How to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints

  • Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date
In summary: We've been doing it for maybe a couple hundred years now, and it's still a fairly new way of thinking. There's a lot of new discoveries being made all the time, and scientists are constantly learning more and expanding their understanding. Basically, I'm looking for advice about how to get along and work with people who have very different ontological ways of interpreting the world. It is not that I am hostile or aggressive to such people, but that I often express my view or opinion, and people have related to me that I come off as arrogant or a know-it-all. Like for example in talking with
  • #1
Galteeth
69
1
Basically, I am looking for advice about how to get along and work with people who have very different ontological ways of interpreting the world. It is not that I am hostile or aggressive to such people, but that I often express my view or opinion, and people have related to me that I come off as arrogant or a know-it-all.
Like for example in talking with someone who doesn't believe in evolution. Me=m T=them
T: "I wish you would respect my beliefs."
M: "I respect you, and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want."
T: "But you feel that my belief isn't as equally valid as yours."
M: "Yes, that's fair."
T; "Why can't you be more open-minded?"
M: "I believe that there is to some extent an objective reality that we can model. My beliefs reflect this reality and yours don't"
T: "That's your opinion."
M: "No, it's an objective truth."


This would usually be the time when the person would get annoyed and drop the subject. I'm bringing this up because there is someone I have to be working with closely who has a lot of very different views then I do (very strongly believes in energy fields, spirits, auras, etc.). Do you think it would be better to discuss our differences before we work together? Just try to not talk about it? Has anyone had to deal with a similar situation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hey Galteeth.

My advice to you is pretty simple: either you compromise in some way or find other people to converse with.

This is my philosophy (IMO disclaimer): everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how absurd or otherwise it may seem.

In fact you might learn something important from the uneducated person down the road if you just suspend your disbelief for a few minutes. It's not about being right or wrong, there is only relativity between things. The minute you start to think about things in terms of right or wrong you are created an artificial prison in your mind which acts like seeing the world through a special filtered lense.

We all make decisions about how we spend our time and that includes who we choose to talk and/or listen to, and what we tend to focus on and you are no different. You like everyone else have the right to do your own thing, choose what to focus on, and choose who to talk or have some kind of relationship with.

But let me say this: I think that everyone deserves a level of respect no matter who they are. If someone is uneducated, uninformed, spouts religious nonsense or whatever they still deserve some level of respect as a human being. You may think they are uneducated, uninformed, and absolutely insane but they deserve to be treated like a human being regardless and if you miss this very important point, then I really think that you will have a lot of problems down the road of life and perhaps even miss out on many of the important lessons that are there for the taking.

If you want to think about things strictly in terms of right and wrong and always challenge people in a way that makes them uncomfortable that is your choice, but don't be surprised if you get bad responses when you don't show a little empathy and basic respect towards someone else.
 
  • #3
chiro said:
If you want to think about things strictly in terms of right and wrong and always challenge people in a way that makes them uncomfortable that is your choice, but don't be surprised if you get bad responses when you don't show a little empathy and basic respect towards someone else.

Ok. Perhaps then the question I should be asking is how to do the above (show empathy and respect in such situations.) I guess I don't feel like I am being disrespectful, but it apparently comes off that way to some people. This upcoming situation is a unique case where I have to work closely with someone.
 
  • #4
Ivan Seeking once posted an essay by a woman who was into auras and all that who finally decided at some point to investigate what science was all about. She was completely amazed the more she learned about it and had previously had no idea what science types meant by being able to objectively ascertain anything, which sounded like arrogance to her. She had started to realize it wasn't.

In her spiritual world everything was governed by attitude, and everything's about your relationship to other people and the universe. If auras or fairies exist in anyone's mind that's reason enough to respect the idea. To disrespect it is bad juju, or whatever; sowing bad energy that will come back to you. All this is paramount.

Science, where people actually go out and investigate physical phenomena, collect data, and form their views based on observation, is an activity they never engage in, and don't understand. This woman, though, was getting it, and was suddenly understanding the resistance scientific or rational types always had showed to her beliefs.

Maybe Ivan can remember where he found that link. It was actually fascinating. It's exactly what you need to understand this co-worker.
 
  • #5
Galteeth said:
Ok. Perhaps then the question I should be asking is how to do the above (show empathy and respect in such situations.) I guess I don't feel like I am being disrespectful, but it apparently comes off that way to some people. This upcoming situation is a unique case where I have to work closely with someone.

Before I give a response I want to say that this is a two-way thing: both people need to make the effort to do so, so don't think I'm just saying that 'you are the only one in the wrong, pull your weight'.

Also I want to say that as human beings we make mistakes, get cranky, have experiences which clearly are almost mutually exclusive to other peoples and other things. Bottom line is we all are human and we all see through some kind of lense and are vulnerable to our downsides as human beings.

The best piece of advice I could probably give you is two-fold: it combines the suspension of disbelief, simple laws of logic and patience.

The first thing to do is to let people spill their guts to you and listen. If someone doesn't shutup then you could ask them to get to the point (which is reasonable) but the point is to give them the courtesy to make their point completely.

What this does is it let's them outline their idea in an uninterrupted way which not only shows respect, but it means that you don't get into a pre-emptive argument and create a situation where it becomes so heated that emotions really come into play.

While you do the above you have to suspend your disbelief to allow you to hear them out: probably the hardest for anyone to do but it has to be done whether they have any truth in their viewpoint or not.

Once you have given them an ample opportunity to speak, then comes in the logic part.

Mathematical logic says that if you want to disprove a generalization, then you find one counterexample and you are done. If you want to disprove one example, then you need to prove the generalization.

As you can see its very hard for someone that wants to prove the general thing because it only takes one counterexample to say 'see you're wrong'. It is a lot easier though if you want to show that one particular example is right and proving a generalization that doesn't include that is certainly going to be a lot of work.

So after you have suspended your disbelief, given the person ample opportunity to put their case forward, then you can fallback on logic by considering everything fairly and giving a response.

Now of course if the other person isn't willing to play ball then you have done all you could to encourage a fair unbiased conversation (as best as you can, we're all biased in some way!) and that is that.

The thing is that you can't force people what to think: they have to come to it in their own way. That way may be in a deceptive manner, but never the less they have to be ones that end up being convinced themselves.

It might be because someone else told them that they consider as reliable, it may that they found it out due to their own experience or it may even be because it is somehow 'intuitive'.

Also if you end disagreeing about most things, you will still get respect if you just treat them like you would expect someone to treat you.

Remember it's not always about right or wrong: things are just relative to each other.
 
  • #6
Metaphysics are the new religion. In the US today people tend to avoid discussing certain things like religion and politics. They've learned the hard way that some subjects are just best avoided in polite company and the workplace. Its a pragmatic approach that works in multicultural environments.

The problem is that often people don't even recognize their beliefs as being metaphysical. The idea that the moon is there when no one is looking, for example, is commonly assumed to be an established fact even among scientists. In competitive and contentious modern democracies its a recipe for instant arguments. The real issue then is how capable are you of avoiding arguments and how much is arguing worth your while in any given situation.

The Enlightened
Honest people use no rhetoric;
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Wise people are not cultured;
Culture is not wisdom.
Content people are not rich;
Riches are not contentment.

So the gentle do not serve themselves;
The more they do for others, the more they are satisfied;
The more they give, the more they receive.
Nature flourishes at the expense of no one;
So the gentle benefit all and contend against none.
Lao Tzu
 
  • #7
I have a good friend that I've known for many years. We meet infrequently but when we do it's always great to see each other unless the subject of religion comes up. He is a very dedicated Catholic and I am not religious at all, the problem comes because we both have strong views on a variety of subjects and every now and then in conversation I feel like I'm hitting the "wall of faith" wherein he has an opinion that he holds because of his religion. This usually ends up in hours of quite heated and aggressive arguments.

The way we have approached this is to understand that it is inevitable. He knows that I do not respect his religion nor his beliefs and in topics where he makes a judgement/decision based on his religion his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I fully respect his right to have an opinion but I do not have to respect what it is he thinks. In other words

Respect for the right to have an opinion =/= respect for someone's opinion

Personally if someone bases their opinion on a irrational/illogical/non-evidenced model then I won't respect that opinion. Having said all this it is important to compartmentalise; it doesn't matter if "Them" from your office's IT department believes that his shoe started the universe if he's great at fixing your computer (although be wary that the model they use to determine the shoe universe creator may seep out).

My last piece of advice would be to think about this:
- Do you want to befriend them?
- Do you think that you would be able to ignore their faith?
 
  • #8
Ryan_m_b said:
I have a good friend that I've known for many years. We meet infrequently but when we do it's always great to see each other unless the subject of religion comes up. He is a very dedicated Catholic and I am not religious at all, the problem comes because we both have strong views on a variety of subjects and every now and then in conversation I feel like I'm hitting the "wall of faith" wherein he has an opinion that he holds because of his religion. This usually ends up in hours of quite heated and aggressive arguments.

The way we have approached this is to understand that it is inevitable. He knows that I do not respect his religion nor his beliefs and in topics where he makes a judgement/decision based on his religion his opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I fully respect his right to have an opinion but I do not have to respect what it is he thinks. In other words

Respect for the right to have an opinion =/= respect for someone's opinion

Personally if someone bases their opinion on a irrational/illogical/non-evidenced model then I won't respect that opinion. Having said all this it is important to compartmentalise; it doesn't matter if "Them" from your office's IT department believes that his shoe started the universe if he's great at fixing your computer (although be wary that the model they use to determine the shoe universe creator may seep out).

My last piece of advice would be to think about this:
- Do you want to befriend them?
- Do you think that you would be able to ignore their faith?

1. Yes
2. The situation is sort of bizarre and complicated. I think the best thing to do is to have a frank discussion. I guess I'm just worried because as i said, in the past, i seem to wind up offending people who are close friends.

Thanks for the advice everyone. The link mentioned in an earlier post sounded interesting. If somebody has that I'd be interested in reading it.
 
  • #9
Galteeth said:
The link mentioned in an earlier post sounded interesting. If somebody has that I'd be interested in reading it.
Ivan started a thread based on the essay in S&D, there was a quote from it and a link to it. I don't recall the woman's name or the thread title. Ivan is the best bet for that.
 
  • #10
Just don't talk about things that are problematic.
 
  • #11
When I have conversations with people like this I usually choose not to get along with them. If you work closely with them on a daily basis then your only real choice is just to not to talk about such beliefs or things that would upset such a person.
 
  • #12
I worked with a Young Earth Creationist. He was always saying that science was fraud. One of his most memorable lines was "you can make anything out of a pile of bones". He didn't believe dinosaurs were real. Anything that didn't literally support the bible was a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

We agreed that certain topics were not appropriate while working.
 
  • #13
It's difficult because inevitably what someone believes will affect their actions, this is even more true of the mechanism by which they choose what to believe. In some circumstances it is possible that what they believe and why won't affect you relationship with them (i.e. a professional one) but if they are particularly fanatical and out there this will not be the case.
 
  • #14
It's ironic that a lot of people here seem to genuinely believe that people with irrational beliefs are going to be unprofessional about it to the point that nobody is saying that being the first person to bring up the topic is a pretty terrible idea. If someone is going to be pushy about their beliefs in a professional setting let them bring it up and tell them you aren't interested in talking about it. Bringing it up first is an invitation to talk about it and worse could be interpreted as you pushing your beliefs on someone else
 
  • #15
"you have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts"
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 
  • #16
Galteeth said:
Has anyone had to deal with a similar situation?
I'd guess that a majority of people have had to deal with a similar situation. Wrt my personal experience, I've come to agree with the approach advocated by several contributors to this thread -- which is to avoid the sorts of conversations that your OP is concerned with, and to not be the one to bring up opinions about controversial subjects wrt which unresolvable disagreements might damage the working relationship and which have nothing to do with that relationship.

People who hold to irrational beliefs aren't going to be, for the most part, imo, swayed by evidence or rational arguments to the contrary, much less via casual discussions that can sometimes get a bit emotionally competitive.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
You will find little rationality to the majority of believes, even your own. Just don't fret too much on it.

(Personally, I like logic and ethics and stuff -used to teach it twenty years ago, it's a hobby,- and I find it funny why people do or think stuff. There's way less reason to most stuff than you think.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
ThomasT said:
I'd guess that a majority of people have had to deal with a similar situation. Wrt my personal experience, I've come to agree with the approach advocated by several contributors to this thread -- which is to avoid the sorts of conversations that your OP is concerned with, and to not be the one to bring up opinions about controversial subjects wrt which unresolvable disagreements might damage the working relationship and which have nothing to do with that relationship.

People who hold to irrational beliefs aren't going to be swayed by evidence or rational arguments to the contrary.

Re the bolded text: that's so true! In fact, once people are in that state of mind, your facts and data only make them dig in deeper.
 
  • #19
  • #20
There are two kinds of people in the world - a.) those who study the facts and form their beliefs from those facts and b.) those who select the beliefs they wish to be true and seek out only those facts that agree with these beliefs.

Some of my family came to the US from northern Ireland. We had very simple rules for adult conversation. One avoided three topics - religion, politics and sex.

Discussing either of the first two would get you killed very quickly.
Discussing the third - if you had to talk about it you were obviously not participating.

Even though we're now several generations away from that war torn time where bombs were placed in baby carriages these three rules seem very sensible.

If you are an a.) and have to work with a b.),they are particularly applicable.
 
  • #21
Ivan Seeking said:
Funny that you would remember that. It was almost 8 years ago!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31585
It stuck deeply in my mind: first time I'd ever heard an articulate statement of what it was like to be on the other side of the fence.

New link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures

I only needed to search what you provided. I didn't remember a thing about it. :biggrin:
I'm glad you found it and the new link. I couldn't think what terms to search.
 
  • #22
netgypsy said:
Some of my family came to the US from northern Ireland. We had very simple rules for adult conversation. One avoided three topics - religion, politics and sex.

You took away all favorite topics of people in the Netherlands! :tongue2:

(Well, except for the weather of course. Which is always a variant on: It's twelve degrees Celsius and raining.)
 
  • #23
I just can't keep uber-religious company and I often tell my mother she's wrong. I have two friends that used to be evolution denialists and I very respectfully told them they were wrong and they both are a lot more considerate of it now. One, whom I expected to research the topic on his own before arguing with me again, has since become an atheist (he changed his world view: accommodation).

The other seems to have incorporated evolution into his world view, crediting it as one of God's miracles (assimilation); he believes that there is no instantaneous divine intervention, but that God set the initial conditions of a deterministic system.

Anybody that aggressively and blatantly denies evolution has not adapted a rational view of the universe or they would have been convinced by the evidence if they actually took the time to digest it; But most importantly, it's the difference between people who think actions in the universe requires some causal explanation, and those that think a lack-of-explanation (i.e. magic) suffices.
 
  • #24
Post withdrawn.
 
  • #25
I usually say to them something along the lines of
"Science is trying to figure out how God set up Mother Nature to work. After all, if you were building a universe wouldn't you make it run pretty much automatic , with some rules of how things are going to behave, so you don't have to micromanage every single atom? Math must be one of His languages. It's just that the guys who transcribed the original Bible weren't fluent in it. And consider who was their audience -- nobody spoke advanced mathematics back then. They'd only recently figured out Pi, for Pete's sake."

You might enjoy reading Robert Jastrow's "God and the Astronomers", , i think it'll help you with this social conundrum.


Good Luck !

old jim
 
Last edited:
  • #26
I have the perspective that none of us have a 100% complete idea of where we come from, why we are here, or what happens after we die.

With that in mind, I can talk to anyone about anything. My view is not 100% correct, their view is not 100% correct. I might mention that I was raised Christian (protestant, baptist if you want to get specific) and have since adopted a more or less agnostic view. I'm comfortable talking to people of any faith and I have a genuine interest in their views. It's not my place to say they are wrong. I can't prove anything. I might let them know that I don't immediately take what they say as fact, but with some tact, that is a sentence I can make inoffensive.

I don't know why many atheists feel that they must belittle religious believers. I guess there is an evangelical aspect to many religions whereby believers do attempt to convert non-believers, but it is my experience that this is usually done in a way that is not quite as forcible as the convertee likes to tell everyone it was. The violent fundamentalist types are few and far between. I don't usually enjoy being evangelised to, but by the same token, I don't throw science books at people and demand that they accept THE FACTS either.

A little live and let live, by definition, never hurt anyone. :)
 
  • #27
Adyssa said:
where we come from, why we are here, or what happens after we die.
1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.
Adyssa said:
With that in mind, I can talk to anyone about anything.
I can talk to anyone about anything but I often disagree with them and I will vehemently argue the point if I think that their belief is detrimental to me, others and society at large (I'm not so concerned if it is detrimental to them).
Adyssa said:
My view is not 100% correct, their view is not 100% correct.
Yes but views can be tested to see who has evidence to support them. If they cannot be tested and there is no evidence then the correct answer is "I don't know". Also regarding "100%" correct I would implore you to google my signature and read the essay by Asimov.
Adyssa said:
It's not my place to say they are wrong. I can't prove anything.
Why does "proof" matter? All that matters is evidence, you don't have to 100% absolutely know something to know that it is. Regarding whether not it is your place it depends on the setting obviously. Workplace behaviour and pub behaviour is very different. Finally let's say that Alice does not know why Y causes X and Bob claims he does. Alice can look at Bob's claim and point out all the flaws in his reasoning and research thus showing that this claim is wrong without actually having a claim of her own.
Adyssa said:
I don't know why many atheists feel that they must belittle religious believers. I guess there is an evangelical aspect to many religions whereby believers do attempt to convert non-believers, but it is my experience that this is usually done in a way that is not quite as forcible as the convertee likes to tell everyone it was. The violent fundamentalist types are few and far between. I don't usually enjoy being evangelised to, but by the same token, I don't throw science books at people and demand that they accept THE FACTS either.
I think many people feel it worth fighting depending on the situation. I don't care if someone privately wants to believe whatever they want but beliefs and the mechanisms you use to determine beliefs determine your actions which influence others. I think it was PZ Myers who said (something like) "some people ask me why I bother to call myself atheist. Well if there was a large group of people in this country that wanted to control the behaviour of everyone else on the basis of their belief in Big Foot you'd better believe I'd be calling myself abigfootist".

Also it isn't just religion we are talking about here. So called "alternative medicines" drain millions of pounds out of systems like the NHS and soak up billions of dollars world wide. There are huge industries dedicated to scamming and taking advantage of vulnerable (and often sick people) on the basis of pseudoscience and irrational belief. The world doesn't care what you believe, it will kill you anyway if it can. Anything set of beliefs (and therefore actions) that aren't formed from an evidence based system just aren't going to be as well equipped to deal with a variety of situations.
Adyssa said:
A little live and let live, by definition, never hurt anyone. :)
That would be fine if the irrational beliefs of others weren't harming and killing millions world wide (no condoms in a HIV epidemic anyone?) :rolleyes:
 
  • #28
So I had a discussion with the person in question and it went very well. Basically, I just explained that I have a different perspective then him, and he was fine with that.

As far as discussing this with friends, I actually have convinced two of my friends that evolution was real (well one of them I had to give her a book to read that convinced her.) one interesting thing, the other friend was initially offended by my views, feeling they were closed minded, but after a two hour long conversation, was convinced. However, i got the sense that she was somewhat unhappy coming to this conclusion; she preferred her previous belief system. As for what is the point of discussing such things, well, with close friends, I like to talk about meaningful things sometimes.
With the latter girl, in response to her saying everything is energy, i started off with, ok, define energy. That quickly got to the heart of the matter, the question whether there could be something exerting influence that was on-physical, and if so, was it subject to consistent rules. After admitting that it in order for something to exert influence on the physical world, there had to be a mechanism by which it was doing so, and consistent rules that governed its interactions, she saw that such a thing had to be inherently physical.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
Funny that you would remember that. It was almost 8 years ago!
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31585

New link
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures

I only needed to search what you provided. I didn't remember a thing about it. :biggrin:

On the subject of self-proclaimed skeptics, i will say, i think there are some skeptics that are a bit "blinded by science" so to speak. I have seen those that can't separate their own opinions from their science-based viewpoints, or who feel that any opinion that can't be quantified is inherently invalid, not making a distinction between the objective and the subjective. Perhaps it is individuals like this who are partially responsible for "non-skeptics" being so defensive.
 
  • #30
Ryan_m_b said:
1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.

Look, I like science as much as a lot of people both laymen and scientific professionals themselves but I had to something about this:

Firstly science is caught up in a bit of a twist: it is very narrow yet it makes highly inductive statements. There has been some great success of doing this kind of thing like for example Newtons investigations into gravity, but again given what is done it is a very dangerous thing if this nature is not fully acknowledged.

Trying to extrapolate highly inductive statements out of a very narrow set of experiments both controlled or uncontrolled is not wise if there is no caution exerted on both the experimenter and by anyone analyzing it.

The other thing is that the kind of segregation, hyperspecialization and isolation amongst different fields doesn't help the cause but makes it worse.

Yes we are starting to see a lot of interdiscplinary investigation, experimentation and so on between the fields that were previously isolated but again I have to stress it's very early in the game (of science) and the simple fact is that our techniques and knowledge are very very primitive.

People might say that mathematics is complex and that mathematicians are geniuses but Von Neumann was right in saying that essentially mathematics is simple when you consider how complex life is and I agree in some respects after studying mathematics myself.

So even if you don't want to consider things like the near death studies or things like that, at least acknowledge that we are at a primitive age in our understanding, and also that with our technique of taking very narrow data of any kind (controlled, uncontrolled, whatever) and trying to develop highly inductive statements, you are bound to end up having many disasters versus the many successes.

Yes but views can be tested to see who has evidence to support them. If they cannot be tested and there is no evidence then the correct answer is "I don't know". Also regarding "100%" correct I would implore you to google my signature and read the essay by Asimov.

This is definitely something everyone should at the very least consider: the fact that there is only relativity between things and not blatant 'true' or 'false'.

Why does "proof" matter? All that matters is evidence, you don't have to 100% absolutely know something to know that it is. Regarding whether not it is your place it depends on the setting obviously. Workplace behaviour and pub behaviour is very different. Finally let's say that Alice does not know why Y causes X and Bob claims he does. Alice can look at Bob's claim and point out all the flaws in his reasoning and research thus showing that this claim is wrong without actually having a claim of her own.

While the premise is good, again we are way to narrow minded to take in a lot of the detail as human beings.

Again it boils down to taking a very specific stance and considering a very limited context. This is not a shot at you or any other scientist it is just our current limitation as human beings.

We can't take in everything at once so we have to filter things in our mind, make assumptions and simplify things as much as possible.

So what ends up happening is that a lot of information that is deemed 'useless' or 'not significant' ends up getting filtered and even if someone has a good logical heuristic for their argument, the data that the argument is based on might not be a good thing: garbage in garbage out.


I think many people feel it worth fighting depending on the situation. I don't care if someone privately wants to believe whatever they want but beliefs and the mechanisms you use to determine beliefs determine your actions which influence others. I think it was PZ Myers who said (something like) "some people ask me why I bother to call myself atheist. Well if there was a large group of people in this country that wanted to control the behaviour of everyone else on the basis of their belief in Big Foot you'd better believe I'd be calling myself abigfootist".

I hope for the sake of humanity that scientists make all efforts to rid the field, its politics and anything related from these attributes, but I'm afraid as human beings I don't have much faith.

Also it isn't just religion we are talking about here. So called "alternative medicines" drain millions of pounds out of systems like the NHS and soak up billions of dollars world wide. There are huge industries dedicated to scamming and taking advantage of vulnerable (and often sick people) on the basis of pseudoscience and irrational belief. The world doesn't care what you believe, it will kill you anyway if it can. Anything set of beliefs (and therefore actions) that aren't formed from an evidence based system just aren't going to be as well equipped to deal with a variety of situations.

That would be fine if the irrational beliefs of others weren't harming and killing millions world wide (no condoms in a HIV epidemic anyone?) :rolleyes:

Scammers will always find ways by taking advantage of well established and legitimate areas as well as non-established areas to do their work. One audience may have attributes that are suited to the scammer, but again scammers will always find a way regardless.

Also to finish, I wanted to add that we live in a world of great deception.

It's everywhere in the smallest ways and you would be a fool to think that you don't live in a world that is flooded in it.

Part of our job as human beings is to try and discern what is deception and what isn't and it is not an easy job for any human being to do.

We all have our experiences, our preconceived thoughts and notions and everything else that contributes on how we see the world and even with this we still have a great challenge in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
  • #31
chiro said:
Again it boils down to taking a very specific stance and considering a very limited context. This is not a shot at you or any other scientist it is just our current limitation as human beings.

But it is kind of a shot to assume that most of what you've said in your whole post isn't already considered by scientists. It's kind of our starting point... kind of the very idea that ignited the age of reason. Kind of why we require evidence to make claims...
 
  • #32
Pythagorean said:
But it is kind of a shot to assume that most of what you've said in your whole post isn't already considered by scientists. It's kind of our starting point... kind of the very idea that ignited the age of reason.

Well when you see some scientists being arrogant in their viewpoint, then yes it becomes a valid thing to say.

Arrogance isn't just limited to scientists but to all human beings and I did not categorize all scientists with this attribute whatsoever.

So yes it wasn't a cheap shot at 'scientists' as a group and when you get a scientist that has a bit of arrogance then yes it needs to be made clear to them.

In fact you should make it clear to anyone regardless of if they are scientists or not.

Also I never said that science is a bad thing: I'm a member at PF for christs sake!
 
  • #33
chiro said:
Well when you see some scientists being arrogant in their viewpoint, then yes it becomes a valid thing to say.

Arrogance isn't just limited to scientists but to all human beings and I did not categorize all scientists with this attribute whatsoever.

So yes it wasn't a cheap shot at 'scientists' as a group and when you get a scientist that has a bit of arrogance then yes it needs to be made clear to them.

In fact you should make it clear to anyone regardless of if they are scientists or not.

Also I never said that science is a bad thing: I'm a member at PF for christs sake!

This reminds me of some old Dilbert strips, featuring "Dan, the illogical scientist"

http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Illogical Scientist
 
  • #35
Ryan_m_b said:
1) You'll need to provide some context of what you are talking about but mostly that is simple to answer; I came from a certain town, I came from my parents, I came from a species whose evolution is...
2) Begging the question by assuming a "why"
3) We have a very good idea of what happens when you die. Your bodily functions cease and you decay. There has never been any indication of anything else, it's like asking what happens to a candle when you blow it out.

Well and good, but there are some hard things to explain, like consciousness. I don't have airy-fairy beliefs as to the nature of consciousness, but it's a curious thing. Not knowing much (anything) about it, leaves me in a spot where I am cautious about stating it's properties with certainty.

I agree with what you wrote. My comment about not throwing science at people, and being civil in general, was more about not being an a##hole. You have to talk to people every day, especially at work, and there are a lot of things about people's beliefs in religion that are inconsequential to the daily running of things. It's not my place to try and shatter their universe. I have better things to care about, like having a good day!

When they want to implement fundamentalist laws, and interfere with the response to AIDS epidemics, and plenty of them do, I have a problem with that, but I don't argue the point with Person X and infuriate him and refuse to work with him based on that fact. There are proper forums for that discussion. I'm reminded of this sign, regardless of the context, the message is clear. :)

https://www.transitionnetwork.org/sites/default/files/uploaded/u182/respectful-discourse.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>What is Metaphysics?</h2><p>Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality and existence. It examines concepts such as being, time, space, causality, and the relationship between mind and matter.</p><h2>Why is it important to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?</h2><p>Getting along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints is important because it allows for open-mindedness and understanding of different perspectives. It also promotes tolerance and respect for diversity, which are essential for a harmonious society.</p><h2>How can I respectfully engage in discussions with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?</h2><p>The key to engaging in discussions with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints is to approach the conversation with an open mind and a willingness to listen. Avoid making assumptions or judgments and instead ask questions to better understand their perspective. Respectful communication and mutual respect are crucial in these discussions.</p><h2>What are some common challenges when trying to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?</h2><p>Some common challenges when trying to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints include a lack of understanding, fear of the unknown, and deeply held beliefs. It can also be challenging to find common ground or bridge the gap between differing beliefs. However, with patience, empathy, and respectful communication, these challenges can be overcome.</p><h2>How can I use my scientific background to better understand and connect with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?</h2><p>As a scientist, you can use your critical thinking skills and evidence-based approach to better understand and connect with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints. You can also use your knowledge of scientific concepts, such as causality and the nature of reality, to find common ground and facilitate meaningful discussions. Additionally, your scientific training can help you approach these conversations with an open mind and a willingness to learn from others.</p>

What is Metaphysics?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality and existence. It examines concepts such as being, time, space, causality, and the relationship between mind and matter.

Why is it important to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?

Getting along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints is important because it allows for open-mindedness and understanding of different perspectives. It also promotes tolerance and respect for diversity, which are essential for a harmonious society.

How can I respectfully engage in discussions with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?

The key to engaging in discussions with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints is to approach the conversation with an open mind and a willingness to listen. Avoid making assumptions or judgments and instead ask questions to better understand their perspective. Respectful communication and mutual respect are crucial in these discussions.

What are some common challenges when trying to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?

Some common challenges when trying to get along with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints include a lack of understanding, fear of the unknown, and deeply held beliefs. It can also be challenging to find common ground or bridge the gap between differing beliefs. However, with patience, empathy, and respectful communication, these challenges can be overcome.

How can I use my scientific background to better understand and connect with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints?

As a scientist, you can use your critical thinking skills and evidence-based approach to better understand and connect with people who have different Metaphysical viewpoints. You can also use your knowledge of scientific concepts, such as causality and the nature of reality, to find common ground and facilitate meaningful discussions. Additionally, your scientific training can help you approach these conversations with an open mind and a willingness to learn from others.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
974
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
453
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
844
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
990
Back
Top