Originally posted by FreakyKBHI agree with you that skepticism denies any supernatural occurence. That is, anything outside nature (this is what supernatural means). Since skepticism denies anything outside nature, it falls into the acceptance of natural events, which is the realm of science.
Disagree, at least on the current skeptic view. Although skepticism in its purest form delays conclusion until all information is available, current use of the term denotes a denial of any supernatural occurence and/or being.
The current skeptical view is hardly scientific, and those immersed in any field of scientific thought should be offended at asser ...[text shortened]... e known, assuming as true only that which has not been shown to be false, absurd, or irrelevant.
Originally posted by amannionEh? According to one source of collegiate support for skeptics world-wide:
I agree with you that skepticism denies any supernatural occurence. That is, anything outside nature (this is what supernatural means). Since skepticism denies anything outside nature, it falls into the acceptance of natural events, which is the realm of science.
"Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid."
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
Now, perhaps I am overreaching the definition of creationism. According to the literal term, creationism refers to the world coming about by means of a creator. While no one will likely argue with the lack of support for water dowsing or ESP, there seems to be a rather glaring lack of consensus in the world regarding the origins of existence. Maybe it's just me.
Moreover, to deny any supernatural occurence is just plain arrogant silliness. Science does not lazily rely on supernatural occurences to explain the workings of nature, but neither does it pretend to deny the possibilities of the same. That just wouldn't be science, would it?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou're right, I overstepped the bounds a bit with my portrayal of science. It claims no absolutes (or shouldn't).
Eh? According to one source of collegiate support for skeptics world-wide:
"Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid."
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html
Now, perhaps I am overreaching the definition ...[text shortened]... it pretend to deny the possibilities of the same. That just wouldn't be science, would it?
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'll admit he's (or is it she??) a little rough around the edges (especially his views on Catholicism)*. Don't worry, give him a couple more days and I'm sure he'll be as right as rain.
No, I don't welcome all members to the forums like that; only when they come in spouting rubbish. You can claim it's an ad hom if you wish Hal, although were you to actually READ his posts, full of unsubstantiated claims you'd actually see that I'm right.
* Disclaimer: I'm not Catholic.
