>
> I think that there are two reasons (at least).
>
> 1/    No one wants to stop existing when they die so the believe in a
> religion that promises life after death.

I think your rule #1 is the logical conclusion of a more basic rule. 
Life in a community forces people to go against their natural instinct 
of self-preservation.  To achieve that, the community has to enact a 
"Don't be a dick!" rule.  For some, you need an "or else" clause.  So 
it's either "Don't be a dick, or else you'll suffer for eternity", or 
"Don't be a dick, and you'll be rewarded in the after life".

>
> 2/    A lot of people find it hard to "think outside of the box" and
> believe what they are brought up with as a matter of course.

That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.  Not 
everyone realises that most of the scientific laws are only "best 
guesses, so far", and the argument between science and religion becomes 
akin to "my team/your team" sports argument and the way to win, is to 
stack the school board with more fans of MyTeam, not realising that they 
are actually breaking the "Don't be a dick!" rule.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-11-07 23:19, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> where one guy registering voters was actually caught
> throwing out applications for non-Republican voters, but turning in all
> the ones that where registering Republican.
>

I never understood why Americans, who are usually adamant about their 
right to privacy, don't blink an eye when forced to state their 
political preference when registering to vote.

Yes, I know, it's because it allows them to vote in the primaries, but 
I've never understood why the primaries were run using public funds, in 
the first place.  Political parties are private coroporations.  Let them 
pay for their nomination processes!  No one would tolerate the state 
paying for Coca-Cola or Citibank's executive board meeting where they 
decide who's going to be the new CEO.  It shouldn't be any different for 
the Democratic or Republican parties.

(And don't get me started on why there's only the same two parties at 
all levels of government!)
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.

Like who? All scientists I have seen don't have any problem in saying
that science is the best we know so far. We are getting closer and closer
to understanding how the universe works, but we will probably never get
completely there.

However, it *is* justified to say that science is by far the *best* method
for discerning the truth and what's real and what isn't. All alternatives
fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.
>
> Like who?

Editing error on my part.  "Some" scientists.

> All scientists I have seen don't have any problem in saying
> that science is the best we know so far. We are getting closer and closer
> to understanding how the universe works, but we will probably never get
> completely there.
>

I've come across people who should have known better.  YMMV.

> However, it *is* justified to say that science is by far the *best* method
> for discerning the truth and what's real and what isn't. All alternatives
> fail miserably.
>

Agreed.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 1:33 AM, scott wrote:
> You don't need to be a math genius or know how to use a calculator to
> ask "how much will you pay into my bank account each week/month if I
> take this 'better' position?". If they can't manage asking something
> like that with their job then how do they manage with dealing with
> utility companies etc.?
>
Uh... You would be rather surprised.. lol

But, seriously, most people are going to see the $, not look at how many 
hours they actually are likely to get. Those can vary, they depend on 
seniority, and its not always clear how screwed you just made yourself, 
unless you are really paying attention.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 5:30 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-11-07 23:19, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
>> where one guy registering voters was actually caught
>> throwing out applications for non-Republican voters, but turning in all
>> the ones that where registering Republican.
>>
>
> I never understood why Americans, who are usually adamant about their
> right to privacy, don't blink an eye when forced to state their
> political preference when registering to vote.
>
> Yes, I know, it's because it allows them to vote in the primaries, but
> I've never understood why the primaries were run using public funds, in
> the first place.  Political parties are private coroporations.  Let them
> pay for their nomination processes!  No one would tolerate the state
> paying for Coca-Cola or Citibank's executive board meeting where they
> decide who's going to be the new CEO.  It shouldn't be any different for
> the Democratic or Republican parties.
>
> (And don't get me started on why there's only the same two parties at
> all levels of government!)
Primaries don't just determine the who is running for the party, they 
sometimes include other things, and involve, also, narrowing the number 
of people running for other positions (like from 20 candidates, to like 
5-6). But, yeah, one would think.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 10:51 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:

>> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
>>> That's exactly why scientists believe science to be the truth, too.
>>
>> Like who?
>
> Editing error on my part.  "Some" scientists.
>
Hyperbole, in opposition to someone presenting an "alternative", which 
is rank bullshit.

Or, as emphasis about how other "suggestions" have all failed.

Or, babbling about things they actually have no bloody clue about, but 
think they know something about, because they have a degree in some 
entirely different field (more commonly called "psuedoscientists", when 
they apply this logic). This last case is a bit like someone claiming 
they are an expert in nuclear physics, based on their extensive practice 
with the Culinary Institute of America, making bombes.

Sadly, this happens a bit to often, in some fields, especially physics, 
engineering, and computer science.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/8/2012 12:23 AM, scott wrote:
>> There is, in fact, a psychological phenomenon behind all this. I wrote an
>> article about that very subject here:
>>
>> http://grindedgear.blogspot.fi/2012/10/people-are-really-bad-at-grasping.html
>>
>
> Example:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
This isn't just about "probabilities" in this case though, its more like 
"Crank thinking". I.e., if it scares me, then if something seems to 
prove that its true, then its true, but if something indicates its not 
true, its actually conspiracy to hide that it is true."

Post a reply to this message

> Uh... You would be rather surprised.. lol
>
> But, seriously, most people are going to see the $, not look at how many
> hours they actually are likely to get. Those can vary, they depend on
> seniority, and its not always clear how screwed you just made yourself,
> unless you are really paying attention.

In pretty much every step of life people are out to take advantage of 
you if you can't do basic maths or don't pay attention (employers, 
banks, shops, car salesmen, etc.). I don't think it's unique to dodgy 
employers trying to screw over their staff.

A good example is getting a home-loan here in the UK. Most banks will 
offer a number of different products with different combinations of 
interest rates and initial fees. If you can't do the calculation to 
figure out which is the cheapest then you're likely going to be paying 
more than someone who can, especially as the bank is obviously going to 
promote the one that makes them the most money.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> This isn't just about "probabilities" in this case though, its more like 
> "Crank thinking". I.e., if it scares me, then if something seems to 
> prove that its true, then its true, but if something indicates its not 
> true, its actually conspiracy to hide that it is true."

There's indeed an enormous amount of bias among people who believe in
conspiracy theories and such.

For example, no amount of research will convince them, no matter who makes
the research. There are no "unbiased independent parties". They are all in
the conspiracy (somehow.)

And then if there's a research that seemingly supports the conspiracy, it
will immediately be credible and much quoted. It doesn't matter if it has
been rejected by all credible science publications because of not passing
even the most basic of peer reviewing. The publications are rejecting the
research because they are in the conspiracy! (Naturally it cannot be because
the research is bogus. That's just impossible!)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message