The Skepticist Defeated

The other day, I was conversing with an acquaintance ("Mr. Skeptic")about things astronomical. More specifically space travel. I refer to my acquaintance as Mr. Skeptic because of his proclivity to wax skeptical (i.e. deny certainty of knowledge). During the course of the conversation Mr. Skeptic claimed that we cannot know whether or not primitive cultures had explored/travelled space and therefore it was possible that they did. I rebutted him by saying that since there is no evidence that primitive cultures surmounted earth's gravitational pull that we can and do know with certainty that there were no ancient astronauts. At this point in the conversation the "battle lines" were drawn with me on the philosophical/intellectual side and Mr. Skeptic on the psychological/emotional side. Since he could only use technique and be manipulative I knew that I need only stand my ground in order to win the argument. Mr. Skeptic initially tried to intimidate me by quoting an aphorism but I brushed it aside and displayed the courage of my convictions. Mr. Skeptic then said "that is dangerous", referring to my rebuttal, and again trying to intimidate me or change the subject. I responded by saying "dangerous or not, it is correct" referring to my certainty of knowledge. Mr. Skeptic had nothing further to say and thereby conceded defeat. The key to winning this argument is to realize that it is an argument within an argument. The "surface" argument is about the possibility of space travel by our ancestors. The real argument was about certainty of knowledge. I could assert certainty of knowledge daring Mr. Skeptic to produce evidence to support his argument while at the same time knowing that Mr. Skeptic would lose the argument either way: If he produced evidence he undermined his "uncertainty principle" and if he failed to produce it he lost outright. Since "skepticism" is self defeating then so it is with all skeptical arguments. - You're welcome.
Location: Pasadena, CA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Imprimis Article by Dr. Larry Arnn

I read with great interest the article in the December 2016 issue of Imprimis adapted from a speech given by Dr. Arnn titled "A More American Conservatism". Unfortunately Dr. Arnn fails to accurately define the concept "conservative" by attempting to define the term psychologically. Psychology is idealistic, emotional and therefore indefinite. Concepts are realistic, intellectual and therefore definitive. The better definit ion of the word "conservative" is "to make the presumption for the status quo". Making the presumption for the status quo is an intellectual, rather than psychological, exercise.  It is therefore a better definition than the one provided by Dr. Arnn in the Imprimis article.  The socialist is idealistic and idealism makes the presumption for change.  It makes the presumption for an "ideal" state, perfection.  Perfection is pluralistic and therefore imaginary. (It can only be implemented by manipulation, intimidatio...
Read more

Immigration

President Obama has signed and will continue to sign executive orders to "fix" our "broken" immigration system. The Republicans in congress have declared that they will fight the executive order "tooth and nail". Of course the Republicans are screwed. All efforts to resist the president will be seen as petulant and rightfully so. Many years ago the Republicans conceded the intellectual point by admitting that our immigration system is broken. As a consequence President Obama's actions look reasonable and rational by default. You're welcome.
Read more

John McEnroe Gets Baited

John McEnroe, world champion tennis player, was successfully baited by an idealistic interviewer a few days ago. One of the most often used traps employed by the political left is the "prove a negative" game in which the victim is baited into trying to prove a negative and when the victim fails he/she is ridiculed. When Mr. McEnroe told the interviewer that Serena Williams was the best woman's tennis player ever the interviewer baited him by asking him why not the best period? (Meaning regardless of gender) Unfortunately Mr. McEnroe took the bait and tried to prove "why not". He failed and was promptly ridiculed. Controversy ensued. What Mr. McEnroe should have done was make the presumption for the status quo and insist that the interviewer prove a positive i.e. "why" Ms. Williams is the best period.
Read more