There is a massive problem labelling anyone as a sceptic then. All you can ever show is they did it in particular cases.
No. If I believe in things without evidence, I am not a sceptic. Whether I prioritise them or not.
-
-
Unless you just mean you could think someone was a sceptic coz they didn't speak of believing in things. Yes, but they're not
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But you said you hadn't applied scepticism to everything you believed. Some things you just take on trust.
-
Difference between 'believing in' & believing in the sense of taking on trust. I think it very probable my husband loves me.
-
So I cld say 'I believe my husband loves me' but this not the same as 'believing in.'I believe in my husband coz evidence he exists
-
Or perhaps u're thinking of my saying I believe things my friends tell me coz I just assume they're true.If so,I see ur point a bit
-
But in practice, truth claims do need to be significant to warrant scepticism and there is a consensus on what is significant.
-
If my friend says 'I went to the supermarket today,' there is no need to practice scepticism coz going to supermarket is ordinary.
-
We'd only need evidence that was what she did at the time she said she did it if, eg, she was accused of a crime somewhere else
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.