TED Conversations

Mike Aparicio

This conversation is closed.

Skepticism can be out of scope.

Skepticism limits and scope.

Radical skepticism holds a strong position regarding evidence. For an extreme skeptic view, plausibility, relativism, holism and other forms of though are aberrations. Skeptics tend to ignore the impossible-to-prove things.
Skepticism should NOT get involved in judging paranormal concepts, such as life-after-death.
Neither should have a thing to do with emotional subjects like Love, passion, etc.
Love cannot be proven. That is a fact. Even skeptics must "believe" in Love. Some argue Love is proven by actions. But such statement is a fallacy because actions can have many motifs like convenience, duty, obligation, interest, etc. and it is impossible to prove Love.
Claiming for "proof" is then an aberration.

The same with the perennial discussion about very far space objects, galaxies, starts, etc. Their current existence CANNOT be proven. We see only the energies emitted by those objects thousands of years ago. Can we prove those far objects exist today? No.

Universal creation without a Creator! Very contradictory!
What cannot be proven is the possibility of something to exist in an organized form which does not origin from a creative effort.
The basic fundamental requisite for a SYSTEM to exist is: Purpose!
There cannot be a "system without purpose"...
If the Universe is a System of Systems, just like a human being or any living entity, they MUST have a purpose to exist, or should not be considered systems.
Theo Jansen speaks of "animal evolution" when speaking of his mechanical creations and their further "evolution" into different "species" of "Mecha-bots".

True evolution, understood not as simple change but as "change towards a increase in complexity and functionality" cannot happen without the creative mind behind..
Theo could "demonstrate" it , as seen by the "evolutionist minds" by dropping millions of tubes, nuts, links, hoses and bottles in a deserted island.
How long would it take to form one of his creeping "animals"?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: Obey: If you cannot SEE why Skepticism can be out of bounds why don't you explain why you can't?

    Read carefully now: I am NOT defending the "idea of gods"

    I am clearly explaining why Skepticism CAN be out of bounds.

    Are we in a dead-end alley?
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2013: It's not out of bounds.

      You just want to believe your beliefs that are not supported by reason and evidence are valid.

      I get that gods are not your prime subject, although isn't god the usual term for an intelligence responsible for life and the universe and an afterlife and judgement etc etc.

      I understand your proposition. I just disagree with it.

      You are basically saying reason and evidence should not apply to things you want to believe that are not supported by reason and evidence. Seems circular and self serving and intellectually dishonest and a waste of our neo cortex.

      You haven't made a case for why reason and evidence shouldn't apply if you want to believe more true things than false things, or move closer to the truth.

      Its like saying you can't make up fantastic nonsense about the universe if you rely on evidence and reason, so dump evidence and reason. Go for what is more intuitively comfortable for you if you can't get your head around the science.

      No thanks.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.