You said I am a hypocrite for saying that you need an education into critical thinking. I still think you could use a refresher course. So what? What’s your point? I think American schools failed me, how is it insulting to say that they failed you? Especially since you didn’t even GO to American schools. I didn’t say anything to you that you weren’t saying to me. We were both saying “You are ignorant on some things.”, I don’t see what the problem is?
What do you want from me, a rub and a tug?
If you are looking for examples of people on the board that understand more, I don’t really know, because there aren’t too many people here trying to unearth entrenched western biases in intellectual circles other than me, and clearly I am stumbling through it. So what exactly is it I am not responding to in your OP that you would like me to respond to? I’m not getting it.
Taken literally, I disagree. Being anti-skeptical implies to me being credulous, and the position you describe is not credulous; if anything, it is overly skeptical, skeptical to a fault.
Now, Der Trihs does know something about Babylonian Cosmology: he knows that it was a cosmology from a long time ago, predating human understanding of the solar system, galaxy, Big Bang theory, and so forth. He knows that it’s been extensively documented and studied by modern scholars. He knows that if modern scholars found amazing parallels between Babylonian cosmology and what we’re seeing these days with our telescopes and concluding with our calculations, he almost certainly would have heard about it.
That’s a lot to know about the field. Based on this amount of knowledge, it’s perfectly within the bounds of skepticism to dismiss Babylonian cosmology without becoming familiar with the story of Marduk and Tiamat.
So, on a less literal level, I disagree with the statement as well.
To recap: read literally, I disagree, but think you’re describing behavior which is worth condemning (I just think you ought to condemn it with a different word). Read practically, I disagree that it describes condemnable behavior.
I guess the OP will be ignored by mswas; never forget: insulting posters on your way to show how “correct” you are does not work.
As Newton followed a dead end with Alchemy one can only get a feeling of loss of what it might have been if he had concentrated on Calculus, Physics, currency exchange or other sciences. IMHO Mysticism actually got in the way of bigger things.
As I posted before, the first book you mentioned came up full of holes after I took a look at it. You refused to deal with those holes, why should I bother to check other books recommended by you when you refuse to deal with their shortcomings?
You are not responding to the current complaint here: I only want from you to give us some good examples when we are having trouble believing something rather than just telling us we’re idiots and need an education.
Check the OP to see were that request is coming from.
You haven’t enlightened me as to what it is you’re looking for. I’m not getting what it is you want from me.
He devoted a lot of his life to those other things. I don’t think you are giving him fair shrift. You are expecting a level of correctness from him that I think that you are not capable of yourself. Remember Newton’s failures at Alchemy helped science progress, because science progresses based on closing doors that lead nowhere, just as much as it progresses based on the great discoveries.
I did address it. I told you that you were expecting the book to be something that it’s not. It’s an autobiographical work about the author examining his own biases, and going wherever that leads him, including studies of the paranormal. I think you don’t fully understand the concept of “Discordianism”, which you would kind of have to to understand better to fully appreciate that work. Sometimes the best way to get someone to let go of their biases is to confuse the hell out of them so that they have to re-examine everything. He states pretty explicitly however that when he is talking about aliens from Sirius that he isn’t trying to convince you that there are aliens from Sirius. He says straight up that he is agnostic, that he doesn’t believe in anything, right in the prologue. You seem to have missed that part.
Left Hand of Dorkness Thank you, that helps a lot. Though I think there are two different levels of dismissal, the first one is deciding not to follow that line of inquiry, which is what I think you are talking about. The standard Der Trihs method is to say outright that it’s bullshit. I was always under the impression that a skeptic didn’t decide anything with a lack of proof as, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
You have systematically ignored the example of Pythagoras. Why is that? You ask me for cites, I give you cites. If you don’t like my cites, you should address them specifically. You haven’t said much about my gripe with your interpretation of Newton. I think you expect too much from him. I mean the man helped define what you believe about Physics and Calculus, and yet you feel like he didn’t do enough. that his mystical pursuits were a waste of time. I am saying his mystical pursuits were integral to the process that helped create the great works that even you appreciate as beneficial to your life. My point is that you can’t seperate him into one man, his life’s work was his life’s work and his journey took him where it took him, some of it was more beneficial to you than other parts of it. However, I still say that Newton and Pythagoras are the best examples, and that you should be willing to work with those. I’m not going to go out searching for new cites when you don’t even give much thought to the cites that I have already provided.
Why don’t you just shut the fuck up? Snarkpit is still running, last I checked. This sort of content-free shit-spewing belongs there…
or, in other words, flinging shit at GIGO doesn’t make you look like any less of a mpoo-flinging monkey.
Look, guys, mswas is as tone deaf to science as I am to music. He just ain’t going to get it. Worse, he thinks he is an expert, and the effect is about the same as when I auditioned for chorus in sixth grade (a music teacher in a lot of pain.)
What he particularly doesn’t get is that astrology and alchemy and bird watching produced a lot of observations without any sort of reasonable context. (The context invented was just wrong, and the beliefs of their proponents led to no real progress.) When science did start, it used these observations. What he doesn’t get is that it isn’t really science unless the scientific method gets used, or something similar.
I think that’s harsh. mswas has a view of the universe that is rather far from the mainstream (and that I personally consider to be deeply flawed), but he is far from ignorant about science.
You seem to be implying that science “started” at a particular date, and before that, all was superstition and nonsense. I strongly disagree!
Science “started” the moment an individual made a prediction based on a model/map. The early human who noticed that charcoal is softer than wood, and predicted that fire would assist in the hollowing out of a canoe, was practising science. Hell, the ape-man from the intro to 2001 A Space Odessey noticing the length and heft of a thigh bone, and figuring out that it would be just the thing to bash something’s head in, was practising science. Observation, hypothesis, test, all there!
Now, it’s true that the models used in the past frequently lacked rigour and formal method. They were also cluttered with falsehoods, since our ability to spot very subtle patterns and correlations often overshoots the mark and we discern correlations that don’t exist. But it is just plain wrong, and to some degree insulting, to dismiss the knowledge and expertise developed in the past as leading to “no real progress”. I’ve seen 14th century lost wax investment castings in China that we’d be hard-pushed to fabricate today. I’ve seen fifth-century Saxon knife blades differentially carburised and quenched, and I’ve tried to duplicate them with my knowledge of modern metallurgy, and I failed. Whatever mental models they had of what was going on in the metal were undoubtably flawed, but they were good enough to get the job done.
My problem with mswas is that I often find his tone and attitude as insulting as he finds those of Der Trihs. Which is a pity, because his ideas can be interesting.