unorthodox semi-scepticism
Seeing the consistent (on many sites not just this one) scathing criticism against things like homeopathy [no i'm not a profiteerer of it myself], anti-vacciation and lots of other things, reminds me a dialectics table I once drew up showing the dualistic versus holistic tendency of the Modern maistream Western establishment/world-order (scholarly/academic/scientific, political, etc). To me a sceptic should be equally sceptical of the mainstream orthodox views (though I know you'll claim it allegedly has more evidence/proof/facts, and that material is visible/etc).
The left column is current mainstream orthodox, the right side is alternative/heretical.
allopathy -- homeopathy
materialist -- spiritual
evolution -- creation
continental drift -- continental shift/sprints
uniformitarian -- catastrophist
big bang/gravity/evolving uni -- static cosmology/electric/pasma universe
long/old earth -- short/young earth
archaeology -- antiquarianism
globalism -- nationalism/tribalism
convergent evolutuion -- parallel evolution/polygenesis
isolationist/'psychic unity' -- diffusionist/cross-fertilisation
specialist -- generalist
abstract science -- experimental science
linear/progressive -- cyclical
head/rationalist -- heart/intuition/instinct/faith
abstract "art"/architecture -- traditional
democracy -- aristocracy
old/orthodox chronology -- new chronology
free trade -- protectionism
competition -- cooperation
relativism -- absolutism
prochoice -- prolife
left/modern/new -- right/traditional.
One can see a consistant inversion/(unholisitic) dualism by the modern order.
Note the table is not meant as dualistic. Must have both and in right delicately balanced proportion interaction (& for the time).
There are quite a number of respectable sources/authorities referenced in my collation of ideas in this table including: Carelto Coon, Lerner, Arthur Keith, Francis Hitching, Gerald Hawkins, Donald MacKenzie, Julius Evola, Austin Freeman, Joseph Campbell, Oswald Spenglar, etc, so its not just some "lay/amateur/pseudoscientific/crank/unauthoritiative/woo".
This is only a quick rough post, not meant to be a great quality in depth detailed article.
Sean Bam....
To me a sceptic should be
Skeptics are just as critical of the "mainstream orthodox views". As you mention though, there is evidence/proof/facts. Having the evidence/proof/facts to back up these views prevents them from getting a lot of discussion about their validity.
I remember at one SiTP a guy
I remember at one SiTP a guy said to me "somebody's got to be skeptical of the skeptics" whilst peddling some sort of woo. I said nothing at the time in an attempt to keep the peace. However, the reply that shot through my head was skeptics are skeptical of the skeptics!
Yeah... Speak up next time.
Yeah... Speak up next time. :)
The idea of false balance,
The idea of false balance, where every idea, no matter how crackpot is treated as equally valid.
Doesn't work that way. Sometimes things can't be divided that way, they can be true or false. If something can't prove it's validity it should fall by the wayside and be replaced with something based on truth and that has proved itself the better explanation of how things are. Scepticism is not just about questioning, it's about accepting or rejecting claims based on judgement and critical thinking about the evidence. The claim of modern order being 'unholistic' is strange, if I look at something like evolution/creationism I can't think of anything less holistic than the simplistic, trite answer that a god created everything. It doesn't help me understand anything compared with modern biology and it's findings about such things as genetic inheritance and the hope it gives for treating disorders which previously caused a lot of suffering by using applied sciences such as medicine. Same thing as abstract art and traditional architecture, it completely ignores that art is an evolving thing, it doesn't stay static and still and we can embrace the aesthetics of both the older forms and newer forms to fill our senses and let the artist or designer speak to us. Seems to counteract any fuller understanding of the human condition.
I'm fine with criticising mainstream views, that's the way you can fix problems. For instance, hospitals measure errors so that they can evaluate them and do better (and all too often it's used as a brickbat to beat them with). What I don't like is when some ideas become sacred cows and are treated by thier followers as above criticism because they claim special status. All too often, those 'holistic' ideas are treated as having special status over other claims that they don't deserve.
balance
Thanks.
I always seem to miscommunicate &/or be misunderstood and end-up being made to seem (in peoples comments) like i said what i didn't mean (though I might be misinterpreting &/or wrong).
> The idea of false balance, where every idea, no matter how crackpot is treated as equally valid.
I didn't mean it like that. Just greater equality/objectivity/balance.
> Doesn't work that way. Sometimes things can't be divided that way, they can be true or false.
True, not always. I only meant some/those times/things. Some ideas can be viewed as partially having truth(s). Some are dual, some are nondual/dialectic.
> If something can't prove it's validity it should fall by the wayside and be replaced with something based on truth and that has proved itself the better explanation of how things are. Scepticism is not just about questioning, it's about accepting or rejecting claims based on judgement and critical thinking about the evidence.
I more or less agree....
> The claim of modern order being 'unholistic' is strange,
unholistic, dualistic, unnatural/artificial, unbalanced, imperfect, halfie, untrue, biased, either or, disorder, (unscientific,) externalisation;
(& holisitic, anti-dual/non-dual, dialectic, whole, macrocosm, etc.)
> It doesn't help me understand anything compared with modern biology and it's findings about such things as genetic inheritance and the hope it gives for treating disorders which previously caused a lot of suffering by using applied sciences such as medicine.
Both/all, no conflict. Eg:
The Hebrew the Adam "keep the garden" verse words meant exploring (science) and enjoying G-d's "infinite" creation.
There are also questions/mysteries/problems that (pure) orthodox "science"/technology /philosophy/psychology /humans/materialism/reason /"medicine" (alone) can't necessarily Hope to answer.
> Same thing as abstract art and traditional architecture, it completely ignores that art is an evolving thing, it doesn't stay static and still and we can embrace the aesthetics of both the older forms and newer forms to fill our senses and let the artist or designer speak to us.
I agree about embracing/enjoying (the whole spectrum &/or) both old & new (as I said, the table was not meant as dualistic). I don't wholly agree that "art is an evolving thing". There are some absolute (eternal/universal/natural) aesthetic principles. A modern "philosopher" said about art we don't like on the radio "you won't like the answer... you really do like it", but to me it also means that there is art we "like" that we really don't like. Also, thats okay if we have free/equal choice but we don't. Those eye-sores in botanic gardens are not art.
> Seems to counteract any fuller understanding of the human condition.
The present human condition & orthodox order/worldview is somewhat un-whole-some/un-full-filling for at least a minority of us.
> I'm fine with criticising mainstream views, that's the way you can fix problems. For instance, hospitals measure errors so that they can evaluate them and do better (and all too often it's used as a brickbat to beat them with). What I don't like is when some ideas become sacred cows and are treated by thier followers as above criticism because they claim special status. All too often, those 'holistic' ideas are treated as having special status over other claims that they don't deserve.
The biggest sacred cow/special status is the mainstream orthodox wordview.
P.C., "sacred cow", "fact/proven", "crackpot/woo", "conspiracy theory", Forbidden archaeology. Out of place artefacts. Missing links. Anomalies. "Hate crimes". Theory.
My comments were based on my experience/observations over a number different sites/etc.