Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

"How science has been corrupted"


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Severian

Severian

    Mycotopiate

  • VIP
  • 406 posts

Posted 29 May 2021 - 12:38 PM

I have to admit I read a paragraph of the first post, and none of the replies; laptop battery is about to die.

 

But,  this has been on my mind a bunch lately; not from the pandemic angel, but from a different standpoint....

 

 

We're brought up to "Trust the experts" at the cost of trusting our own ability to observe, and experiment and learn.

First, from being in school "Teacher is Right" "textbooks are right" - Why? because they're the authority.

On top of this, we have the fact that rigorous, logical (emotionally detached) thinking is not only not taught, but actively attacked

AND, our attention spans have been systematically castrated

AND the cultural, default status quo that basically NO ONE questions is Cell-Phone-Social-Media Echo Chamber

 

The result of this, is a reinforcement of "Trust the experts" because,

1. It's easier- No one is actually going to do any experiments themselves.

2. It's easier- No one has the time to even READ the actual research papers

3. It's easier- No thinking involved..

 

 

Following Long story short;

 

I recently got into gymnastics strength training. I have a fairly sizable amount of nutrition-research under my belt, but in the category of "How best to fuel for maximum/rapid muscle gain, zero.

 

I found some video's I deemed solid-info, regarding the strength training side of things; and then, saw the author's had a book on sports nutrition as well..

 

So I found downloaded it; and GAHD.

 

It's difficult to tell if either A. They're Heavily funded by Big-Food industry. or

                                        B. They're just so Mainstream indoctrinated, that they're actually totally unaware of any even slightly-fringe (ie non corporate funded) nutritional research.

 

Either way, it's an example of "Echo chamber Echo Chamber Echo Chamber"

w

For example; (and their 2nd edition came out in 2019) They're still parroting the "Saturated Fat is Not Healthy." Which, we know is NOT true; there's extensive research proving otherwise AND plenty of information pointing to the fact that this lie was propagated by the Vegetable oil industry AND the american heart association.

 

AND- there's a whole section regarding "Artificial sweeteners" and how the research is at best inconclusive as to their health effects. Again; the research ACTUALLY shows, starting back at the very beginning of the 1900's that- THESE ARE ALL TERRIBLE.

 

 

Plenty of other examples in the book; that had me fuming.  "Nutrient composition of food is basically irrelevant to sports training considerations" Oh? And, please, point me to the double blind placebo controlled study that Big Industry funded to test this?

 

I would love to sit down with these people and ask if they're actively biased; or just blind. One common axiom in the science world is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but it seems this is true only when it's convenient.

 

The conversation goes  something like this

 

Person A- Yeah but how do you know?

Person B- Because,studies and stuff

Person A- But how do we know that those studies and stuff really looked at all sides of the issue?

Person B- Because Science

Person A- But how do we know that Science is unbiased?

Person B- Because Studies and stuff

 

Remind anyone of another group?

 

 

Oh yeah

 

It's the Bible-kids- "How do you know it's true-? Cause the bible says so.

 

 

AND THE WORST PART OF ALL OF THIS

 

IS THAT IT PRESENTS SCIENCE ITSELF- IE HYPOTHESIS, EXPERIMENTATION IN A BAD LIGHT.


  • Myc likes this

#42 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 May 2021 - 04:38 PM

To be fair to actual experts who work in arcane and complex fields, we have to trust at least some of them if we want our high-tech industrial society to continue functioning. It's been like this since people first began dividing up the labor and specializing in whatever they happen to be best suited for or trained in or whatever.

 

It's not practical for most or even for very many people to learn how some of the things we depend on work (like computers, for starters. Or epidemiology, though over the past year we've all become experts in that field in the Dunning-Kruger sense of "expert").

 

At some point there's no coming back from suspicion and mistrust because to vet someone's expertise requires an evaluation by ...credible, trustworthy experts. Well who vetted the experts that are vetting the experts?

 

This is an insoluble conflict that arguably presents an existential risk to civilization itself on top of all the others, and this one in particular also greatly reduces the chance that we'll ever solve the rest since most of what we're facing involves extremely complex phenomena that we're only just beginning to understand.


Edited by TVCasualty, 29 May 2021 - 04:41 PM.


#43 Myc

Myc

    El Jardinero

  • App Administrator
  • 7,703 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 May 2021 - 05:20 PM

I suppose that is what makes me unique - in that I am reluctant to trust anyone.

For example:

While I "know" many of you through your usernames and activities here @ Mycotopia.net..........I don't really know any of you.

However, based upon consistently scientifically based input from certain folks, I have learned who among you are serious investigators and employers of the scientific method. It is you to whom I look for counterpoints and viewpoints in opposition or contradiction to my own. I trust that you have evaluated evidence that I either have not yet seen - or ignored in the information storm.

 

I seek not to have my own (admittedly cynical and biased) observations validated. Instead, I seek to come closer to the "truth" in whatever form that may exist.

 

"Experts" are a function of what?? Possession of a degree.........or demonstration of skill?

 

Ask any mycologist who has a degree - by which measure I could never be considered an "expert" by virtue of my lack of a higher education.

Ask any hobbyist who has followed teks based upon my observations - (and they succeeded as a result) and I'm an "expert".

 

I ask:

Why is it that an asshole like me - possessing no more than a high school diploma - saw all of this shit-storm coming from the very beginning??????????  Yet all of the "experts" - while the house was on fire - were arguing over the color of the drapes in the living room????????

Yeah. That is what ate me until I decided to just get drunk and say "fuck it".

 

'Merica. Fuck Yeah!! The good 'ol USSA!  Hot dogs, candy bars, and stimulus checks for everyone - for life. WOOT!!!  Line me up some righteous blow while you're at it. Might as well start this party off RIGHT.


  • TVCasualty and Severian like this

#44 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 May 2021 - 07:00 PM

Yeah, there are lots of different kinds of "experts."

 

The kind of expertise I'm saying we need to be able to trust implicitly is the kind that (for example) engineers who operate and maintain nuclear reactors possess.



#45 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 29 May 2021 - 09:40 PM

What ever one investigates, it's usually worth looking at what is outside the mainstream. The history of science shows this again & again.

 

In the case of nutrition, Frank medrano on youtube may be worth checking out.

https://www.youtube....y=Frank medrano

 

 

using the search terms:   paradigm shifts in science, examples

yields these interesting links:

https://duckduckgo.c...=hc&va=u&ia=web

 

using the search terms:     resisted theories, in science, later shown to be true, examples

yields these interesting links:

https://duckduckgo.c...=hc&va=u&ia=web


Edited by shiftingshadows, 29 May 2021 - 09:45 PM.


#46 greenskeeper

greenskeeper

    Mycophage

  • Free Member
  • 161 posts

Posted 29 May 2021 - 11:11 PM

It seems to me that the flat earth "argument" is really about how one can decide what to believe and how much can we can tell from personal experience. It's an exercise in skepticism.

#47 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,887 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 May 2021 - 09:19 AM

I think there are likely quite a few reasons the supposed experts are wrong. Maybe it's not even so bad that they have been wrong about things, rather a reluctance to admit it.

 

There is a lesson to be learned about science and journalism. Often they accept whatever is being told as fact, that is not the job of a journalist. They are supposed to question what they are being told not blindly repeat it. The trouble in this case comes from the difficulty in understanding the science for the average journalist. If we had a healthier media landscape that more aggressively challenged some of the science, maybe that could have changed things. Drives me crazy to see officials still telling people they need to wear masks outside, especially if you are vaccinated.... There is little no no data to support the claim that is spreads outside yet it is pushed and pushed and pushed.

 

Did fear of wild conspiracy theories create much of that motivation

 

A place in the mainstream where you could question things about covid without it immediately becoming a partisan battle would be nice.

 

A big part of it seems to be suppression of outside idea's and an overall group think approach. Like all the radicals in science that had to fight their way into the future. The old guard holding them back on old information. We witnessed  group think with the Wuhan lab leak theory, the clues were there, people were coming up with credible information. Even though by June of 2020 a strong hypothesis was forming it was too late. All it took was one bogus article signed by a bunch of shills and the narrative was written. The media outlets pumped conspiracy and made sure everyone knew the lab leak was "debunked" At this point if you were a serious scientist you might be risking your career for talking about a crazy right wing conspiracy. So I think some people are honestly afraid to speak their minds and challenge the orthodoxy of all things covid

 

Sometimes in all this confusion often being the first to fire the shot is all it takes.

 

Then we had the ridiculous partisan nature of covid19 that likely took a few objective thinkers out of the game. Falling prey to tribalism.

 

And then some experts are smug assholes that would rather fluff the public opinion that admit wrong doing. There job or credibility may depend on it

 

I think Myc raises a good point though. Trust in experts but know that not all experts are created equally. There are plenty of bad doctors out there no?

 

post-160704-0-50810900-1622384526.png

Attached Thumbnails

  • Springfield_Nuclear_Power_Plant_6.png

Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 30 May 2021 - 09:24 AM.

  • Myc likes this

#48 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 May 2021 - 09:27 AM

What ever one investigates, it's usually worth looking at what is outside the mainstream. The history of science shows this again & again.

 

To a point. That can backfire. It's how "Q" happened.

 

Much of what falls outside the mainstream of scientific thought is out there because it's either already been falsified (e.g., Earth being flat) or is currently outside the scope of science to address.

 

If mainstream science is reflexively mistrusted just because it's mainstream then people tend to do all their research outside of mainstream sources, and that risks reinforcing beliefs that may have no basis in reality or supporting evidence. It's a manifestation of the same phenomenon that causes Stockholm Syndrome; prolonged immersion in a perspective generates sympathy for and eventually possibly belief in it.

 

That has nothing to do with evidence since it's a form of cognitive dissonance. This is why the people who fall for the "Q" nonsense like to tell skeptics to "Do your own research!" And when they say that they mean reading pro-Q articles and watching pro-Q videos, not taking a balanced approach of surveying multiple sources, etc.

 

So if you spend all your time "researching" flat-Earth hypotheses by only reading flat-Earther perspectives and watching only flat-Earther videos then eventually you will become sympathetic to that perspective to the point where you might start to believe it yourself. Logic can easily be internally consistent (sound) while also being completely invalid. I suspect that this is why organized religion exists.

 

Anyway, if the people promoting flat-Earth nonsense are doing so ironically in order to make a point then IMO it's not a good example to use since proving the Earth is a sphere is a trivial exercise that anyone can do using technology that's thousands of years old (sticks, basically). It's a pain in the ass to put it all together, but it's very doable.



#49 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 May 2021 - 09:46 AM


I think Myc raises a good point though. Trust in experts but know that not all experts are created equally. There are plenty of bad doctors out there no?

 

Sure, which is what the whole "peer review" thing is about. Consensus isn't perfect but it's the best we've got at the moment.

 

Studies in crowd-sourced knowledge are pretty interesting. There are companies that use it as a business model now: https://goodjudgment.com/

 

It's worth exploring IMO:

 

 

The crowdsourced predictions are even reportedly more accurate than those from intelligence agents. One report says that when “superpredictors,” the people who are right most often, are grouped together in teams, they can outperform agents with classified information by as much as 30%. (The researchers can’t confirm this fact, since the accuracy of spies is, unsurprisingly, classified).

 

Every major decision depends on a forecast of the future.

“To the extent we have an advantage over those highly informed insiders, it is that our forecasters really don’t care about anything other than being accurate,” says Moore. “If you’re inside–say in the CIA or at the State Department–of course there are benefits to being accurate, being able to accurately forecast things. But if you’re inside any organization, there are more complicated political winds that blow.”

 

Crowdsourcing could be useful for any type of prediction, Moore says, not only what’s happening in world politics. “Every major decision depends on a forecast of the future,” he explains. “A company deciding to launch a new product has to figure out what sales might be like. A candidate trying to decide whether to run for office has to forecast how they’ll do in the election. In trying to decide whom to marry, you have to decide what your future looks like together.”

 

 

 

It gets weird when we start sharing information though, which might explain the lunacy of the past decade or so: https://www.wired.co...crowds-decline/

 

Quoting the intro:

 

When people can learn what others think, the wisdom of crowds may veer towards ignorance.

 

In a new study of crowd wisdom – the statistical phenomenon by which individual biases cancel each other out, distilling hundreds or thousands of individual guesses into uncannily accurate average answers – researchers told test participants about their peers' guesses. As a result, their group insight went awry.

 

"Although groups are initially 'wise,' knowledge about estimates of others narrows the diversity of opinions to such an extent that it undermines" collective wisdom, wrote researchers led by mathematician Jan Lorenz and sociologist Heiko Rahut of Switzerland's ETH Zurich, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on May 16. "Even mild social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect."

 

 

 

Consider all the above in the context of the inconceivably powerful machine learning algorithms that are being created now...

 

The long-term implications are literally unimaginable since our imaginations are limited to what can be remembered and extrapolated from whatever we have previously encountered or experienced while what is possible has no such constraints.


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#50 August West

August West

    Mycotopiate

  • OG VIP
  • 4,158 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 May 2021 - 10:04 AM

 

 

This is why the people who fall for the "Q" nonsense like to tell skeptics to "Do your own research!" And when they say that they mean reading pro-Q articles and watching pro-Q videos, not taking a balanced approach of surveying multiple sources, etc.

 

 

This falls into the same category as the way "conspiracy theory" is employed. It's the Q version. "Do your own research" is short for, "I saw a five minute video that corroborates my worldview but I didn't have time to verify, dig deep or study it so..."

 

Maybe someone could write a pamphlet for building arguments that discusses new go-arounds for actually having to engage in debates. Kind of like studying logical fallacies. Or it could just be like a Jeff Foxworthy comedy bit: "You may be on to something if your debate partner says: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" or "Do your own research". Yea, it probably won't sell out a lot of arenas as a comedy idea.

 

Back to the drawing board.


  • FLASHINGROOSTER likes this

#51 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,887 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 May 2021 - 10:30 AM

Interesting indeed. I wonder if that operates similar to what they call a think tank? A crowdsource think tank I guess. When I hear the word think tank  I picture smart people and AI trying to predict things.

 

 

The part about humans changing their thought process based on the results of others makes sense. Nobody wants to be the guy standing up when everyone else is sitting down, the odd man out in the crowd. (Well some do, they relish in it but that is a minority) It is part of my idea of why large groups of people are so dangerous. They react off of one another in this feedback loop multicellular organism type experience. It can work beautifully in the case of a music concert when the group is in harmony. Or disastrously like in the case of the capitol riots

 

 

 


 

Consider all the above in the context of the inconceivably powerful machine learning algorithms that are being created now...

 

The long-term implications are literally unimaginable since our imaginations are limited to what can be remembered and extrapolated from whatever we have previously encountered or experienced while what is possible has no such constraints.

 

Sorry I am really riffing off topic this morning

 

I had this thought last night. As technology improves and the ability to record the past becomes great. Mechanical evolution of our memories. Are we developing an ability to literally be able to see the past. A form of time travel or being able to perceive time differently sort of thing


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 30 May 2021 - 10:36 AM.


#52 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 30 May 2021 - 01:17 PM

 

What ever one investigates, it's usually worth looking at what is outside the mainstream. The history of science shows this again & again.

 

To a point. That can backfire. It's how "Q" happened.

 

Much of what falls outside the mainstream of scientific thought is out there because it's either already been falsified (e.g., Earth being flat) or is currently outside the scope of science to address.

 

If mainstream science is reflexively mistrusted just because it's mainstream then people tend to do all their research outside of mainstream sources, and that risks reinforcing beliefs that may have no basis in reality or supporting evidence. It's a manifestation of the same phenomenon that causes Stockholm Syndrome; prolonged immersion in a perspective generates sympathy for and eventually possibly belief in it.

 

That has nothing to do with evidence since it's a form of cognitive dissonance. This is why the people who fall for the "Q" nonsense like to tell skeptics to "Do your own research!" And when they say that they mean reading pro-Q articles and watching pro-Q videos, not taking a balanced approach of surveying multiple sources, etc.

 

So if you spend all your time "researching" flat-Earth hypotheses by only reading flat-Earther perspectives and watching only flat-Earther videos then eventually you will become sympathetic to that perspective to the point where you might start to believe it yourself. Logic can easily be internally consistent (sound) while also being completely invalid. I suspect that this is why organized religion exists.

 

Anyway, if the people promoting flat-Earth nonsense are doing so ironically in order to make a point then IMO it's not a good example to use since proving the Earth is a sphere is a trivial exercise that anyone can do using technology that's thousands of years old (sticks, basically). It's a pain in the ass to put it all together, but it's very doable.

 

I'm not interested in flat earthers,  homeopathy, much recent politics, or every fringe idea. I gave some links above & include an example below of what I refer to, which is from the history of science.

and

"The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

So not a new idea of mine, but one echoed by a brilliant scientist.

 

On a simple level the idea is useful on Amazon: if the one star reviews are skipped, often there is regret later.

 

The theory of tectonic plates is a good example of a correct theory resisted by the establishment, which we now know to be true, and it is just one of many such examples, which sort of continually repeated pattern, lead the great physicist Max Planck, to make his remark.

 

Like wise if one doesn't want to read,  one look at  Frank Medrano's body, & knowing his diet, will refute most accepted ideas as regards nutrition. And for those who like conspiracy ideas the nonsense perpetuated by the diet and various 'food' industries and lobbies, and the government itself, can provide much entertainment for those who like to "follow the money".


Edited by shiftingshadows, 30 May 2021 - 02:13 PM.


#53 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 30 May 2021 - 02:56 PM

   The OP's title was about science, but it seems the topic was partly about how government controls public opinion. And then went on to: was 911 a conspiracy? - Seems it may well have been.

 

    It also seems to me, that in another sense, much of what may be attributed to specific conspiracies, may be also viewed as simply the turbulence that results as societies grow in size.

Or in other words if we look at one high school we might say "How horrible, look at all the cliques, these formerly sweet kids have separated themselves into, that are now oppositional".

But if we look at many high schools and always observe the same phenomenon, then we might broaden our focus, and wonder what it is about groups, the architecture, or student teacher hierarchy, etc.

 

    Just so I wonder if population size, and urban environments, don't themselves tend to generate a lot of very negative consequences for the populations that occupy them. As the transition from hunter gatherer to city dweller happens, all the ills of civilization gradually begin to appear. It hardly seems the fault of science per se.

The sequence seems to be surplus food (grain) from agriculture, leading to sedentism, and an increase in birth rate/population, private property with attendant laws, trade & accounting, and government and inequality. At which point due to sedentism groups/societies become more separate & defensive & become armed, both within (police/prisons) and outwardly (armies).

 

    In summary, part of what we all dislike about government, and the corruption and cruelty that accompany it, may not be due to its having an imperfect form that, with just a little better idea we could fix. But rather may be due to phase changes, that occur simply from sedentism, crowding, and a disconnect from nature.

 

    The Amish, (probably seem very unfree to most of us), but may be an example of a group of people, that have more peace & less corruption than most, partly due to maintaining a rural way of life. I expect similar, relatively small communities world wide that have maintained a relatively close dependence on nature, have experienced similar benefits. So I wonder if many aren't looking in the wrong direction for solutions. Certainly not an original idea on my part, as the communes that sprung up in the late 1960's show. They of course often had problems, as they were city kids trying to figure out how to do it. I watched a tiny bit of a youtube video on how to survive an apocalypse, (before getting bored) and interestingly the first advice was to get out of the cities, (for obvious reasons).

 

    Ironically, IMO, nations are very proud of their big cities and compete to have the tallest skyscrapers. But of course it fits perfectly with the wealthier & more 'civilized' nations.


Edited by shiftingshadows, 30 May 2021 - 03:04 PM.


#54 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,887 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 31 May 2021 - 07:08 PM

 

If mainstream science is reflexively mistrusted just because it's mainstream then people tend to do all their research outside of mainstream sources, and that risks reinforcing beliefs that may have no basis in reality or supporting evidence. It's a manifestation of the same phenomenon that causes Stockholm Syndrome; prolonged immersion in a perspective generates sympathy for and eventually possibly belief in it.

 

In that mental immune system idea they were talking about this issue. How you can essentially weaken your minds ability to fight off bad ideas with too much blind belief. They used heavily orthodox religions people as an example of having a weakened mental immune system. Like August was saying perhaps not a new concept but one that we should be talking about. How to sharpen our minds to try to think objectively, in order to avoid falling prey to mind parasites


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 31 May 2021 - 07:09 PM.


#55 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 01 June 2021 - 05:20 PM

Seems there are , at least, 2 sides to the issue of staying free from false beliefs

 

1) if you want to inoculate yourself, you can do a lot of reading on the subject, and there is a lot. One could start with learning about Edward Bernays, called the "father of public relations", there are free pdfs of his books online, and youtube videos, and studying "ego defense mechanisms"

 

https://duckduckgo.c...=hc&va=u&ia=web

 

However scams, and advertising are endless, as are controversies.

 

2) Both culture & language are themselves rather hypnotic (as are all our senses: remember matter is not solid, and distant objects (that are the same size as near ones) are not smaller due to having shrunk, but rather due to an illusion produced by eye & brain, and the same is true of sound & the doppler effect; among many other such distortions produced by the senses and brain)

 

3) Even brilliant people can end up paranoid **, or another way to put it is:

To be always fearful of being controlled, is to be controlled by fear !

 

Which must be why it is said: "Laughter is the best medicine".

 

** including some well known examples like: N.Tesla, Kurt Gödel, and for awhile John Nash

 

after all paranoia is a disease characterized by over seriousness /  self importance

 

There is no reason why we should perceive truth, anymore than any other animal. All animals are only evolved to be fit enough to reproduce, within a specific niche, before dying to make room for the next generation.

 

https://www.youtube....f consciousness


Edited by shiftingshadows, 01 June 2021 - 07:24 PM.


#56 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 02 June 2021 - 01:06 AM

also if one enjoys literature

 

Luigi Pirandello was an Italian dramatist, novelist, poet and short story writer. He was awarded the 1934 Nobel Prize in Literature for his ....

 

https://duckduckgo.c...=hc&va=u&ia=web

 

https://www.britanni...uigi-Pirandello

 

https://en.wikipedia...f_you_think_so)

 

"Right You Are (if you think so) (Italian: Così è (se vi pare) [koˌzi ˈɛ sse vi ˈpaːre]), also translated as So It Is (If You Think So), is an Italian drama by Luigi Pirandello. The play is based on Pirandello's novel La signora Frola e il signor Ponza, suo genero. 

 

or if movies are prefered

 

Rashomon: Directed by Akira Kurosawa. With Toshirô Mifune....

 

["From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Rashōmon" (羅生門) is a short story by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa based on tales from the Konjaku Monogatarishū.
 
The story was first published in 1915 in Teikoku Bungaku. Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon (1950) is in fact based primarily on another of Akutagawa's short stories, "In a Grove"; only the film's title and some of the material for the frame scenes, such as the theft of a kimono and the discussion of the moral ambiguity of thieving to survive, are borrowed from "Rashōmon".  "

 

both Pirandello & the Japanese story tellers & director, attack the notion that there is ONE TRUTH, on which of course both fanaticism & seriousness depend

 

it seems that within science, perhaps only some of the weirdness of the quantum world, calls into question this obsession

and within religion perhaps only Buddhism warns against attachment to "views"

and perhaps only Taoism suggests they easily turn into their opposites

 

So although not mainstream such ideas have been around intermittently for ages.

Although of course most politicians & religious leaders don't like them.



#57 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 02 June 2021 - 09:40 AM

 

 

 

This is why the people who fall for the "Q" nonsense like to tell skeptics to "Do your own research!" And when they say that they mean reading pro-Q articles and watching pro-Q videos, not taking a balanced approach of surveying multiple sources, etc.

 

 

This falls into the same category as the way "conspiracy theory" is employed. It's the Q version. "Do your own research" is short for, "I saw a five minute video that corroborates my worldview but I didn't have time to verify, dig deep or study it so..."

 

Maybe someone could write a pamphlet for building arguments that discusses new go-arounds for actually having to engage in debates. Kind of like studying logical fallacies. Or it could just be like a Jeff Foxworthy comedy bit: "You may be on to something if your debate partner says: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" or "Do your own research". Yea, it probably won't sell out a lot of arenas as a comedy idea.

 

Back to the drawing board.

 

 

The best I've got is that flow chart I post periodically that clarifies the difference between a debate and a discussion:

Debate Flow Chart1

 

 

It's about as influential as a gnat's fart in a hurricane. But since the Butterfly Effect is a thing and can change the world, why can't the Gnat Fart Effect be one and do that, too?



#58 shiftingshadows

shiftingshadows

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 234 posts

Posted 02 June 2021 - 12:28 PM

Since when is reason an effective tool for "changing" minds?

It is only one tool among many, that works in some special contexts.

Even in a formal debate, the clever person knows how to play with word associations, to influence results.

To say nothing of a courtroom, and lawyers.

 

If you're selling cars, girls in bathing suits, seemed to work well, if one looks thru old magazines.

And....If you're selling cigarettes, of course reason has nothing to do with it !

 

Just ask the rugged Marlboro man.

 

https://duckduckgo.c...mages&ia=images

 

https://duckduckgo.c...mages&ia=images

 

I see no 'reasoning' here, on the part of the consumer,

only on the part of the advertiser, to circumvent any effect of reasoning;

In order to accomplish 'his' purpose.

 

And why does conventional therapy take so long if reason is effective?

And why does short term therapy, often use hypnosis, ( which circumvents the reasoning conscious mind)?

 

See for example:

 

"One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America" 

by Kevin M. Kruse (Author)
 

"Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing - How Evangelists, Psychiatrists, Politicians, and Medicine Men Can Change Your Beliefs and Behavior" by  William Sargant 

 

Seems mostly people argue in hopes of winning, but not in hopes of learning.

After all WINNING is the motivation for all games and sports.

People who want to have fun together, making mouth sounds - sing or chant.

Arguing in print is often even more competitive, but that's just an opinion...


Edited by shiftingshadows, 02 June 2021 - 12:36 PM.


#59 FLASHINGROOSTER

FLASHINGROOSTER

    Semi-Pro Taco Robot

  • Black VIP
  • 2,887 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 02 June 2021 - 05:22 PM

 

 

 

 

This is why the people who fall for the "Q" nonsense like to tell skeptics to "Do your own research!" And when they say that they mean reading pro-Q articles and watching pro-Q videos, not taking a balanced approach of surveying multiple sources, etc.

 

 

This falls into the same category as the way "conspiracy theory" is employed. It's the Q version. "Do your own research" is short for, "I saw a five minute video that corroborates my worldview but I didn't have time to verify, dig deep or study it so..."

 

Maybe someone could write a pamphlet for building arguments that discusses new go-arounds for actually having to engage in debates. Kind of like studying logical fallacies. Or it could just be like a Jeff Foxworthy comedy bit: "You may be on to something if your debate partner says: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" or "Do your own research". Yea, it probably won't sell out a lot of arenas as a comedy idea.

 

Back to the drawing board.

 

 

The best I've got is that flow chart I post periodically that clarifies the difference between a debate and a discussion:

 

 

 

It's about as influential as a gnat's fart in a hurricane. But since the Butterfly Effect is a thing and can change the world, why can't the Gnat Fart Effect be one and do that, too?

 

 

How many people can't even get past the first part of the flow chart. The majority

 

I think shadows makes a good point though. We should strive for reason but also need to recon with the idea that we are not really in control of this meat sack. Our subconscious is really the one making all the important decisions. You can see this with the effects of advertising, they are not trying to reason you with facts and data sheets. Rather your emotions.

 

I guess all we can do is try to apply critical thinking and use humility as our number one tool when having discussions.


Edited by FLASHINGROOSTER, 02 June 2021 - 05:27 PM.


#60 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 14,640 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 26 June 2021 - 10:32 AM

So I watched a clip from a Joe Rogan episode on YouTube (#1668, with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti) that touched on this topic (since I'm not into signing up for Spotify). I skimmed the comments under it, which I sometimes do since while most YouTube comments are just examples of the uneducated and uninformed uttering the unintelligent and unspeakable to the uninterested, every once in a while someone posts something really interesting or genuinely informative.

 

For example, this was posted in one of the comments under that clip:

“What is dangerous is the attempt of a man who is an expert, say, in the field of biology, to understand and explain human beings exclusively in terms of biology.
The same is true of psychology and sociology as well.

At the moment at which totality is claimed, biology becomes biologism, psychology becomes psychologism and sociology becomes sociologism.

In other words, at that moment science is turned into ideology.  What we have to deplore, I would say, is not that scientists are specializing, but that the specialists are generalizing.”
- Viktor Frankl, The Will to Meaning 1969
 

So far everything I've seen attributed to Frankl has been impressive in its insight and perspective. That said, it seems to me that everyone is a specialist in some sense and that we all generalize, too. So it seems like a hard problem to avoid.

 

And August, it was the quote of his in your signature that got me started looking into him and his writings. Good stuff; he's a real smart dude.
 






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!