"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:20:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

This is a worry, Arnie. Clearly for you skepticism is
some kind of religion which colours one's world view and
prevents one seeing reality.

Clearly you're on the attack again, Paul.

Is James Randi aware of this? I personally have little
time for "professional"
skeptics, those who join skeptics societies and so on,
but I would certainly encourage healthy skepticism on any
subject.

...in anybody but yourself it seems.

Or at least, I did, but now, having read your
definition of a skeptic, I'm beginning to wonder if I
should shepherd the innocent away out of danger.

I'm happy to leave the salvation of the world to you, Paul.

Obviously skepticism in your world is something to be
avoided at all costs.

Huh?

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.

This is a mystery for you? Read it again and try harder
this time.

Mentioning "skeptic" and "truth" in the same sentence can be
dangerous to your credibility, Paul.

(snip endless getting nowhere)

Whatever. Paul must do this to create the impression that
he's in control...

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?

That's not denying reality.

You also said "contradict", didn't you Paul?

Reality just is.

Here's a news flash: Exactly what reality is depends on your
viewpoint, Paul.

That's misinterpreting reality.

Whose reality would that be?

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.

You forgot the smiley, Arnie. But it's nice to see you
cracking a joke occasionally, even a very weak one.

Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
Paul, part deux.

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.

You mean a little healthy skepticism is not a handy tool
for the scientist?

Paul, you were talking about imagination.

Nice job of not taking responsibility for what you said
Paul, part tres.


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

Not at all, Arnie. I understand the effect your
viewpoints have on you very well.

That one went right over your pointy little ego-centric
head, didn't it 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.

From what I've read of Mr. Atkinson on this NG, I would
not be ashamed to be intellectually compared to him even
by you, sarcastically.

It takes a certain lack of IQ to be impressed by his
prattle.

But don't concern yourself about
my ability to fathom things, Arnie. I do alright.

So you seem to think, Paul.