I have concluded that there are two types of skepticism. There's... let's call it "Type A", which is basically intended to prevent the person from believing what is not true. It's balanced, and bends to reasonable evidence. Then there's "Type B", which is a mask for fear of the unknown. It is rigid, and never bends without a consensus from the herd. Type B skepticism is what you see from "The Amazing" Randi. It doesn't want to be wrong, and it rejects everything without any intention of ever being wrong.
Skepticism - true skepticism - is a good thing, and is frequently shown to be in error. As the facts present themselves, it is adjusted to fit them. Type B skepticism is a defense, as I said, against the frightening "unknown". Because that fear does not go away without being forced to deal with the unknown, and the unknown is what is being hidden from, this type of skepticism invents all manner of defenses and "reasons" why rejection of alternate options should continue. Rigidity and lack of change is its hallmark. Change is scary. Amusingly, there is no end to the logical fallacies this type of skepticism relies on, all the while claiming that whatever is being rejected is committing the same errors. Whether or not the subject actually does commit the same errors, unchanging rejection is not skepticism. It's fear, masquerading as a legitimate expression of skepticism.
People like you and I, we approach, conclude that something seems hard to believe, and then begin experimenting with it. Can it work? Does it work? What happens when I do this? And this? And this? How do I explain the results? Is it reasonable to say that there has been a change? How do I explain that change, both for and against? Can it be explained in other ways? How does this play out over time?
In other words, we are open minded. We are trying to find an answer to our question... not a question to fit our preconceived answer.
Part of why I wanted this forum was as an experimental test bed. If my subliminals can do well here on a public forum, where people can report their experiences without me changing what they say, then I will have the confidence to invest a lot of money doing formal research studies down the line, when I have the money.
Skepticism - true skepticism - is a good thing, and is frequently shown to be in error. As the facts present themselves, it is adjusted to fit them. Type B skepticism is a defense, as I said, against the frightening "unknown". Because that fear does not go away without being forced to deal with the unknown, and the unknown is what is being hidden from, this type of skepticism invents all manner of defenses and "reasons" why rejection of alternate options should continue. Rigidity and lack of change is its hallmark. Change is scary. Amusingly, there is no end to the logical fallacies this type of skepticism relies on, all the while claiming that whatever is being rejected is committing the same errors. Whether or not the subject actually does commit the same errors, unchanging rejection is not skepticism. It's fear, masquerading as a legitimate expression of skepticism.
People like you and I, we approach, conclude that something seems hard to believe, and then begin experimenting with it. Can it work? Does it work? What happens when I do this? And this? And this? How do I explain the results? Is it reasonable to say that there has been a change? How do I explain that change, both for and against? Can it be explained in other ways? How does this play out over time?
In other words, we are open minded. We are trying to find an answer to our question... not a question to fit our preconceived answer.
Part of why I wanted this forum was as an experimental test bed. If my subliminals can do well here on a public forum, where people can report their experiences without me changing what they say, then I will have the confidence to invest a lot of money doing formal research studies down the line, when I have the money.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
