Huh? That would seem to be saying “Well, I know i’m right, so logically everyone else must be wrong!” Certainly the majority believing something doesn’t make it true, but I know if I thought one way and a majority of people thought the other and in fact had arguments against mine, i’d probably at least count “Maybe i’m wrong” as a possible reason. You seem to have either a high opinion of yourself or a low one of everyone else.
:dubious: A rational person might conclude: ‘My sample size is too small. My own children and THEIR children might not be representative of the entire population. They may have similar attitudes (which again are not representative of the greater population) because they were raised in the same environment (in the case of your own children) or raised by the ones from a similar environment (i.e. your grand kids).’
If the majority think X and I think Y then my first step would be to rigorously check my own baseline assumptions. Then I would throughly check the facts. If I STILL thought that X was flawed and Y was correct then I might start a discussion on a board like this, present my arguments AND my proofs (hint: I wouldn’t use strictly anecdotal evidence or the old stand by ‘my post is my cite’ type handwave) and then I would engage in the discussion. I would read what others say carefully, weigh and measure their arguments, and see how they fit into my own theories. Even if they are wrong (or if I THINK they are wrong) engaging fully in the debate (as opposed to simply lecturing) would give me perspective, a view from someone else’s perspective.
-XT
You need to face the possibility that the universal characteristic that you’re seeing is the ability to see reality. The majority may be saying X is false because it is false. You need to produce evidence stronger than “X is true because I believe it is true” in order to convince more people.
The majority saying that X is false does indeed not make it false. However, it also does not make X true. Your sample size of 12 has a gigantic margin of error, (I’d bet close to 100%) so you cannot deduce anything from it - and I’m not even considering bias errors.
The way to demonstrate the truth or falsity of things is either by direct evidence, or by a logical argument. (Even that may not demonstrate absolute truth, but it’s close enough for now.) That’s sadly missing in your posts. Write it down, step by step, and pay attention to leaps of reasoning or to unstated assumptions. Right now, all you have are cluttered posts.
Oh, man…my hands can, like, touch everything…except each other…whoa…
But why do they call them fingers? they don’t fing!
I must admit that our educational system has produced individuals with a low level of intellectual sophistication. We can increase that level significantly only through self-actualizing self-learning. I have been doing that for the last 25 years. I have encountered very few individuals on the Internet or in real life who have any kind of intellectual life beyond reading the newspaper and the TV guide. In fact I can write abiut it for months and they find the concept so alien that they cannot grasp its meaning.
Learning is important. How much learning is accomplished when two chums exchange opinions about something neither has any knowledge of. Very little. Exchanging opinions is primarily for entertainment and not for learning. All play and no work makes Jack a dull boy.
Another characteristic I have oserved is that the responder wants to respond. If s/he faces an OP about something that s/he is ignorant of what can be said in response. The best response when one is ignorant of the subject matter is to say that X is false when the OP says X is true. The responder gets to respond and also fools the original poster plus his or her chums into thinking they know something.
A particular characterisic I have observed is that posters with pet theories tend to be very resistant to changing them; not just in terms of arguing against them, but even in seeing or registering their possibility.
Um…so, leaving aside the trite statement at the end, is it your implication that no one on this board has enough knowledge about this subject and that we should all just sit down, shut up and gain wisdom at your feet? Or something? Where are you going with this?
-XT
Cite? Even when someone is ignorant, a far better strategy, which is used here, is to ask for evidence or for a cite. Unless someone is quoting Monty Python, of course.
No
I am going to the kitchen to fix dinner.
You are correct, when in doubt ask for proof.
No, evidence and some logical chain of reasoning. In most of the discussions here, proof is not an option.
As Popper informs us we cannot prove a matter of fact, we can only prove its untruth.
Except you deny that, too. You keep saying things, which, we reply, are blatantly obvious or trivialities of your thought. However, you then claim that your thesis is unverifiable by any method.
You can’t even prove that. That black swan might be painted.
No I did not say that. I said that one cannot prove the truth of a matter of fact. A statement can be verified but after it is verified by empirical evidence it can be proven as false. It can verified by empirical evidence a tousand times and still be proven false.
I have no swans black or white.
What Popper was talking about was truth in the logical sense. He certainly didn’t mean that we couldn’t take a well confirmed theory as true in the practical sense.
The theories of, say, evolution or relativity are so well confirmed now that we may as well take them as true. This doesn’t mean they aren’t open to falsifying evidence, it’s just that we can confidently state such evidence isn’t ever going to show up.