tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post1288160850815336818..comments2023-08-22T07:01:08.590-07:00Comments on Agent Intellect: The Tale of a CometJim S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-8933190421434572432017-09-22T19:59:09.967-07:002017-09-22T19:59:09.967-07:00And, of course, Platina says that the predictions ...And, of course, Platina says that the predictions of doom were made by the scientists of the time and that Pope Callistus was merely responding to these. <br /><br />Perhaps Callistus' credulity lay in giving too much credence to scientists? Felix Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-50737325973707730962008-11-04T06:47:00.000-08:002008-11-04T06:47:00.000-08:00Well, I agree with your first statement; that was ...Well, I agree with your first statement; that was why I pointed out that in the post I only claimed that we should be skeptical of <I>our</I> skepticism, i.e. our choices of what we are skeptical about. But the second commenter argued that we shouldn't be skeptical of skepticism <I>per se</I>. So since he/she brought it up, I responded to it.<BR/><BR/>As to solipsism, of course we have to accept some pragmatic beliefs in order to live our lives. However, to hold skepticism up as the model of rationality, as the second commenter seemed to be doing, leads to the problem of solipsism. Since equating skepticism with rationality leads to solipsism, and solipsism is not true, it follows that skepticism should not be equated with rationality.<BR/><BR/>As such, I disagree with your statement that "some level of self-analysis or detached psycho-social inquiry ... is something like skepticism." I reiterate what I said in previous comment. Skepticism does not require any intellectual effort. Doubting, refusing to believe, is no more rational than believing anything you hear would be. Skepticism is essentially blind faith that something is false, and blind faith is not rational, intellectual, intelligent, wise, etc. On the other hand, self-analysis and detached inquiry <I>does</I> require intellectual effort. Thus, I argued in the post that we should be skeptical of our skepticism; we should doubt our doubts. If one were to do this, he would have to question whether he should believe some of the things he had disbelieved. Thus, it would lead directly to the employment of some degree of self-analysis or detached inquiry. My argument was precisely that we should engage in such analysis in order to avoid the pitfalls of positive blind faith (i.e. believing a ridiculous story like a Pope excommunicating a comet because it fits with your worldview) on the one hand and negative blind faith (i.e. skepticism) on the other.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-29637226607480970322008-11-01T21:19:00.000-07:002008-11-01T21:19:00.000-07:00Skepticism leading to solipsism seems to be a sepa...Skepticism leading to solipsism seems to be a separate issue from skepticism that employs falsehoods or is applied inconsistently or hypocritically.<BR/><BR/>Regarding solipsism: Obviously we need some <I>pragmatic</I> beliefs to function in the world. These can be purely sensory (how to avoid walking into walls), "gut" (who I should avoid on the street at night), or cultural (how to pursue a new friendship). If I cannot easily entertain <I>radical skepticism</I> about these things, I can nevertheless engage in some level of self-analysis or detached psycho-social inquiry, which is something like skepticism.Tucker Liebermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16686164444086529585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-10648473746042281012008-10-30T03:06:00.000-07:002008-10-30T03:06:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comment. First, I didn't actually ...Thanks for your comment. First, I didn't actually say we should be skeptical of skepticism itself but of <I>our own</I> skepticism, because we will not be consistent in our application of it. It's part of the human condition to be overly skeptical of things we don't want to believe and insufficiently skeptical of things we do want to believe.<BR/><BR/>Having said this, however, I do think that skepticism is not the paradigm of rationality that many seem to think it is. After all, it doesn't take any intellectual effort to doubt something. The dumbest person in the world can refuse to believe. So in this sense, I do think we should be skeptical of skepticism.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, if we're going to be pure skeptics I don't see any way to avoid solipsism. Agrippan and Cartesian skepticism conclude that we can't know anything, including the existence of the external world or of other people. So we have to ask ourselves when our skepticism ends; if it doesn't end you're a solipsist, and solipsism is not just irrational, it's insane.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-59631912367963466902008-10-29T12:25:00.000-07:002008-10-29T12:25:00.000-07:00I think this doesn't show at all that we should be...I think this doesn't show at all that we should be skeptical of our skepticism, but that we should be skeptical of our beliefs. The examples you cited are examples of believing something uncritically. True, it was skeptics who weren't thinking critically, but skeptics are not skepticism. Your critical thinking about those skeptics' beliefs was just more skepticism, and, as such, can't show that we should be skeptical about skepticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6672880129970799148.post-78638563612815826412008-10-26T10:42:00.000-07:002008-10-26T10:42:00.000-07:00Excellent work as always!Excellent work as always!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com