An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
I find, often, in our little discussions, that those whom often claim the term Skeptic also seem to, invariably, have no evidence, proof, logical correlations or any parallel as to their claim that something is false.
Also, some claims may be true even without evidence. So I think it's best to wait until evidence is found before one starts dismissing claims as false.
It is certainly correct that claims may be true without evidence to support them, but how are we to know whether they might just as likely be found false? If there is absolutely nothing that qualifies as evidence at all, as in some unfalsifiable claims, then even the faintest probability of whether the claim is true or false is unknown. In these cases, I believe the reverse of your conclusion could be argued: it's best to wait until evidence is found before one starts promoting the claim as true.
Carbon wrote:Perhaps skeptics are more keen on being skeptical because it is easier. Tearing the house down is easier than building it up.
Abiathar wrote:Again, I do not mean everyone, I know a few true skeptics... well, one on these boards thus far.
La Nausée wrote:I'm new too, so i'm in the same boat. I think you're right in some ways Carbon, it is easier to a skeptic, becuase instead of being the one who creates a theory or philosophical idea, you can be the one to criticise them, without being open to much criticism yourself.
David Hume springs to mind. He pointed out the flaws in so many mainly theistic thinkers' philosophies, but never really contributed
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests