[chp]

Million Dollar Challenge! Bunk! Prove to me that you?re a skeptic!!!!

Can you prove that you are a skeptic? (Based upon an article on Wilkipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

If the skeptic applied the same rules to themselves and makes absolute certainty the requirement for knowledge, then you could reply that this observation should be applied to skepticism itself.

Is skepticism itself entirely beyond doubt? Isn't it possible to raise various kinds of objection to skepticism? So it would appear; but then no one can know that skepticism is true. So then the skeptic can't know that skepticism is true. But this is actually a bit of a weak reply, because it doesn't really refute skepticism. The skeptic, after all, may be perfectly happy to admit that no one knows that skepticism is true. The skeptic might rest content saying that skepticism is very probably true. That's not the kind of claim that most non-skeptics will be happy to allow.

I think that the above argument put the case very well as to why we can never really have the empirical proofs required to take on things like the James Randi million dollar challenge. What criteria do you think should be used to prove that psychic and mediumistic claims have validity? Perhaps you can cite a case that proves our skills beyond reasonable doubt? Tell us your views in this thread.

[Cessan]

Won't some of these people who set up these tests always find a sceptical answer, even if a singing dancing spirit stood in front of them, the cynic will find a way of always explaining it away :?

[abbondanzieri]

Perhaps you can cite a case that proves our skills beyond reasonable doubt?

the silence is deafening...

[abbondanzieri]

sorry, forgot the smiley on my last post, so here it is

anyway, why not humor the skeptics and go for the challenge. seems pretty reasonable to me, mutually acceptible test conditions 'n all.

are you seriously telling me that you couldn't do with $1M? i know i could (and so could a lot of charities)

[Nat]

I believe Victor Zammit has put up a 1/2 million dollar challenge for Randi and the like to PROVE mediumship wrong. To my knowledge, no has taken up the challenge. It would seem then that no one has felt they can PROVE their skepticism? I don't know, but when you see evidence for something and can't come up with a plausible alternate explanation, perhaps it is time to rethink one's position and apply the priniciple of Occam's razor - that the explanation of any phenomena should be made with as few as possible assumptions and the elimination of those that make no difference to the observable phenomena, hypothesis, or theory ...in other words, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the most likely.

[abbondanzieri]

how do you prove a negative like that?

imagine the scenario...

- i believe in tigers
- rubbish, tigers don't exist
- yes they do, i've seen one
- nope, you're wrong. tigers don't exist

who has the easier job to prove they are right??

prove that tigers exist - ok. here's a tiger. where's my million dollars?
prove that tigers don't exist - well, there's no tigers in this room...or behind my sofa...nope, none in the cupboard either...(this is going to take a while...)

you get the idea. try substituting the word 'ghost' for the word 'tiger'. doing things the easier way nets you $1M, while doing it the hard way only gets $0.5M. seems fair!

also, skepticism is a way of thinking, not a belief system. how can you prove skepticism? :? i think i might have to check out Victor Zammit's website...

[chp]

I found Victor Zammit's Website. Here's the link.


http://www.victorzammit.com/

[abbondanzieri]

ta. i'll check it out.

[DABhand]

The problem here is this.


You could easily say there is an afterlife and use any kind of mediumship etc to try and prove this.

But the other side is adamant that there isnt, and use their theories to prove thats the case.


The problem is.

There is no 100% way of showing if the afterlife does or does not exist. So who would be right?

[abbondanzieri]

You could easily say there is an afterlife and use any kind of mediumship etc to try and prove this.

if the 'test' conditions are mutually agreed, then you win the $1M.

But the other side is adamant that there isnt, and use their theories to prove thats the case.

by "the other side" i assume you mean skeptics, not The Other Side (whatever that might mean) :lol: . anyway, i think the phrase should be "the other side await evidence to the contrary".