Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: World Map W/ Antarctica @ Center.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    See that's the thing about "society." I'd be inclined to think the stronger argument is for the opposite.

    Understanding. This is where the divide lies. See ignorance is forgivable. Lack of knowledge can be rectified. Its simply a matter of lack of fact, something which one simply needs the opportunity to be exposed. But this isn't a lack of understanding. You don't need to high level of education to understand. You don't need facts to understand the process. What we are talking about is simply a formalized iteration of basic, inductive reasoning; the crap we do every single day of our existence (the scientific method actually, is simply this). When someone doesn't understand, its not because they lack the knowledge, its because they cannot demonstrate proper reasoning. Or worse, they are unwilling because it violates the identity they've built for themselves. This latter scenario is the case here. In fact, many here. You see it with the anti-western med mentality of the alternative industry (which IS an industry, and everything that comes with that label), you see it with people like this guy who disregard evolution in favor of some whack-nut creationist view of some variety, you see it with the larpers that still rattle off about, "teh deadliez."
    I understand your point, but sadly, the idea that the problem is solvable on the macro level is utopian. Our identity building is almost always, in some ways, predicated in ways that are based on ignorance, or outright avoidance of truth, because accepting and acting on the truth is too costly. It is only matters of degree, at which point the high road ceases to exist.

    Additionally, everyone will die ignorant in one sense or another. There is no cure for being in some sense in a state of ignorance. Some have the luxury to fight more of it, but it is often a luxury, and often ignorance of the meanings of having that luxury becomes a necessary evil, even if that ignorance is only a posture.

    The creationists, however, make it difficult to be nice sometimes, so I have to cede that point. Larpers don't really bother me, since historically, deadly humans are those with weapons, they aren't any further off the mark than many tough guys who can win an untrained brawl, imo.

  2. #32
    Melt all the ice. that's what we need. bye bye penguins and no more stupidity.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    I understand your point, but sadly, the idea that the problem is solvable on the macro level is utopian. Our identity building is almost always, in some ways, predicated in ways that are based on ignorance, or outright avoidance of truth, because accepting and acting on the truth is too costly. It is only matters of degree, at which point the high road ceases to exist.
    See I actually am not disagreeing here. This is exactly why, for instance, roughly only 12% of the population (US pop'n) grows up to become a different faith than that of their parents (not even specifying what they are switching to, just simply switching). Its why the greatest predictor of political affiliation at adulthood is the political affiliation of your parents. But that tells us something, doesn't it? It tells us that values are imprinted yes, but at some point early in development, they are malleable. It tells us that with proper education, if you can reach people early enough (not necessarily young, but chronologically before they become crystallized into one path of competing ideologies), they can be protected from that indoctrination before it sets in. Literally, bad ideas can be "vaccinated" against. And it doesn't take a lot of education. It doesn't require facts. It doesn't require teaching someone what to think. It simply means giving the tools on how to think. This is why its somewhat comical when people tell me I'm no more than a science "cultist." Its a "religion." I don't even care if people learn science. I care that they can simply demonstrate decent reasoning. I mean, does no one read Sherlock anymore? (Nevermind he's actually a logical fallacy, but I won't split hairs here). Critical thinking, its really not THAT hard.

    Additionally, everyone will die ignorant in one sense or another. There is no cure for being in some sense in a state of ignorance. Some have the luxury to fight more of it, but it is often a luxury, and often ignorance of the meanings of having that luxury becomes a necessary evil, even if that ignorance is only a posture.
    Certainly. Anything higher than basic physics makes my head ache. My understanding of economics is only because I've studied game theory in a biological context (game theory originates in economics), speaking of something else that makes my head scream, try reading some game theory...But ignorance is fine. All I ask for is that people be able to demonstrate that if given XX number of propositions, they can reasonably rule out the ones which are obvious nonsense. And then, when you have a few left that might seem reasonable, you have the reasoning to say, these ones really don't jive with evidence, regardless of how I personally feel about them. Not, on the other hand, lash out at fictitious evil doers because said evidence doesn't fit ones preconceived answers. And if you're going to call out a source, particularly those that are vetted by a field of peers (ie, experts), better have some good grounds to show why you can do so.

    All this, I would think to most reasonable people, should be fairly obvious. But for some....

    I just don't think my demands are really that...demanding. But I've learned, primarily from studying biology in the seat of southern baptism no less, that usually its more efficient to use these types of people as examples rather than trying to reach them. Never said it was nice.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    See I actually am not disagreeing here. This is exactly why, for instance, roughly only 12% of the population (US pop'n) grows up to become a different faith than that of their parents (not even specifying what they are switching to, just simply switching). Its why the greatest predictor of political affiliation at adulthood is the political affiliation of your parents. But that tells us something, doesn't it? It tells us that values are imprinted yes, but at some point early in development, they are malleable. It tells us that with proper education, if you can reach people early enough (not necessarily young, but chronologically before they become crystallized into one path of competing ideologies), they can be protected from that indoctrination before it sets in. Literally, bad ideas can be "vaccinated" against. And it doesn't take a lot of education. It doesn't require facts. It doesn't require teaching someone what to think. It simply means giving the tools on how to think. This is why its somewhat comical when people tell me I'm no more than a science "cultist." Its a "religion." I don't even care if people learn science. I care that they can simply demonstrate decent reasoning. I mean, does no one read Sherlock anymore? (Nevermind he's actually a logical fallacy, but I won't split hairs here). Critical thinking, its really not THAT hard.



    Certainly. Anything higher than basic physics makes my head ache. My understanding of economics is only because I've studied game theory in a biological context (game theory originates in economics), speaking of something else that makes my head scream, try reading some game theory...But ignorance is fine. All I ask for is that people be able to demonstrate that if given XX number of propositions, they can reasonably rule out the ones which are obvious nonsense. And then, when you have a few left that might seem reasonable, you have the reasoning to say, these ones really don't jive with evidence, regardless of how I personally feel about them. Not, on the other hand, lash out at fictitious evil doers because said evidence doesn't fit ones preconceived answers. And if you're going to call out a source, particularly those that are vetted by a field of peers (ie, experts), better have some good grounds to show why you can do so.

    All this, I would think to most reasonable people, should be fairly obvious. But for some....

    I just don't think my demands are really that...demanding. But I've learned, primarily from studying biology in the seat of southern baptism no less, that usually its more efficient to use these types of people as examples rather than trying to reach them. Never said it was nice.
    Game theory has long been on my to-do list, took a graduate level poli-sci class on East Asia taught by someone whose research was grounded in it, and have wanted to learn more of it since. Some basic ideas from it really hit home, but they are not grounded in my having a solid understanding of the fundamentals of it.

    And yes, developmental periods in life sure do seem to make a big difference in how well one can adjust. I think there needs to be a period in every life in which one realizes that some group-think we are part of is false, even if individuals taking part in it have some good qualities, often in spite of. I think that is a developmental period many people pass up on. And many do a faux version in which they are just switching from a demanding worldview to a convenient one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •