On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:27:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"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.

Now who's being defensive?

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.

No evidence for this remark, therefore it's a gratuitous insult.

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.

Irrelevant remark made for effect.

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

Huh?

Apologies. Poorly expressed on my part. What I meant was, your version
of skepticism is something I would avoid at all costs.

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.

The fact is, I adopt a skeptical attitude whenever I look at any
issue. Anyone who doesn't in these days of so much charlatanism and
deception is a fool. But why should my skeptical attitude ultimately
prevent me from accepting the truth or value of something? Unless one
has turned it into some kind of creed or religion that causes a skewed
vision of things, skepticism should merely be a defence against
gullibility and a spur to investigation. In other words, I regard
skepticism as a tool to get at the truth, not a contradiction of it.

(snip endless getting nowhere)

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

Another irrelevant remark made for effect.

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.

Not really, Arnie. You see different things at different times,
depending on your mental state/level of consciousness. But that
doesn't in any way change what is actually there. However you may
percieve it, the thing itself is a constant. Two people may perceive
something ten different ways, but the reality of the thing remains as
before--beyond the vagaries of perception and untouched by your
particular perception, which in fact has only to do with yourself.

That's misinterpreting reality.

Whose reality would that be?

The ultimate one.

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.

Whatever that means

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.

Whatever that means

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?

Can't handle an arrow fired straight back at you without adopting a
spurious air of superiority, Arnie?

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.

You know, you're sounding a little like Robert. Best be careful there.
:-)