"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
is affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
reality.

Whatever that means.

A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.

Whatever that means.

Now either you're saying that a skeptic is one who is
unable to see any truth or value in anything due to his
blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed
of skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which
is it?

Not at all.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of
it.

They can if that's what there.

Not at all.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a
glass of water and has the impression that the glass
appears to be full.

But they're both saying the same thing.

Not at all.

The only difference is in the interpretation.

That, too.

Should not then both, having similar senses,
report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

Thanks for agreeing.

Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or
non-skeptics are
intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions of the world are.

But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict
reality.


Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all the
time. Errors and omissions, right?

If a stone is there in front of you, that's a
reality and a fact.

What is reality and what is a fact?

If you see a stone in front of you, in fact all you see is
one side of the stone. Who says that the other side has to
be there?

What you're saying is that the fact
of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
anything.

Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long and
happy lives.

f that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
of science.

There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of viewpoints
and their potentially profound effects is way over your
head, Paul.

Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate limit
of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that is beyond
your ability to fathom.

Scary thoughts!