Tumgik
#scepticism
fieriframes · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
[Scepticism is the first step towards truth.]
26 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
Carl Sagan: There's two kinds of dangers.
One is what I just talked about, that we've arranged a society based on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don't know anything about it?
And the second reason that I'm worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along.
It's a thing that Jefferson laid great stress on. It wasn't enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated, and they had to practice their skepticism and their education. Otherwise we don't run the government—the government runs us.
Charlie Rose: Jefferson was amazing in his devotion to science.
Sagan: Absolutely.
Rose: We think of Jefferson as this man who was literate and who was a passionate articulator of freedom, but if you go to Monticello, what you appreciate is he was at heart a scientist, a botanist, an architect, geologist. And if you, Meriwether Lewis, as we now know from Steven Ambrose, he wanted him to go out and do experimentations and explore and be skeptical and find answers to passages and explore the West.
Sagan: Exactly right. And there was also an economic grail there if the northwest passage was found. Jefferson said that he was at heart a scientist, that he would have loved to have been a scientist. But there were certain events happening in America that called to him, and so he devoted his life to that kind of politics.
Rose: A revolution.
Sagan: Indeed. So that generations later people could be scientists.
30 notes · View notes
gaykarstaagforever · 2 months
Text
I miss when "sceptic" meant "grandfatherly magician James Randi, carefully publicly humiliating idiot grifters who claim to be actual wizards, by proving magic isn't real", instead of "some 22 year old YouTuber yelling about how he has scientific evidence that black people are inferior...that he won't show anyone".
3 notes · View notes
leasthaunted · 9 months
Text
Episode 85: Shasta McNasty
Tumblr media
It's a Patron picked topic! And it's a big one! This time Cody and Garth climb the lofty hights of Mt. Shasta in Northern California, and then descend into the conspiratorial and hard to believe depths that may or may not lie within. Come along and learn about the history of this sacred mountain, and learn all about the lost continent of Lemuria. And just who, what, and why is Shasta Mcnasty?
Listen NOW!! Wherever you trap your pods. or at
9 notes · View notes
chrisengel · 2 months
Text
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.
Jean-Paul Sartre
4 notes · View notes
elegantzombielite · 5 months
Text
"No amount of belief makes something a fact."
James Randi, magician and skeptic (7th August 1928-2020)
2 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
I am rather sick and tired of the newest Instagram trend, to share photos of night skies where they have added surrealistic light effects with Photoshop or something. The lights are always green and it is only night skies. I have seen pictures of UFOs and "HAARP" related stuff so many times and clearly it is fake, or the money-hungry mass media (more now than ever) would print all about it. Both UFOs and "HAARP" has been debunked, if this is an art trend, I think it is rather stupid, or if it is a new AI toy they downloaded, still stupid. As a protest against those influencers, and now I am completely transparent, I took a picture of a DAY TIME sky, added RED light effects instead, using GIMP (FOSS Software, no money was wasted during this process). Here is the result. And no, I have not heard alien voices in my head. Nor have I had visits of strange secret cops, nor have I seen "bugs in the matrix", There is broadcast content on the radio, NO little green men talking NOR static on the radio, and all electric devices work just fine! By the way, can you see the harp in the sky? Probably not but you can clearly hear it on your analog AM radio overseas from Vienna, EU
7 notes · View notes
lawrenceop · 2 years
Text
HOMILY for feast of St Anthony of Padua
preached at the Corpus Christi Shrine in London during the Eucharistic Octave 2022
Tumblr media
Are donkeys actually stubborn? According to animal behaviourists, donkeys are just cautious and if they’re unsure of where they’re being led they will just stop and assess the situation before proceeding. You might say, they’re just less trusting than horses, more sceptical, perhaps. If so, then they’re a good image for the modern man – reluctant to trust, sceptical, and cautious about credulity. 
Which is why in Scripture the donkey has something to teach Man in his unbelief or disobedience. In Isaiah, therefore, the Lord exclaims: “The ox knows its owner, and the ass its master's crib; but Israel does not know, my people does not understand.” (Isa 1:3) Sacred art depicting the Nativity of Christ thus shows the infant Lord Jesus between an ox and an ass. For the donkey knows that the One lying in the manger, lying on the straw is the Master of all things. But Man is slow to believe, and does not understand the Incarnation, does not want to know. And so, our scepticism and caution leads us not to wisdom but to genuinely stubborn incredulity. Thus we risk, dare I say, making an ass of ourselves! As the psalmist says: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’… Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord?” (Ps 14:1, 4)  
St Anthony was empowered by God, therefore, to work a Eucharistic miracle through his prayer and fasting that led a certain incredulous fool of his time to acknowledge the living God. St Anthony was, like our holy father St Dominic, preaching against the Albigensian heretics, the so-called Cathars; the Dominican Order was founded, indeed, to combat this heresy. Surely, the Cathars can be called “evildoers who eat up [God’s] people as they eat bread”. For theirs was a death cult - anti-Life, anti-family, and pro-suicide by starvation. They denigrated the material creation as the work of an evil deity, and believed that only the spiritual was good; death, therefore, released the spirit from the prison of the flesh. This kind of dualistic heresy has never really been completely eradicated, and it remains among us today, which is why the Dominicans and Franciscans still exist. For the Holy Spirit raises up religious Orders to combat certain heresies and errors, and to serve specific needs. Hence St Dominic preached against the Albigensians in the south of France, and St Anthony was at work in northern Italy. 
Almost 800 years ago, in 1223, in Rimini, St Anthony encountered the heretic Bonovillo. He disbelieved the doctrine of the Eucharist. After all, why would God, who is pure spirit and therefore good, imprison himself in bread, which is matter, and therefore bad? Indeed, why would God become Man? For faith in the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is fundamentally linked to faith in the Incarnation. For the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and so, through the miracle of the Holy Mass, the Word wills to become flesh in the Eucharist species so as to dwell within us, through the sublime gift of Holy Communion. Whereas the evildoers, and the fools who know not their God, will eat up people as they eat bread, those who know God and who know his Word, will eat him, not as mere bread but rather as divine food. Thus St Augustine recounts that a divine voice told him: “I am the food of the fully grown; grow and you will feed on me. And you will not change me into you like the food your flesh eats, but you will be changed into me.”
The Eucharist is the food of the fully grown, the truly mature. Often the sceptic or the cautious thinks that he is being mature and grown-up. But to remain distrustful and sceptical, even in the face of evidence or without properly assessing the situation, is not to be prudent – not as Aristotle understands prudence at any rate. Rather, it is to fall into the vice of unbelief or obstinacy. 
Therefore, when we consider the Eucharist, we must consider who it is who causes it to be. It is God. God who is the cause of all things, and who continually and constantly holds all things in being likewise causes and holds in being the substantial Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This is why it is called ‘The Real Presence’ because the Reality of the Eucharist, its res in Latin, is the Presence of the Incarnate Word. And it is God who holds all Reality in being, as he is Reality itself, and so in the Eucharist it is God’s own being, his Real Presence, that is being communicated. Thus, when we receive the Eucharist, when we see the Eucharist, when we adore the Eucharist, it is God whom we receive, see, and adore. 
But the heretic disbelieves this. Why? Because he does not believe the Word of the One who spoke it into being. Why? Because, in the first place, he does not believe in the Incarnation. Bonovillo, being an Albigensian, refused to accept that God would choose to become Man, let alone bind himself to the Sacraments, and to something as lowly and friable as bread. But even the ox and the ass know their Master. And so, just as Isaiah prophesied that the Incarnate Lord would be found between an ox and a donkey, so now, at Rimini in 1223, St Anthony prophesies that a mule would lead the way to truth and faith. For unlike Man, the donkey isn’t stubborn, it just needs time to assess the evidence! So Anthony lays down a challenge: let Bonovillo withhold food from his donkey for three days, and on the third day, put down hay before the hungry beast. Anthony would say Mass and present the Eucharist to the donkey. The result of this audacious wager, but one that St Anthony enters into with fasting and prayer, is that the donkey turns away from the hay, he overcomes his natural instinct for food, and instead, he kneels before its Master.
For just as the donkey of old knew its Master lying in the manger, so now this donkey recognises, too, that the Master of all is present for us now in the Sacred Host; the One who had been laid in the Manger in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, is now the Bread of Life laid on the Manger of the Altar, and given to us to be our “real food” and “real drink”; to give us who feed on him, eternal life. 
Through this miracle, St Anthony thus restores to Bonovillo the heretic something most precious which he had lost, namely, his faith, his trust in God, and thus the acceptance of truth where it may be found. For to have faith is not to be credulous, still less to be superstitious, but it is to believe the One who is Truth himself. We believe God who can neither deceive nor mislead us, but whose Word leads us to abundance of life. We believe Jesus Christ, who, as St Thomas Aquinas says in his Euchristic hymn Adoro Te devote, is Truth himself who speaks truly, for if we cannot believe God’s Word, then we can believe nothing at all for then nothing is true. Isn’t this the relativistic quagmire, the snare of scepticism into which modern Man has descended? 
The Eucharistic miracle of St Anthony, therefore, and the donkey’s adoration of the Eucharist, is  a lesson from this doctor of the Church, the Doctor Optime, to bring us to our senses and to restore our faith. For the Lord uses the supposedly stubborn mule to teach us, and to prevent us from going the wrong way. Hence the Bible recounts another amazing marvel involving a donkey: the rebellious prophet Balaam was stopped by his donkey when the Lord caused it to speak and berate him! So now, the kneeling donkey converted Bonovillo and many of the onlookers from continuing on the wrong ways of heresy and disbelief. 
During this Eucharistic Octave, therefore, we ask for the intercession of St Anthony. May he, who so many people invoke to help them find lost items, restore the true faith to those who have lost it. In particular, may the Eucharistic devotion that is resplendent in this Shrine and in its pious activities convert the incredulous and sceptical and unbelieving onlookers all around it. May we be the donkeys, so to speak, whose faith will penetrate the stubbornness and incredulity of our peers. And so may faith in the living Word of God, and in his Real Presence be restored to the Catholic Church. As St Anthony is often shown holding the infant Jesus so, through his prayers and through our example, may Jesus be seen and discovered and known and loved once more by the people of this land, which is Mary’s Dowry. And to this end, I commend us all to the loving intercession of Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary. 
7 notes · View notes
tenaciousgay · 1 year
Text
Hottake: You are not a sceptic for simply taking a contrarian stance alone. You have to back it up with reasons other than logical fallacies.
Scepticism is about questioning sources and researching a topic yourself. By becoming more informed about a topic.
What it isn't is arrogantly proclaiming "I disagree" then sitting back and making no effort to explain why. It is especially arrogant when it's a science concept or discovery announcement. You don't get to "Um actually" science when you haven't even read the paper and forwarded your own counter paper. That's not how it works.
With the latest milestone to fusion energy having been announced, social media and video commemt sections have become flooded by self proclaimed sceptics snidely repeating the same talking points and propaganda surrounding fusion energy since it's inception.
"It'll never work" "It's still 20 years away"
This isn't scepticism. This is contrarian. If you do this you are as bad as any blind believer, just at the opposite end of the sepctrum.
3 notes · View notes
rchetypal · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media
“Whereas formerly I believed it was my bounden duty to call others to order, I must now admit that I need calling to order myself, and that I would do better to set my own house to rights first. I admit this the more readily because I realize only too well that my faith in the rational organization of the world—that old dream of the millennium when peace and harmony reign—has grown pale. Modern man’s scepticism in this respect has chilled his enthusiasm for politics and world-reform; more than that, it is the worst possible basis for a smooth flow of psychic energies into the outer world, just as doubt concerning the morality of a friend is bound to prejudice the relationship and hamper its development.”
Excerpt From: Jung, C. G., Hull, R. F.C., Adler, Gerhard. “Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 10: Civilization in Transition”.
4 notes · View notes
thebeautyofdisorder · 2 years
Text
You're so nice
You're not good, you're not bad
You're just nice
I'm not good, I'm not nice
I'm just right
I'm the witch, you're the world
2 notes · View notes
fieriframes · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
[A BUNCH OF COLD CUTS GOING INTO A STUFFED MEATBALL. MEATBALL. AND SCEPTICISM IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS TRUTH GENOA SALAMI, SPICY CAPICOLA... SPICY CAPICOLA.]
8 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
Charlie Rose: You convinced me a long time ago that it was arrogant for me or for anyone else to believe that there wasn't some life outside of our...
Carl Sagan: To exclude the possibility.
Rose: To exclude the possibility was an arrogance of intellect that we should not assume. You couldn't prove it. You didn't know it was there. But the arrogance...
Sagan: Right. We don't know if it's there, we don't know if it's not there. Let's look.
Rose: And if you take that, why can't you say there's a lot we don't know?
Sagan: I say it here. Watch, there's a lot we don't know. It's what I believe. But that doesn't mean that every fraudulent claim has to be accepted. We demand the most rigorous standards of evidence especially on what's important to us. So, if some guy comes up to me, a channeler or a medium, I can put you in touch with your parents. Well, because I want so terribly to believe that I know I have to reach in for added reserves of skepticism. Because I'm likely to be fooled and, much more minor, to have my money taken.
7 notes · View notes
leercon-2 · 15 days
Text
About mysticism... (Negative)
I am a skeptic to the core, and when I hear my friends talk about something mystical, I want to end the conversation as quickly as possible. It's not that I reject everyone who believes in it, it's just that all their attempts to prove something to me are doomed to fail in advance.
I am not a scientist, but when I encounter any claim, I will only believe it when I see objective evidence. I am aware of hundreds of stories about miraculous properties of religious artifacts or the accuracy of a birth chart reading, but they always happen somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and all the witnesses can offer is: "I saw it myself, and it really works!" There are no real studies to confirm this.
As for the argument "I saw it myself": It cannot be considered as evidence! There are many examples in history where one scientist made a discovery, and another refuted it centuries later (Aristotle-Galileo-Newton). This means that a theory can be both proven and refuted. Personal experience cannot be refuted by definition, but accepting "just words" as fact is not objective.
Let's talk about attempts to predict the future. There is a phenomenon called the Rosenthal effect or self-fulfilling prophecies. In simple terms, if someone tells you that you will have great luck today, you will subconsciously try to make that prediction come true, associating everyday situations with it. This factor strengthens the belief that the future can be predicted. (Although the fact of attempting to predict the future already changes that future).
Fate. Many have probably been asked, "Do you believe that a person is the master of their own fate or is it predetermined?" If we analyze this question, it leads to a choice without choice. For example, today you had to decide between taking a bath or a shower. You consciously choose to take a shower, but a supporter of predetermined fate would say that it was destined by the universe for you to take a shower today. Again, an argument that cannot be refuted even in theory.
Zodiac signs. I honestly see this as a relic of the past or a children's game, but there are people who take into account the position of stars, half of which may already be dead. I won't argue against this system because to dispute it, you first need to prove it. Just a logical question: can 8 billion people really be divided into just 12 types? Of course not, it's nonsense. Socionics suffers from the same problem - it's pseudoscience that positions itself as something worthwhile but has minimal differences from astrology.
And now my opinion. I will generalize and call all of the above mysticism. So all this mysticism, in my view, only changes the lives of those who believe in it. I don't understand people's inclination towards it. Perhaps they are dissatisfied with reality and are running away from it. Or maybe they are just superstitious and think it's part of life. In general, I will say one thing: develop critical thinking and question everything. This is the right approach to life that will free you from lies.
0 notes
russia-libertaire · 2 months
Text
Isaiah Berlin summarises Herzen's core ethical and philosophical beliefs:
"...that nature obeys no plan, that history follows no libretto; that no single key, no formula, can, in principle, solve the problems of individuals or societies; that general solutions are not solutions, universal ends are never real ends, that every age has its own texture and its own questions, that short cuts and generalisations are no substitute for experience; that liberty - of actual individuals, in specific times and places - is an absolute value; that a minimum area of free action is a moral necessity for all men, not to be suppressed in the name of abstractions or general principles..."
'Herzen and Bakunin on Individual Liberty', in Russian Thinkers, by Isaiah Berlin
0 notes
elegantzombielite · 10 months
Text
"The crucial disadvantage of aggression, competitiveness, and skepticism as national characteristics is that these qualities cannot be turned off at five o'clock."
Margaret Halsey, novelist (13th February 1910-1997)
2 notes · View notes