I don’t think there is anything wrong with a good healthy dose of skepticism, especially in today’s world of information-overkill and fear laden main stream media propaganda. Having “higher-discernment” is a must during these times, however, balancing that with healthy skepticism is pretty tricky.
Healthy skeptical inquiry is good curiosity. I think it is very similar to “higher discernment” in that the latter has an established set of criteria thru which information is sifted. Albeit personal, one still has the ability to discern what they will believe and how they will study it.
When the student (and EVERYONE is a student) seeks an answer for his or her self knowledge and chooses which direction they will lean, that decision is usually made on the basis of repeated inquiry and duplicated evidence. We learn from repetition.
Relying on outside authoritative confirmation has not only become glaringly biased from those from which you seek it, but teaches you to follow the herd, be compliant, and never look like a trouble maker. We are all human beings questing for something – answers, truth, knowledge…etc and if we continue to rely upon those with (seemingly) higher knowledge, we will never learn to take responsibility or risk, let alone learn from our mistakes.
If those in power are failing to depart wisdom to the “lesser individuals” because they don’t think we could “handle the truth”, then it is up to us to show THEM what it looks like to have an open mind and heart to new and challenging ideas. And if we can not do this ourselves, (due to our docile herd mentality) then we shouldn’t be pretending to play with the big dogs by challenging them at every turn and looking like the fools with infantile minds they love to think we have.
“Higher discernment” is something very unique and is relative to your personal (inner feelings) and knowledge. Skepticism is a little sharper edged, often more publicly pronounced (announced), and may become pathological if left unsupervised (by you) due to its emotional content and how it is encouraged by the aggressor. This type of pathology is commonly found in the comments section of most alternative news sources, YouTube, and others.
[path·o·log·i·cal] – “of, or relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive. Being such to a degree that it is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal.” Merriam-Webster
An excellent article on this subject written by William J. Beaty © 1996 – states in part;
“Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, cold fusion, crypto-zoology, psi, and numerous others. These scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
- hostile emotional attacks,
- circular reasoning,
- dehumanizing of the “enemy”
- extreme closed-mindedness,
- intellectually dishonest reasoning,
- underhanded debating tactics,
- negative gossip, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination.
Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance is often found in main stream science communities. (A practice called “moving the goalposts”)
Example: “I won’t believe it until major laboratories publish papers in this field. They have? Well, that means nothing! Major labs have been wrong before. I’ll believe it when stores sell products which use the effect. They do? Well, that means nothing, after all, stores sell magic healing pendants and Ouija boards. I’ll believe it when a Nobel Prize winning researcher gets behind that work. One has? Well that means nothing! That person is probably old and dotty like Dr. Pauling and his vitamin-C cures…” etc.
Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence has also become a favorable habit. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
Example: “I don’t care how good your evidence is, I won’t believe it until the majority of scientists also find it acceptable, and it is announced on the news or in the NY Times. Your evidence cannot be right, because it would mean that hundreds of textbooks and thousands of learned experts are wrong.”
True skepticism is vitally important to real inquiry. Skepticism involves meticulously questioning beliefs or facts. Ideally, every scientist then is a true skeptic.
Skeptopathy, (another word for pathological skepticism) on the other hand, is not a logical rational pursuit. Pathological skepticism is the irrational belief that a theory or a piece of evidence is false merely because it is unusual, or goes against conventional wisdom, or is simply too difficult to imagine.
Pathological skepticism then involves an irrational unsupported belief that something is untrue. Skeptopathy involves not fact and scientific rigor – but blind faith that an unpleasant notion is false, usually followed by ridicule of some kind.
“Scientists are people, after all, and subject to basic human irrationality and selfishness. Like many people, some scientists routinely engage in denial…. If reality is too difficult to face they will simply ignore it. Like many people, some scientists are largely self-serving, and despite privately acknowledging the scientific truth, they will pretend that a disturbing hypothesis is false in order to protect or further their funding, careers, or reputation. This has done much damage to our society and has caused many people great emotional suffering at the hands of a few “trusted authorities”. (William J. Beaty)
Learning to use your OWN discernment and keeping quiet with your opinions for just a little longer before you “pounce-to-announce” will take you far in this new era of disclosure. Be a healthy skeptic, but keep a sharp eye on your compulsions. We are all entering into the realms of new and bizarre scientific discoveries, some exciting, some frightening, and some extraordinary in every respect.
Lets give you a little test…. shall we? Watch the entire video (or rather listen to it) and observe your thoughts. I wonder if you will have a good sense of curiosity on board, or skeptopathic disregard.
Ringing Earth – Tibetan Monks in “spirit cave” hear new sounds
“There is a secret cave of spirits in Tibet. This cave is not known to the public.
The Tibetan saints are sleeping in this cave. The old men and monks are saying that it is starting to sing its mantra calling for gods to return to the Earth. This mantra has three levels. The last level means the coming of the new era.
Listen to this sound recorded by Russian enthusiasts who were allowed to visit the place near the cave where it was possible to record the sound.
This sound has no artificial changes and is presented in raw format (only noises were reduced).
Why haven’t the bankers been prosecuted-? The simple answer is that going after them would expose the politicians who defended them. It would hurt the false narrative that has been created that blamed the crisis on corporate greed. As if companies only recently started caring about their bottom line. Companies are expected to care about their bottom line. Maintaining that bottom line means staying in business and continuing to employ people. Money is in politics because of the heavy handed interaction the government has with business. The government can literally make or break some companies which gives them an incentive to have political influence. As long as that incentive exists then so will the influence. The simple reason for that is that people are corruptible. Ultimately regulations are only as powerful as those who are to enforce them. Many of those regulators are overseen by Congress.