How Facts Backfire

[sandorski]

The OP reminds me of PJabbers very first Post in P&N. Making good points about what's wrong with P&N and making the Claim that they are somehow above this and would make P&N a better place with their Wisdom. Once done waxing poetic about their awesomeness, they begin the descent into making P&N into a worse place by raising the P&N Faults to new previously uncharted heights of Fail.

If someone truly wants to improve P&N, they'll start by making Threads worth Reading and not Self Aggrandizing with generalized slights to others(easily 80% of all P&N Threads). Discussions require Open Minds, something that simply doesn't exist in P&N. Instead all we got are Beck-Wannabes or Limbaugh-Wannabes or Maddow-Wannabes or etc etc.

Before you can Learn, you first need to surrender the Idea that you Know everything.

 

[MJinZ]

The OP reminds me of PJabbers very first Post in P&N. Making good points about what's wrong with P&N and making the Claim that they are somehow above this and would make P&N a better place with their Wisdom. Once done waxing poetic about their awesomeness, they begin the descent into making P&N into a worse place by raising the P&N Faults to new previously uncharted heights of Fail.

If someone truly wants to improve P&N, they'll start by making Threads worth Reading and not Self Aggrandizing with generalized slights to others(easily 80% of all P&N Threads). Discussions require Open Minds, something that simply doesn't exist in P&N. Instead all we got are Beck-Wannabes or Limbaugh-Wannabes or Maddow-Wannabes or etc etc.

Before you can Learn, you first need to surrender the Idea that you Know everything.

What if we don't watch or even know about Beck/Limbaugh/Maddow? I've heard of Limbaugh (who hasn't?) but I do not consume their products. If you asked me who Beck or Maddow is, I couldn't tell you. Except the musician and someone who sounds like Bernard Madoff.

 

[NesuD]

Most Atheists were born in a religious house. If anything they are more open minded then any religious person.

Atheists deny the existence of god. The religious deny the absence of a god. I would call that a wash on the openmindedness scale.

I used to think the libs were the enemy and the conservatives were my allies. I have now modified my position to most liberals and conservatives are my allies however most career politicians are the enemy. The vast majority of liberals and conservatives are good sincere people who truly want the best for our country. The bad liberals and conservatives are almost exclusively the career politicians and the special interests who if you look closely are invariably motivated by money and power. If they weren't they wouldn't make a career of it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

One entrenches oneself further (fetal position), I think often from being limited in both educational advancement and social experiences.

The other, unperturbed by the contrary fact, brushes it off as if it was a nuisance and continues, armed by the banner of justice and righteousness.

I just realized something. In the conservative cases, the corrections were diametrically opposed to the erroneous assertion (up vs. down, presence vs. absence) while the liberal example was really one of degree (full ban vs. partial one). It's not inconceivable that this inconsistency might have skewed the degree of "backfire."

 

[daishi5]

I think it's also telling that they demonstrated a slight but distinct difference in "liberal" and "conservative" cognition here. A liberal ignores a contrary fact, but a conservative actually strengthens their view from it.

Take a look at the "facts" they used to arrive at that difference. The difference between found and did not find WMD's is a huge binary difference. The small details of exactly what was banned in stem cell research is a detail that does not drastically change what happened, just the extent. Don't read too much into the difference due to liberal and conservative, I think the difference would be due to the different facts they used to test the different people.

Edit: I see you caught that difference yourself.

 

[MJinZ]

Atheists deny the existence of god. The religious deny the absence of a god. I would call that a wash on the openmindedness scale.

I used to think the libs were the enemy and the conservatives were my allies. I have now modified my position to most liberals and conservatives are my allies however most career politicians are the enemy. The vast majority of liberals and conservatives are good sincere people who truly want the best for our country. The bad liberals and conservatives are almost exclusively the career politicians and the special interests who if you look closely are invariably motivated by money and power. If they weren't they wouldn't make a career of it.

Absolutely not true... Atheists generally conclude that God does not Exist (a positive denial) for whatever reason. Religious do not have any real reasons, they are indoctrinated with ideas at an early age and told it was the "truth".

The most open minded are the Religious indoctrinated who turn against their religion, Atheist indoctrinated who open their minds to the possibility of God.

 

[Munky]

LOL? Atheists are technically one of the most open minded, regardless of how you interpret that. They take the observable facts of the universe, and arrive at a viable conclusion.

The opposite is true for religious. They close out all facts of life, science, and advancements and clutch tighter to best selling book in history (perhaps actually, that title now belongs to Harry Potter).

Other than the fact that atheists incorrectly assume science has discovered everything there is to know, and therefore there must be no God, yeah, they sure seem like a bunch of open-minded sponges.

 

[shira]

Some of you may have noticed that I don't really visit P&N anymore. This probably makes most of you very happy, as my approach here was never popular (except, perhaps, with the largely silent minority). I attempted, however unsuccessfully, to bring facts and logic to the argument. In this way, I changed my own mind much more often than I influenced anyone else's opinions. People on both sides of the aisle hate me because I don't have a side. I could never figure out why anyone would align themselves with one side or the other as neither side was aligned with reality. After talking with a friend (who is also an engineer) working on his MBA, he said that the hardest thing about managing people as an engineer is that he's used to working with other engineers who consider things logically and reasonably. With most people, that's simply not the case. Things started to click into place.

After years of beating my head against the wall that is the vocal majority of P&N posters, I finally found an article that explained what I already knew: most people simply accept tidbits which agree with their predisposed positions while summarily rejecting all other information as bogus. When confronted with facts, most of you will actually cling tighter to your position which is in direct opposition to those facts rather than adapting your position to bring it into line with reality. This is why conservatives prefer Fox News, why Rand Paul makes liberals so uncomfortable when he says that the poor here don't really have it so bad, and why most of you have never and will never change your opinions on any political issues.

In any case, here are some key points from the somewhat lengthy (4 page) article that about three of us will read.

If the bolded part of your thread is really how you view yourself - if you really believe you are/were some sort of neutral observer and that other ATPN'ers "hate you" because you're so darned "fair" - then all I can say is, WOW! You suffer from SERIOUS self-delusion.

And for the record: I don't "hate" you. I consider you to be intellectually dishonest - and astonishingly self-unaware - and this latest post of yours is a true classic.

But good luck with that "logical/reasonable" stuff.

 

[MJinZ]

Other than the fact that atheists incorrectly assume science has discovered everything there is to know, and therefore there must be no God, yeah, they sure seem like a bunch of open-minded sponges.

Yes, other than the fact. The question is who is more close minded, and relatively speaking - Atheists are almost certainly less close minded than Religious.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL? Atheists are technically one of the most open minded, regardless of how you interpret that. They take the observable facts of the universe, and arrive at a viable conclusion.

The opposite is true for religious. They close out all facts of life, science, and advancements and clutch tighter to best selling book in history (perhaps actually, that title now belongs to Harry Potter).

It is hardly an accurate statement that all atheists are scientists, or vice versa.

No open-minded person would take a phenomenon that has occupied the consciousness of the entire existence of mankind and simply dismiss it as comfortable delusion, and that we are the enlightened few who, at last, are liberated.

It's not open-mindedness. It's just arrogance.

 

[Tab]

When confronted with facts, most of you will actually cling tighter to your position which is in direct opposition to those facts rather than adapting your position to bring it into line with reality. This is why conservatives prefer Fox News, why Rand Paul makes liberals so uncomfortable when he says that the poor here don't really have it so bad, and why most of you have never and will never change your opinions on any political issues.

Right, that good ole' Fox News.

The reason his comments are under fire is because, in the context of the situation they don't mean anything. Of course, in other countries the poor have it worse. They don't have food, shelter or even any kind of education. While, in America many do have shelter, food and maybe some education that doesn't account for much. You'll be living in a crummy house, in a unsafe neighborhood, the food you're eating isn't nutritional and a high school education isn't that valuable.

 

[yllus]

You're a good guy, C-Dub, but the Socratic approach you put on the last couple of months got old pretty quick.

Yes, there are many idiots and blind ideologues here. No, you're not accomplishing anything by challenging their core ideals. Just shrug it off and add your relatively valuable insights on the odd thread that discusses something technical - the vast majority of dumbasses here have a decent grasp of when they're out of their depth and stay out.

You gain zero from "winning" a discussion here. Seek knowledge and sidestep the petty battles.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I think, OP, that you have simply grown weary of the way American Politics is debated. This article will be a good read for you:

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

 

[MJinZ]

It is hardly an accurate statement that all atheists are scientists, or vice versa.

No open-minded person would take a phenomenon that has occupied the consciousness of the entire existence of mankind and simply dismiss it as comfortable delusion, and that we are the enlightened few who, at last, are liberated.

It's not open-mindedness. It's just arrogance.

No one said all Atheists are Scientists. Atheists use whatever information they observe (evils of the world, injustices) or academia (scientific discoveries) to arrive at their conclusion. It doesn't mean one Atheist who is a particle physicist arrives as the same the conclusion as the high school drop-out Atheist who lost his parents in a war.

Again, the difference is that is the Religious are indoctrinated with a book, while Atheists arrive at their conclusion in many other, more necessarily, open minded, ways. Relatively speaking anyway.

 

[Munky]

Yes, other than the fact. The question is who is more close minded, and relatively speaking - Atheists are almost certainly less close minded than Religious.

I don't agree, because IMO science still has a hell of a long way to go before we discover everything there is to know. For all I know there could be infinite parallel universes, and scientific realities that would make our current knowledge seem like the Stone Age. To put absolute certainty one way or the other is equally close-minded.

 

[blackangst1]

Good read. Thanks CW

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Take a look at the "facts" they used to arrive at that difference. The difference between found and did not find WMD's is a huge binary difference. The small details of exactly what was banned in stem cell research is a detail that does not drastically change what happened, just the extent. Don't read too much into the difference due to liberal and conservative, I think the difference would be due to the different facts they used to test the different people.

Edit: I see you caught that difference yourself.

But of course if I hadn't caught it myself I would have ignored your fact and entrenched myself deeper in my belief.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't agree, because IMO science still has a hell of a long way to go before we discover everything there is to know. For all I know there could be infinite parallel universes, and scientific realities that would make our current knowledge seem like the Stone Age. To put absolute certainty one way or the other is equally close-minded.

Doesn't matter because your original statement was a straw man anyhow. Atheists do not, as you claim, believe that "science has discovered everything there is to know." Atheists generally will assert that science, not faith, is how we understand the world we live in. Claiming that science has found all the answers, however, is neither a necessary, not common, assertion of atheists.

- wolf

 

[dank69]

You're a good guy, C-Dub, but the Socratic approach you put on the last couple of months got old pretty quick.

Yes, there are many idiots and blind ideologues here. No, you're not accomplishing anything by challenging their core ideals. Just shrug it off and add your relatively valuable insights on the odd thread that discusses something technical - the vast majority of dumbasses here have a decent grasp of when they're out of their depth and stay out.

You gain zero from "winning" a discussion here. Seek knowledge and sidestep the petty battles.

CW Socratic? I must have been reading all the wrong threads/posts by him. Please point me in the direction of one of his Socratic posts. I have to see it to believe it.

 

[OrByte]

If the bolded part of your thread is really how you view yourself - if you really believe you are/were some sort of neutral observer and that other ATPN'ers "hate you" because you're so darned "fair" - then all I can say is, WOW! You suffer from SERIOUS self-delusion.

And for the record: I don't "hate" you. I consider you to be intellectually dishonest - and astonishingly self-unaware - and this latest post of yours is a true classic.

But good luck with that "logical/reasonable" stuff.

seconded.

 

[Tab]

And Cylcowizard makes a post and doesn't respond to it. Who could have thought of that?

 

[sandorski]

What if we don't watch or even know about Beck/Limbaugh/Maddow? I've heard of Limbaugh (who hasn't?) but I do not consume their products. If you asked me who Beck or Maddow is, I couldn't tell you. Except the musician and someone who sounds like Bernard Madoff.

Doesn't matter, just means you've arrived at Fail through Original Intent. Which I suppose is at least some kind of worthy point, at least such a person(I find it hard to believe one exists) isn't a mere clone or copy cat.

 

[CycloWizard]

Haha, CW hoisted on his petard. :awe:

Ah yes, that thread where I presented you with the facts and you turned your nose up at them. That'll learn me!

 

[CycloWizard]

No one said all Atheists are Scientists. Atheists use whatever information they observe (evils of the world, injustices) or academia (scientific discoveries) to arrive at their conclusion. It doesn't mean one Atheist who is a particle physicist arrives as the same the conclusion as the high school drop-out Atheist who lost his parents in a war.

Again, the difference is that is the Religious are indoctrinated with a book, while Atheists arrive at their conclusion in many other, more necessarily, open minded, ways. Relatively speaking anyway.

This would be completely off topic if you weren't simply validating everything I mentioned in the OP. I know plenty of people who have become religious after growing up in non-religious households and vice versa. You have simply decided that your viewpoint is true and will flap at anyone who argues to the contrary. You have decided that atheists are open-minded, all the while acknowledging that their reasons for their positions are disparate and based largely on emotion rather than facts or logic. The bottom line is that science can never disprove the existence of a deity, nor does any current scientific theory disagree with the principal tenets of major world religions. The only reason people suspect disagreements between science and the major religions are a combination of ignorance and misunderstanding. I have started other threads about that in P&N and got just about the same response you're giving: no, it can't be!

 

[CycloWizard]

seconded.

The article in the OP described exactly why you view me in this light. I have very few political beliefs, so I have no dog in most fights. Instead, I like to point out the idiocy on both sides. I have even argued stances opposite the one I truly hold simply to see if anyone could make a decent argument in the opposite direction. It's relatively easy to see the good and bad of most political arguments if you aren't tied down with party affiliations or allegiance to a certain candidate, especially since most political arguments come down to a matter of opinion. The one thing I believe absolutely (and I doubt anyone can provide a fact to the contrary, though please feel free to do so if you can find one) is that government is horribly, horribly inefficient. Repeatedly pointing this out has pissed off Obama and Bush supporters alike. This reality is the reason I am so pissed off at our politicians, as all of the presidential candidates since I was old enough to vote (indeed, probably further back than that even) have done nothing but try to grow government as fast as they can.