•
•

What's the problem with being skeptical? (self.nothingeverhappens)

Hazeringx が 投稿

Title. Just wondering, really. Sometimes I fail to see the problem with not believing in everything.

全 3 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]The_Couch_Wizard 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Skepticism is different from declaring something as complete and utter bullshit. It's my understanding that this subreddit is for posts which claim certainty of falsehood, and not just doubt or skepticism.

It sounds like you're saying opponents of "this never happened" posts must "believe in everything," which is a bit extreme, wouldn't you say? Skepticism describes a middle ground, whereas "this never happened" posts is a complete rejection of that middle ground.

[–]Hazeringx[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmmm. You are right. There is a difference between doubt/skepticism and denying everything. Okay, I was wrong. :<) Sometimes, however, I feel like people should provide proof if they don't want people to deny it.

[–]But_Now_Im_Cool 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's skepticism and there's cynicism and unfortunately a lot of people have confused cynicism for skepticism.

I mean somebody posts a perfectly plausible story or well timed photograph on reddit, there's no reason to assume they're lying, and from an bystanders point of view they have nothing to gain, yet people will call them out.

A skeptic questions a belief or looks at evidence, whereas a cynic questions motivations and often times they're trying to superimpose some fictional narrative over a situation just so it'll fit their world view.

You can question everything, but when you look at the clock do you question if it's broken every time? Why don't you believe you're a brain in a vat? Or that the universe was created 5 minutes ago?

Healthy skepticism is fine, but skeptics are open to being wrong.