Positive thinking, or skepticism

[satinbutterfly]

No, not accepting something "just because" is clearly skepticism. Skepticism is merely a part of being intelligent, not intelligence as a whole.

I'm not playing games. I'm exercising logic.


I'm not saying that being positive makes you less aware. Being positive is good. I'm just saying that YOU SHOULD BE POSITIVE, but when a situation in life comes up that is rather unbelievable or needs to be looked at carefully, skepticism is needed. Hell, its how science itself works.



No my argument relates directly to what you said.

Knowing that there isn't a purple hippo in your shoe is not skepticism, it's just the ability to understand fact vs. fiction.

Skepticism plays no part in logic. Logic is being able to reason, and exercise judgment.

And skepticism isn't necessary to be intelligent.

In the end, this is about being positive in life situations... for instance the job market is tough right now. Fact. I still felt positive about my ability to get a job in a tough market, and guess what, I did! Positive thinking!

 

[All Else Failed]

Knowing that there isn't a purple hippo in your shoe is not skepticism, it's just the ability to understand fact vs. fiction.

Skepticism plays no part in logic. Logic is being able to reason, and exercise judgment.

And skepticism isn't necessary to be intelligent.

In the end, this is about being positive in life situations... for instance the job market is tough right now. Fact. I still felt positive about my ability to get a job in a tough market, and guess what, I did!

It is skepticism. Skepticism is doubt of unreasonable or unproven claims.


if you ever take a philosophy class there will be a large portion of it dedicated to logic, reason and skepticism. They go hand in hand. This isn't me talking, its scholars.

If you weren't skeptical at all of SOME THINGS you'd accept everything.

 

[Tyler Durden]

It is skepticism. Skepticism is doubt of unreasonable or unproven claims.


if you ever take a philosophy class there will be a large portion of it dedicated to logic, reason and skepticism. They go hand in hand. This isn't me talking, its scholars.

If you weren't skeptical at all of SOME THINGS you'd accept everything.

I would just like to point out that I have learned my opinions, my way of life through life itself. I didn't read it in a text book and decide that's what is right or wrong. I made my own mind up

As for the 1st part of that, I don't see the relevance. Being skeptical is a doubt of unreasonable claims. I'm not disputing that and I think it's taking away from the basic premise that we are discussing taking a positive or skeptical attitude with you in life. Not, debating if you are not going to acknowledge skepticism (hence my point that I would be skeptical at my chances of surviving a fall from the Eiffel Tower for example)!

 

[satinbutterfly]

It is skepticism. Skepticism is doubt of unreasonable or unproven claims.


if you ever take a philosophy class there will be a large portion of it dedicated to logic, reason and skepticism. They go hand in hand. This isn't me talking, its scholars.

If you weren't skeptical at all of SOME THINGS you'd accept everything.

You are confusing two different things. The ability to identify fact vs. fiction does not involve skepticism... it involves using logic to analyze and form an opinion based on that judgment. For instance... someone says the sky is green. I look up a the sky, use my eyes to see for myself that is in fact blue, and form my opinion based on my senses. In no way does that involve skepticism, just the ability to determine fact vs. fiction.

 

[All Else Failed]

I would just like to point out that I have learned my opinions, my way of life through life itself. I didn't read it in a text book and decide that's what is right or wrong. I made my own mind up

Of course we learned all of our opinions through life. Scholastic exercises are a part of life. However, I'm quite sure Aristotle, Plato and Socrates knew what they were talking about.

 

[All Else Failed]

You are confusing two different things. The ability to identify fact vs. fiction does not involve skepticism... it involves using logic to analyze and form an opinion based on that judgment. For instance... someone says the sky is green. I look up a the sky, use my eyes to see for myself that is in fact blue, and form my opinion based on my senses. In no way does that involve skepticism, just the ability to determine fact vs. fiction.

YES


IT


DOES



When somoene says the sky is green, you are DOUBTFUL. Doubt in its basic form *IS* skepticism.



define what you think skepticism is.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Of course we learned all of our opinions through life. Scholastic exercises are a part of life. However, I'm quite sure Aristotle, Plato and Socrates knew what they were talking about.

Yes they did.

Thousands of years ago!!

I wouldn't say, for example, that it's wise to follow all we read from the past, otherwise we'd believe that women could be pregnant at 112 and that lions will remember us if we take thorns out of their feet!

 

[satinbutterfly]

YES


IT


DOES



When somoene says the sky is green, you are DOUBTFUL. Doubt in its basic form *IS* skepticism.



define what you think skepticism is.

I'm not doubtful... I just know that it isn't because I was able to see for myself that it's blue. I'm able to identify fact vs. fiction.

I would be being skeptical, if I didn't already know the sky was blue, and couldn't see if for myself, and didn't believe that person when they said it was green.

And, are you going to stomp your foot now? Just because you type in caps or space it differently isn't going to prove your point, just saying.

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes they did.

Thousands of years ago!!

I wouldn't say, for example, that it's wise to follow all we read from the past, otherwise we'd believe that women could be pregnant at 112 and that lions will remember us if we take thorns out of their feet!

comparing some of the greatest thinkers who have been analyzed and argued over through out the ages to biblical-like myths. AWESOME.

 

[All Else Failed]

I'm not doubtful... I just know that it isn't because I was able to see for myself that it's blue. I'm able to identify fact vs. fiction.

I would be being skeptical, if I didn't already know the sky was blue, and couldn't see if for myself, and didn't believe that person when they said it was green.

And, are you going to stomp your foot now? Just because you type in caps or space it differently isn't going to prove your point, just saying.

You're doubtful of the claim. Not your knowledge that the sky is blue. Doubt is a reaction to claims that are unsupported by fact.

 

[Tyler Durden]

comparing some of the greatest thinkers who have been analyzed and argued over through out the ages to biblical-like myths. AWESOME.

Just displaing my ability to debate with good grace and humour as well as defending my opinions without resorting to childish purple hippo comments and trying to

TALK

LIKE

THIS

TO

PEOPLE

 

[satinbutterfly]

You're doubtful of the claim. Not your knowledge that the sky is blue. Doubt is a reaction to claims that are unsupported by fact.

What?

I'm sorry... but you're just talking in circles now.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[All Else Failed]

What?

I'm sorry... but you're just talking in circles now.

We can agree to disagree.

someone tells you the sky is green <-----claim


you know the sky is not green <---- previous experience


You doubt the claim is true <------skepticism in it's basic form


You do not believe the CLAIM is true because of your previous knowledge <----- you being skeptical of someone's claim





A claim doesn't have to be complex to stimulate skepticism in its basic form, which is doubt.

Just displaing my ability to debate with good grace and humour as well as defending my opinions without resorting to childish purple hippo comments and trying to

TALK

LIKE

THIS

TO

PEOPLE

I was using simple examples for a reason.

 

[satinbutterfly]

someone tells you the sky is green <-----claim


you know the sky is not green <---- previous experience


You doubt the claim is true <------skepticism in it's basic form


You do not believe the CLAIM is true because of your previous knowledge <----- you being skeptical of someone's claim





A claim doesn't have to be complex to stimulate skepticism in its basic form, which is doubt.




I was using simple examples for a reason.

You're saying I doubt it's true, but that's not the case. I *know* it's not true, because I'm able to see for myself that it is.

That's not skepticism, that's just knowledge.

 

[Tyler Durden]

someone tells you the sky is green <-----claim


you know the sky is not green <---- previous experience


You doubt the claim is true <------skepticism in it's basic form


You do not believe the CLAIM is true because of your previous knowledge <----- you being skeptical of someone's claim






A claim doesn't have to be complex to stimulate skepticism in its basic form, which is doubt.

As Satin says, this is going round in circles. You're no longer making any points that are of interest to me. I have my opinion, you have yours. Neither is right, mine works for me and makes me very happy. Thanks. "If" your way of looking at issues works for you, then that's cool too. Personally, I will choose to be positive always over everything that it is remotely possible to be positive about. If I retain the right to be skeptical then it just won't work. Never has for me.

 

[All Else Failed]

You're saying I doubt it's true, but that's not the case. I *know* it's not true, because I'm able to see for myself that it is.

That's not skepticism, that's just knowledge.

you know its not true based off of previous knowledge that the sky is blue, yes, however that does not stop your brain from saying "this person's argument makes no sense, therefore I will not accept it because there is no evidence for it".

 

[satinbutterfly]

you know its not true based off of previous knowledge that the sky is blue, yes, however that does not stop your brain from saying "this person's argument makes no sense, therefore I will not accept it because there is no evidence for it".

No, that's not true. I know that's it's not true, therefore doubt is not involved, and there's no argument.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I'm pleased the vote is 5-0

Happy positive looking people

 

[All Else Failed]

As Satin says, this is going round in circles. You're no longer making any points that are of interest to me. I have my opinion, you have yours. Neither is right, mine works for me and makes me very happy. Thanks. "If" your way of looking at issues works for you, then that's cool too. Personally, I will choose to be positive always over everything that it is remotely possible to be positive about. If I retain the right to be skeptical then it just won't work. Never has for me.

I'm not going in circles, I'm going in clear lines of progression. This is basic stuff.

No, that's not true. I know that's it's not true, therefore doubt is not involved, and there's no argument.

Then can you define what skepticism is then? IN your own words.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I'm not going in circles, I'm going in clear lines of progression. This is basic stuff.

I'm glad you're clear in your own mind.

Personally, I lost all respect for anything you had to say when you started being childish in this "debate" with your name calling and USING

LARGE

LETTERS

That told me more about the worthiness of trying to have a debate with you than anything else

It's sad really, you may have had a point, but not with me