There is a massive problem labelling anyone as a sceptic then. All you can ever show is they did it in particular cases.
-
-
Replying to @pogsurf
I don't think so. We can label someone 'faithful' if this is the predominant attitude they take to positions they hold.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
I don't think we need to require someone to have investigated every truth claim sceptically to be a sceptic.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But who chooses which claims count and which don't?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
The individual decides which truth claims they want to have to positions on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
So they could hold beliefs which you think are nonsense but they don't prioritise them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
If they believe in things without evidence, they are not a sceptic. Whether they prioritise them or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No I'm talking about the difference between what you might choose to prioritise and what someone else might.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pogsurf
I'm not sure how priorities are relevant to the mindset with which you approach things.Whether ur epistemology is faith or evidence
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @pogsurf
If I am a sceptic who focuses on supernatural claims and someone is a sceptic who focuses on pseudoscience, we are both sceptics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Provided we don't use faith as an epistemology in relation to the other things.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.