Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: So
When you call an idea that's stupid, just that: stupid.
Calling conspiracy theorists, people who think they were abducted by aliens, homeopathic healers, and people who believe in the mystical powers of crystals 'stupid' NEEDS to be done.
People need a reality check, dumb ideas can't be elevated to the same level as good ones, and people need to have the self respect to not get hurt when they are called names.
If you have a so called 'stupid' idea, the burden of proof is on you. If you are right, you can irrefutably, scientifically prove it. Otherwise, you're a crackpot.
Demanding that people have an open mind and accept all ideas as equal is demanding that they abdicate their intellect.
To paraphrase: "Judge not, that ye be not judged ... is an abdication of [intellectual] responsibility: it is a ... blank check one gives to others in exchange for a ... blank check one expects for oneself."
I think you are confusing subjective judgement with objective examination and therein lies the whole problem. You can most definitely examine others without judging them and it increases intellectual responsibility because it A. forces you to be objective and B. forces you to examine your own subjective biases (both conscious and unconscious) that may be skewering your interaction with self and others.
I have this idea I call gravity.
Theory of Gravity I want you to prove irrefutably its existence (throwing a ball in the air is an example of the theory not the proof of law).
Are you asking for 100% proof to accept an idea as true? We accept an idea based on a host of evidence supporting a claim and a lack of any evidence to the contrary.
I have this idea that love is a cornerstone of human existence. I can't scientifically irrefutably state that love exists as fact but I will go out on a limb and say love exists and I live in it everyday as I bet you do as well.
You certainly can say that an abstract concept exists, insofar as that people exhibit behavior that demonstrates their adherence to that concept and a lack of evidence that those people are delusional. You're making an unrelated argument -- I never said anything about vaguely defined ideas. I'm talking about people who believe in ridiculous assertions as fact.
The false hypothesis test is all well and good but unfortunately much of the human condition itself cannot pass the false hypothesis test.
I am also glad that as a scientist you can reject anyone with their subjective experiences out of hand without definitive proof defending your position. You are performing both Type I and Type II errors depending on your position.
For those of you who don't know, this is jargon for 'a false positive' and 'a false negative' -- again, nothing can be proved 100%, but that is why we have statistical tests, error margins, and levels of confidence.
A scientist can examine and through investigation and observation deny/denounce/show false individual cases of alien abduction and crystal powers but they and you cannot make bold sweeping statements about the verascity of individual claims without empirical evidence to the contrary.
Not exactly true. I can say 'From experience, I have reasonable confidence that your claim is outlandish, unless you the claimant provides evidence to the contrary. Remember who the burden of proof lies with.
You may state that from past experience they are most likely making fraudulent claims but your condesecending rejection of all as "crackpots" is not sound science.
It's common sense. I know from experience that all crackpots that I have encountered with each of these theories have been completely incorrect. Therefore, when I encounter these same ideas, I can dismiss them out of hand, so long as they have not offered some drastic and clear new evidence. Practically, I can dismiss them out of hand because I don't need to repeat the same logical tests for the same or extremely similar evidence every time. Nevertheless, you're basically right -- but I am trying to make a point to the people that keep spinning facts again and again in hopes that they'll be able to slip it past rational opponents.
It is ironic that you would say people need to get self respect and not be hurt by name calling because that is precisely what judge not lest ye be judged is stating. Remove from yourself the ego and need to strike back at another and/or judge their actions and by proxy their worth as a human being as well as your own ego limitations and their words (and actions) can have no judgement upon your condition. When centered in truth without judgement no judgement passed against you can grab hold of your consciousness.
It is a warning -- and people commonly use it as a proxy demand that others not use their judgment because they should fear the error of public humiliation
MMMM I love post coffee bombastic diatribes with self-pontificating philosophical subjectivity as a theme.
Edit: For the more egregious grammatical errors and as for the rest ... I am an elitist and as such I bring shame upon all of you who don't understand my nobility and new form of written communication. It is called Liberalese
By the way I am a moderate Republican not that it makes any difference :laugh:
Facebook
Twitter