D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Don't care about what anyone thinks in this thread.
Well, I do but whatever.
Well, I do but whatever.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hollow words that ring true with just as much importance as any irrational ego defense.Funny that you say that, because I can read this quite often when other people have a discussion with you
Suffice it to say, I always find it ironic when two people of VASTLY differing perspectives on some given thing can equally (or presumably equally) appreciate some thing related to the very division that stands between them. Sometimes those divisions are characterized by an "identified patient" malignancy- to put it in blunt terms, someone thinks the other is just the scum of the Earth, or some such nonsense -yet they still want EXACTLY the same thing as what said scum wants. Yet they never stop to contemplate what it could possibly mean or imply that such a contradiction is taking place. It's a striking revelation, just as striking as their inability to make that recognition.
To use an easy example, drug dealers (perceived as "evil" in a simplistic, black-and-white sense) and anti-drug moralists BOTH want drugs to remain illegal. One side (the drug dealers) have a very good, rationalized reason for their decision and preference, and the other side (the anti-drug moralists) do not, and in most cases are COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that they're in support of the choices and wants of the very party subject to their most intense ire. There's importance in making this understanding, but choosing not to and continuing down this path of contradiction remains the status quo.
If you can't understand why I said any of that...
'Kay.I feel the same about everything you post on here.
Approval, consensus, and peer reviews are irrelevant to actual truth. I said nothing about theories or speculations, I commented on facts and absolutes. They're completely different things. It's not a hard concept to grasp that someone such as myself holds that the universe is absolute and definitive, but that we simply don't know that much about it, and therefore consensus has zero impact on the state of the universe, even if it helps groups of people "agree" to new ideas on how they perceive it. By extension, a person's personality, or whether they said this or that, or what color shoes they put on that morning, absolute facts that are definitive, even if they aren't widely known, are not subject to change based on a majority rule. Again, these are not tough principles to wrap ones mind around.Actually, truth IS up to consensus - or at least, relies strongly on it
Scientific discovery needs approval from a consensus to be taken seriously. Not everyone can do their own experiments at home, we don't have access to all kinds of materials, chemicals, fossils, corpses if needed, and so on. A researcher can claim to have made a significant discovery, but that it is locked in his basement. He can then claim for his research to be sound, and it will in the end mean nothing.
Peer review - aka - consensus - will at least legitimize his work. Wether he is right or not comes later, but consensus is incredibly important for the sake of credibility.
Without consensus, the pit fall becomes "everyone in the world is wrong, except me!" - said the crazy-person
So, don't scoff on consensus or majority!
Approval, consensus, and peer reviews are irrelevant to actual truth. I said nothing about theories or speculations, I commented on facts and absolutes. They're completely different things. It's not a hard concept to grasp that someone such as myself holds that the universe is absolute and definitive, but that we simply don't know that much about it, and therefore consensus has zero impact on the state of the universe, even if it helps groups of people "agree" to new ideas on how they perceive it. By extension, a person's personality, or whether they said this or that, or what color shoes they put on that morning, absolute facts that are definitive, even if they aren't widely known, are not subject to change based on a majority rule. Again, these are not tough principles to wrap ones mind around.Actually, truth IS up to consensus - or at least, relies strongly on it
Scientific discovery needs approval from a consensus to be taken seriously. Not everyone can do their own experiments at home, we don't have access to all kinds of materials, chemicals, fossils, corpses if needed, and so on. A researcher can claim to have made a significant discovery, but that it is locked in his basement. He can then claim for his research to be sound, and it will in the end mean nothing.
Peer review - aka - consensus - will at least legitimize his work. Wether he is right or not comes later, but consensus is incredibly important for the sake of credibility.
Without consensus, the pit fall becomes "everyone in the world is wrong, except me!" - said the crazy-person
So, don't scoff on consensus or majority!
That "crazy person" comment you alluded to is easily avoided, even if you totally ignore group consensus, by simply sticking to critical thinking. Logic. Rationale. Only, unlike the above statements, these ARE harder for people to grasp. Despite its name, common sense is tragically rare.
That is a philosophical quandary for us all to ponder. As for me, I would MUCH prefer having truth on my side, and all alone in my knowledge of it, than go along with the flow if it's all falsehood. Of course, the former scenario is INCREDIBLY unlikely, but if it were up to me, and those were my choices, I'd gladly sacrifice the latter for the former. In fact, much to the surprise of the doctors testing me, when I had my intelligence tested a decade ago, they asked me whether I would sacrifice 25 points of my IQ if it meant always being able to get along with anyone, if I could, and I said "no" flat out. *shrug* I've just always valued knowledge above anything else.What good is truth, if you are the only one who posess it?
Anyway, exchanging information isn't the same thing as "consensus", regardless. I try to do that all the time, because it's my opinion that spreading knowledge and enlightenment leads to the betterment of all. But you'd be surprised just how difficult that can be, because most people don't like their precious views being shaken. You need look no further than the farces that had to be deleted as a result of someone's faith being challenged. Presenting "truth" to someone is only any good if they're receptive to it, and not only is it not a guarantee that they will be, but the odds are HEAVILY stacked against that being the case. =/