Heterosexual pride day?
" So thinking is a religion? It isn't that People do not think but rather they do not want to. It is more like thinking is driven by self interest and emotion than logic. When we learn, we are learning history. It is accumulated knowledge from the past. When We learn language, we learn history of language. We learn mathematics from the history of mathematics. All history is somewhat corrupted by prejudices. People don't question the information system, it is efficient. They are taking things for granted, leaping to conclusion without evidence, wandering in their own prejudices and biases. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. They are self deceiver motivated by desire, fear, anxiety, or some other emotion; denying or rationalizing with endless supply of elaborated explanation or claim. They do not want to know the truth because the truth might make them see that they have been wrong, and they cannot accept being wrong. Last edited by deathflower#0444 on Jul 4, 2016, 8:13:20 PM
|
|
|
@deathflower
When I use the word "faith," it isn't as a religious concept, but a factor in inductive reasoning. I define faith as the distance between 1) a hypothesis plus supporting evidence and 2) an accepted theory. When no independent experimentation is conducted (or it is conducted and evidence seems to contradict the hypothesis, but it is elevated to theory regardless), the difference is vast, and much faith is involved; when experimentation is thorough and supports the hypothesis, the distance is small, and little faith is required to believe. The nature of inductive reasoning is such that the distance is never zero; all inductive reasoning, and all science, requires faith, even if the overarching goal of science seems to be faith minimization. As it so happens, I consider religious faith to simply be a variant of inductive faith. It is worth noting that there is no such thing as completely blind faith; there is always some degree of supporting evidence, even if it's little more than words in a book. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jul 4, 2016, 9:28:16 PM
|
|
" Science is base on evidence. And evidence is base on observation and experiences. Let's say the Universe obeys a set of rules. If we are wrong about something, we are usually wrong about these rules and how the universe works. If we are wrong about the premise "the Universe obeys a set of rules", we can throw Science out the window. The universe will do what it do, what you believe in is inconsequential. |
|
|
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are normal people with their needs.
(Removed by Support) Last edited by Rob_GGG#0000 on Jul 7, 2016, 6:04:48 AM
|
|
" Spotted the bigot. |
|
"We do not deductively know whether or not the universe obeys a set of rules, thus we do not deductively have the information needed to make that binary choice. That we have data from our senses - sight, hearing, touch - is undeniable (even if but a fraction is committed to memory); what those senses actually mean is based off inductive experimentation, eventually leading infants to believe that their sensory receptors are part of the same body as the appendages under their control. Or, in other words: we cannot prove we're not in the Matrix, we've just collected a lot of evidence which supports the belief that we aren't. I know that it might seem trivial whether knowledge is gained deductively or inductively, so long as it's gained, but it's important as far as epistemology goes. Since the original topic was whether/how people think for themselves, it's relevant. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jul 7, 2016, 5:01:49 AM
|
|
" We can't know for certain. But we can't reject them either. You either accept the observable universe as valid or accept you know absolutely nothing. I would think some sorts of deference are better than others. To reject everything you know would be a great leap of faith indeed. |
|
|
Isn't it more about being constructive than about having faith?
If I do not take a certain amount of premises, I cannot take any meaningful action. Those premises should be something like: 1) Logic is valid. 2) I can rely on my use of logic. 3) My senses are coherent. 4) The world is coherent. Note that I do not say that my logic is always right, or that my senses never fault me, only that I can sufficiently rely on them in order to make meaningful decisions. |
|
" hmm, I think I got what this post meant. and the way it was treated proved its point lol. You'd think someone would stop to think why the contradiction. but nah, double down. Your expectations were too high Rexeos Oblivious
|
|
" The second part was extremely unpleasant, I reported it and it got rightfully removed. Would have brought a 100% probation with the old forum policy. To put this into perspective, I've repeatedly criticized the older forum policy, I've been probated a number of times and I'm generally all for a relaxed atmosphere. You have to be realistic about these things.
Logen Ninefingers |
