The insecurity of ignorance

[GMT]

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?

 

[Sleepy]

hehe i know someone just like the one you are describing...

they are never 'wrong'...until they have their 'epiphany' this will never change.

truth is truth like it or not...this gets people upset, too.

 

[Brownpants]

I feel for you GMT, I know exactly what you are talking about.

I just chalk it up to the other person(s) as being unreasonable, or sheep like, close-minded and just not very logical. Some people believe facts confirmed from independent sources and others believe everything they read on the internet.

I usually just walk away saying "Whatever". Then I murmur under my breath "Dumb Ass".

 

[GMT]

When we were all born, we were born equal. I believe, don't know for sure. Some of us develop into thoughtfull people who want to understand where and who we and others are. Some of us turn into deluded fools. If the fools only affected themselves, so be it. But in this world everything we do affects everything else. If we leave the fools to act in ignorance, the world continues to decay. Surely we have to try rather than pulling up the hatches behind us. I can't in all good concience, just walk away and leave them to it. But at the same time, I have to accept that I don't have the skills to open their minds. I have no way to deal with these people, and can't restrict those I interact with to just those worth interacting with. Endlessly discussing the weather can become tiresome, and switching the subject ends in conflict. When dealing with public officials it is worse, as you need a certain outcome, yet when the ignorance stands in your way, how do you break through it. How can you tell anyone that they are wrong without them taking offence. I refuse to become someone who is willing to start manipulating people, as it is my belief that the correct response to a greater ability is a greater responsability. I could be wrong, perhaps I should be trying to take advantage of those lesser minds. Deceive them into agreeing with me, but how does that help te next person. Perhaps if they are not up to the task, they don't deserve a good result. Perhaps when I fail, I dont deserve a good result, perhaps survival of the fittest is a principle I should embrase, but it repulses me. I really do need a way to deal with these people, and I don't have one. I simply don't understand how some develop and some don't.

 

[shopvac]

well i suppose it also depends on the situations you were brought up in, facts may be "facts" but facts is still just a word. Ive heard plenty of facts that are either misleading in their context or that have been since disproved with "newer facts".

if you were raised in a situation where things being told to you as truth were not always the case i can understand somones specuation as to changing their minds on a conversation.

probobly not the case in your situation id Just like to raise attention to it. like

 

[SativaJoe]

what exactly was the arguement about?

 

[GMT]

Shop, I disagree with you're calling facts simply what you believe to be true, that is still just an opinion. Scientific truths are also just opinions that correlate to empirical observations. However there are facts that exist. 1+1=2 regardless of what you have been told. If a child is told that the tooth fairy exists, and they believe it, and all the other kids in the class also believe it, it is still wrong. A fact isn't a mutally agree upon statement, but rather the result of deductive logic. Science relies upon inductive logic and is flawed. Opinion relies upon what seems to be right at the time by the perceiver. To claim opinions or science to be truth is wrong.
To cling onto one's own beliefs in the face of reason and to claim that they can believe what they want and you'll believe what you want is to publicly display ignorance (and this is what I need to be able to deal with). To act upon ignorance takes everyone in the wrong direction. To feel persoanlly insulted because someone wishes to point out facts that you haven't or aren't able to consider, displays inadequacy. Truth is that which can be calculated rather than felt. Words are representations of concepts, rather than sounds that are uttered. They rely upon all who use them, doing so correclty.

 

[shopvac]

ok you have corrected me somewhat in what i believed to be the meaning of fact

but at the same time, (feel free to correct me if im too crazy lol) what if someday down the line we somehow find out math the core of all the known universe were wrong and 1+1=2.5 somehow, then technically we dont ever know anything is fact, only fact at the time of the arguement. ?? this is gettin real deep into my stoned time here lol

 

[GMT]

hehehe hi shop, this subject is a pet subject of mine, so I may come across a bit arrogant at times when discussing the diff between facts, truth, knowledge and opinions, it's not intentional, it's just that I spent some time studying this formally. Maths is a man made construct, that requires 1+1=2. You can't take anything from pure maths and apply it to the world, you can only follow the rules within maths. These rules state that 1+1=2 (in base 10, 1+1=10 in binary) and therefore this is and will always be correct, true, a fact. You may if you wish believe it to = 2.5, but that would be an opinion that can be explained out of you hopefully. Gravity exists, but there are several theories as to why and how. These are opinions or scientific theories. As we learn more about our multiverse (another theory) we may come to realise that most of what we believed was wrong. However anything that can be wrong given greater knowledge, is by definition neither truth, fact or knowledge but rather belief. That is why I hold all beliefs to be flawed and equally invalid. It is also why I put so much faith in deductive logic. I think I have posted this before but here we go again,
If all black cats have black tails, and all cats we have seen have been black, what colour will the tail of the next cat we find be?
Science says Black, religion says whatever colour God wants, opinion doesn't matter what is the truth?
Deductive logic would say this, "if the premise that all black cats have black tails is true, then the next cat we find may have a tartan tail as we still do not know that the next cat we find will be black, however we do not truly know that black cats necesarily have to have black tails"
Truth is that which can be calculated rather than merely used to predict the future as science, or what makes people feel good like religion or politics, or what people choose to believe or even what is convinient. Often truth cannot be calculated, however the truth of the problem can be. And by using the correct means, illusions are all transparrent.

 

[dmcheatw]

Lol, have you tried just making fun of her? As u mentioned I think that she deep down does understand unless she has a psychological condition. It's like people who practice religion, they may go through the motions but deep down most don't really believe it...why don't you just ask her why she gets the flu then if she is an oasis of healing?

GMT I can tell you’ve taken a lot of this in but I disagree with some minor points in your posts which I would like to address:

-I don't think you should act as though you know what truth is, part of the process of becoming an absolute genius is realizing that some of the things you are certain about are still not right, because your worldview is of a single orientation, from a single frame of reference. Moreover due to the inherent symbolic and subjective nature of words as a human construct, we cannot, in an assured and definite way, communicate truth to others.

"Science relies upon inductive logic and is flawed"

-Some areas of what we term science, such as, the social sciences, rely on inductive logic to draw many of their conclusions. To my knowledge these disciplines are not science as defined in the strictest terms by the scientific method. This method is not flawed and the fact that you seem to state or at least imply that it is testament to, what is in my opinion, a narrow view. Just as 1+1 is 2 we have also learned truths using this method which are irrefutable. Recall that the scientific community is rather conservative and there are very few true and uncontested scientific laws, and moreover most if not all laws describe merely what happens in the universe, not HOW it happens and thus laws really are not open to interpretation

The reason the social sciences use inductive logic is because they are forced to. If we could only use deductive logic then we could never really know much about the world because we could never move beyond the premises. True deductive logic has a guarantee of correctness, but there is the tradeoff of not being able to make reasonable assumptions and inferences.

Not sure what you mean by you can't take anything from pure math’s and apply it to the world" because math is in fact an objective description of the universe. Why are the theories of the multiverse, string theory, etc, always expressed in the scientific community in mathematical terms? True people have linguistic (here I’m trying to distinguish math and language) ways of expressing mathematical concepts, but one of anything always equals one of something else, and one of something plus one of another equals two. Interestingly you contradicted yourself by saying 1+1 is always two and then saying that 1+1 is 10 in your parenthetical remark. I know nothing about binary so I’ll leave it at that

In what sense did you mean to apply the term survival of the fittest and why does it repulse you? if your talking about it in an economic, social, or political context then it is probably not true and you should not accept it, if it is "on the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" then you should obviously accept this as the elusive "truth" we have been speaking of. Of course this is my opinion...

are you from the UK?

 

[GMT]

I'll address the points one by one. I do know what truth is. I dont claim to know the truth abou teverything but do understand what the term truth means. A genius is merely someone whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population. I'm not there, but I am close. If something is questionable, you should not be certain of it, but some truths are understandable and what I claim is the ability to acknowledge the difference and so accept that many things I do not know but believe. I just wish that more knew the difference. My world view certainly is not from one reference nor are my conclusions, however the world is a big place and I accept that my views are opinions.
Science does not provide laws but theories, even the so called laws on motion are still theories and as you said do not explain how but are used to predict what, without knowing how, what may change. Social sciences aren't sciences, but clubs. I was talking about sciences such as physics, which certainly are flawed, do a search on Karl Popper and his falsification theory. Yeah I agree deductive reasoning does have those drawbacks and limits, and there is a certain circular arangement when checking on premises but when it works it does give answers and what else can give ya that.
Maths is not an objective representaion of the universe, for example most of the shapes in maths exist in Euclidian space rather than curced space time. All planets and stars are roundish but no where will you find a true sphere. Also add one can of coke to another and you wont get twice the coke as some of it will have fizzed away. These are merely in a perfect world equations. String theories are never expressed in terms of maths until looking for proofs, until then it is always discussed in terms of concepts. Have you read any of Hawkings books of perhaps Mikchio Kaku?
It was not a contradiction, if you understand binary coding, 1,2,3 = 01, 10, 11. therefore 2 = 10 in binary. therefore 1+1=10 in binary, the statement that 1+1=2 in base 10 and 10 in base 2 was actaully a mathematical joke.
When Darwin stole his theory of evolution he was actually demonstrating it. By taking it from Spencer, who was financially weaker, and throwing money at it therefore becomoing the one who's name survived he demonstated not only the theory in nature but also the society that we have created. Capitalism relies upon the same concept but with some exeptions such as welfare. In society those who can out talk or think others can get on, but in an unfair system, what happens to the rest?
Yeah I'm in the UK

I hope nothing I have said has caused offence, that was never my aim here, more to vent, and maybe get some advice, and support.

 

[Verite]

Deep but yet answerable.

Whats the one thing you will always find clutched in the hands of a dead person? Logic, reason, or belief?

Does the statistical property of probability become more or less when one factors in belief?

Did either of you discuss the probability of an alternate dimension where you both accepted opposing views?

It kinda reminds me of the movie " What the !@*&$ do we know "
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

 

[renots]

you are 100% right. i think pot really helped me in understanding just how ignorant we really are. theres no way anyone knows every truth out there, yet a vast majority of people for somereason think that they do. i forget who said it but some genius once said "true enlightnment only comes after you realize how ignorant you really are"

 

[guineapig]

The "Bible Code" has been proven statistically valid by many independent mathematicians and statistical journals yet people continue to doubt its validity....

laws will be changed when the people organize and fight and die for their freedom.
no sooner than that and probably much much later....

there is an inherent battle between religious fundamentalism and scientific endeavour.
it is just a bit more pronounced in GWs case....

=gp

 

[GMT]

You are right about both it being an issue of control and needing to lower my expectations, but I have found that rising above pettyness leaves only the weather to talk about without falling out. Also, if you saw a friend buying a car for roughly twice the price it was worth, wouldn't you want to warn them? How about if you knew the car to be unroadworthy? Sometimes it is a duty to point out the failings of others, and sometimes it is arrogance. I try to fullffill the first and avoid the second, and sometimes I fail on both.

On the other hand, we use maths to represent nature, that is different from maths being a part of nature. It is a concept that follows laws, and these laws we must learn to understand maths. However these laws are man made not natural. For example, a circle has 360degrees, why, not because nature does, but because a man somewhere decided upon it. I understand that the laws of maths aren't theory but laws, however to then say that nature follows the same laws, is I feel a little misleading. For example, if you have 1 electron, and add another, how many electrons do you have? Well, sometimes 0, because of quantum mechanics.

I know nothing about islam.

 

[GMT]

No nature doesn't use maths, we use maths to represent and understand nature, it's different. To use maths, you need a concious mind, to to fall into the orbit of a larger mass, just requires mass. Gravity forms the orbit, maths explains it for us. Fractals are formed by computers who do use maths, because they were programmed to, and rely upon maths to work, why is it then surprising to find equations that cause repeatable and complex patterns?

 

[GMT]

Not really the egg came first, that's evolution for you.

 

[dmcheatw]

u just said we use math to "represent and understand nature" so why don't you accept that math is an objective representation of the universe? the only part you now have to agree with is the objectivity of math because once again by your own admission math does represent nature.

not trying to argue with you, but how can you deny this?

also if you do believe in social darwinism then you really need to think about that, and read on that.. the truth, if you will, is that people who fail in social situations are usually disadvantaged in other ways that had nothing to do with their genetic abilities aka "fitness" and if you deny this then you have a lot of textbooks to read

why did the egg come first?

 

[GMT]

Well I said that we use maths to represent nature and I accept that maths is objective. But a representation of something is by definition different from what is being represented. A sculpter may use wood, and tools like chissels, but the wood is separate from the chissels, and the sculpture is the end result. We use maths to try and gain insight into nature by making representations of it, just as the sculpter makes representations out of wood using chissels. The wood is still wood, the tools are still tools, and the sculpture is still merely a representation. Maths is the tool, rather than what is being represented or even the wood. Maths can be considered to be wood, tools, and the object being represented rather than merely the representation if you are staying within the world of pure maths, however it cannot be nature, nor can it be the sculpter, and when stepping out of the world of pure maths, and making representations of nature, it can only ever be a tool. I certainly am not trying to start an arguement either and love to discuss this type of thing.

No I agree with you, but I hope that you are not saying that the disadvantaged dont deserve an equal shot at things. If they cannot develop, fair enough, but to say that the disadvantaged dont deserve the chance to develop, is I believe, unacceptable. If you can refer me to a text book to change my mind on that, please do.

The egg came first. Well chickens are all born from eggs, therefore the first chicken was born from an egg, the ancestor of the chicken laid the egg that came before the first chicken. Just the way evolution works. That first chicken was a mutant, but then bred more succesfully than the ancestors did. Hence they died out and chickens became common place laying more eggs everywhere.

 

[dmcheatw]

haha as you noticed i like to talk ab this stuff too

i thought you believed people who succeeded under capatalism did so because they were somehow better than thoes who did not succeed, but after re-reading your post(s) i see this is not your stance and we are in agreement

i see your clarification of why you think the egg came first, but i think you should also acknowledge that depending on what and how you define chicken, the organism that laid the egg in question could be considered a chicken.

sucks that we agree though cause thats never any fun, good luck convincing your lady friend, wish i could give you some advice about how to persuade her but many people in time recognize their own folly and i think she will