Skeptical / Rational thinkers?

[jupiter618]

Just wondering how many like minded people we have on the forum. I'm a secular humanist with a passion for skepticism (with a k) and rational thought. I've been following many of the sceptical podcasts for years and keep up to date with news in science and skepticism (I'm educated in science and work in research).

I'm a huge fan of the music and comedy of Tim Minchin; he has an amazing way of expressing our point of view and making it funny and beautiful at the same time. He's a very tallented man.

Anyone consider themselves part of the community? We're a growing group in society!

[Steve Axford]

Never heard of it. What is it and what do you believe? What is the truth for you?

[I @ M]

I'm a secular humanist with a passion for skepticism (with a k) and rational thought.

Does being one make you a better photographer?
If the answer is yes please advise me of the joining fees.

[ricktas]

I am an atheist, but it's not my fault, cause its just the way god (lower case g) made me.

[ameerat42]

...He's a very tallented man...

(I thought he was just very talented.)

By Jove, Jupiter! That's a curly one. I consider myself alternately saturnine and mercurial, and not very martial. Sometimes too, rather down-to-earth, and betimes a lunar-tic.
But that's only when I have a thoughtless moment or two.
An/and not.

[arthurking83]

.... and not very martial. Sometimes too, rather down-to-earth, and betimes a lunar-tic.
......

I'm no longer very marital either now, but that's only 50% my fault

by the way Am, you being a Lunar-tic and all .... does this mean you're a night dwelling mammal infesting invertebrate, or a half of a time stroke that has an aversion to the Sun?

[jupiter618]

Being a skeptic is just admitting that you can't know the truth, all you can hope to do is accept what evidence you observe and try to be as observant and wide thinking as you can. It's nothing more than practised and intentional honesty, in the tradition of the Greek philosophers and continued to the present. It's not easy, we human beings are prone to falling into logical traps, i.e. logical fallacies. It's also deeply connected with ethics and morality. Humanism is the most advanced code of moral behaviour we have and it's a continuous work in progress.

There's a lot of woo around these days, and I thnk it's important that people are taught the skills of critical thinking and evaluation of evidence. We wouldn't want to return to the dark ages, would we?

Of course it makes you a better photographer! It makes youo better at everything you do!

[ricktas]

I think...that we should all just get back to what this site is for..photography!

[Kym]

Out of Focus is one thing (this forum)... But!!!

[geoffsta]

I am a long time Septic. My Dutch Ovens give my wife long term memory behavioral abilities.
But I'm also a sceptic. I don't believe anything until I know the facts for myself. I tend to always be honest, and if I don't know something, I'll look it up, or ask someone that has that knowledge.

[jupiter618]

Quoted from wikipedia

"Aristotle held more accurate theories on some optical concepts than other philosophers of his day. The earliest known written evidence of a camera obscura can be found in Aristotle's documentation of such a device in 350 BC in Problemata. Aristotle's apparatus contained a dark chamber that had a single small hole, or aperture, to allow for sunlight to enter. Aristotle used the device to make observations of the sun and noted that no matter what shape the hole was, the sun would still be correctly displayed as a round object. In modern cameras, this is analogous to the diaphragm. Aristotle also made the observation that when the distance between the aperture and the surface with the image increased, the image was magnified."

[I @ M]

Of course it makes you a better photographer! It makes youo better at everything you do!

Cool!!!!

You had better give me the joining details then but I have one lingering doubt about it all.
If I come out publicly and announce such things I am a little worried that people might google my email address and find out what I have been posting on the net.

Or am I being skeptical sceptical?

[Kym]

Quoted from wikipedia...

Beat ya to it... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ficant-events) and a bit more

[jupiter618]

I realise sceptic isn't spelt with a K, but the skeptic movement has adopted that spelling as an identifier. Organisations like Australian Skeptics, with notable members such as Dick Smith and Phillip Adams and Paul Wild (former head of CSIRO).

Kym that's a great history or photography. I'll have to have a proper read of that.

[arthurking83]

Being a skeptic is just admitting that you can't know the truth, all you can hope to do is accept what evidence you observe and try to be as observant and wide thinking as you can. .....

Is this for some things, or for all things that we currently know of in the entire universe?

Does this mean that simple logic such as 1+1=2 is not so logical and is indeed open to another interpretation?

I've always been sceptical of such boastful arrogance in mathematics .. Is it actually 2 or is there some other answer that we're being 'protected from' by beings of a higher intellectual capacity?

I'm also sceptical of the notion that my scepticism of the absolute mathematical formula that describes 1+1=2, actually falls under the general umbrella of "observant" or "wide thinking" and may actually be a by product of a lack of sleep and many long hours over the past few months and the inevitable hallucinogenic effect that this situation may cause.

I'm adamant that I'm not yet at the Lunar-tic state, but there's a quarter moon out at the moment I have this screaming urge to jump onto the next canine I come across.

[Bear Dale]

I've always been a bit of skeptic of my septic, but 30 years on what I flush still disappears.

[Kym]

For AK...

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural 
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  P1.  1 is in N.
  P2.  If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
  P3.  There is no x such that x' = 1.
  P4.  If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
  P5.  If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
       (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
  Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
       (using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
       (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
  Def:  2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem:  1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
       Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2  Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which 
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the 
definition of addition to this:
  Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
       If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
       a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the 
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
       1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
       Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
       parentheses:  1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2  Q.E.D.

[bowjac]

I'm more of a sQUeptic. Rather than requiring evidence before accepting something, I'm more likely to QUestion why one may have that belief. Thus we enter parallel truths.

[Mark L]

........, and I thnk it's important that people are taught the skills of critical thinking and evaluation of evidence. We wouldn't want to return to the dark ages, would we?
....

I kinda like where you're coming from jupiter, though, unfortunately, the dark ages are upon us again.
We've reached a juncture in time were this is unfortunate.
I don't have children etc, so to a large degree, I don't care. Bugga.

[Xebadir]

I am rather sceptical about this whole concept of having a community of skeptics - for to be a community is to follow similar ideas while sceptics by nature is an oxymoron.

In other sceptic news - did you know that the Earth is flat and its logical? Simply take any single locale on the planet and place an object at right angles to both the meriodional and zonal directions ( in a sense pointing to the zenith), and you can thereby support your hypothesis that the world is flat* as a sphere is just a 3 dimensional numerical limit of corners tending to infinity

*At any one point.