I read somewhere, that all of our views can be tolerant of each other, without being the same kind of thinking. Or, "agree to disagree".
This applies to things of opinions and preferences, in cases where the truth of it is inconsequential or the preference of it is according to taste.
Such as, a red car is better than a blue car. You may agree with the statement, or disagree.
However, you can not argue that a red car does NOT get more speeding tickets than a blue car, simply because you are of the opinion that the red car is better.
When it comes to matters of knowledge and actual truth, agreeing to disagree is a joke.
Either you agree with the facts, or you don't.
The best way to demonstrate it is:
"A red car is good, a blue car is not as good."
"2+2=4 is correct, 2+2=5 is not as correct".
It becomes obvious that 2+2=5 isn't "not as correct", it simply is wrong. Where as a blue car is "not as good" is a matter of opinion.
However, if fundamentally, math was wrong, and 2+2=5 is correct, then we'd have to show and prove it to be so. In doing so, we must employ the scientific method.
I'm not saying disagreeing isn't something to do, The scientific discord is based on disagreement. It's this entire, middle luke warm ground that irritates me. If you agree with the facts, great... if you don't, prove to me why the facts are wrong and I'll gladly champion your cause with you.
For once, Christianity got it right.
Revelation 3:16
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Being on the fence about facts should be rejected outright. However, the determination of which side of the fence is absolutely wrong when it comes to religion, they don't take reasoning or logic into account, but belief and faith.
There is a final thing, if we do not personally possess the capacity to understand the information, facts or method upon which the claims are being made, we can not make a judgment. This form of "fence sitting" isn't considered lukewarmness in my book. This is the true fence sitting of any scientific method and logical deduction. This is the null stance that everyone should take when determining and understanding a concept.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label belief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label belief. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Cherished belief 2
Recently, there's been a study on the speed of a Neutrino.
It has been demonstrated in one experiment, several times, that a neutrino would exceed the speed of light. Not by much.. but just enough to record.
Now, to the common folk... this isn't much.
But to a scientist, this is huge!
I mean huge huge!
This would mean Einstein was wrong. Very very wrong in fact.
Every known physical science to date would have to be reworked and "re-calibrated", and even some re-invented.
This would be a shift in paradigm unlike any other.
This can be akin to the shift of the creation story over evolution and abiogenesis. Scientist would, however, not try to "cover up" or "suppress" the truth of it; no matter how inconvenient, and yes.. this is a huge inconvenience. They would not rally against it keep it from being taught in school because it wouldn't fit into the model of "the in group" of scientist.
Would the masses of scientist switch over to "faster than light neutrino" group if proven correct? Yes.
Would a small minority hold to current model of relative physics by Einstein, despite the proof? Yes.
Would they be wrong to do so? NO
Here's the reason why. It isn't wrong to think that a mistake was made in the validation of a sort, they can in fact continue to try to disprove the theory as long as they want, but to be intellectually honest, every time they do, and they get the exact same result, it'll go to the favor of the opposition. They then have to redouble their efforts to not only prove their opponents wrong, but their own previous efforts wrong.
It is a daunting task, but has been done in the past.
Now, this is why I laugh at the ID theorist, they have never made a real effort to do so, and the feeble attempts have been rejected and they cry out persecution.
If ID was a serious shift in paradigm, it would be much like the Neutrino exceeding the speed of light issue. The entire community of science would be in an uproar....
Here's the problem though... bout 10 years or so ago, there was a supernova, who's light finally hit us after some thousand years of travel, simultaneously set off neutrino detectors in japan the same time as the visual recordings took pictures of it occurring.
If indeed neutrinos traveled faster than photons, the bombardment of neutrinos would have been some 6 years earlier at those distances. It wasn't.
So, to explain this.. there has to be a slowing agent over time on the neutrino but not photons... which wouldn't make much sense. Or... that the measurements of that incident was wrong... which wouldn't make much sense either.
Currently the experiment results does not match observable behaviors. This is one of the humps that needs to be explained before the theory is to be believed.
If the explanation are to be accurate and testable, then I would gladly let go of the most cherished belief of Eisenstein relative physics. As is the case of knowledge. A new theory must be placed, since faster than light is proven.. Einstein's theory would have to be reworked from the ground up. The final product, probably nothing resembling it. Needless to say,
I will give up this cherished belief if proven wrong.
It has been demonstrated in one experiment, several times, that a neutrino would exceed the speed of light. Not by much.. but just enough to record.
Now, to the common folk... this isn't much.
But to a scientist, this is huge!
I mean huge huge!
This would mean Einstein was wrong. Very very wrong in fact.
Every known physical science to date would have to be reworked and "re-calibrated", and even some re-invented.
This would be a shift in paradigm unlike any other.
This can be akin to the shift of the creation story over evolution and abiogenesis. Scientist would, however, not try to "cover up" or "suppress" the truth of it; no matter how inconvenient, and yes.. this is a huge inconvenience. They would not rally against it keep it from being taught in school because it wouldn't fit into the model of "the in group" of scientist.
Would the masses of scientist switch over to "faster than light neutrino" group if proven correct? Yes.
Would a small minority hold to current model of relative physics by Einstein, despite the proof? Yes.
Would they be wrong to do so? NO
Here's the reason why. It isn't wrong to think that a mistake was made in the validation of a sort, they can in fact continue to try to disprove the theory as long as they want, but to be intellectually honest, every time they do, and they get the exact same result, it'll go to the favor of the opposition. They then have to redouble their efforts to not only prove their opponents wrong, but their own previous efforts wrong.
It is a daunting task, but has been done in the past.
Now, this is why I laugh at the ID theorist, they have never made a real effort to do so, and the feeble attempts have been rejected and they cry out persecution.
If ID was a serious shift in paradigm, it would be much like the Neutrino exceeding the speed of light issue. The entire community of science would be in an uproar....
Here's the problem though... bout 10 years or so ago, there was a supernova, who's light finally hit us after some thousand years of travel, simultaneously set off neutrino detectors in japan the same time as the visual recordings took pictures of it occurring.
If indeed neutrinos traveled faster than photons, the bombardment of neutrinos would have been some 6 years earlier at those distances. It wasn't.
So, to explain this.. there has to be a slowing agent over time on the neutrino but not photons... which wouldn't make much sense. Or... that the measurements of that incident was wrong... which wouldn't make much sense either.
Currently the experiment results does not match observable behaviors. This is one of the humps that needs to be explained before the theory is to be believed.
If the explanation are to be accurate and testable, then I would gladly let go of the most cherished belief of Eisenstein relative physics. As is the case of knowledge. A new theory must be placed, since faster than light is proven.. Einstein's theory would have to be reworked from the ground up. The final product, probably nothing resembling it. Needless to say,
I will give up this cherished belief if proven wrong.
Friday, March 4, 2011
A cherished belief
I sometimes think, if only briefly, if there is a cherished belief of mine that I wouldn't give up. The reason I think of it so briefly is because there isn't.
If given enough evidence, I will reject every previously held notion, no matter how ingrained, how a much a part of me it is, no matter how much it is a part of me, I will reject the belief without hesitation.
I sometimes think of a past example of such. It's rather hard, to tell you the truth, because I've never really held something to that esteem. My knowledge is never held as absolute not even to myself. I never had such reverence for a piece of knowledge to a point where it can not be questioned. I question everything, even my own conclusion over and over to ensure the best possible and most reasonable answer.
If one day someone came to me and told me my arm will eventually be the cause of my death, though the evidence to convince me is near insurmountable, I will cut off my arm. Not gladly, not without thought, and... depending on the situation, might accept death over the loss of my arm. AND... of course, I wouldn't cut it off immediately if I chose to do so.
But, aside from hypothetical, I suppose the only actual held belief I've ever had that I rather cherished as a child, and oddly enough wished to pass on to my children but sadly will never; is a phrase: "My very eager mother just served us nine pizzas."
To anyone know knows this, I hope you feel my sorrow.
On August 25, 2006, it was announced through some vigorous debate, Pluto is no longer a planet. It is now considered a dwarf planet amongst several other dwarf planets slightly smaller to Eris, a dwarf planet slightly larger than Pluto just on the outskirts of our solar system.
As a child, I grew up being taught there were 9 planets in our solar system. That the furthest yet smallest, was Pluto. Beyond Pluto, there existed only dust and asteroids. None able to sustain an atmosphere, none able to be considered planets. Yet, now we find Pluto can not be a planet, otherwise, we would have to consider other objects within our solar system to be planets as well, and that'll just get messy.
Over night, I disregarded my 12 years of knowledge that I once thought was truth. The "truth" has changed. The "truth" was no longer true.
Perhaps one day I will riddle the phrase to my children.
"My very eager mother just served us nine.... what??"
It pains me not to be able to tell them it was Pizzas.
If given enough evidence, I will reject every previously held notion, no matter how ingrained, how a much a part of me it is, no matter how much it is a part of me, I will reject the belief without hesitation.
I sometimes think of a past example of such. It's rather hard, to tell you the truth, because I've never really held something to that esteem. My knowledge is never held as absolute not even to myself. I never had such reverence for a piece of knowledge to a point where it can not be questioned. I question everything, even my own conclusion over and over to ensure the best possible and most reasonable answer.
If one day someone came to me and told me my arm will eventually be the cause of my death, though the evidence to convince me is near insurmountable, I will cut off my arm. Not gladly, not without thought, and... depending on the situation, might accept death over the loss of my arm. AND... of course, I wouldn't cut it off immediately if I chose to do so.
But, aside from hypothetical, I suppose the only actual held belief I've ever had that I rather cherished as a child, and oddly enough wished to pass on to my children but sadly will never; is a phrase: "My very eager mother just served us nine pizzas."
To anyone know knows this, I hope you feel my sorrow.
On August 25, 2006, it was announced through some vigorous debate, Pluto is no longer a planet. It is now considered a dwarf planet amongst several other dwarf planets slightly smaller to Eris, a dwarf planet slightly larger than Pluto just on the outskirts of our solar system.
As a child, I grew up being taught there were 9 planets in our solar system. That the furthest yet smallest, was Pluto. Beyond Pluto, there existed only dust and asteroids. None able to sustain an atmosphere, none able to be considered planets. Yet, now we find Pluto can not be a planet, otherwise, we would have to consider other objects within our solar system to be planets as well, and that'll just get messy.
Over night, I disregarded my 12 years of knowledge that I once thought was truth. The "truth" has changed. The "truth" was no longer true.
Perhaps one day I will riddle the phrase to my children.
"My very eager mother just served us nine.... what??"
It pains me not to be able to tell them it was Pizzas.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Why atheists offend the faithful
This is only speculation on my part, but.. I can understand why someone would be offended when I say "I'm atheist".
When I say that to someone, especially when they're extremely devoted, they will take offense to it, or at the very least be somewhat taken back.
Essentually, when I say that I'm atheist, I'm saying:
"Everything you hold sacred and center your life around, I've rejected as truth."
Now, if you take this sentence and apply it to anything you've ever held dear or sacred, you too would be offended.
However, there is a major mistake being made from the offended. They assume that the atheists have dismissed their belief off-hand without investigation or without thought. This is, for the vast majority of the time, not the case at all.
But when someone replies with "I'm muslim" or "I'm hindu" or "I'm mormon" or "I'm Christian", it infers some level of acceptance of the divine. So, it's more along the lines of:
"I accept a form of your sacred truth, just not yours in particular"
Which is a bit easier to swallow. It could be thought of as misguided or incomplete.
I don't care what people think. I've investigated all my life and continue to investigate the question of the existance of god and the divine. I have found NO evidence that would lead me to think there is an inkling of a divine.
That does not mean there isn't one. However, I can as safely say that there is no god as safely as I can say there is no superman living among us.
When I say that to someone, especially when they're extremely devoted, they will take offense to it, or at the very least be somewhat taken back.
Essentually, when I say that I'm atheist, I'm saying:
"Everything you hold sacred and center your life around, I've rejected as truth."
Now, if you take this sentence and apply it to anything you've ever held dear or sacred, you too would be offended.
However, there is a major mistake being made from the offended. They assume that the atheists have dismissed their belief off-hand without investigation or without thought. This is, for the vast majority of the time, not the case at all.
But when someone replies with "I'm muslim" or "I'm hindu" or "I'm mormon" or "I'm Christian", it infers some level of acceptance of the divine. So, it's more along the lines of:
"I accept a form of your sacred truth, just not yours in particular"
Which is a bit easier to swallow. It could be thought of as misguided or incomplete.
I don't care what people think. I've investigated all my life and continue to investigate the question of the existance of god and the divine. I have found NO evidence that would lead me to think there is an inkling of a divine.
That does not mean there isn't one. However, I can as safely say that there is no god as safely as I can say there is no superman living among us.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Understandings, Missunderstandings, and Plain old you just don't know what you're talking about.
I've been debating somebody over the concept of "Super-rational". At first I waved it offhandedly as trivially easy to understand and deal with. However, this person continually insist it was "beyond" our reason to rationalize. IE... we simply can't reason out something so it must be super-rational. He then states to acting on these unreasoned actions as perfectly logical, to believe in super-rational ideas, according to his belief, beyond reasoned understanding, is perfectly rational.
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
For those who don't know Super-rationality. From what I've understood it, it's a perspective that transcends the local perspective in terms of reasoning. An example I've used to demonstrate this is:
Imagine you're in a room. You are given the option to raise your hand or not to raise your hand. In the adjacent room is an exact duplicate of yourself. He/She too has the option to raise their hand or not raise their hand.
In 10 seconds, you both will be killed unless one and only one of you raises your hands. You can not communicate with each other, you can't see each other, you simply can infer that what the other you is going to do, you will do as well.
To this end, you can not rationally make a decision whether or not to raise your hand. You are stuck at a dead end.
Now, if you take into perspective outside of that room, you have an option. A super-rational option. Flip a coin.
Probabilistically, you have a 50/50 chance of a coin ending up heads. If you flip it again, there's a good chance it'll end up tails. You can use this as a rational anchor to make a decision of any kind. You can safely assume the other you will be making the same logical conclusion. Out of 2 flips, the chances are good one will be head, the other tail.
Now, what if the scenario was with a random person and not with a duplicate of yourself? The decision for a flip of a coin will then revert to a chaotic irrational decision making tool. You can not be sure the other person will follow your line of thought. Again, we're limited by the local perspective.
I gave the person the 2nd scenario and not the first. His response looked nothing like rationality. His solution was actually, "the super-rational thing to do would be to assume that this room is an unsafe place and attempt to find a way out"
Way to confuse the concept with the details.
After I kept telling him super-rationality is not the same as beyond rational, that it is actually a philosophical abstract perspective, he finally got it. However, still didn't admit he was wrong. Simply walked away telling me that I've finally started to skip the BS and get to the real point. *sigh*
I carried about my daily thoughts and didn't ponder on this too much. Few days later I was watching The Atheist Experience, and last Sunday, a caller in the last 10 min of the show called in and started to blab about first cause.
He shifts the burden of proof to disprove his statement, and also to find alternative to the creation of the universe.
He structures it much like many creationists do, "We know nothing can come from nothing, so something must come from something and that something we call god."
Argument from ignorance, proof of ignorance.
So the hosts of the show continue to tell him where the fallacies are. What can be argued correctly and what can't...
Even an alternative creation story was proposed, however, was completely dismissed even without second thought. How ironic, he dismisses other creation theory without evidence, however, requires proof against his.
But the bottom line came to... "If you can't disprove that my god created the universe, it has to be true" And completely ignored the fact that they've said it a million times, it's a fallacy.
At first, I want to subscribe to his forums and rip him a new one. After a while of thinking, I know these types. They're fundamentalists who won't listen to logic, reason, and even when it's so blatant they will find ways to work it around their beliefs. They will never admit they were wrong. This reminds me of "Shockofgod", and his anti-atheist radio show. He invites atheists to call into his show to answer a "simple question".
"What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct?"
It's frustrating that idiots would ask such a blatantly invalid question. And... worst of all, when atheist do call in to tell him it's not a valid question, he ignores it and continues to state the question absurdly. Accusing the atheists of "playing word games", or ignoring the issue. Or not answering the question.
Which brings me to my point. Why are people so ignorant and love it? Why do they choose to live their life so brain dead and not see the false things for what they are and the true things for what they are? Why do people insist on pushing the ignorance on others? And when someone tries to legitimately educate them because of their desire to see the human race as a whole advance, they are hindered by the desire to hold on to ignorance and superstition?
Plug your ears and ignore logic if you want, but please... please don't bring your idiocy out to other people. Unlike you, some people like as few false beliefs as possible. And for the love of your god you worship, don't teach your children about your god as though it was truth.
------------------------ Additional Discussion---------------------
I started to point this out on a video on youtube about the stupidity of shock of god. And lo and behold, a defender came around.
He first starts by telling me, The question is a rhetorical question designed to show the stupidity of the fact of believing something without proof.
Ironicly, I pointed out that religion does not have proof, and... Atheism isn't a belief in anything, it's a rejection because the burden of proof has not been met.
With a witless response, I am accused of either being an agnostic, or not knowing what all this religion speak is all about.
By this time of course, I'm growing tired of stupidity.
I calmly explained the difference between Atheism, theism, gnostics, and agnostics. I think he might finally have understood.... Then again.. I shouldn't assume. He no longer asserts I'm agnostic, he goes back to the play on words of the question.
Claiming it's "Rehtorical".
My response was:
"It's not a rhetorical question. It's an invalid question.
I've wasted enough time on you. You throw your lot with idiocy.
1. You don't even know what atheism is
2. You don't even know what agnostic/gnostic is
3. You believe need of proof of a null stance is valid
4. You turn around and tell me atheism "belief" is based on no evidence, yet no evidence has ever proven any deity, let alone the biblical one
5. You believe atheism has "beliefs" that constitutes it as religion-like
Idiot"
With that he responded with:
"ha what are you an idiot? Look in a dictionary and learn what the hell you are talking about."
I've had enough... really I have... I ended with:
"I'm sorry... you're right...
6. How can I expect you to understand what rhetorical even means if you can't understand the rest?
.....
You see what I did there... that was a rhetorical question."
I swear... some people just are idiots...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)