The insecurity of ignorance
- Thread starter GMT
- Start date
Brownpants
Active member
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".
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".
shopvac
Member
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
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
shopvac
Member
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
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
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 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?
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/
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/
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"
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
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
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?
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?
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
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
Latest posts
-
-
I find strange things and post them here - feel free to join in- Latest: D. B. Doober
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
I find strange things and post them here - feel free to join in
- Latest: D. B. Doober
-
-
