Haha, touche! What I say is that of a simple mind, unable to comprehend truly complex ideas, because I'm Anerican and we are, to a man, too simple minded to understand what other nations do!
Every nation has its own culture. Every culture has its own mindset. Every mindset has its own psychology, and its own strengths and weaknesses.
For instance, the British mindset is excellent at coming up with all sorts of brilliant ideas, and then calling them useless, and dropping them, only for other nations to pick them up, and develop technology from them, and to gain the majority of the benefits. As an example, us Brits developed the theories of computing (Alan Turing), and developed a few working computers (the Colossus and its sisters). But we buried the technology. Then you Americans picked it up, and made Silicon Valley, Microsoft, and Apple from it. The story of Britain is littered with lots of stupidities like that.
Americans CAN and often DO comprehend extremely complex ideas. But often they will CHOOSE the easier answer, because it means a lot less work.
It's up to them to put in the effort, or not.
Way to be a prick! Good work!
I avoid stating such things in public, because a lot of people get very sensitive about stuff like this. I only did so with you, because I believed that you were objective enough to see that I only pointed out a weakness in the American mindset, like we all have weaknesses, for your understanding, and in the interest of helping you and other Americans. I have way more weaknesses than most Americans. But to me, that means I have more ways to improve, and thus, my life can only get better, by acknowledging them, and working on them, to turn them from weaknesses into strengths.
You can have that too, if you choose to listen to criticisms, look at yourself, decide if they are true, and if so, to act to improve them. Or not. Your choice.
No, Introversion and Extroversion is the manner in which your functions, starting with your primary and alternating down the line, well, functions. An INTP has primary thinking, an ENTP has secondary thinking, but in both cases, they're introverted, whereas they also both have extroverted intuition, except it's the ENTP's primary function and the INTP's secondary. Same with the third and fourth being reversed in order but projecting inwardly or outwardly the same way. INTPs and ENTPS are very similar. They're pretty much as similar as they possibly can be while still being different personality types.
Cognitive functions were built by Jung on top of the differences between Introverts and Extroverts. That doesn't detract from what he already wrote about Introversion and Extroversion. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you can help it.
I don't care what random biologist says, I care that you don't seem to display an understanding of evolutionary biology. Even if you're not lying about this, they can be wrong and you can exaggerate or lie. If you're so smart and capable, just do it. Instead of claiming you're brilliant, prove it. Talk is cheap.
The evolutionary process causes species to proliferate or decrease in number, according to their adaptiveness to the
current environment. Environmental conditions change. So what can be
advantage in one century, can be a
disadvantage, in the next, and from country to country as well.
People often talk about "survival of the fittest". But in reality, what is "fittest", changes from century to century, and from geographic location to geographic location. So evolution doesn't make species develop and improve, in any absolute way.
An example is the dodo. The dodos on Mauritius, had no natural predators. Thus, they had no need to fly away from predators. So their wings used up precious energy. Thus, developing smaller and smaller wings, allowed much more energy to be freed up, to be breed more dodos, making them much more prolific than other birds.
However, when man reached Mauritius, they caught and ate many species. The ones who could still fly, could fly away, and continue. The dodos could no longer do that. So while many species on Mauritius could escape and survive, the dodos could not, and were eaten to extinction.
The biological theory of evolution itself is as abstract as any other theory pertaining to physical occurrences. While you might use the general idea of evolution to describe those other subjects, the biological theory of evolution is specific to biology.
The only part of evolutionary theory, that is specific to biology, is the theory of Common Descent, that all species evolved from a common ancestor.
Where it succeeds or fails in other subjects is totally irrelevant.
If the abstract theory of evolution works in biology, it would work just as much, in any other field where the axioms of the theory are there. If the abstract theory of evolution doesn't work in fields other than biology where the axioms of evolution are there, then it doesn't work, anywhere, and not in biology either.
And, sure, you can make scientific advances without a deeper understanding of a particular field, just like Newton could make functional laws of physical motion without understanding relativity, but it's certainly doesn't mean understanding the deeper knowledge is un-worth the benefits, just as with the understanding of anything ever.
Of course. But not everything will help you understand everything else. For instance, it is worth knowing about electricity. But whether electricity exists or not, doesn't really help much when it comes to understanding classical mechanics and what will happen when 2 cars collide. Understanding how stress fractures carry the energy of the collision will help you, as that will allow you to make crumple zones.
Miasma theory was reasonable considering the observations of the time, and, further, it's not entirely false. While disease is not from noxious air or water, of course, air or water or whatever containing contaminants of some kind do make you sick, we simply now have a further understanding of why. Namely; Germs.
Because of Miasma theory, if water smelled, people would keep clear of it, even if it was safe to drink. But if water didn't smell, then even if the water was polluted, people believed it was perfectly safe. It took Florence Nightingale and the Crimean war, to educate us that the main danger with water, is pollution, such as from faeces and dead animals in the water, and not the smell per se, and that accounts for 89% of survival, even in the case of a war. That resulting conclusion, changed our attitudes to sanitation, and changed longevity from the mid-20s of the French Industrial Era, to the rates of 60+ years, that were around in Mesolithic Britain, in a very short space of time, before Alexander Fleming re-discovered the benefits of antibiotics.
Yes, Karl Popper was correct in what he said. What you're missing, of course, is that he's simply saying that falsifiability is an essential aspect of science, theories which are unfalsifiable then being unscientific. This endogenous Retrovirus thing doesn't just incidentally coincide with evolutionary theory, however. It was predicted by evolutionary theory. After one hundred and fifty years, the theory needed only one experiment to falsify it. With it's potent explanatory and predictive power and lack of having been falsified, it's a very well supported theory. Probably the most well supported theory in biology.
From
Quotes of Karl Popper:
The old scientific ideal of episteme — of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge — has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. (1959)
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung (2002), 280.
Not only do I not know everything, I know less than I once did
I know a lot more than I used to. I have found that much of what most educated Western humans assumed to be true, is false. But then, if something is false, then the logical complement of it is true. Thus, each time I find out that something that was previously assumed to be true, is false, I am really learning that something else, that I hadn't considered, is true.
and few things newer than several years old, if anything that recent.
I know Pythagoras' Theorem. I know calculus. I know that light behaves like a wave with other light. All of those are centuries old, at the least.
Care to explain that claim? Extrapolate a bit?
Science brought us many technologies. But we had many scientific technologies for decades without making much of an impact on society, in some cases even thousands of years, without making any significant impact on society. But once they were applied in a standardised way, to everything, then our entire society changed immeasurably.
We had indoor toilets in Skara Brae, almost 6,000 years ago. But it was only when every home got indoor plumbing, and a sewage and water supply infrastructure, that we saw significant differences in our lifestyle, and large increases in our longevity.
Antibiotics had been discovered at least a dozen times over the centuries. But it was only when everyone got antibiotics, that we saw a large effect on society because of them.
We had electrical devices in the beginning of the 20th Century. But at that point, electrical voltages, currents, and frequencies, different from supplier to supplier. Consequently, you could only buy those gadgets specifically designed for your supplier, and you could only use them in your home, and nowhere else. So it was something of a novelty item. It was only when governments electrified the country with the same standard for everyone, that you could buy a device from any shop, and use it anywhere, that transformed the way we could use electricity, from a novelty, to something that you could rely on.
It's not just science. Laws used to be in every town and village in England, from the Romans and before that. But there were different laws, for every town and village. So what was normal in your town, could be a hanging offence in another. So travel was highly impractical for all but the most diplomatic of people, and laws seemed rather arbitrary. Then Henry II divided the country into areas called "circuits", and appointed judges to travel from town to town, passing judgement. These judges initially had to rely on the traditions of each town and villages. They periodically met up, and decided upon which of these customs and laws was best for everyone, and then ruled accordingly, in all the towns and villages. Suddenly, laws changed from being a rather parochial and arbitrary system, to a set of laws that were the same all over the country. What was the law in your town, that you abided by, was the law in every town, that you abided by. Anyone could go anywhere and not have to worry about being hanged, or put in the stocks. Travel, and trade up and down the country, was easy.
Science provided technologies. But we always had lots of technologies. Standardised, ubiquitous infrastructure made scientific and unscientific technologies available everywhere, and to always work the same way, and that made them
reliable, and that made them something you could rely on, something you could build on, something that was incredibly powerful, and incredibly useful.
The claim that math, a tool especially frequently used in science disagrees with science is an outright fabrication.
I wrote:
All of them show massive conflicts with what most scientists and public statements of atheists say.
Not science, what scientists and atheists say. It used to be accepted, that an expert is an expert in his field, but not on the things he is not an expert in. Now, many scientists and many atheists make public statements, about politics, religion, and philosophy, when they never studied it at all, or no more than an ignorant inbred, and somehow expect their expertise in one area, to make them omniscient.
Many scientists and atheists now say that
science can give us all the answers to understanding the universe.
In mathematics, Kurt Gödel worked out, that if you pick any area of rationally-based study, like a science, and you can use the words "this" and "not", in it, then you can take the statement "This statement is a lie", and construct a perfect contradiction in that subject, and that the only way to resolve that contradiction, is to know more. So what Kurt Gödel showed, in effect, is that no matter how much you know, there will always be something that you don't understand, about any subject in science, and about the whole of science as a subject in itself.
Granted, people often point out that Kurt Gödel wrote about "formal systems". But he wasn't using a general term, because general terms are vague, and mathematical theorems that are based on vague notions, are not considered true in mathematics. The term referred to a very specific set of axioms, and these axioms, apply to every rationally-based topic.
Existentialism is a pretty ambiguously defined philosophy,
Existentialism is that which can be said to be true, irrespective of your religious or atheistic beliefs about the origins of man, the origins of the universe, or pretty much anything else that not everyone agrees with, because it only depends on that which everyone agrees with, even if the conclusions are not things that everyone agrees with.
For instance, Sartre pointed out, that "all knowledge is belief". Any piece of knowledge requires to answer the question "Why?", i.e. "How do you know that is true?" and the answer is itself knowledge. So the answer requires another "Why?". So the answer depends on another answer, and that answer depends on another answer, ad infinitum. So to answer if you know something is true or not, you can ask "Why?" forever. But if you keep asking "Why?", then you'll be doing that till you die. You'll never be able to say if you know it or not. At some point, you'll have to answer "Because it is", "Because
I just know". Such an answer is not knowledge, but belief. Consequently, everything that is built on it, is also deductions from belief, and so is also just a belief. So, all knowledge is really belief.
Now, Sartre was not saying that we don't know anything at all, or his statement would have been "Knowledge doesn't exist". He was only saying that we choose to think certain things are true, and that as long as they don't screw up our lives too much, we are happy to go with them. But the same can be said about beliefs, and so we really do treat knowledge as if it was just a belief.
Many people even defend knowledge as if it was a belief. Ask any evolutionist if evolution is wrong, and he responds the same way as his Xian fundamentalist brother does when you ask him if Jesus was a fairytale myth. Both are aghast, and immediately respond that "there is plenty of evidence", and that if you even question it, you're nuts to do so.
but I've never heard of these disagreements with science or atheists.
So what? I'd never heard of any communities where most people lived to over 100, worked to their 90s, and didn't have diabetes, heart disease, or most cancers, until a few years ago. Even the ancient Egyptians were supposed to have modern diseases. We were supposed to be the longest-living human society, in all of history. That was, until I heard about the Okinawans, a few years ago.
Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Remember, you wrote:
Not only do I not know everything, I know less than I once did and few things newer than several years old, if anything that recent.
Here's another thing you only found out in the last few years.
And of course religion would disagree with atheists
Buddhism doesn't, and Buddhism is a religion, at least, if you try to define religion, then whatever definition you try to use, you either end up keeping out something that is called a religion, or Buddhism, fits the definition as well.
and, to a lesser degree science.
Some religious beliefs of some religious people, disagree with what we can be sure of from science, and most large religious organisations reject those beliefs. Mind you, some scientific theories disagree with science, like Miasma theory, and posters who work as professional scientists, wrote that MOST scientific theories turn out to be wrong, yet, most scientists won't reject all of science either, because some of it is wrong. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It has a wholly different methodology which is not centered around discovering what's true or utilizing critical though.
Religions do have a wholly different methodology. Religions aren't about discovering fixed physical laws that are expected to explain all physical phenomena. However, there is much discussion in religious texts, that is clearly about discovering what is true, and clearly using extremely high levels of critical thought.
Not atheism, of course. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of beliefe in a deity. It has no innate methodology or anything which would otherwise unify atheists,
I used to think so. But a lot of atheists have posted about what atheists believe and value, which goes far, far beyond that. For instance, you yourself said that it's often acquired through critical thought. Critical thought is a methodology that is not innate to the lack of belief in a deity, and so, by your own claim has nothing about it, that could unify atheists, in any way, not even to say that it's something which is "often" found in atheists, except by random coincidence, or other factors that have nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.
though it's often acquired through critical thought.
I used to think so. Then I met someone who was raised an atheist, and who said that most atheists choose to be atheists, based on emotional reasoning. He then proceeded to give me an example. Then I observed that most of the time, people who claim that G-d doesn't exist, use emotional arguments, and not logical arguments. That's not critical thought, in my view.
But I'd agree that lots of atheists use critical thought, particularly to criticise the particular denominations of world religions that they were raised with.
Well well, aren't you presumptuous, there.
Not really. I never presumed you hadn't read any religious texts at all, just that you hadn't read the ones that I did, or you would have seen what I saw, and consequently not wrote what you wrote.
[sarcasm]No, I've never read anything by religious scholars or ministers ever! Maybe I should try that! [/sarcasm]
I am sure that you have read some things written by some religious scholars and some ministers. You do realise that there are millions of religious books, written on thousands of topics?
For instance, I've read in some religious texts, that the reason why G-d makes most people get grey hair, and other symptoms of old age, is to warn most people that they are on the way out, so that they will have time to get their affairs in order before they die, like making a will, and making up with loved ones before they die. Did you know that?
FYI, maybe you should ask the admin her, to come up with a sarcasm quote thing that can be read by the system, and shown, rather than just putting in sarcasm quotes, and expecting it to happen.
It can only do that if those people are similar to you, as introspection is necessarily about you and not other people. That's why it's called introspection instead of extrospection. Because they're different things. Introspection is self-reflection, or thoughts about the self... not others.
The example I gave, was about people who claimed that other people were useless. I don't do that at all, quite the contrary. I believe that everyone has useful skills. Introspection can also teach you about people who aren't similar to you.
I described only the ones I interacted with in person, not the ones who tried to blow me up and shoot me.
True. But they grew up in the same environments. I'm fairly sure that some of those people had people in their own family or neighbourhood, who grew up just like them, and blow people up and shoot people. But please, correct me if I'm wrong. Please show me that if 1 person in America is a serial killer, that everyone in the same family and town, are all serial killers.
where Further, even the ones I interacted with could have easily been hiding their real motives and working against us.
Yes, they could. But from what you wrote, I gathered that in some of those situations, you could have easily been distracted by them, while a sniper took you out. I gather that does happen. Yet, you're still here. So I gather they weren't trying to do that. So in some situations, they could easily have caused your death, and gotten away with it, with no American troops ever knowing they were to blame, and yet, they didn't. So I would expect that indicates that many of them are indeed genuine.
I doubt all of them were, but the fact is information gets leaked, and I doubt it's all from the facebook posts of soldiers.
That is always going to be the case some of the time. It was even true in America during World War II. Check out what used to be called "the Fifth Column". It was formed from Americans who were descended from German immigrants, and still had relatives in Germany, and sympathised with the Nazis. Most people weren't like that, not even most German-ethnic Americans. But some were, even in your own country.
Everything I know about biology I learned either in school
Doesn't help me much. I haven't come across much that was in your school system, that wasn't freely available in mine, and that I hadn't heard about, or read about, already, before I was 10.
or specifically because I looked it up on an individual basis due, directly or indirectly, to my arguing with creationists, whom I take far less seriously now than I did when I started.
I did the same, as I wrote. But it's sent me the other way, and I was living my life by science since I can remember. I still do.
Also, I removed a whole lot of jabber which wasn't pertinent to the conversation or was little more than you bragging how much more educated you are than the people who disagree with you. For all your claims of being more educated and finding problems in other people's arguments, you're being awfully vague about the specific point which convinced of anything one way or the other. It's been good talking to you, but it's patently obvious you're not interested in learning or helping others to do so. Later.
I'm not interested in telling you what to think. I don't want you or anyone else to be just another person who blindly accepts the word of others. My goal, is to emulate Socrates, to push you to think and research the matter for yourself, until you can arrive at a viewpoint which is both consistent, AND agrees with the evidence and experience you already have.
Sure, my methods don't seem to get an immediate result. As a result, I acknowledge that I need to work on my communication skills, and am trying to do just that. I am a lot clearer and more influential in this regard, than I used to be. But I still need work.
Besides, I know that what people told me years ago, did have an effect on me, that was only clear to me, years later, and the same has been told to me by others, that my words influenced them. I have yet to know when my words will and will not have an effect. But a lot does. I hope it does you too, not to influence you to my opinion, but to get you to be more rational, for your own benefit, and the benefit of everyone around you. If I can do that, then I believe my time was well-spent.
