- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?"
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:33 am to I B Freeman
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:33 am to I B Freeman
Generally speaking, people will believe what they want to believe. They will use science when it agrees with their beliefs and ignore or dispute it when it does not.
This goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Science is to neither be inherently praised or demonized, science just is.
This goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Science is to neither be inherently praised or demonized, science just is.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 10:34 am
1
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:34 am to Godfather1
quote:
Makes things more convenient for him.
Maybe for now... they'll get a bit less convenient in his (hopefully distant) future.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:35 am to I B Freeman
That was a very interesting article.
For everyone who chose not to read it, the content is not 'party' or ideology specific - it's about the research being done on why people persist on believing in disproven nonsense.
Anyone who thinks either party has a monopoly on this behavior is delusional.
For everyone who chose not to read it, the content is not 'party' or ideology specific - it's about the research being done on why people persist on believing in disproven nonsense.
Anyone who thinks either party has a monopoly on this behavior is delusional.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:36 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
So to act on every scientific result as if it were 100% correct is absurd.
Of course it is...who's suggesting otherwise? What Revelator hackishly demonstrates is the media's desire to run with a story.
"Science" did not run around saying that butter is bad. Some studies pointed towards a diet high is fat derived from butter was bad. BOOM! Media runs out and declares a thing!!! Then, other studies show that butter in other cases can be good for you. BOOM! Media reports the opposite...and those that need science to be "wrong" point to this as a flip flop, as if it was one. It's just science doing work.
In the end, science is moving forward. It's self correcting. It's a process.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:37 am to RuLSU
quote:
it's about the research being done on why people persist on believing in disproven nonsense.
That's why I was curious about Rex's examples...but I'm sure he was just being a troll as usual
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:39 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Many people.
who's suggesting otherwise?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:39 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
They will use science when it agrees with their beliefs and ignore or dispute it when it does not.
Same with "facts"
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:40 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
Yet scientists are quick to assert that the current conclusions are totally correct.
No, they aren't. Science doesn't conclude anything to 100% certainty. This is am misrepresentation of what science is.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:40 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
"Science" did not run around saying that butter is bad. Some studies pointed towards a diet high is fat derived from butter was bad. BOOM! Media runs out and declares a thing!!! Then, other studies show that butter in other cases can be good for you. BOOM! Media reports the opposite...and those that need science to be "wrong" point to this as a flip flop, as if it was one. It's just science doing work.
Interesting. So what do you call science stifling opposing scientific studies concerning global warming? If I've been paying attention, scientific journals have stopped these things from being published. That's not the "media" at large you seem to be attempting to demonize.
This post was edited on 5/20/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:41 am to Choctaw
quote:
Wait...do you think Jesus never existed?
I think Jesus never existed, correct.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:41 am to Choctaw
quote:
That's why I was curious about Rex's examples.
I think it is fair to assume that Rex meant "Jesus" in the context of a Deity / Son of God, etc.
quote:
I'm sure he was just being a troll as usual
I'm sure. But, his examples were fair. I'd not choose to list them necessarily (though I do agree). I don't feel the need to poke my thumb in the eyes of believers...even when germane to the point of the thread.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:42 am to Rex
quote:
I think Jesus never existed, correct.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:42 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
No, they aren't. Science doesn't conclude anything to 100% certainty. This is am misrepresentation of what science is.
Science is also responsible for diagnosing about half of today's school children with ADHD and putting them all on meds.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:42 am to GeauxTigerTM
Exactly, science is our reality. The mistake many make is falsely associating science with individual interpretations of science.
My issue is when people with no scientific qualifications try and dispute scientists simply because they disagree with their findings. They have no actual means of intelligently assessing the claim, they just don't like it and take up stock arguments against it. If a given claim is truly wrong, leave it to those who actually have the knowledge base to dispute it do so.
My issue is when people with no scientific qualifications try and dispute scientists simply because they disagree with their findings. They have no actual means of intelligently assessing the claim, they just don't like it and take up stock arguments against it. If a given claim is truly wrong, leave it to those who actually have the knowledge base to dispute it do so.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:43 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I think it is fair to assume that Rex meant "Jesus" in the context of a Deity / Son of God, etc.
Yep, but he didn't exist as a person, either.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:44 am to Revelator
quote:
So doctors who prescribed frontal lobotomies for patients or gave opiates to small children weren't part of the scientific field?
Yes, and they were wrong! Yet, they were more right than when their predecessors were praying to the sun god for help with these ailments!
quote:
And nutritionist don't use science to come up with their recommendations?
Yes...
quote:
And astronomers who once thought the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth weren't part of science?
And as new and better data came in that challenged those beliefs, they changed their minds. Guess where that new data came from? OTHER SCIENTISTS! See...that's the difference between science and your worldview. It can be changed with new data that refutes the old notions. We're still new at this...we're learning and growing. It's not perfect, but it's sure as shite better than looking to the sky and hoping for answers.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:44 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I think it is fair to assume that Rex meant "Jesus" in the context of a Deity / Son of God, etc.
I don't. I think he believes the man known as Jesus never existed. If you don't believe he was the Son of God that's fine....that's your belief. But to not believe he actually existed is just stupid
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:45 am to Revelator
quote:
Science is also responsible for diagnosing about half of today's school children with ADHD and putting them all on meds.
No it isn't.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:45 am to Rex
quote:
Yep, but he didn't exist as a person, either.
I'm as atheistic as it gets... but there's plenty of evidence of a man who lived a life resembling the one we've been taught in existence.
That you would argue that, in this thread, given the context, lol... somewhat ironic.
Is that intentional, or do you really believe there was no 'man' in the Jesus story?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 10:45 am to Choctaw
quote:
And honestly religion is probably tops on the list of believing things that aren't true.
How do you know?
LINK
# of people adhering to each religion
quote:
Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.6 billion
Hinduism 1 billion
Someone, islam, hindu, or christian (even atheists) is wrong. Not all of them can be true. And that is a whole lotta misbelief
And if you are like me, where you believe there is no god, then there is even more people wrong.
Page 2 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News