Deny Ignorance?

[SurferSoul]

 

Why do assume anything other than scepticism is a “sensationalised view”? 
Do you think the average person as you put it isn’t capable of drawing their own conclusions, is incapable of doing internet searches and just automatically believes anything presented to them? 

Healthy Scepticism should be encouraged as should logic and reason, some of the subjects discussed however fall outside of logic and reason, science is also an evolving discipline and there is much still unknown or unexplained by science. 

I suppose my real question is do self identified sceptics have any real interest in the subjects discussed here other than to dismiss and debunk them?

[UltraBudgie]

Why do assume anything other than scepticism is a “sensationalised view”? 
Do you think the average person as you put it isn’t capable of drawing their own conclusions, is incapable of doing internet searches and just automatically believes anything presented to them? 

Healthy Scepticism should be encouraged as should logic and reason, some of the subjects discussed however fall outside of logic and reason, science is also an evolving discipline and there is much still unknown or unexplained by science. 

I suppose my real question is do self identified sceptics have any real interest in the subjects discussed here other than to dismiss and debunk them?

I have been frustrated by that too. I am sure there is an interest, but it is the approach that is different. I believe it the result of 'left-brain' thinking, which maintains a logical map of the world and how it should work, and seeks to fit everything within that map, or with exactitude highlight inconsistencies and evolve the map. Everything is seen from 'within the bubble' of that viewpoint. The left brain is all very rational, and quite often scientific. It's not wrong, in and of itself, with the exception that it cannot cannot cannot functionally operate without believing that its map can be complete, consistent, and finite.

I've made a thread about it a while ago: https://denyignorance.com/Thread-The-Tyr...f-the-Left

Now, this is very much the correct approach for dealing with elements of determinable veracity. Consistencies of account, observation, historical record, etc. Technology and utility. Measurable results. All very well and good. But when it tries to be an approach that explains everything -- the non-material, the numinous, matters of mind and consciousness beyond the brain, the artistic, and that which science has not even begun to perceive -- then it gets "too big for its britches" and, yes, annoying.

It should be noted that the converse of this exists -- those who want to see everything as mystical and transrational. They're annoying too.

Edit: perhaps I'm just easily annoyed.

[ArMaP]

I suppose my real question is do self identified sceptics have any real interest in the subjects discussed here other than to dismiss and debunk them?

If we are sceptics we do not debunk or dismiss, we have doubts.

And yes, I do have real interest in the subjects I participate in.

[Sirius]

debunk this I would appreciate it
https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Large-s...2#pid33452

my main issue with debunking is that it sets out to disprove something, and that almost always works, it's not the way and you throw out the baby with the bathwater

and then we have all the shills and disinfo. it's just a mess

some of the stories are clearly coverups for other nefarious acts and that doesn't help either

[SurferSoul]

If we are sceptics we do not debunk or dismiss, we have doubts.

And yes, I do have real interest in the subjects I participate in.

Yeah healthy scepticism is the approach we should all take. I was thinking of the ATS days however, one thing that bugged me was those who would take the stance of say the main stream view or whatever Wikipedia had to say on a given subject. Anyone and I mean anyone can parrot the talking points of someone else’s view or work, just quoting some mainstream article or Wikipedia requires virtually zero thinking or understanding of a subject. 

Speaking of Wikipedia, the best one that happened to me on ATS was a discussion about Tesla who was getting heavily slated by a bunch of posters. I pointed out that he did indeed invent many electrical devices such as the induction motors we use today. I had already checked his patents on Wikipedia when one person claimed it was wrong and I didn’t have the proof, so I went back to wiki only to find the article had changed and someone else was credited with the invention! I couldn’t believe it so I used the Way Back Machine and pulled up the original write up. 
What pissed me off the most though was the general insults that were thrown Tesla’s way, such as “pigeon lover” “crazy guy who was just jealous of Edison”  and other things just meant to taint the man’s reputation and personality. 

It’s one thing to people sceptical about claims made about the man’s inventions, another to insult his legacy and belittle him because of others claims.

[Ectoplasm8]

 

I think some people are so caught up in wanting so badly to believe aliens are real, partly so because the media wants it so, so they can feed off the naivety of viewers and the skeptical side is never if rarely mentioned. That's disingenuous reporting. We need both sides and make up our own minds. Not sheepishly what we're told.
We shouldn't have to search out the other side. It should be freely given to us and we decide. Like I've said before. In a courtroom setting were presented with both sides, not just one. How can anyone come to a honest conclusion hearing only one side?
Denying ignorance.

[SurferSoul]

I think some people are so caught up in wanting so badly to believe aliens are real, partly so because the media wants it so, so they can feed off the naivety of viewers and the skeptical side is never if rarely mentioned. That's disingenuous reporting. We need both sides and make up our own minds. Not sheepishly what we're told.
We shouldn't have to search out the other side. It should be freely given to us and we decide. Like I've said before. In a courtroom setting were presented with both sides, not just one. How can anyone come to a honest conclusion hearing only one side?
Denying ignorance.

Interesting your angle isn’t what I expected, why do you think the media want people to believe in UFO’s do you think it’s part of project blue book or am I way off with that? 

I agree about seeking out the other side, you can’t formulate an informed opinion if you’re basically only half informed. I was highly sceptical of media during the the whole covid psy-op, actually I’m highly skeptic all of the media full stop. I tend to think of skeptics as going along with whatever the msm narrative is though and dismissing anything that goes against that. Clearly that isn’t always the case. Apologies for making assumptions.