one of the best places to do so

There is a consensual reality, they all police it amongst themselves, and it is rule by FEAR that ensure you will never get a sceptic to break ranks with information outside their range of possibility with a public statement: at best, they secretly agree with you but feel they can't speak out, and I've got pm's and so forth that have confirmed that to me. No i'm not posting them, I'm not cruel

But of course, the favourite "sport" of the wonderfully balanced (sic) "left brain" prisoners is to go and seek out the equally prevalent "right brain" prisoners (That which they call "woo woo's") and take the piss out of them for ego re-inforcement and a cheap energy boost at the expense of the other guy. Its a case of the anal retentive atracting the anal expulsive, as Freud might put it! (sceptics don't like psychology, they call it "soft" science becuase it suggests that actually, they don't know everything)

Truly they deserve each other, (the left and right brain imbalanced) opposames of disharmony that they both are. I'm sure we will be seeing plenty of examples of both parade through here

[1 2 free]

This is basically the propoganda sheet from the UK Skeptics website.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php

The reaction you received on their forum (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1078) should show you how closed minded they really are, Zaira.

The thing about skeptics is they're not really skeptics at all. They're gatekeepers. A skeptic would assume that the official story of 911 is false, examine the evidence, realise there is so much of the story that is missing, realise that there is evidence that contradicts the official story and continue to remain skeptical. They would then examine the other conspiracy theories and realise there's evidence to back up some of it, no evidence to back up other bits and remain skeptical. They don't do that though. They assume the official story is true and ridicule anyone who disagrees. Ditto for the Kennedy assassination, Princess Diana's death, New World Order conspiracies, etc.

Even a true skeptic (are there any?) is closed minded. Assuming that something is false is just as ridiculous as assuming that something is true. The point is top have an open mind, don't believe or disbelieve, just look at the evidence and see where it takes you. They can write whatever claims they like on their website in much the same way a politician can make all sorts of claims. But do they live up to those claims? Do they follow their own rules? Are their minds open or closed? Do they ridicule? Do they attack? Are they interested in what you have to say? Does new information interest them? Do they follow the flock?

[john white]

Assuming that something is false is just as ridiculous as assuming that something is true.

Thats the essence of the left brain/right brain extreme polarisation right there

I'll make a prediction: I bet I'll see some sceptics keen to come onto this thread and accuse me of "attacking" them in some way, completely oblivious (at least on the surface, and if they are aware they won't express it for "political" reasons) that I treat the right brain imbalanced in just the same way (NPT theory anyone?): I tell them the truth of how I percieve they are, honestly and without fear, and with a deal of compassion if they know how to see it

[oneofmany]

Thats the essence of the left brain/right brain extreme polarisation right there

I'll make a prediction: I bet I'll see some sceptics keen to come onto this thread and accuse me of "attacking" them in some way, completely oblivious (at least on the surface, and if they are aware they won't express it for "political" reasons) that I treat the right brain imbalanced in just the same way (NPT theory anyone?): I tell them the truth of how I percieve they are, honestly and without fear, and with a deal of compassion if they know how to see itI feel you might be right there John. :)

[auron]

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/peeing-man.gif
http://www.skeptics.org.uk

[1 2 free]

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/peeing-man.gif
http://www.skeptics.org.uk

No disrespect but i think this attitude is part of the problem. It creates an 'us verses them' mentality and kills real discussions.

[reptilianshapeshifter]

This is basically the propoganda sheet from the UK Skeptics website.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php

The reaction you received on their forum (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1078) should show you how closed minded they really are, Zaira.

The thing about skeptics is they're not really skeptics at all. They're gatekeepers. A skeptic would assume that the official story of 911 is false, examine the evidence, realise there is so much of the story that is missing, realise that there is evidence that contradicts the official story and continue to remain skeptical. They would then examine the other conspiracy theories and realise there's evidence to back up some of it, no evidence to back up other bits and remain skeptical. They don't do that though. They assume the official story is true and ridicule anyone who disagrees. Ditto for the Kennedy assassination, Princess Diana's death, New World Order conspiracies, etc.

Even a true skeptic (are there any?) is closed minded. Assuming that something is false is just as ridiculous as assuming that something is true. The point is top have an open mind, don't believe or disbelieve, just look at the evidence and see where it takes you. They can write whatever claims they like on their website in much the same way a politician can make all sorts of claims. But do they live up to those claims? Do they follow their own rules? Are their minds open or closed? Do they ridicule? Do they attack? Are they interested in what you have to say? Does new information interest them? Do they follow the flock?

I agree with what you say there and that is why i do not label myself a skeptic but, as John W, says, those rules are fine as long as they are applied that way.

it's why I have no problem arguing against the moon hoax and at the same time still being suspicious of 911, Kennedy assassination etc. I don't have to relate the events for them to fit my perception of the upper echelons of government conspiracy.

But what you say there is also indicative of the behaviour of many people on here and that is because they need these things to be "wrong" to fit their current understanding of the universe. It's not so much the disagreeing on subjects that bother me but its venom and annihilation of a person's character just because he/she does not toe the line to the general consensus of thought. And that general consensus is determined by what ever group of people dominate the discussion. Here is a typical response by someone on this forum to the fact I believe we went to the moon:-

so you think that giant firework flew all the way to the moon and back did you!!! jezzzz all safe and sound did you know they tried to use a large catapult first but canceled as it was a one way trip, welcome to Hollywood i hear it's a great place Oh plzz com'on

He thinks by trying to make me look stupid because he's having a laugh at my expense is some kind of successful argument. Not at any time did he present his own thoughts or try to backup any evidence other than "cos i know".

John White talks about opposames, well I find a lot of opposames in this forum of "open minded" people, using exactly the same tactics that they accuse others of. I can understand people being on the defensive but attacking back is not the best form of defence, it only shows that there is no room for discussion or for someone's opinion to change, only that we have our opinions and we must fight them out until a stalemate is reached and we all walk away.

The only problem I find in my life is never being satisfied of knowing the answer because I routinely find it's impossible to establish the truth. The irony is that whether or not your are a "skeptic" in the sense discussed in the responses or an open believer you are both satisfied in the knowledge of thinking you know something.

[john white]

Well look at this, case in point: first responder to the Icke thread you started

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3600/woofinderrv1.png (http://imageshack.us)

"DR B Woofinder General" out to mock those who arnt the same as himself, John Cleese mocking frenchmen avatar, 1,133 posts from this heroic individual: and has any of the site admin or mods ever pulled him up and said "hey your not being respectful and are lowering the image of sceptical thinking?" Of course not, hes a useful tool: "one of them", literally "yo-ho-ho we are the sceptics clever and special"

Full of opinion that is really assumption about Icke too

In addition, the warning signs are always when "everything makes sense"

Here, I assume 'sense' means - "can be interpreted in line with the nonsense in my latest book

Or this one, "cuddles"

David Icke declared himself to be the son of god on national TV. Why would anyone take anything he says seriously after that?

I suppose he could be some kind double-bluff reverse-shill. Get a giant, alien, shape-shifting lizard to disguise themselves as someone several agents short of a new world order and declare that the world is run by giant, alien, shape-shifting lizards. No-one will believe him and so when people actually find evidence that the world really is run by giant, alien, shape-shifting lizards, no-one will believe them either. Seriously, what human would ever wear those ghastly tacksuits?


so then we say:

"Hey, ever read an Icke book?"

"Oh I dont need to, his views are well covered in the Press" (We've got quite a few varieties of this on this forum)

"What about his video presentations"

"LOL! Got better things to do"

And then onto 9/11 "We dont need to investigate further, we already know the truth, and its your need for comfort in a horrible world makes you believe in conspiracies" (which is an imbecelic statement in itself, but there we go)

"Ever heard of the Jersey Girls?"

"Who?"

"Watched Press for Truth?" (Pwns all known sceptics immediately btw, they are hopeless against any of that info)

(link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+truth)

"What?"

"Read Ommisions and Distortions by David Ray Griffen?"

"He believes in God so he's psychologically unsound"

And so on etc etc etc

My advise: if they dont come looking for us, leave them alone, they are poor sad creatures needing Love, and when the hard work is done they will say "Oh yes, I knew we were all infinate consciousness all the time, i just did'nt say so becuase the Woo-Woo's wouldnt have been able to handle it":

Much better to focus on the majority of people who do possess some kind of reasonably balanced minds if they can be encouraged away from their system dependency

Remember: the "hassle free" zones of conformity arn't actually hassle free at all: only true freedom can give that

[john white]

I'll make a prediction: I bet I'll see some sceptics keen to come onto this thread and accuse me of "attacking" them in some way, completely oblivious (at least on the surface, and if they are aware they won't express it for "political" reasons) that I treat the right brain imbalanced in just the same way (NPT theory anyone?): I tell them the truth of how I percieve they are, honestly and without fear, and with a deal of compassion if they know how to see it


John White talks about opposames, well I find a lot of opposames in this forum of "open minded" people, using exactly the same tactics that they accuse others of. I can understand people being on the defensive but attacking back is not the best form of defence, it only shows that there is no room for discussion or for someone's opinion to change, only that we have our opinions and we must fight them out until a stalemate is reached and we all walk away.


Didn't take long. I could make serious Money off safe bets like that

Shall we discuss the fundamental delusion of sceptics beleiving they "threaten" us in anyway?

LOL LOL LOL

Source Consciousness has no need to threaten as it cannot be threatened, not now, not ever, never

[reptilianshapeshifter]

This is why i don't like you JW. You see confrontation where there is none and you start your shit as soon as you can. I actually thought your comments were good comments but then you start with your usual defensive bullcrap because you can't fucking handle anything that doesn't fit your tiny mind.

I wasn't giving you a hard time I was just making my own comments about how some people behave, not just in the skeptic society but this place too and you just confirmed it in black and white with your little pat on the back "i'm so smart" delusion.

You're one of the worst ones on here for this crap and again you just proved it.

Anything I said you did agree with?

[john white]

This is why i don't like you JW. You see confrontation where there is none and you start your shit as soon as you can. I actually thought your comments were good comments but then you start with your usual defensive bullcrap because you can't fucking handle anything that doesn't fit your tiny mind.

I wasn't giving you a hard time I was just making my own comments about how some people behave, not just in the skeptic society but this place too and you just confirmed it in black and white with your little pat on the back "i'm so smart" delusion.

You're one of the worst ones on here for this crap and again you just proved it.

Anything I said you did agree with?

Oh sure: there's a lot of left and right brain imbalance on this forum, becuase this forum in itself is just a microcosm for the world, perhaps with people who've walked further than most, but there is always a long way further to go

IMHO Reptilian Slayer you identify with sceptics becuase its a model you find value with, but your not really a sceptic at all: your a truth seeker: a truth seeker uses both rationality and imagination, reason and empathy

However there has been a slight miscommunication IMO becuase my post was a valid comment on the Icke thread Zaira had started and would have read differently if yours did not appear by chance of typing speed before my own: so sorry about the cheap shot from me: but then... you did take the bait ;): responsibility balances both ways

Alls fair in Love and Internet Forum discussions, and genuinely no malice intended

[john white]

PS

This is why i don't like you JW

Thats OK mate, theres no need to:

Just know that I am me I am Free and I'll uphold your right to be the same till my dying breath

[auron]

No disrespect but i think this attitude is part of the problem. It creates an 'us verses them' mentality and kills real discussions.
You are correct sir!!

I shall take it back.

http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/peeing-man.gif
Auron :)

[eternal_spirit]

Quote Zaira

For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group

I've always been skeptical about this 10% nonsense. It's propaganda for writers, religions and occultists etc to tell you how to use the other 90% or how ever much more they claim you can use if you follow their methods, teachings and buy their books.

It's wiser to be skeptical than to believe anything dodgy sounding. So much unprovable info about what's going on in the World. There are many skeptical truth seekers and rightly so.

[zaira]

1 2 free,

I agree with you one hundred percent. It was a personal disclaimer at least it was an attempt at one. I have always tried to be open minded and must admit that my attitude towards sceptics was not all that it should be. I used to wonder why they were so close-mined. The article above at first glance seemed to put some perspective on scepticism for me. Something I feel I needed, something I thought I had found and wanted to share. But I think it might be a case of 'back to the drawing-board'. I will continue to be open-minded, and I look forward to reading more posts and learning more about all the different views there are around here. Good open, positive discussion is always a good thing.

[lenejento]

Don't know if this is relevant but yesterday I heard a skeptic woman talk on the radio. She said that what she's dealing with is Reality and that spiritual seekers have a personality disorder so (because) they can't fit in to society properly. That's why she said they feel the need to create their own groups.

Nice... Funny thing was she was at a silent retreat for atheists herself :confused:

[thirdwave]

I find most scepticism I come across from people is just a rigid ignorance that is happy to except any truth other than something that is not within there belief system. with many people its almost like a disease, like a retarded thing within their mind..... they just ...c c.. cant fathom it... cant except something outside there reality is real. and to be honest most don't want to get rid of the disease, because they are lazy and make do with where they are.


of course when others put powerful facts down that make it hard work for them to use the scepticism, it then turns into a war, as you are then fucking with there comfort zone and they have no problems getting their claws out when that's fucked with.

[zaira]

lenejento,

I think it is relevant because it may be true.

"She said that what she's dealing with is Reality and that spiritual seekers have a personality disorder so (because) they can't fit in to society properly. That's why she said they feel the need to create their own groups."

We all create our own reality from the thoughts we entertain. And as we gain more and more information, and become more and more awake, we adjust and readjust our reality. Is this not what we are doing here on this forum... We are unhappy with the world and it's so called rulers, we are here and on other forums expressing our views and in doing so we are willing to take onboard other people's views and opinions - only those that ring true to the deepest part of our soul - and in doing so we are experiencing an attitude adjustment, perhaps in some cases even a reality adjustment. I for one have certainly had my eyes open since coming to this site and have been doing some research in order to gain more understanding of what I have read here.

I have been cultivating my own reality ever since I awoke to the reality of this world. If that means I have a personality disorder........ I say bring it on!

[edit]

OMEGA —Synonyms 3. doubter. — to reflect, look, view --- akin to skope -
SCOPE —
and
—Antonyms 3. believer. — to have
FAITH—
ALPHA
Alfa(wave)


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_logo.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic)


5 results for: skeptic

(Browse Nearby Entries) skeneitis
skeneoscope
Skenes gland
skenitis
skep
skepful
skepfuls
skeps
skeptic skeptical
skeptically
skepticalness
skepticism
skepticisms
Skeptics
skerrick
skerries
skerry
SKET
sketch
sketch block
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
skep·tic /ˈskɛptɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skep-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

–adjective 5. pertaining to skeptics or skepticism; skeptical.
6. (initial capital letter) pertaining to the Skeptics.

Also, sceptic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1565–75; < LL scepticus thoughtful, inquiring (in pl. Scepticī the Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós, equiv. to sképt(esthai) to consider, examine (akin to skopeǐn to look; see -scope) + -ikos -ic]


—Synonyms 3. doubter. See atheist.
—Antonyms 3. believer.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source skep·tic also scep·tic (skěp'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).


[Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
skeptic

1587, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (1)). The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1615. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Gk. revival and is preferred in U.S.

"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source skeptic

noun
someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
On-line Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
skeptic

skeptic: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB
Ballancehttp://computergames.ro/images/boxshots/60-ballance.jpg (http://computergames.ro/ro/jocuri/viewitem/id/60/name/ballance/section/screenshots.html)
Advertisement
12 results for: scope

(Browse Nearby Entries) scop
scopa
scopae
scopal
scoparin
scoparius
scopas
scopate
SCOPC
scope scope of employment
scope out
SCOPE-OVC
scoped
scopeless
scopeline
scopeloid
scopes
Scopes trial
Scopes, John Thomas
SCOPH
Ads by Google
Pro Scope Systems
Quality Pre-Owned Endoscopes at great prices! Check out our special
proscopesystems.comGet to PeopleSoft 8.9/9.0
Secure Your Upgrade With Fixed-Scope Fixed-Fee Services
www.hexaware.comOlympus Pentax Fujinon +
Used Endoscopes Endoscopy Systems New Scopes One Year Warranty!
www.1800Endoscope.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
scope /skoʊp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skohp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, scoped, scop·ing.
–noun 1. extent or range of view, outlook, application, operation, effectiveness, etc.: an investigation of wide scope.
2. space for movement or activity; opportunity for operation: to give one's fancy full scope.
3. extent in space; a tract or area.
4. length: a scope of cable.
5. aim or purpose.
6. Linguistics, Logic. the range of words or elements of an expression over which a modifier or operator has control: In “old men and women,” “old” may either take “men and women” or just “men” in its scope.
7. (used as a short form of microscope, oscilloscope, periscope, radarscope, riflescope, telescopic sight, etc.)
–verb (used with object) 8. Slang. to look at, read, or investigate, as in order to evaluate or appreciate.
—Verb phrase9. scope out, Slang. a. to look at or over; examine; check out: a rock musician scoping out the audience before going on stage.
b. to master; figure out: By the time we'd scoped out the problem, it was too late.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1525–35; < It scopo < Gk skopós aim, mark to shoot at; akin to skopeǐn to look at (see -scope)]

—Related forms
scopeless, adjective


—Synonyms 1. See range. 2. margin, room, liberty.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source scope (skōp) Pronunciation Key
n.
The range of one's perceptions, thoughts, or actions.
Breadth or opportunity to function. See Synonyms at room.
The area covered by a given activity or subject. See Synonyms at range.
The length or sweep of a mooring cable.
Informal A viewing instrument such as a periscope, microscope, or telescope.

tr.v. scoped, scop·ing, scopes Slang
To examine or investigate. Often used with out: "Their World Wide Web site is, for now, the best place to scope out the future of the media business in cyberspace." (Marc Gunther).


[Italian scopo, aim, purpose, from Greek skopos, target, aim; see spek- in Indo-European roots.]


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
scope (1)

"extent," 1534, "room to act," from It. scopo "aim, purpose, object, thing aimed at, mark, target," from L. scopus, from Gk. skopos "aim, target, watcher," from PIE *spek- "to observe" (cf. Skt. spasati "sees;" Avestan spasyeiti "spies;" Gk. skopein "behold, look, consider," skeptesthai "to look at;" L. specere "to look at;" O.H.G. spehhon "to spy," Ger. spähen "to spy"). Sense of "distance the mind can reach, extent of view" first recorded c.1600.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
scope (2)

"instrument for viewing," 1872, abstracted from telescope, microscope, etc., from Gk. skopein "to look." Earlier used as a shortening of horoscope (1603). The verb is recorded from 1807.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source scope

noun
1. an area in which something acts or operates or has power or control: "the range of a supersonic jet"; "a piano has a greater range than the human voice"; "the ambit of municipal legislation"; "within the compass of this article"; "within the scope of an investigation"; "outside the reach of the law"; "in the political orbit of a world power"
2. the state of the environment in which a situation exists; "you can't do that in a university setting" [syn: setting]
3. a magnifier of images of distant objects [syn: telescope]
4. electronic equipment that provides visual images of varying electrical quantities [syn: oscilloscope]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
scope1 [skəup] noun

(often with for) the opportunity or chance to do, use or develop
Example: There's no scope for originality in this job. Arabic: فُرْصَه، مَجال
Chinese (Simplified): 机遇
Chinese (Traditional): 機遇
Czech: možnost
Danish: plads
Dutch: ruimte
Estonian: (tegutsemis)ruum
Finnish: liikkuma-ala
French: possibilité
German: der Raum
Greek: προοπτική, ευκαιρία
Hungarian: lehetőség
Icelandic: svigrúm
Indonesian: kesempatan
Italian: opportunità
Japanese: 機会
Korean: 기회
Latvian: iespēja
Lithuanian: galimybė, proga
Norwegian: mulighet, spillerom
Polish: pole działania
Portuguese (Brazil): oportunidade
Portuguese (Portugal): margem
Romanian: posibi*li*tate
Russian: возможность
Slovak: možnosť
Slovenian: možnost
Spanish: oportunidad
Swedish: möjlighet, spelrum
Turkish: fırsat, olanak



scope2 [skəup] noun

the area or extent of an activity etc
Example: Few things are beyond the scope of a child's imagination. Arabic: مَجال، مدى ، نِطاق
Chinese (Simplified): 范围
Chinese (Traditional): 範圍
Czech: sféra
Danish: rækkevidde
Dutch: terrein
Estonian: ulatus
Finnish: ulottuvuus, rajat
French: limites
German: der Bereich
Greek: σφαίρα, πεδίο
Hungarian: terület, kör
Icelandic: svið
Indonesian: lingkup
Italian: portata
Japanese: 範囲
Korean: (활동의) 범위
Latvian: loks; lauks; sfēra
Lithuanian: apimtis, ribos
Norwegian: rekkevidde; fatteevne
Polish: zasięg
Portuguese (Brazil): alcance
Portuguese (Portugal): alcance
Romanian: arie
Russian: простор
Slovak: sféra
Slovenian: doseg
Spanish: alcance
Swedish: förmåga, horisont
Turkish: kapsam



Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
-scope
suff.

An instrument for viewing or observing: bronchoscope.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
Main Entry: scope
Pronunciation: 'skOp
Function: noun
: any of various instruments for viewing: as a : BRONCHOSCOPE b : GASTROSCOPE c : MICROSCOPE

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[lenejento]

No wonder that we feel a yearning inside in a world that's upside down. This doesen't mean we have a personality disorder, she is just simplyfying it to fit her own reality, a reality where society is put on a pedistal.

[edit]

"Wind of Change"
Scorpions - music video

[reptilianshapeshifter]

Oh sure: there's a lot of left and right brain imbalance on this forum, becuase this forum in itself is just a microcosm for the world, perhaps with people who've walked further than most, but there is always a long way further to go

IMHO Reptilian Slayer you identify with sceptics becuase its a model you find value with, but your not really a sceptic at all: your a truth seeker: a truth seeker uses both rationality and imagination, reason and empathy

However there has been a slight miscommunication IMO becuase my post was a valid comment on the Icke thread Zaira had started and would have read differently if yours did not appear by chance of typing speed before my own: so sorry about the cheap shot from me: but then... you did take the bait ;): responsibility balances both ways

Alls fair in Love and Internet Forum discussions, and genuinely no malice intended


Well that's about the most sensible thing you've said in a discussion where I've appeared and I hold more respect for that kind of posting than jibes and cheap shots. It's not about taking bait, just wherever I have participated in any thread that involves you, you direct exactly the same kind of comments to people (not so much me) who are obviously of a more sceptical nature and when I had posted what I had posted trying to hold a balanced opinion you kicked off again which ticked me off :D So apology accepted :D

And the thing about "not liking you" is only represented by the experiences of above where you come off as completely irrational :D

[supertzar]

A skeptical person is open to any possibility. What could be more enlightening?

[john white]

Quote Zaira

For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group

I've always been skeptical about this 10% nonsense. It's propaganda for writers, religions and occultists etc to tell you how to use the other 90% or how ever much more they claim you can use if you follow their methods, teachings and buy their books.

It's wiser to be skeptical than to believe anything dodgy sounding. So much unprovable info about what's going on in the World. There are many skeptical truth seekers and rightly so.

I'd call them rational truthseekers: its not the asking pertinant questions and having the patience to check something out properly before accepting it which is the issue

Icke himself advocates the "back burner"

And to paraphrase Aristotle:

"It is the mark of the awakened mind to entertain a thought without accepting or rejecting it"

[lemonique]

"Wind of Change"
Scorpions - music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taVW8Kv2HcQ&mode=related&search=)

If I may via off course for a moment.. The Winds of Change Video was lovely thanks Edit!! Especially enjoyed the whistling!! people don't whistle much these days:( It's a happy sound, don't you think?? :)

Cheers

[zaira]

john white,

Just watched THE JERSEY GIRLS.............. OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ss+for+tr uth)

[john white]

john white,

Just watched THE JERSEY GIRLS.............. OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ss+for+tr uth)

That's wonderful, thanks for checking it out

You'll find this interesting to I reckon:

http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages-about242.html

[zaira]

Thanks I'll go check it out.

[hagbard_celine]

As far as I can tell, because I am dealing with an alien mentaliity here, Skepticism is the love of the Normal. (I always write the word "Skepic" rather than "sceptic"; I prefer spelling the word with a K and starting it with a captial S; dunno why) James Randi says in one of his films: "I don't drink or take drugs of any kind because I don't want anything to hinder my rational mind." But it's more than just rationality; it is the conviction that rationality is the one and only way of perceiving the world. Of course there are many non-Skeptics that use rationality, and they are seen as unworthy hands. Anyone using rationality who claims that the paranormal is real will therefore be seen as an enemy because if the paranormal was real, rationality would have already discovered it. Anyone who says otherwise must be a pseudoscientist, not a scientist!

Non-Skeptics like me often claim that Skepticism is a religion, which Skeptics vehemently deny. They say that Skepticism is the opposite of religion because it is about defining reality through rationality, not faith. This may be technically true, but many Skeptics do exhibit traits that are common to fervent religous believers: A strong conviction that their own mindset and information gathering process is the only correct cognitive form; they often show hostility to those who have different forms. And, despite their shouts of denial, practice persecution, pogroms, crusades and forcible conversions.

There are many books writen by Skeptics about non-Skeptics, or "Woo's". Books like "Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan and James Randi's "Flim-Flam!". Just for once I'd like to read book about Skeptics from the "Woo" perspective.

Perhaps I should write one myself...:cool:

[slave]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa35/gabriele_07/5.jpg

[lookfar]

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa35/gabriele_07/5.jpg

Slave what is that? It looks like a pair of panties or something!!:eek: ;)

[slave]

http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa35/gabriele_07/5-2.jpg


It's a subliminal image on a chemise.

[slave]

http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa35/gabriele_07/5-2.jpg


It's a subliminal image on a vest. ___________________________