Rational group

I believe that there are three kind of people (Cecil might have fought long and hard, but I never remember him telling that ‘belief’ was a bad thing)

First group are ‘believers’, who follow religious, faith based assumptions, and superstitions because the previous generation did. They do not give a damn about science, since it means nothing to them - they follow pre-determined rules and value cultural issues.

Second group are the ‘science’ group who know exactly what happens, but miss out on the large picture. They can make fun of others, but it is sad that unless they understand what they are doing, they will only be doing just that, and not progress to the next level.

The third group comprehends both, but finds it hard that they give up! Most of these people get segregated and lurk under the previous categories. For those who are left, I just propose, please sign the attendance register.

Let us find out how rational the world really is! (how ironical!)

I vote for Rational group: 001

Would you do the same thing?

“There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who say, 'There are two kinds of people in the world: those who say there are two kinds of people in the world, and the other kind,’ and those who don’t say. Well, and then there’s me.”

“Bob” during his mail fraud trial, 1978

Actually, of course, there are three kinds: Moes, Larrys, and Curlys.

The science group comprehends the believers just fine. The believers are simply wrong; ignorant at best; lunatics and willfully self deluded often enough; and often outright predatory. That’s easy to understand. As for the “large picture”; science handles the “large picture” just fine.

If science has a problem with religion, it’s that it handles religion with kid gloves too often for fear of offending beleivers, or because the scientists in question are themselves infested by religion and therefore intellectually handicapped.

Depends on how you define it. The “large picture” could be taken to encompass issues which are by definition outside the purview of science, such as values, ethics, metaphysics (in its narrow philosophical sense), and politics. Scientists often can handle these questions (although scientific training gives them no special qualifications to do so), but science as such makes no value judgments of any kind.

I don’t understand your vote. Are you saying you are the first person (001) to vote for the 2nd Group (Rational Group) in your OP? The “science” group?

I also have to ask what “large picture” the scientists are missing out on. Additionally, what is “the next level” that they’re failing to progress to?

Let me know if it involves prepositions, as in ending sentences with.

Seriously though, I agree with practically nothing in the OP, so there must be at least two kinds of people for sure. How ironical!

Isn’t the correct word “ironicalistic”?

If we were playing Advanced Civilization, that’d be “ironicalasm and heresy.”

“There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand trinary, those who don’t, and those who don’t even know what trinary is.”

It looks to me like the OP is saying that he’s a member of the third group, and wants to know who else is, but he picked a funny label for it, if that’s the intention. It would make more sense to call that the “balanced” group or something, balancing reason and faith, not the “rational” group.

Well, since faith is weightless, as are all things imaginary, I’m curious how this balancing takes place.

I’d say there are two kinds of people in the world: those that support their beliefs by faith and those that support their beliefs by evidence. The arguments between these two groups are usually when they fail to understand that the other group has an entirely different foundation for its beliefs.

I think the evidence based group knows exactly what the faith based group bases its beliefs on; it simply doesn’t have any respect for it. Nor should they.

Much of the faith based group on the other hand doesn’t understand the evidence based one at all; they keep trying to treat the evidence based people as if they, too base their beliefs on empty assertions. Unsurprising since the faith based group is insane ( and yes, basing your actions and your view of the world on fantasies is insane ). They keep trying to do things like make Darwin look bad or like he converted on his deathbed; under the impression that he was just a prophet like they have and all they have to do is discredit him to discredit the theory. And no matter how often it fails they keep trying, because learning from your mistakes requires you acknowledge external reality; which is the opposite of faith.

Agreed. What the OP calls the “science” group could with equal justice be called the “rational” group.

Wait, no, I’ve got it! He’s obviously referring to the set Q under the operation +.

In which case, I’ve got to say that there are much more interesting groups out there, like most of the matrix groups or even some of the finite rotation groups. But to each their own.

So… group 1 are the YECs, group 2 are the people who don’t bother to claim divine creation, and group 3 are the people who aren’t completely delusional, but still cling to what fantasies they can manage to protect from the jackbooted march of reason?

Except that group 3 here is less characterized by what they believe, but by the fact they “get segregated” and are pretending to either hate sicence, or not to entertain fantasy. Huh. Not sure I get it - I think most people accept large chunks of what science says, even going so far as to believe in cars and computers and gravity, but still like to trip the light fantastic on other subjects. I mean, it’s not like religious people with the brains to wipe their butts are uncommon.