Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You probably have the biggest ego of anyone I've seen post here.
That's your perception, that's not reality. Think about it, if I'm physics teacher trying to teach a student, and the students don't get it, is it my fault they don't? Nope
It's ironic because, from what I can see, you have no reason to be on a high horse..
That's what you think but you haven't demonstrated it.
Here's what happens:
You read what I say, you disagree with a word or statement and say "oh that's wrong", you make a claim "you're wrong because xxx/yyy", this is how you are wrong <demonstration>
Now if you are not grasping the concepts correctly it doesn't matter what you say because you either:
1. refuse to question what you've already think you've learned, i.e. you have no idea you're using the wrong concepts to understand what I'm saying
2. are not open to new information.
3. I am incorrect, but this must be demonstrated and most importantly it can only be demonstrated if you, yourself are capable of recognizing when you're not understanding.
Hence why max plank said thus:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)"
The ability of people to detect who is rational and who is not, is not universal, it is very very difficult, hence we have all sorts of religion and nonsense in our world, some people are easy targets, others are not, and most people don't have the time to understand how the brain thinks to begin with. Then there is history to prove the principle of max again and again, that ultimately against whole swaths of institutions they ended up correct. You're not the first human being, and you're not the last to mistakenly judge others.
Here is how concepts are conceived:
Before mass education, way way back when, in tribal society, concepts were derived from input from the nervous system, people would look at something for distinctions (changes on what amounts to static background) and these changes allow one to separate things that are attached from what is not attached, (moving distinctions vs unmoving distinctions, generally speaking) and once the photons excite the rods and cones and so the signal is converted to a format the brain can understand, then the we unconsciously slice out objects from the spacial data that has been sent into the mind, once we have visions concepts are easy, since when we open our eyes we don't have to consciously think about comparing red to blue, or green, the distinctions are pre-processed for us, any distinction we sense can is to our mind a concept, a distinct bit of information that is different from all other bits. i.e. the apple is a part of the tree, although it is attached to the tree and we can pull it off the tree or it can fall naturally.
Because of time and motion, artifacts of language enter into our vocabulary that mask and hide the actual data that is encoded in the concept, and most importantly -- the source of those concepts, and who and how they were conceived, and where from and how.
When you know concepts are derived form the world through the senses, then all you have to do is compare what we know now, from when those concepts were conceived. i.e. relativity and the geometry of space time, an all connected surface, vs the concept of "separate objects", versus how our understanding of the universe has grown.
It's not fixed, and this is the problem. New knowledge rubs up against your education, and you immediately flag it using your unconscious heuristics as "nonsense", what you have done is merely an automatic response that many people have when encountering new data.
Before you accuse me of ignorance you should inquire into how to expose your own, I have demonstrated my knowledge, if someone is in error and I point it out, am I cruel to do so? If a lady crosses the street and I grab her to prevent her from getting hit, does that make me "egotistical"?
The truth is your mis-perceiving my intent because it's unconscious -- i.e. aggression and psychological / knowledge territorialism because that knowledge is integrated into your identity, 'you're this because I say so' but you don't take the time to demonstrate that it is.
"Boole's system (detailed in his 'An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities', 1854) was based on a binary approach, processing only two objects - the yes-no, true-false, on-off, zero-one approach.
Surprisingly, given his standing in the academic community, Boole's idea was either criticized or completely ignored by the majority of his peers. Luckily, American logician Charles Sanders Peirce was more open-minded."
Therefore, just because I say something does not mean you will understand it. i.e. a person having the ability to determine who is rational and who is not, is not a given, and I could point to many more demonstrations of people who turned out to be right when the whole community ignored / criticized / did not understand their ideas.
So criticism means little without pointing out the errors, and most importantly being capable of exposing your own first so you know you're thinking correctly before you go off on a tangent.
Facebook
Twitter