"I Don't Know"

[one_raven]

I think that those who do not recognize there are many things we don’t understand are deluded fools – therefore I do not trust their judgment.
I think that those who claim to know what lies behind these unknown phenomena are either bigger fools or liars – therefore I don’t trust their judgment.

What is it about people that makes them too scared to admit, “I don’t know”?

Why must people either invent Gods (with very specific agendas, ideas and ideals) or invent “supernatural” ideas about psychic phenomena, ghosts, spirits, etc or deny any of this exists and insist that there are perfectly naturalistic, tangible, explanations which science fully understands?

Person 1: My mother called me and told me she had a dream that my brother was in trouble and when she woke up she tried to call him, and his wife said he was in the hospital.
Person 2: There must be a physical explanation. Maybe she always has these dreams, but she/you only remember them when she is right. Maybe it is a coincidence. Maybe she forgot that she talked to his wife that night before going to sleep. Whatever it is, there MUST be a simple explanation.
Person 3: Your Mom is a psychic! It is a connection of souls through the higher plane of existence. His soul cried out to her soul across the plane.
Person 4: God sent your guardian angel to her to tell her what you were doing – she just can’t always hear it, but when you are asleep, your analytical mind is not aware, so you don’t block out these things that you were taught do not exist.

What is wrong with admitting it is simply something we simply do not (or do not yet) understand?
Or, at least, "I don't know, but here is one possibility..."
In my eyes, there is no difference between the believer who makes claims about what is behind these things and the scientist who makes claims that they couldn't possibly exist - both are deluded fools trying to grasp onto some pre-defined view of the world and unwilling to investigate evidence without bias.

"God exists, and this is what he thinks" is the same as "God does not and can not exist" - though I do acknowledge that the former is a more dangerous weapon, because fools will always follow those who claim they know.

The only honest answer is, "I don't know."

 

[Lori_7]

It is fear that keeps people from saying "I don't know". But it is the most intelligent answer, because it is the only answer that promotes truth and learning.

 

[clusteringflux]

How does one investigate anything without bias? That's a tough one. That's why we have a jury instead of one man deciding legal cases.

But anyway,there are many here at sciforums that simply say "I don't know". I've have a long history of supporting this FACT. Why are we here? "Evolution-creation-both= IDK, but MY evidence says......"
Who's worse? Big Business-Big government-both= IDK, but the evidence I've seen says.......

And it's beyond unreasonable to say that we are "the only planet with intelligent life".


So there, be proud of the silly know nothings that replied to your thread

 

[S.A.M.]

Its because humans always want a cause, they believe there should be one, and "I don't know" is a dead end.

 

[clusteringflux]

Its because humans always want a cause, they believe there should be one, and "I don't know" is a dead end.

I would say the opposite. if you think you've found something you have no motive to look any further...though not the same as a "dead" end, an end still.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would say the opposite. if you think you've found something you have no motive to look any further...though not the same as a "dead" end, an end still.

Well thats obviously not true, since its the speculators who take risks, not the undecided.

 

[clusteringflux]

Having an opinion and demanding your opinion is fact are two different things.

If you admit you're speculating then it's understood that you know there's at least a small possibility you're wrong.

Many are too proud to admit their convictions are based on speculation.

 

[one_raven]

Many are too proud to admit their convictions are based on speculation.

Or scared. Exactly my point.

 

[S.A.M.]

That sounds like speculation

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What is it about people that makes them too scared to admit, “I don’t know”?

One of the criteria that people use to judge each other is on their value. Saying "I don't know" can lead to a judgment of decreased value and that can impact anything from social relations to resource sharing. Fortunately, people in science fields tend to put aside the fear of value judgment or inclination to value-judge others.

Why must people either invent Gods (with very specific agendas, ideas and ideals) or invent “supernatural” ideas about psychic phenomena, ghosts, spirits, etc...

Because of our hierarchical social nature, humans naturally see events being created from a sapient top-down perspective rather than a non-sapient bottom-up one.

...or deny any of this exists and insist that there are perfectly naturalistic, tangible, explanations which science fully understands?

To date, there are no observable paranormal events yet there are reasons why people believe in the existence of paranormal events. That combination clearly shows the paranormal to be a psychological invention rather than a real one. Of course there are also very real and very strange events that science doesn't understand yet; however, there is no reason to think such events arent naturalistic and scientifically understandable.

...
What is wrong with admitting it is simply something we simply do not (or do not yet) understand?
Or, at least, "I don't know, but here is one possibility..."
In my eyes, there is no difference between the believer who makes claims about what is behind these things and the scientist who makes claims that they couldn't possibly exist - both are deluded fools trying to grasp onto some pre-defined view of the world and unwilling to investigate evidence without bias.

I'll be the first to admit I have seen scientists incorrectly deny things strictly based on bias. It's sad and fortunately is not the norm. At the same time there is another event I have witnessed (no implications that this applies to you). I have seen people try to preclude modern knowledge when trying to argue for the existence of something paranormal, often citing and attacking ancient science knowledge/practices which haven't been relevant for hundreds of years. When such people are brought into the realm of current knowledge, they tend to simply ignore it. The point of bringing this up is that there are cases where science does in fact understand something that removes any possible paranormal relation... in other words sometimes we do know.

"God exists, and this is what he thinks" is the same as "God does not and can not exist" - though I do acknowledge that the former is a more dangerous weapon, because fools will always follow those who claim they know.

The only honest answer is, "I don't know."

I have to disagree with part of this and I'll explain why. There are a lot of studies that show why people believe in paranormal events / life forms; hence, there is understanding of "why we believe". Every human claim of 'God' that I am aware of comes with a plethora of claims about what 'God' has done in the past and how he did it. Science shows those claims to be false.

So what we're left with are false claims, no present evidence, and knowledge of why the claims exist in the first place. That clearly shows that human claims of 'God' have no correspondence to actual reality (i.e. they are not true). Whether or not there are other life forms out there in reality that would appear 'God'-like to us is unknown; however, with our present understanding of reality there is no reason to think so.

 

[swarm]

Originally Posted by one_raven
The only honest answer is, "I don't know."

The only honest answer is to answer honestly.

 

[one_raven]

I have to disagree with part of this and I'll explain why. There are a lot of studies that show why people believe in paranormal events / life forms; hence, there is understanding of "why we believe".

I have yet to see one that offers up any solid facts – just correlation, supposition and likelihoods. Taking an MRI to see which regions of the brain are active during “spiritual” experiences proves next to nothing and is little more than modern phrenology. With the plasticity of the brain and functions, all we have is a very vague roadmap in the dark.

Every human claim of 'God' that I am aware of comes with a plethora of claims about what 'God' has done in the past and how he did it. Science shows those claims to be false.

So what we're left with are false claims, no present evidence, and knowledge of why the claims exist in the first place. That clearly shows that human claims of 'God' have no correspondence to actual reality (i.e. they are not true).

See, that’s what I’m getting at…
What of the person who believes there is a cognizant higher power – yet makes no specific claims about what it is, believes or does?
I have known quite a few people who just have a “gut feeling” or think nature is too perfect/beautiful/complex/etc. or believe that the conscious “I” is evidence of a transcendent soul…
I do not begrudge those people at all, and I would never say that they are wrong. If they are not making specific claims about what God thinks, wants, believes (which are all simply regurgitated claims of earlier men, or variations thereof) and stating their beliefs as incontrovertible facts and/or using their beliefs as a weapon to dominate the beliefs or actions of others, then I don’t see a problem with that at all.
Just because we can’t detect it, does not mean it does not exist, but BECAUSE we can’t detect it, we also cannot make specific, factual claims about it.

Whether or not there are other life forms out there in reality that would appear 'God'-like to us is unknown; however, with our present understanding of reality there is no reason to think so.

There is no reason to think so in YOUR opinion.
Your opinion of the unknown is no more or less valid than a theist’s opinion of the unknown. The simple fact that there have been discoveries in science that would have been called magic years prior should be enough to validate that. Bat sonar is a perfect example.
To say, for example, that telekinesis is impossible is naïve and arrogant at best. Who’s to say that there is not some naturalistic phenomenon that we are yet unaware of, which allows people to interact at long distance?

 

[yasmin]

I believe some people do not want to admit they do not know just because of a misunderstood pride. Before we start any honest search for knowledge we must be open to admit our limitations. If we believe we know everything there is no motivation to know more, is the end of a learning attitude.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I have yet to see one that offers up any solid facts – just correlation, supposition and likelihoods.

I can help with that. Here are starter resources from neurology and psychology respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO_C9lg4zOE
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html

Taking an MRI to see which regions of the brain are active during “spiritual” experiences proves next to nothing and is little more than modern phrenology. With the plasticity of the brain and functions, all we have is a very vague roadmap in the dark.

It depends on the context of a study. For example we know the functional responsibilites of an average brain. Tested paranormal experiences result in stimulation of specific areas and non-stimulation of others. The experiences reflect the functions of the stimulated areas of the brain and they can be induced with artificial stimulation of the brain in those same areas.

See, that’s what I’m getting at…
What of the person who believes there is a cognizant higher power – yet makes no specific claims about what it is, believes or does? I have known quite a few people who just have a “gut feeling” or think nature is too perfect/beautiful/complex/etc. or believe that the conscious “I” is evidence of a transcendent soul…

If they are not making a claim their belief is truth then there's no issue.

I do not begrudge those people at all, and I would never say that they are wrong. If they are not making specific claims about what God thinks, wants, believes (which are all simply regurgitated claims of earlier men, or variations thereof) and stating their beliefs as incontrovertible facts and/or using their beliefs as a weapon to dominate the beliefs or actions of others, then I don’t see a problem with that at all.

Neither do I. It doesn't matter to me what people in this context believe.

Just because we can’t detect it, does not mean it does not exist, but BECAUSE we can’t detect it, we also cannot make specific, factual claims about it.

Correct. At the same time if we can't detect its effects either then there is no reason (other than psychological) to suggest it might exist.

There is no reason to think so in YOUR opinion.

I'll rephrase to get rid of the opinion component. There is no objective reason to think so.

Your opinion of the unknown is no more or less valid than a theist’s opinion of the unknown.

It really depends on the opinion and the specific unknown in question. There's situations where I would posess far more objective knowledge than someone else and that knowledge could lead to a much more contstrained and accurate opinion.

The simple fact that there have been discoveries in science that would have been called magic years prior should be enough to validate that. Bat sonar is a perfect example.

It's a good point. Science has consistently shown that magic isn't real.

To say, for example, that telekinesis is impossible is naïve and arrogant at best.

Someone with alot of knowledge of biology and physics might very well know human organ limitations for energy type / output as well as the energy type / strength requirements for for kinetic motion. Add psychology knowledge to the mix and you have a reason why people find telekensis so attractive and want to believe. Put it all together and you have a situation where human claims of being able to move things telekentically are undoubtedly false. It doesn't mean that some future technology won't be available to allow for telekentic-like results. It just means that our species lacks any biological means for telekensis.

Who’s to say that there is not some naturalistic phenomenon that we are yet unaware of, which allows people to interact at long distance?

We would have to observe some objective phenomena first before exploring it.

 

[yasmin]

I can help with that. Here are starter resources from neurology and psychology respectively:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO_C9lg4zOE

That is a very good video! thank you!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That is a very good video! thank you!

You're welcome .

 

[Doreen]

The only honest answer is, "I don't know."

That's the honest answer to just about everything. I mean where do you draw the line? But if a belief is working - counterexamples are not hitting you in the face - I don't see what the problem is. We can say I don't know for one set of things. I believe this, for another set of things. And so on.

 

[Doreen]

It depends on the context of a study. For example we know the functional responsibilites of an average brain. Tested paranormal experiences result in stimulation of specific areas and non-stimulation of others. The experiences reflect the functions of the stimulated areas of the brain and they can be induced with artificial stimulation of the brain in those same areas.

So can visual, olfactory taste and hearing experiences. I am not sure what is compelling about being able to artificially induce certain experiences, since we can do this for things that most people consider perception rather than fantasy.

 

[Doreen]

The only honest answer is to answer honestly.

Whatever that is.

Yes, nicely put.

 

[swarm]

Whatever that is.

Yes, nicely put.

Your welcome.

FYI, I'm taking advantage of a Jedi mind trick which speach writers often use. The mind likes semantic symmetry so about any sentence with that structure is going to be pleasing, particularly if it is reversed in order.

The only honest answer is to answer honestly.
The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
You don't give to get, you get to give.