 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> > I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
> > one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
> > in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>
> Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
> of this nonesense.
It actually requires being exposed to it from a tender age, plus general society
acceptance. In pre-scientific-method societies, it could be perfectly
acceptable for mentally sane people to theorize the most ridiculous theories to
explain unexplained phenomena -- the ancient greek philosophers were quite good
at logic, but some of their reasoning was based on false promises not quite
based on evidence.
Today, it still goes on based mostly on cultural inheritance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 6:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> On 18/10/2010 07:20 PM, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> I have noticed a curious pattern that, in average, people who believe in
>>> one kind of pseudoscience or paranormal phenomena are very likely to believe
>>> in a whole array of such claimed phenomena.
>>
>> Presumably it takes some kind of mental disorder to actually believe any
>> of this nonesense.
>
> It actually requires being exposed to it from a tender age, plus general society
> acceptance. In pre-scientific-method societies, it could be perfectly
> acceptable for mentally sane people to theorize the most ridiculous theories to
> explain unexplained phenomena -- the ancient greek philosophers were quite good
> at logic, but some of their reasoning was based on false promises not quite
> based on evidence.
>
> Today, it still goes on based mostly on cultural inheritance.
>
>
Not even that always. Mind.. religion tends to help, since usually it
emphasizes authority and the same sort of pre-scientific thinking about
its own premises, so that gets carried over into other areas. But, as
someone put it a while back, logic is hard, applying it in such a manner
that you avoid confirmation bias even harder, and nothing about using it
is *natural* in any sense of the word for the brain. It has to be
learned. Instead, lack of real understanding of the process leads to
leaps, errors, confirmation via popularity/"common sense"/wish
fulfillment, and the like. None of which lead to valid results, since
they all rely on the person opting for the answer on the basis not of if
its true, but if it seems it should be, or feels like it should be, or
would upset something they care about, if it wasn't.
Any good magician can show that "everyone else saw it", or, "that seems
like the most reasonable answer", never mind, "I really wish it worked
that way", are all really bad ways to figure out reality, but very
**very** good ways of keeping people from seeing reality, which is, of
course, the other problem. Second oldest profession in the world, right
after, "I will give you this banana, if you suck my...", was, "I promise
that this will help you, just look how happy all the other people I
scammed into this ritual look doing it!"
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 3:02 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of
>> pseudoscience
>> or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of
>> another,
>
> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena
> and who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
>
Uh, seriously, not really true, from what I have seen. In my experience
you get one of two sorts - 1. All those other sorts of magic are
deceptions. A position that is hardly any better than, "all this stuff
is real". 2. Its all really the same stuff being done by my own magic
spook, or his nemesis, just wearing a different hat.
Sure, they will claim they reject all other forms of woo, but when
pressed, they will either turn out to reject it on the grounds that its
contrary to their own religion, not because they don't think its is real
at all, *or* it turns out that they are way less selective about just
what sort of woo they manage to shoe horn in anyway, despite claiming
otherwise, including, possibly, slightly different forms, under
different names, of the same things they claim not to accept.
> Why yes, Jesus ascended into heaven after coming back from the dead.
> Golden plates? Flying horses? What bollocks!
>
Well, that may be true, in that respect, but also not surprising. Except
for a small number of wackos that think D&D players actually worship
Zues, or some similar BS, there is a marked difference between "still
accepted" beliefs, and those rejected as mythology. For most of these
people, reality really is a popularity contest. The fact that no one
follows Apollo means it can be safely rejected. The fact that even a few
hundred people follow god X on some island some place makes it
*plausible* that something is going on, even if 99.9% of them insist
that its the debil! trying to mislead a few hundred nobodies on some
remote island. If its still believed, by any number of people at all,
then it *exists*, and the only matter to be considered is whether it
exists in the sense of being "God", or it exists are some plot against
what ever it is they do believe in. Its popular, thus, on some level,
real. Flying horses are not popular, therefor are not (which doesn't
stop, for example, some people thinking Djinn and the like are
responsible for possessions, in some of the more insane mini-groups in
places where Zues would still be a popular figure too, where not for his
geographic absence in the local mythos.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> there is a marked difference between "still
> accepted" beliefs, and those rejected as mythology.
Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/10/2010 19:31, Mike Raiford a écrit :
> http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html
>
>
Scientology is misplaced, it should at least be in the Extra Terrestrial
column or nearby, per the dogme itself.
Probably near Alien Abductions.
Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
or are they true and ok.
Where is agnostism ?
Divination & Extraterrestrial should be swapped (at least it would make
some religions of the delusion block more consistent.
And Psi & Psychic might be one & same ?
Nice inventory, wrong classification.
Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Seldom have I seen a person strongly believing in one type of pseudoscience
> > or supernatural phenomena, and adamantly denying the existence of another,
> Well, other than organized religion. :-) I know lots of devout religious
> people who don't believe in any other religion's supernatural phenomena and
> who don't believe in UFOs or other conspiracy theories.
I'm not so sure of that. I suppose it depends a lot on the movement inside
the religion, the local church/congregation and the individual person.
Many religious people are quite predisposed to accept the existence of
all kinds of supernatural phenomena which are not part of the teachings
of their own religion. They simply state that it's the work of Satan (or
whatever antagonist the religion might have).
There are also many movements of eg. Christianity where the people are
quite predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, such as Freemasons
being a NWO secret cult which is secretly pulling the strings behind the
scenes and are aiming at total world domination. (And all this simply
because someone *told* them that.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
> or are they true and ok.
They are not popular.
> Where is agnostism ?
Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
conspiracy theories.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/2010 3:54 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Really?
>
> What, you mean that "science" isn't just saying about waving expensive
> equipment around and saying sciency words at it?
>
My PKE meter says .. hmm, never saw that reading before.. <taps meter on
desk>
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/10/2010 18:45, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> Did I missed traditional paganism & polytheism ?
>> or are they true and ok.
>
> They are not popular.
>
>> Where is agnostism ?
>
> Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
agnostim is not atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
>
>> Another missing entry: Trust the governing power (whatever system), it's
>> for the well being of everyone... How do you name that ?
>
> An emphasized *distrust* of the government goes to the boundaries of
> conspiracy theories.
>
Conspiracy theories have the subtitle that they have an agenda (or many)
and they are acting cleverly (for their agenda). It might be more stupid
and selfish than that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> >> Where is agnostism ?
> >
> > Why would agnosticism be "irrational nonsense"?
> agnostim
You keep using that word...
> is not atheism.
Which atheism, exactly? Agnostic atheism or strong atheism?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> It's an open table with meals for everyone... far too much to be true.
The only thing that agnosticism claims is that it's impossible for us
to know if there exists a deity or deities.
How you *interpret* that stance is a different question. Some might
interpret it as "it's ok to believe in anything you want, because it
might (or might not) be the truth", while others might interpret it as
"it's foolish to believe in deities because even if there are any,
it's impossible for us to know it, or their nature" (and likewise it's
foolish to claim that there are no deities because, once again, we cannot
know).
(The difference between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the
latter takes the stance "there's no *reason* to believe any deities
exist because there is no evidence". It doesn't claim there are none,
just that there's no reason to believe there are. Unlike strong atheism,
which outright claims that there are none.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
