- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 11:58 am to GeauxTigerTM
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:58 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
You believe we have no idea how old the earth is?
I guess I should be more clear. I don't think we have a completely reliable method of measuring how old the world is. I don't think it's over 4 billion years old and I don't think the methods used to arrive at those numbers are completed science. In my view, this is another area where the narrative has driven the science. I think we may one day have a reliable number but I also believe the age currently agreed upon will change many times before we know with any level of certainty.
0
Posted on 5/20/14 at 11:58 am to Rawdawgs
quote:
It's a belief shared by many people a lot smarter than yourself, myself included.
quote:
Recurrent theme in the liberal world.
I've often said that Rex refuses to believe in God, simply because if God really does exist, then by default, Rex isn't the smartest guy in the room.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:03 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
Not saying that all of these things didn't exist before, but what you are talking about only existed for the wealthy. There were no widely circulated peer-review publications so no checks and balances.
There was a very practical peer review system in place. If the idea didn't work it was abandoned. If the new rope formula couldn't handle the big stones, it was abandoned. There was no need for a group of non builders to decide that it was a failure.
quote:
If you didn't want people to eat pork then you just said that pork was off limits by God's decree. Who's going to dispute that when the punishment is death?
Death of course being the likely result of eating contaminated pork in hot climates.
But how was it deterined that pork was dangerous? Was it on a whim, or the result of observations and communications? There was a scientific method in the ancient world. The communication of the conclusions was different then than now.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:29 pm to I B Freeman
I considered starting a post on this article.
Anyway, this is an interesting facebook page from the antivax crowd.
LINK
Anyway, this is an interesting facebook page from the antivax crowd.
LINK
Posted on 5/20/14 at 12:33 pm to Gray Tiger
quote:
There was a very practical peer review system in place.
I think you are confusing everyday experience (trial and error) with science. If a kid touches a hot stove and then decides he doesn't want to touch another hot stove, that doesn't mean he is a scientist.
quote:
If the new rope formula couldn't handle the big stones, it was abandoned. There was no need for a group of non builders to decide that it was a failure.
Exactly. They weren't scientist.
quote:
But how was it deterined that pork was dangerous? Was it on a whim, or the result of observations and communications? There was a scientific method in the ancient world. The communication of the conclusions was different then than now.
I would guess that people saw others getting sick after eating pork and thought possibly that God didn't want them to eat it or that it was just poisonous. Either way, they didn't have a mechanism to explain why people got sick so they made untestable hypothesis.
...but that isn't science.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:34 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
Ghostfacedistiller
A comment from your link:
quote:
All I have to say is....if you can be dumb enough to think that the heightened number of cancer cases, autism, add, immune disorders and countless other piles of cases effecting both kids and adults since the 60's does not correlate with vaccinations you are seriously lacking in historical fact.
That is Rex level stupid.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:37 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
Exactly. They weren't scientist.
Because they didn't call themselves scientists?
quote:
...but that isn't science.
Observation, recording, experimenting, and publishing their opinion sounds a like like science to me. But...........because they didn't call them such and because they used different protocols they aren't scientists?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:40 pm to TK421
quote:
A comment from your link
Wow.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:55 pm to Rex
quote:
"Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?"
Think Jesus and Allah and feng shui.
/end thread
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:56 pm to Revelator
quote:
Posted by Message Revelator "Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?" Yeah science surely is a candle in the dark. One day coffee is good for you, the next it's not. One day butter is bad for you, another it's not. One generation frontal lobotomies and giving kids heroin and cocaine is good, the next, not........ Got to love it!
It's one of "those people"
Posted on 5/20/14 at 1:58 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Think global warming, pesticide dangers, ACA benefits, even film tax credit benefits.
We have lost the ability of critical thinking it seems.
People just don't agree with you on the tax credit part, it isn't a lack of critical thinking.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
People just don't agree with you on the tax credit part, it isn't a lack of critical thinking.
Nope. Critical thinkers acknowledge the film tax credits are give away and then attempt to make the case why giving the taxes on $3.3 billion worth of income--roughly $200 million--to one small industry that generates very little income and only $500 million or so in total economic activity is a good deal.
At least a critical thinker will acknowledge the fact of the give away.
A hard headed idiot thinks the film tax credits have something to do with taxes paid by filmmakers.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:37 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
You cannot dispute the fact that we as a race have evolved tremendously since the 1700s where before we took a few millenia to find a mode of transportation more advanced than horseback. Thank science for that.
No doubt.
However, in the present, our scientific technology is the best we have ever had. Same could be said back in the 1300's. (Best at the time for them)
Whose to say we don't significantly advance scientifically/technologically in the next 100 years and discover that a lot of our "scientific facts" today were in fact wrong and not facts at all?
Maybe I'm being crazy, but it just seems like in the debate on science vs religion, science gets a free pass for anything it gets wrong, because well, that's what science is. Whereas something like the existence of God (or a god/superior being) is most certain an impossibility because we cannot prove He exists (yet).
Also, cannot faith and science coexist in some form or fashion?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:41 pm to The Calvin
quote:
It's one of "those people"
Yeah one of those people that won't blindly follow everything science says as gospel because history proves that what they claim is truth today is tomorrow's fiction.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 2:58 pm to Gray Tiger
quote:
quote:
If you didn't want people to eat pork then you just said that pork was off limits by God's decree. Who's going to dispute that when the punishment is death?
Death of course being the likely result of eating contaminated pork in hot climates.
But how was it deterined that pork was dangerous? Was it on a whim, or the result of observations and communications? There was a scientific method in the ancient world. The communication of the conclusions was different then than now.
Or, IOW, religion protects one from EXPERTS, scientific experts. The ancients understood Epistemology, especially the Hebrews and Arabs, and to a lesser extent Aristotle (Greeks). Once one starts thinking of causation, one can easily refute the atheist using a contradiction. An infinite regression of causation. What caused the Big-Bang?
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:07 pm to I B Freeman
if they get 30% for what they spend in state how are they getting 200 Million for 500 million they spend in state?
There are other residual benefits of the film credit as well. As a state that has a very large tourism industry constant exposure cannot be ignored.
There are other residual benefits of the film credit as well. As a state that has a very large tourism industry constant exposure cannot be ignored.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:31 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Science is self correcting.
Well praise be to Bill Nye!!!
How can you argue with something that comes right out and admits that in your lifetime we will be wrong about something we ask you to believe . . .
but eventually we will correct it (after your dead, of course)
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:34 pm to dcrews
quote:
Whose to say we don't significantly advance scientifically/technologically in the next 100 years and discover that a lot of our "scientific facts" today were in fact wrong and not facts at all?
Like which ones? Are you suggesting we will suddenly find out that the earth is, in fact, not orbiting the sun? That we will find out that instead of being essentially spherical the earth is actually an octahedron?
That's just not how science has progressed as we've come into the past 300 years. It's VERY rare at this point that we throw out a well worn theory in favor of something 180 degrees different. It seems clear that the days of going from an earth centered view of the cosmos to a sun centered view of our solar system as gone.
That's not to say there are not things to learn! Of course there are. In fact, we probably have very little idea of just how much we don't know...but of those things we DO know, the chances at this point of throwing them all out for what would amount to an opposite claim are unlikely indeed. The answer is simple...we have far better understanding of the natural world through instrumentation and technology than we ever have. There's a reason we were able to make such huge jumps in the past. The next huge jumps in understanding we make will also revolve around tech...but it won;t make us reconsider the shape of our planet, for instance.
quote:
Maybe I'm being crazy, but it just seems like in the debate on science vs religion, science gets a free pass for anything it gets wrong, because well, that's what science is.
It's not a free pass...it gets reprimanded for mistakes made BUT ALSO get lauded for the ability to accept those mistakes and move on from them. Only science, of the two, can claim this.
quote:
Whereas something like the existence of God (or a god/superior being) is most certain an impossibility because we cannot prove He exists (yet).
No...again...most atheists simply ask for evidence for the positive claim that a god exists. Until there is sufficient proof, I have to render the judgement that I see no reason to believe there is. There may be. There may be all sorts of fantastical creatures for which we currently also have no evidence. I'm not willing to assume they exist until proven false, and neither are you.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:43 pm to LesMiles BFF
quote:
quote:
If the new rope formula couldn't handle the big stones, it was abandoned. There was no need for a group of non builders to decide that it was a failure.
Exactly. They weren't scientist.
quote:
But how was it deterined that pork was dangerous? Was it on a whim, or the result of observations and communications? There was a scientific method in the ancient world. The communication of the conclusions was different then than now.
I would guess that people saw others getting sick after eating pork and thought possibly that God didn't want them to eat it or that it was just poisonous. Either way, they didn't have a mechanism to explain why people got sick so they made untestable hypothesis.
...but that isn't science.
This guy is confused. The scientific method involves ONLY an attempt to contradict hypotheses.
Religions were set up to provide answers for the part of life that is unseen, impenetrable, opaque etc.
Total blindness is preferable to opaque vision.
At least religion has stood the 'time-test', the big 3 have been around almost 5000 years, I'll put my trust in those traditions for the unknowable things in life.
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:51 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
No...again...most atheists simply ask for evidence for the positive claim that a god exists. Until there is sufficient proof, I have to render the judgement that I see no reason to believe there is. There may be. There may be all sorts of fantastical creatures for which we currently also have no evidence. I'm not willing to assume they exist until proven false, and neither are you.
Please, challenge yourself and read 'The Incoherence of the Philosphers' (Tahafut al-Falasifa, by Ghazali). Your position here is very flimsy. You 'see' no reason? Sometimes things are caused for 'no reason', right? Better look at inference and the problem this creates for scientists.
Page 7 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News