Mess or Masterpiece?

[Jonathan]

And still, "Skepticism has been simply defined as the impossibility of knowledge."

And there is the kernel of disagreement, the pea under the Princess. Who has defined it so, besides Tony? I don't agree that skepticism as used today is 'the impossibility of knowledge.' It is almost 180 degrees against that reading to my reckoning.

Who has defined it so, besides Tony? Why, Ayn Rand has, of course!

Rand is the source of almost all of Tony's definitions and opinions. He has studied no one but Rand. He knows nothing but her views.

J

[william.scherk]

And still, "Skepticism has been simply defined as the impossibility of knowledge."

And there is the kernel of disagreement, the pea under the Princess. Who has defined it so, besides Tony? I don't agree that skepticism as used today is 'the impossibility of knowledge.' It is almost 180 degrees against that reading to my reckoning.

Who has defined it so, besides Tony? Why, Ayn Rand has, of course!

Rand is the source of almost all of Tony's definitions and opinions. He has studied no one but Rand. He knows nothing but her views.

I can with reason guess that Speptical Tony has not reviewed the last two comments of mine, nor thought about my general conclusions therein, nor believes that he and I can see eye-to-eye if we try to understand the issues in play and each other's arguments.

This is, in technical terminology, a Dead End. Skeptical Tony is pretty sure that I want to kill him (with sweet syrupy arguments), so I can't fault him for avoiding my prose. I would advise you Jonathan to not use deathly sweet prose in your next comment on Skeptical Tony's output. It could lead to mental extinction, and that is not allowed at OL.

Edited July 6, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Save me!

[anthony]

For those skeptics about skepticism there's no end of the definitions and argumentation available online.

RationalWiki, for one:

"Philosophical Skepticism: ... is often associated with radical skepticism which denies the possibility of knowledge. [...]

(See: Pyrrhonism)"

"Moral Skepticism: Holds that there is no objective morality or "natural law". David Hume's "is-ought" distinction is one of the most common arguments in favor of moral skepticism. While moral skepticism is often associated with nihilism and moral relativism ..."[...]

"Scientific and methodological skepticism": [...]

[Brant Gaede]

Knowledge of the impossibility of knowledge. How did such a philosophical lead balloon ever get off the ground?

--Brant

[anthony]

Exactly! (Spoken as an objectivist). To have knowledge of no knowledge...the biggest contradiction in terms.

But in varying amounts it is "a reality" for many, like all odd beliefs it 'exists' in people's heads.

[william.scherk]

Skeptical Tony gives no link to his quoats. He means to direct interested readers to the site Rational Wiki, and to the the RW entry "Skepticism."

I will lead with the first paragraph:

Skepticism (or scepticism) is the art of constantly questioning and doubting claims and assertions, and holding that the accumulation of evidence is of fundamental importance. It forms part of the scientific method, which requires relentless testing and reviewing of claimed facts and theories.

Then, back to Skeptical Tony's remark that began this side-issue to Moralizing About Art Is Fun!

If one puts Randian theory through one's own experiences and thinking (without skepticism) the sky's the limit.

I would say Rand's horizon is the limit. Since Tony seems to think that Randian theory is best taken without any skepticism whatsoever, I hold that Tony is trapped within a Randian framework of understanding. There is no way out, and no way for him to understand where he may be wrong in detail.

Rand needs no improving or critical attention. Randian theory need not be tested. Randian theory is CORRECT.

I am not the only one here who sees the epistemological problem here. It's a faith position, an acquiescence to dogma. This is not objective thinking.

Edited July 6, 2015 by william.scherk

[anthony]

Thanks for the link: you did scroll down to "Types of skepticism"?

Eccentric of me I know, but on a philosophical forum I usually mean "philosophical skepticism" when I use "skepticism".

Repeatedly equating the philosophical with the methodological ( which are poles apart, as I've reiterated) is William's attempt to discredit that which he doesn't understand or like of Rand and Objectivism about Skepticism, the philosophy.

Do I hear and see degrees of Skepticism made explicit by the words and acts of many people? All over. For a while in myself, too.

Rand identified and evaluated what I'd already known existed but never understood.

[william.scherk]

Thanks for the link: you did scroll down to "Types of skepticism"?

I have been there before, Tony. You are assigning Bad Skepticism to unnamed people, and evading the clear meaning of the term as I use it. You evade discussing the observations and the distinctions I have made earlier in this thread. You have ignored my long disquisition on Know-Nothing skepticism. This makes me think you feel threatened with death by deliberation.

Here are some other portions from Rational Wiki's entry that show up your fear and loathing of skepticism as practiced today. First, opposition to skepticism, such opposition you hold in relation to Rand's claims being put to rational tests:

The nature of skepticism is that no-one's word can ever just be trusted and accepted without questions and without evidence. This can be a problem for people who don't like this because it is fundamentally distrustful, or the people who know that they cannot supply evidence to back up their claims. This leads to stereotypes of skeptics being humourless killjoys who hate people with "open minds" and want to spoil all of the harmless fun that can be had in believing comforting things for their own sake.

Skepticism makes ideas difficult to spread and as thus is the antithesis of authoritarianism. Someone attempting to solicit money, or control a population can do it far easier if the audience doesn't question their actions, methods, motives or reasoning. To turn a skeptic to one's ideas requires a lot of effort and evidence.

Then, a list of notable skeptics of the last century:

• James Randi - a former stage illusionist turned skeptical speaker. Founded the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and as part of his "act" often consumes an overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills to show they don't work.
• Martin Gardner - a mathematician that popularised mathematical tricks and games he called "recreational mathematics". Also wrote a great deal on the paranormal
• Carl Sagan - popular science presenter for the series Cosmos. Coined the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
• Paul Kurtz - called the "the father of secular humanism" by some in the skeptical community. Founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) among other things.
• Ray Hyman - member of CSICOP and has done a great deal of investigation into parapsychology and rationalist explainations for the claimed phenomena.
• Philip J. Klass - a major skeptic of UFO claims and general ufology. Like James Randi's famous prize, he offered $10,000 for anyone who could prove their claims about them. As of his death in 2005, it remained unclaimed.
• Isaac Asimov - science fiction author. Also known in the skeptical world for the concept of "wronger than wrong" and his essay The Relativity of Wrong about how knowledge and thinking work.
• Bertrand Russell - mathematician, pacifist, socialist and philosopher. Developed the teapot argument about the burden of proof.
• Harry Houdini - an illusionist and escape artist. He dedicated his later life to debunking what he called "humbug". Later inspired stage magicians Penn and Teller to do the same.
• Albert Einstein - scientist and all-round quote machine. Einstein is credited with redefining modern physics.

Now, a two part challenge to you Tony, a fresh challenge, since you complete evade answering even the simplest question about your knowledge of contemporary skepticism (I guess you have never picked up Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer, and are afraid to note this):

Name one contemporary Bad Skeptic. Name one Skeptic that we should keep our distance from by all means.

Bonus question: can you 'point to' a Bad Skeptic here on OL?

Edited July 6, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Russell's teapot is brilliant.

Powerful painting. It's not so much a message painting as a slice of that kind of reality painting.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Comment to Brant with spoilers for the identification that may wreck a first impression.

It is official war art from Canada. The title is Canadian Gunners in the Mud, Passchendaele. It was painted in 1917 by Alfred Bastie. I find it a mess, but knowing what I know it is moving to me personally. It is from "Canvas of War: Masterpieces from the Canadian War Museum.

More war art:

[Jonathan]

I just wanted to bump these two posts into current "new content" status because they remain unanswered, and I don't want them to remain evaded and forgotten about due to the lame distraction of electron-chasing:

Jonathan,
Re your post #69, I'm interested to see your self-description of your output. To me, a high percentage of what you post looks dopey...

That would make sense. Given your inability lately to pay attention to the big picture due to your petty electron chasing [...].

I can't find a "big picture" in your postings, Jonathan - beyond the prevailing outrage at Rand and multiple Objectivists.
Every now and then, when I have a couple hours to spare - which I seldom have these days - I read through batches of your posts trying to discern a "big picture" in them. I always fail. What I see is just as I described.
Ellen

Maybe you'd be able to start seeing a "big picture" if you were to start addressing substance and answering questions. Go back to my post #92 and answer the questions that I asked. I answered some of them myself. Do you disagree with the answers that I gave? If so, then precisely identify the specific standards that you think Kamhi uses in declaring how "meaningful" works of art are, if not her own personal, subjective responses, or lack thereof. Identify the alleged "objective" standards that she uses to rate works of art as "better" or "worse," if not her own personal, subjective responses, preferences and tastes. Demonstrate that her own limitations and inability to experience meaning and emotional depth in certain works of art are not the sole criteria that she uses to declare what is not art, and to assert that others are pretending to experience what they experience.

J

Speaking of addressing substance and answering questions, Ellen, in post #90, if you missed it, I addressed your question about the "pickled shark" issue, and asked for clarification of what you think you're asking. Since you brought up the topic, and therefore it's fire and brilliance rather than mere obscuring smoke which I conjured up, I hope this isn't going to be yet another "real issue" which you immediately abandon because your position, whatever it is, didn't have the devastating effect that you apparently assumed that it would.

J

Answers, please!

J