Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[Sorry!]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

 

[JaredJames]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared

 

[arunma]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

 

[JaredJames]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I do agree there, I believe they are going for something along the lines of:
People have their own beliefs and opinions on various subjects. Some people who have very strong beliefs/opinions can disregard facts/new evidence which disproves them or can even twist/edit them as necessary to provide more evidence for themselves, taking the original statement out of context and making it fit their scenario.

Jared

 

[Moonbear]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I'm not even sure why he was having a conversation with someone while in the shower. Or that's what the description sounded like. Context would really help here.

 

[Math Is Hard]

The mangled pronouns aren't helping.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

You are asking if it is unethical to take scientific principles or facts out of context, or to misstate them, in order to support the beliefs that one already has?

 

[Pinu7]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared

I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.

I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."

 

[Pengwuino]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

What?

Seriously, what on God's green Earth are you talking about? Are you talking to yourself in the shower? Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

 

[rootX]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having

I think he was just thinking about the conversation he had earlier that day. Do people not think while they shower?

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

No.

Ignorant/fool can only influence another ignorant/fool IMO. I tend to stay away from those kind of people.

 

[moose]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

 

[lisab]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

 

[Pengwuino]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

Wait what.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

 

[Borg]

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

Are you saying that the Irish Spring maidens are going to show up either?

 

[moose]

Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

 

[lisab]

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

 

[JaredJames]

I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.
I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.

Yes bias is good, and it is needed, however what I meant was that it cannot be allowed to prevent progress. As in, just because one scientist has a particular belief, (s)he cannot take that belief and no matter what new research is done and what theories are put forward, they still maintain their belief and disregard all new evidence. Or, even to interpret the facts in a way which supports their theory despite having no relevance on the subject.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.

Given the current state of our politics (in the UK), what with mp expenses and such. How can you make this statement? The MPs pay and expenses are ultimately controlled by legislation written by the MPs themselves. Self regulation if you like. And as was pointed out recently, there is nothing the public can do about it until an election.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."

With regards to this, I wasn't pointing out relgious bias as such, but more the ability of religous people to read the same text and interpret it in their own way. Purely an example of a situation where people can twist and alter facts (not that I consider any religious text as fact), to suit their needs, (see doucmentary by Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America).

Basically, as I pointed out above, people will believe what they want to believe if it supports their cause. I never understand how, regardless of the evidence set in front of them, no matter how strong it may be, a person will stick to what they believe, especially if it is a faith based belief, (aka creationism).

Jared

 

[Math Is Hard]

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

I can see how you would opt for that. Post-modernist deconstructionist reinterpretation theory tells us that we're not really cognizant of any of these toxic innuendos in mathematics that we subconsciously process in our classroom lessons. Even if we vaguely are, we may not fully appreciate the anti-feminist, even racist bias, with rational numbers clearly being labeled as masculine, and irrational numbers as feminine/minority numbers, that erodes our social view of gender and "other", and may take us years of therapy to overcome. This is clearly Freudian penis envy.

Wait what?

 

[Sorry!]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

 

[IwillBeGood]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

It's not that. We just seize anything posted in General Discussion as an opportunity for fun and complete derailment of the topic.

We love you - we're just yanking your chain and goofing around.

 

[Sorry!]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

hmm.. I didn't know it was moved. I first saw it in GD.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

It's not a discussion of anything (which is the message to be gleaned from the stream of nonsensical replies).

Why don't you tell us what happened so we can join you?

 

[Sorry!]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.

Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

 

[GeorginaS]

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.

This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.

 

[GeorginaS]

Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

Oooo that is an excellent bit of imagery. I just may steal that.

 

[Sorry!]

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.



This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.

Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.
Yes, I know the replies came after it was moved. That was what I said anyways.

It is clear that what I was meaning to discuss was in the OP as the post RIGHT after it was perfectly on topic. People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?

 

[DaveC426913]

People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?

Well, I'll take this bullet.

Can you state the point/question again for those of us who missed it the first time? Your first post has no meat to chew on.

 

[Sorry!]

1)I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

2)Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

3) scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

4) I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

5)
And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.

 

[GeorginaS]

Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.

Okay, then, are you talking about "willful ignorance" as opposed to simply not-knowing-any-better-type-ignorance?

 

[DaveC426913]

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.

Ah. I see. OK.


No. It is every person's right to pursue their own happiness (absent hurting others).

.. I was going to back that up with more stuff, but I realized it needs no qualification or enhancement. Simply, full stop.

 

[moose]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

I initially made a pointless post because this is GD and I had no idea what you were trying to get at. I would have asked for clarification, but I knew that you would end up clarifying yourself anyway (which you have). That's part of what's wonderful about GD. It wasn't poking fun at you, it was poking around at your post more or less. Read your original post and tell me it makes perfect sense.

EDIT: I agree with you in the sense that if someone has a decision to make that affects others, then it's unethical to be ignorant.

 

[GeorginaS]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

 

[JaredJames]

Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them!

Or it could just make you feel really intelligent. And in respect to your last sentence, surely that would apply to yourself and a more ignorant person? With you being the 'too smart' side of things in your case.

Jared

 

[Moonbear]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

This seems to be the key, and perhaps is the reason we're all ignorant of the discussion Sorry! is attempting to start. It's also likely the reason we found it in GD and not Philosophy, because defining key terms to allow for rational discussion are part of the philosophy forum guidelines.

The trouble I'm having is that it seems the premise of the discussion lies somewhere in the context of a conversation Sorry! had with someone somewhere else, but s/he is reluctant to share any details of that conversation. It's really hard to have a discussion when only one person knows what the context is and none of the key terms have been defined.

 

[Sorry!]

Ok the conversation I had with this person had to do with religious scripture. In particular the Christian Bible. People believe the bible to be inerrant. That is without errors, no contridictions, all truth. When these people read the bible they go into the situation already KNOWING what they will read is true.

The person I was talking to is attending York University for biophysics. So I assumed they had general ideas about scientific thoughts etc. Since they are being educated at a undergraduate level and I have only completed high school they must know more than I.

Well he started arguing with me about how dating methods are wrong, about stars not being as far away as science claims, he argued against evolution on the grounds that speciation doesn't occur and he attempted to argue with me that sciences goal is to prove things. (I didn't agree with this I felt that science merely attempts to explain things based upon given evidence.) All this seems blatantly ignorant and in my opinion goes back to him believing the bible to be inerrant. (the list of things he argued against is actually a lot longer than this. I finally gave up talking to him but I don't understand how people can think it is ok to think like this. Just because you have the right to doesn't make it right to abuse that right.)

I sent him to multiple sciam articles many websites to do with evolution and even tried to get at him with common sense. He sent me websites too to attempt to prove his position to me. After investigating the 'scientist' I found that they were FAR in the minority and few in numbers. However, the christian public seems to take their word on things.

Interestingly enough he believes in things such as: noah's flood, all the miracles associated with the bible, gifts such as speaking in tongues or healing, that murder/suicide is caused by demons possessing people... the list goes on.

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

Note also that I said hinder not stop.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree, as my previous posts show. Without re-stating all I said previously, basically, they read the bible, take it literally or as close to and then ignore all scientific evidence.

What I cannot understand is how when given all the evidence available, they can simply turn round and say "it's like that because god wants it like that" or "god skews results". I just can't see any reason why a person can take the religious texts, which all conflict and make certain things (such as murder) not crimes in certain 'stories', simply believe it without there being a shred of evidence to back up any claims made within those texts. Whereas all the evidence that backs up science is dissmissed either as wrong or because god made it that way. This isn't striding forward and an attempt at development, it is an attempt to keep us where we are, if it wasn't for science and everyone remained completely religious, we would have nothing like the technology we have today and would not be having this debate (probably praying instead).

I personnally don't care what a person believes, but I simply do not wish to believe, nor have you try to convince me that the big pixie in the sky exists. I can't say I've ever had a Quantum Physicist pop round on a sunday morning and try to discuss the finer points of Quantum Mechanics with me. If forced, my religion is Jedi and I believe in the great teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.

Jared

 

[protonchain]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

 

[JaredJames]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

Exactly

 

[Dadface]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

Yes lisab,it brings back fond memories.

 

[DaveC426913]

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

It is still his right to pursue his own happiness. He is not forcing himself on anyone who is not already converted.

Utopia (or some other perfect world) does not mean that everyone has to agree with everyone else.

You can't state categorically and objectively that "his philosophy of life is wrong and should be corrected".

 

[Sorry!]

This is true assuming people keep their beliefs to themselves. However it is not the case. Everywhere I turn my head I see these people causing troubles. Global warming is a major point for our modern day society. As is creationist arguing that creation should be taught in science class. Or that evolution shouldn't be taught.

Most wars have been fought because of ignorance.

It would of course be a completely fair point to question who is the ignorant one... and to that I would just say that if we were all rational people and critical thinkers we would not even need to question what counts as ignorant.

To claim that say Hitler supported the holocaust with logic or evidence of any sort is to show you also think that it was a rational decision. Was it though? Really? Substitute holocaust and Hitler for other events... Scientific method doesn't wage wars and it's intention is not to spark debate. Merely to find a answer based on evidence. Human ignorance and arrogance is the problem.

 

[junglebeast]

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

 

[Sorry!]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

I would never go to say that people don't hold biases or make decisions based on these biases. Its part of critical thinking though. Just because right now I am biased towards say evolution doesn't mean if a theory comes tomorrow I will not listen to it.

 

[JaredJames]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

Of course, I would certainly agree there must be some biases. What I was trying to refer to there are extreme biases. I should have made it more clear. People and scientists are most definitely biased and it aids progress as people argue the various hypothesis with their biases playing a part in it. However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause. All the evidence I have seen points to us simply adding to the problem and not being the sole cause. Because of the way it is portrayed in the media and such people have a very biased view of it and don't want to here anything other than the facts that support themselves.

Jared

 

[junglebeast]

However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause.

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

Something we can both agree on there. Although they certainly know how to fiddle the system (expenses etc).

Jared