The insecurity of ignorance

[emerald city]

Well- there went the day,reading this whole thread...Guess my point wasnt to insightfull compared to some...At least i spent the time to read it.The real question that came to my mind was , who is YACKEEDOODLE ,and what has he had to offer to the conversation?? maybe post count....E.C/out

 

[emerald city]

ACTUALLY...the glass is 99.999% empty space...held together by electrical charge between atoms. Wrap your head around THAT...

Actualy i believe EVERYTHING[soild looking stuff] is made up of empty space with vibrating atoms/quarks . Differant combinations create differant stuff...Ill still assert that it all begins with a thought.For it to BE you have to dream it...
You guys are way above my pay grade..peace/out E.C

 

[bs0]

It seems easier for people to be unreasonable in a discussion, when they place others into a stereotype, and read their posts as post from such a stereotype.

for example, I have found that no matter how far I go out of my way to make sure a post is worded to reflect my moderate and reasonable viewpoint, people who (seem to me) to view everything that does not support their predisposition as extremist enemy propaganda, usually reply only to some distortion of my statement..

Yep.

You should have seen the words people would put in my mouth when I had the gall to mention that the civil rights act may in fact infringe upon our own property rights (in America). I'm not interested in discussing that here, or really anywhere again, but it was just another example of people assuming what both your statement as well as your motivation mean before reading what you area saying. People calling me names, insulting me, telling me other different unrelated things that they assumed I believed... Then insulting me for the assumed beliefs... It was a very irritating interaction.

Labels and assumptions are safe. If you don't have to think about something you never have to take a leap and accept that your own viewpoint may not be the most logical viewpoint. Many people, despite copious evidence to the opposite, will retain failed theories to protect their own ego... Or argue moot points endlessly even after someone has agreed with them just to prove to themselves that their point has value.

Personally as I have grown older I have become more and more OK with being wrong... To the point now where I actually like it because then I am learning something new. I have found that this standpoint allows me to be a much more effective listener and a much more informed decision-maker.

We humans are fallible creatures! To deny such hurts only yourself.

Am I wrong? Probably. Then again this is the 'toker's den' after all!

 

[bs0]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I talk to it like a duck.

But how do you KNOW it's a duck? How??? Did you see the parent ducks mate and the mother duck rear the duckling and the duckling grow older? Did you see every second of every day? Even then you may have fallen asleep and not be able to verify for certain that the duck is still a duck!

What if it is an elephant? You have to include that possibility as well because ... well nothing is 100% certain! The duck could in fact be an elephant.

Justifying stereotyping and assumptions doesn't make them any more reasonable. And please, eventually, make a post that is on topic? But... Well I have to cut you slack... You might not be able to be sure what topic you are responding to... How do you KNOW 100% what thread you are in??? Did you watch the entire website be coded?

I digress...

And no, I know that you don't believe the above statements. After that condescending rant to head I couldn't resist parroting some of your previous statements with new subjects substituted.

 

[Honkytonk]

I came across this article on Ars Technica a couple of days ago. Reminds me of what GMT said in his OP.

Skeptics discount science by casting doubts on scientist expertise
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/09/skeptics-discount-science-by-casting-doubts-on-scientist-expertise.ars

... it's not just a matter of the public not understanding the expert opinions... they simply discount the expertise associated with any opinion they'd rather not hear.

 

[HempKat]

Hemp, just to make it clear, the reason I have had enough of the thread is because after repeatedly asking, begging for people to remain civil to others, insults are still prevelant. After asking for posts not to be repeated, the same content is posted up time and time again. And when posts are posted up, a response waited for and then the original content altered to show something else, while quoteing the response, it gives a false impression of the conversation at hand, thereby making the conversation impossible to follow. Therefore there is little point in continuing with a thread that has become not so much a discussion in how to deal with irrationality, but rather an example of the pointlessness of arguing with people who are only interested in arguing rather than coming to a conclusion. The only thing that I have learned is that when logic meets emotion, emotion will win as logic can only function in a logical environment.

Oh I understand fully why you gave up on the thread, been there, done that, got the t-shirt You're not the first person to run into people so desperate to win or be right that they go back and edit posts after the fact to make them seem like they were right. Not that I'm saying such a thing happened, I'm just recognizing that you feel it did and that such things do actually happen.

As for what you feel you've learned, I understand the conclusion but don't see it being quite that simple. People don't live in environments of logic and emotion. We live in environments of air, sun, earth, etc. Logic and emotion are products of the brain and therefore those things exist in an environment of grey matter. When we come into contact with people and interact we go back and forth all the time between logic and emotion. You demonstrate that in your original post. There you describe an emotional state of frustration because you were unable to convey your opinions, that you see as logical, to someone else. So you flowed from being logical (expressing your opinions to someone) to being emotional (frustrated that you couldn't get the person to see things the way you do).

See the point I'm making is that the whole world and everything in it, as understood by an individual, is subjective. What you consider logical might to another seem like insane gibberish. Like religion, some people see religion as the honest explaination for how and why the world is, others see it as a fairytale. For each of them, from their individual perspectives they are right. The problem then only arises when one of them tries to force their perspective on the other. People tend to get emotional when people try to force their beliefs onto someone else. If the two individuals could learn to accept that not everyone is going to see things the same and just limit themselves to expressing what they believe without casting judgement on what others believe then the whole conflict of emotion and logic can be avoided.