Stop feeding the Troll.
Why should the average person believe the mainstream?
- Thread starter Kellisness
- Start date
Yes, but its not at you for what you say but how you behave. I intensely dislike intellectual laziness and dishonesty in people and you're displaying both. Hence it isn't a personal thing specific to what you say, its more your general attitude.
Irrational is asking people to back up their claims? I asked you to justify your claims about your work because to blindly accept your claims without evidence would be stupid.
You complain about others being easily led and brainwashed but when someone asks you to back up your huge claims suddenly you want it the other way. :shrug: It's always the same with cranks, they want people to stop blindly following others and to start blindly following them.
'Hatred' is the wrong word. I find intellectual dishonesty contemptible and even in those showing it my attitude is aimed not at them for who they are but their attitude towards things. I might agree with someone on a view but if they are very intellectually lazy I'll still find that an unpleasant thing about them.
When you or the original poster can come up with anything more than "Because I say so" for any of your claims then I'll listen. Until then to take you seriously would be blindly following you, which is precisely what you say people shouldn't do.
To the OP:
The average person should not unquestioningly believe the mainstream wisdom.
But they shouldn't believe your version either.
To he end of clarity in future debates on sciforums I hereby propose Chimpkin's Razor:
"Highly unlikely claims of grand conspiracies must provide multiple credible sources of documentation to be considered more than the maunderings of an excessively credulous person."
The average person should not unquestioningly believe the mainstream wisdom.
But they shouldn't believe your version either.
To he end of clarity in future debates on sciforums I hereby propose Chimpkin's Razor:
"Highly unlikely claims of grand conspiracies must provide multiple credible sources of documentation to be considered more than the maunderings of an excessively credulous person."
420Joey:
How did they get their belief system in the first place?
Common sense and proof (evidence) are two quite different things, sometimes. A lot of things that were once "common sense" are now known to be utterly wrong. You should use leeches to suck out the bad blood when you're ill, right? The world is flat, right? Things fall downwards because being on the ground is their natural state, right? God must exist because he wrote the bible and the bible says he exists, right?
If you think there really is a group who is trying to take over the world (or perhaps already controls the world), then you need a better argument than "I don't like Mormons. They are trying to take over the world." or whatever. You need to show at least some evidence other than your gut feeling that actually supports your claim.
What other kinds of evidence do you rely upon, other than the physical kind? What makes your non-physical kind of evidence superior, exactly?
How did they get their belief system in the first place?
Common sense and proof (evidence) are two quite different things, sometimes. A lot of things that were once "common sense" are now known to be utterly wrong. You should use leeches to suck out the bad blood when you're ill, right? The world is flat, right? Things fall downwards because being on the ground is their natural state, right? God must exist because he wrote the bible and the bible says he exists, right?
If you think there really is a group who is trying to take over the world (or perhaps already controls the world), then you need a better argument than "I don't like Mormons. They are trying to take over the world." or whatever. You need to show at least some evidence other than your gut feeling that actually supports your claim.
What other kinds of evidence do you rely upon, other than the physical kind? What makes your non-physical kind of evidence superior, exactly?
I liked reading this thread. The fact that it was moderated to the "Pseudoscience" sub-forum, does a lot to support the contention of the following opinion.
Unless some authority is quoted as saying so? This point of view is, well. . . considered "pseudoscience," bunk, hogwash, and not worthy of further discussion. Yet, it is exactly as the situation stands today.
How public education cripples our kids, and why.
Unless some authority is quoted as saying so? This point of view is, well. . . considered "pseudoscience," bunk, hogwash, and not worthy of further discussion. Yet, it is exactly as the situation stands today.
How public education cripples our kids, and why.
That's a nice piece of fiction the guy has written. And I feel sure he has convinced himself that it's all true.
I'd have little trouble buying into it IF it wasn't for one HUGE, GLARING logical error it contains: That the very people who are supposed to be taking advantage of the population dumbed-down by the educational system were not THEMSELVES a product of it!!!
Just another example of someone who *supposes* himself to be highly intelligent - yet cannot see the forest for the trees. :shrug:
You are incorrect. The makers of modern compulsory schooling were not in fact the product of self same system. Sorry, try again.
Horace Mann
Education
Frederick Winslow Taylor
The industrialists that were influenced by these men were all educated before compulsory schooling was instituted.
You need a history lesson, obviously. Come back and discuss things when you have an education.
The Makers of Modern Schooling
The elites of the country have. . . for generations, educated their children in private schools, knowing precisely what true reasons for compulsory schooling are. Their children still know how to reason, question, and think. And when they mature? They don't have the problems, the disconnect with reality, and the dim wits that the OP alluded to.
I agree that the education system leaves a lot to be desired. But you seem to imply that it's deliberately designed to be substandard?
"...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent."
(Goethe, from Wikipedia Hanlon's razor)There are many well-educated people who would like to reform the education system to allow many more to be well-educated. I suspect that education reform is ironically prevented indirectly by the poorly educated masses, who maintain the short term popularity based governance that is required to pander to media-driven short term demands. The sensationalist, short-term focus of the media is in turn sustained by the same education deficient short term demands of the populace.
A most beautiful* stable system, strongly controlled by its own feedback.
(* "Beautiful" only from a systems control perspective.)
I'm not implying anything, I am outright stating it as a documented fact. If you had bothered to read any of the posted facts I have included with my previous posts, you would have seen that the industrial system has been manipulated so that human capital would be standardized in a systematic fashion for the entrepreneurial classes. This was done so that when governing a representative democracy where the lower classes and women were all enfranchised, government schools, and corporate owned media would effectively control their thinking and program them in how they would vote. This is the only means by how the upper classes and the elites could control the body politic. If you aren't going to read the sources I post, or supply your own counter evidence, than it is a pointless debate.
This quote, though misquoted, and restated by many others, is always in reference to interpersonal relationships. It is when your mother, your brother, or your lover ascribes malicious intentions to your actions, when really, we are all just thoughtless selfish creatures. It has nothing to do with the affairs of state or corporate governance. On balance, in regard to most people, most of the time, I guess I could agree with this quote in that context, sure.
Clearly you're right, and I should accept the authorities you quote without question. The well educated people who campaign for educational reform don't exist.
Except when it's not.
Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.
—Sir Bernard Ingham
—Sir Bernard Ingham
Yeah, an elitist's take on journalists exposing whistle blowers among the elites? REAL substantial quote. Mmm hmmm. . . . Sorry if I don't find Margaret Thatcher's Chief Press Secretary's opinions on this issue all that compelling. In reality, us common folk down in the trenches call them propaganda ministers.
Hellenologophobia
Registered Senior Member
Like AlexG said, it works.
At times, you guys can be such little snobs. Do you really think your snide remarks are inspirational? Try to think about how little you knew at one time and how you would have responded to being called an idiot. If you guys truly know, as much as you portray, then you know how much time it takes to learn some of this stuff.
We are human and our senses can produce false interpretations. Our data-taking mechanisms fall short. Science is the only method that we have, which can reduce our self-deluded sense of reality. It’s not perfect but it’s the best tool we have.
I'm not asking you believe him. I'm giving you an example of the use of the phrase in a context you denied.
Fair enough.