"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.

Probably a safe bet.

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.

That sounds more like an Objectivist or a Realist.

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?


Nope, a skeptic is one who doubts everything, including reality.


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.

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. The only difference is in the
interpretation.

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

One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

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 fo the world are.

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

Yes they can, people deny reality all the time. There's a school of
thought, that says we can never know anything for sure due tot the fact that
all knowledge is filtered through our senses which are imperfect.

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

That doens't mean it couldn't be a hallucination.

What
you're saying is that the fact of being a skeptic fatally colours your
impression of anything. If that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool of science.

Questioning the status quo to see if it agrees with reality is a bit
different than flat out skepicism. The sceintific method encourages the
former.