Am 24.09.2014 11:12, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> clipka wrote:
>> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
>> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
>
> This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not,
> you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and
> obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs
> the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?

No, it's an argument from experience: Disconnecting yourself from your 
gut feelings is a bad thing to do, because you're disconnecting yourself 
from something that is part of you, and serves a purpose. The right 
thing to do is to accept their existence, and examine what's behind 
them. And that's exactly what I've learned to do.

> My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
> all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
> my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.

In this whole discussion you're coming across as stubborn, which 
contradicts your self-description as rational, skeptical and critical. 
Especially, it shows a lack of self-criticism.

As a side note, I'm /not/ refering to your post to Doc John - that 
doesn't come across as stubborn, but as hot-headed and lacking control 
over your emotions - again not signs of a rational, skeptical and 
critical mind.

> The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy
> and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we
> require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating,
> safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason,
> being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given
> the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are
> emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human
> dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as
> natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst.

Reconsideration? I haven't seen much sign of that in your posts lately. 
This posting in response to mine is the very first sign that such a 
process /may/ be happening - but even here I only see it used as an 
opening move to stubbornness.


> And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were
> you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything,

You're missing my point again.

This "everything is connected to everything" is a hollow phrase, easy to 
use but difficult to explain and grasp to a point that someone can 
really and legitimately say, "yes, it is so - been there, seen it at 
work often enough to know it's not just some hollow phrase".

> Science
> indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on
> its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us
> somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I
> don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too,  that says
> according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy
> that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in
> theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift
> their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a
> jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
> Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
> be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
> doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
> so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
> shortsighted as you are.

Read this paragraph of yours again - you're referring to "this popular 
PhD" and "Carl Sagan", rather than arguing from own experience. You've 
chosen to believe it because people you assign authority to say so.


> That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my
> post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I
> made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary,
> so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is
> exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You
> should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an
> educated opinion.

Sometimes however it is a good thing to express such an instinctive 
warning to others - expressly noting that it is an instinct and not 
fully examined yet - even before having "gone beyond" it.

In some cases - as in this - you'll only be able to clearly grasp what 
this gut feeling is all about based on additional evidence, which comes 
in after you've expresed the instinctive warning.


> I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly
> accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and
> not tending to be unnecessarily long.

Okay, let me get this straight:

(1) You "make sure" - how do you do that? Do you just verify that people 
you assign authority to say so, or do you actually follow their thoughts 
and toy with them /yourself/? (*)

(2) You make sure they are "probably correct"? So you can't say for 
sure, and instead have to rely on... what? A mathematical confidence 
level? Or a gut feeling? Whatever the case, why don't you, when posting 
those links, let us know how much confidence you do have in it?

(3) You'd gladly accept a discussion about, as long as it's not "tending 
to be unnecessarily long"? This /shouts/ at me "I don't really want to 
be bothered with details that might pose the risk of me having to change 
my mind, but I won't admit this so I throw in the word 'unnecessarily' 
to hide behind, in case someone jumps at this sentence".


> I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway,
> everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to
> verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but
> anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for
> its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.

So... you have "no idea", but consider them "probably true, or maybe 
true", because "everything indicates so"?

I suspect that you deem it "probably true" because "nothing indicates 
otherwise" - in other words, because you have a bias to believe it.


> If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is
> irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the
> goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its
> validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be
> an expert.

As I said, the messenger, too, is responsible for checking the content 
for legitimacy, not just the recipient.

Post a reply to this message