The insecurity of ignorance

[sac beh]

I know this is a really old thread, but after reading just the first post I had to throw one thing out there -- nobody likes being proselytized, regardless of what the topic of discussion is, and everybody does exactly what you described in your first post...including yourself, whether you realize it or not.

Nobody likes being proselytized, sure. But there are people who open their ideas up to the scrutiny of others for the sake of truth. This in fact is a requirement for entering the scientific community. The mistake made by some is thinking that all teaching is mere proselytizing for a hidden agenda. That's the mistake and the confusion.

I have no fear of opposing views, of evidence that goes against previous assumptions, of someone else teaching me an error in my ideas. I only require that they have evidence and reasoning behind it and not fantasy.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You see, your science explains things no better than the theologians talking about God and his accomplishments. When you have the unified theory of everything figured out, I'll start to believe you (scientists) actually KNOW what you're talking about.

The argument "until science knows everything, science knows nothing" is immature and naive as well as irrelevant and logically fallacious.

 

[ibjamming]

I never said you believe any side.
I said you only accept that which verifies your prejudices.
Your extremists views are what puts you in the ditch, not whether or not you 'follow a side'.

For you to imply that the act of printing something makes it become untrue is just silly.
For you to imply that all 'official versions' are propaganda is ludicrous.

I believe that which I dig deeply into and find to be irrefutable (I never used the term irreputable).
Whether of not I find something true is irrelevant to whether or not it is the "official version", and wholly relevant to that things verifiability/refutability.

You rant and rant in response to people's posts, but you rarely address anything they actually posted.

They said the same thing about the "bad" Germans before the war... ALL official versions ARE propaganda. Have you never worked for the government? 50 people have to approve something before release. It's carefully crafted.

That is a terrible argument... because science revises and updates to remain accurate it is somehow a bad method... should it retain failed theories like all " holy books"?

Not retain "failed theories", be honest that ALL theories are nothing but the latest version that hasn't yet failed. Not as gospel. ESPECIALLY in the soft "human sciences" of which I originally was talking.

I know this is a really old thread, but after reading just the first post I had to throw one thing out there -- nobody likes being proselytized, regardless of what the topic of discussion is, and everybody does exactly what you described in your first post...including yourself, whether you realize it or not.

You're right of course and I do suffer from arrogance occasionally...I tend to talk down after repeated attempts to reword something so certain people can understand it...I smoke a lot...I like to check here RIGHT after a bowl.

Your rant is irrelevant and incorrect on most every level, except the couple of places where you inadvertently support my assertions.

Funny guy...I was thinking the same.

I only have faith in sciences ability to explain the things which it actually has adequately explained.

I have repeatedly made that clear.

You keep ignoring that and trying to pretend otherwise, but I guess you have to in order to sustain your rant.


My problem with you here, is that your political beliefs prevent you from educating yourself enough to know good science from bullshit.

OK...here is your challenge...explain 1 thing entirely. Down to the lowest possible level. The smallest detail. You'll find you'll reach a limit. Where ALL we have is a word...but that's NOT the end. It keeps going...but we don't know what happens...or why. That's where science is. Not quite there. And that's the HARD sciences.

You turned the conversation a while back...you will remember I was speaking of the soft sciences. That's where the lies and the politics come in. It's pretty hard to "spin" the electron and what it does. It's easy to spin sociological and psychological thoughts/policies.

I'm actually apolitical...I hate politics. That's why I retired at 42 and live in the country. With people comes politics.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

OK...here is your challenge...explain 1 thing entirely. Down to the lowest possible level. The smallest detail. You'll find you'll reach a limit. Where ALL we have is a word...but that's NOT the end. It keeps going...but we don't know what happens...or why. That's where science is. Not quite there. And that's the HARD sciences.

You turned the conversation a while back...you will remember I was speaking of the soft sciences. That's where the lies and the politics come in. It's pretty hard to "spin" the electron and what it does. It's easy to spin sociological and psychological thoughts/policies.

I'm actually apolitical...I hate politics. That's why I retired at 42 and live in the country. With people comes politics.

Your challenge is bullshit.

There is no need for a thing to be explained completely in every detail down to the lowest possible level. It is irrelevant that there is a limit. It is irrelevant that science is ever growing and adding to the total body of knowledge.

The argument "we don't know it all so what we do know us worthless" is a stupid argument.

We know for sure that if you walk to the edge of a cliff naked and jump off you will accelerate toward the ground at rate of 32 feet per second per second, and that when you reach the ground your downward momentum will abruptly stop.

We don't have to know how gravity functions on a quantum level to use our scientific knowledge to know not to jump, if the height is sufficient to allow enough acceleration to cause injury.

We know many many things about most everything. Just because we do not know everything about anything does not prevent our using the things we do know for sure.

I don't consider any of the 'soft sciences' to be actual science.

and I don't know of many people who do. I've never heard a politician or an accountant or an economist or a sociologist called a scientist by any real scientist.

It baffles me that you claim to hate politics. Are you a masochist?



(BTW... if you want everything explained down to the smallest possible level, Stephen Hawking's newest book might be a good leaping off point for you)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

ALL official versions ARE propaganda.

So... for example the official version

" Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. Quitting Smoking Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide."

cannot be believed, because it has become the official version?

 

[GMT]

The term science can refer to a few things: 1, scientific method, where observations are made and results recorded. 2, scientific theory, where after recording observations, best guesses are made as to what the link between the 2 occurances is, ie why when snooker ball a hits snooker ball b, snooker ball b then moves where previously it was at rest. 3, any old bollocks that uses big words and is paid for by a party with a particular motive or presumption about the outcome, (using involving asking people questionaires).
2 and 3 cannot be relied upon to be accurate, and 3 can normally be relied upon to be worthless to a large extent when trying to make general statements. But 1, is an extremely valid tool in reaching a point where we can accurately predict what will happen when we encounter phenomenon A in the future. Sciences such as chemistry, physics, to some extent biology, and even computer science (actually a branch of physics), tend to use versions 1 and 2. Therefore while we have to carefull about accepting 2, we cannot overlook the value of 1. Option 3 includes things such as psychology, criminology, sociology etc and cannot really be classified as true science, which is why they are classified as social sciences, or in other words, of less value then real science.
When arguing against the validity of science as a tool for knowledge, there are arguements for and against, as it depends on both what you call knowledge and which branch of science you are refering to. My position is always clear, and I get in trouble for stateing it repeatedly, however it is relevant. Using option 1 and 2, to form your opinions on the world will get you closer to truth than using fairy tales repeated and passed down through generations, or by listening to propoganda or marketing blurb. There is so much I don't know, and wish I did, but what I do claim to know, many of which I accept I merely believe, I can be fairly certain of due to the method by which I came to hold that knowledge/those beliefs. Yes, history is written by the victor, and yes, much of what is reported about science is nonsense, however it is rarely the scientists doing the reporting, and when we read about it, it is often INTERPRETED by people with an axe to grind. So when you knock science, please know what part of the system it is that youre knocking, rather than discarding the entirity of the scientific world in favour of likes and dislikes. To quote Orvil, I wish I could fly, but I can't.

 

[ibjamming]

Your challenge is bullshit.

There is no need for a thing to be explained completely in every detail down to the lowest possible level. It is irrelevant that there is a limit. It is irrelevant that science is ever growing and adding to the total body of knowledge.

The argument "we don't know it all so what we do know us worthless" is a stupid argument.

We know for sure that if you walk to the edge of a cliff naked and jump off you will accelerate toward the ground at rate of 32 feet per second per second, and that when you reach the ground your downward momentum will abruptly stop.

We don't have to know how gravity functions on a quantum level to use our scientific knowledge to know not to jump, if the height is sufficient to allow enough acceleration to cause injury.

We know many many things about most everything. Just because we do not know everything about anything does not prevent our using the things we do know for sure.

I don't consider any of the 'soft sciences' to be actual science.

and I don't know of many people who do. I've never heard a politician or an accountant or an economist or a sociologist called a scientist by any real scientist.

It baffles me that you claim to hate politics. Are you a masochist?



(BTW... if you want everything explained down to the smallest possible level, Stephen Hawking's newest book might be a good leaping off point for you)

If you SAY you understand something than you MUST understand how it works. You can't stop at "I don't know the rest".

It's not "worthless", it has uses...but it's still incomplete and doesn't explain everything.

Stop twisting it back to HARD science...remember, we're talking about soft science. Ignorance of people. Why does someone do something. There can be a million reasons. Science can't explain why...but it "says" it can.

What 's his latest? Is it audio yet? A Briefer history of time was the last I listened to from him.

What you "know" is good enough for the world we've created. When we learn more, it won't be...and what you "know" then will be different from what you "know" now.

So... for example the official version

" Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. Quitting Smoking Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide."

cannot be believed, because it has become the official version?

And what does "our government the protector" do? Nothing but put a label on cigarettes. It doesn't STOP their sale even though it's a hell of a lot more dangerous than that crib that killed 7 kids over a decade. Why are cigarettes still widely available? Politics...and money. The government makes hundreds of billions off cigarettes. It's corruption at a grand scale. Kill off your citizens when they get old and are users instead of providers...make tons of money off them as they slowly kill themselves...THAT is being a coldblooded m@therf@cker! That's like sending in the buses to run the kids over.

how about...don't worry about HIV...yet now EVERYONE in the health care field wears face masks and gloves. Political lies because money is paid to garner acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

It's a world full of lies and plans within plans. You'll catch on...in a few years. After you witness the patterns first hand.

 

[GMT]

Actually when it comes to HIV, the science says wear a condom, the fairly tales say don't. So which has more value?

 

[sac beh]

And what does "our government the protector" do? Nothing but put a label on cigarettes...

This is an excellent example of how you inappropriately inject political statements into a non-political question. The question was: does the statement of the health effects become less true because an official says it. You never answered that.

But you did go on to criticize the government for not doing anything... completely irrelevant to the veracity of the health claim.

 

[RoachClip]

I have a brother who see's only one color when white is white and black is black his opinion is the only one that counts and my white and black colors seem to be nothing more to him as a blank color and this has been going on since birth.

My attempts to reason with him and display true facts doesn't even come to mind even when it is on print or on a web site and he will never admit to being wrong when I have proven this many times so my love for him is strong and my will to never give up is their but my fight to try again has burned out like a candle flame.

 

[ibjamming]

This is an excellent example of how you inappropriately inject political statements into a non-political question. The question was: does the statement of the health effects become less true because an official says it. You never answered that.

But you did go on to criticize the government for not doing anything... completely irrelevant to the veracity of the health claim.

The point that I evidently didn't make clear was the hypocrisy of it all... Put a label on it saying it's dangerous...yet make HUGE sums off it's sale.

And yes...science DID say you'd get sick from smoking cigarettes...yet I believe this thread was about ignorance and I stated earlier that companies and government PAY for multiple studies and then ONLY use data that supports theit view. There were some pretty corrupt or ignorant scientists performing the tests that made the cigarettes look good...huh?

YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE...even scientists! Not all of them.

Can we stop this and move on...it's tedious...

Are you going to have me comment on EVERY scientific claim? Do an average and see who wins?

You can't trust science and scientists all the time.

We're ALL ignorant about carious/multiple things and we're deliberately kept that way.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Next...

 

[GMT]

Roach, I know how ya feel, I have given up with those I want to keep in my life, I now simply ask "what do you think my view is", and they normally know, therby to my mind, proving that they choose to fool themselves rather than actually get fooled.

 

[MarquisBlack]

The argument "until science knows everything, science knows nothing" is immature and naive as well as irrelevant and logically fallacious.

Wait.. What about a fallace?

 

[sac beh]

The circle of insanity has been completed. The OP's problem has been demonstrated by the thread itself to be as real and troublesome as he described:

I've just had a rather heated discussion in my real life. It seems that there are those out there, who are unable to alter their views when presented with a logical and reasoned argument. I was told that they are my views and that doesn't mean that others should agree. But there are facts in this world that can be reasoned rather than merely believed. I accept that no ones personal opinions are worth anything, but facts should be accepted by all, and to merely believe that they are wrong, and to hold on to your own wrong opinions in the face of reason is just wrong. It is why the world is still such a revolting place, filled with revolting people. Has anyone ever found a way to interact with this type of person without giving up? I need help in dealing with these people because when reason fails, I have nothing left. I refuse to argue on an emotional level as then it would jsut be my opinion against theirs. But I hate to walk away from someone leaving them to continue to act in ignorance. Yet when you try to educate these people, they feel like they are being personally attacked rather than being empowered. WTF is that all about? If someone explained to me that something I thought was true, was actually false, I'd be gratefull, not pissed off. Where am I going wrong with these people?

It is absurd to seek to give an account of our views to one who cannot give an account of anything, in so far as he cannot do so. For such a man, as such, is from the start no better than a vegetable. -- Aristotle, Metaphysics

 

[bs0]

(BTW... if you want everything explained down to the smallest possible level, Stephen Hawking's newest book might be a good leaping off point for you)

Have you read it yet? I've got about 40 pages left but I am saving it for work lunch hour tomorrow rather than just blazing through it The book is just so short.

I love the idea of model-based theory and especially the part early in the book about alternate histories of particles and the incredible power of interference patterns (a personal infatuation of mine... from visual artifacts in fences as you drive past to ripples in water and rainbow refraction from oil slicks... etc etc... also evidentially relevant in matter-as-a-wave/alternate history theory). Lotta good jokes too, though hawking doesn't tend to move past basic puns

And here is the link to the article I was telling you about earlier... It's interesting, and if you consider the amazing differences in physical appearances of people it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that some peoples brains vary in all manner of different ways too. Fact-checking yourself isn't something that everyone can do.. And trying to encourage such from someone who can't might actually be similar to asking someone who is a paraplegic to walk.

This article is titled "do you know when you are wrong"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=introspection-accuracy

 

[bs0]

Actually when it comes to HIV, the science says wear a condom, the fairly tales say don't. So which has more value?

I personally put a lot of faith in the 'have sex with 12 virgins' method of getting rid of HIV that was fairly rampant in Africa for awhile...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

If you SAY you understand something than you MUST understand how it works. You can't stop at "I don't know the rest".

O please... do not be so absurd. I understand if I jump off of the cliff I will fall. I do not completely understand every aspect of gravity, but I do understand that aspect of gravity well enough to make daily use of it.

The argument "you must know a thing completely, in order to know about a thing at all" is an absurdity.

That is why your challenge was a bullshit challenge.

It's not "worthless", it has uses...but it's still incomplete and doesn't explain everything.

Whether or not it explains everything (Which hawking goes far toward doing), we have built civilization upon the portion of the whole that we've managed to cypher.

We don't understand all of the quantum actions of electrons, but we understand how to utilize them in the computer you're typing this on.

The "there are gaps" argument falls far short of being meaningful.

Stop twisting it back to HARD science...remember, we're talking about soft science. Ignorance of people. Why does someone do something. There can be a million reasons. Science can't explain why...but it "says" it can.

What 's his latest? Is it audio yet? A Briefer history of time was the last I listened to from him.

The Grand Design

What you "know" is good enough for the world we've created. When we learn more, it won't be...and what you "know" then will be different from what you "know" now.

Close to correct, you are, but still incorrect you remain... What we know then will be built upon what we know now and will include what we know now.

What we know now is good enough to base our future actions on though.

There are things we "know for sure" enough to be troubled by people's pretending we don't know.

Yes Science is always growing and improving. I'm glad.

And what does "our government the protector" do? Nothing but put a label on cigarettes. It doesn't STOP their sale even though it's a hell of a lot more dangerous than that crib that killed 7 kids over a decade. Why are cigarettes still widely available? Politics...and money. The government makes hundreds of billions off cigarettes. It's corruption at a grand scale. Kill off your citizens when they get old and are users instead of providers...make tons of money off them as they slowly kill themselves...THAT is being a coldblooded m@therf@cker! That's like sending in the buses to run the kids over.

how about...don't worry about HIV...yet now EVERYONE in the health care field wears face masks and gloves. Political lies because money is paid to garner acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

It's a world full of lies and plans within plans. You'll catch on...in a few years. After you witness the patterns first hand.

That entire rant was irrelevant to my post, and once again as is your custom, you did not answer the question I asked.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Wait.. What about a fallace?

you thinking phallus?

 

[ibjamming]

Have you read it yet? I've got about 40 pages left but I am saving it for work lunch hour tomorrow rather than just blazing through it The book is just so short.

I love the idea of model-based theory and especially the part early in the book about alternate histories of particles and the incredible power of interference patterns (a personal infatuation of mine... from visual artifacts in fences as you drive past to ripples in water and rainbow refraction from oil slicks... etc etc... also evidentially relevant in matter-as-a-wave/alternate history theory). Lotta good jokes too, though hawking doesn't tend to move past basic puns

And here is the link to the article I was telling you about earlier... It's interesting, and if you consider the amazing differences in physical appearances of people it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that some peoples brains vary in all manner of different ways too. Fact-checking yourself isn't something that everyone can do.. And trying to encourage such from someone who can't might actually be similar to asking someone who is a paraplegic to walk.

This article is titled "do you know when you are wrong"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=introspection-accuracy

Do you think that Hawking is coming up with all that shit? I don't. I think he's being used by others as a "spokesman". Personally...I don't think there's much left inside his brain.

I'll take a look at your article...I used to subscribe to that mag.

 

[GMT]

bs0, fascinating, I wasn't aware of that. So in essence, the less intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to realise it lol. Or can that area of the brain be less developed without that relating to other areas of the brain? Though it does say that the jury is still out on whether this is innate or learned, therefore are we wrong to point out their shortcomings, or are we helping to develop their cognitive abilities? Or since I'm fairly confident of my own abilities, should I consider the fact that I may myself be impared? Tricky one that. It makes sense, I could never get why, when they are clearly not that bright, they were so confident in what they said, (and I'm talking generally there not making ref to anyone in particular).
Nice post, thanks.