45 replies to this topic

[DAMABO]

I absolutely cannot take anything you say seriously since you watch Ancient Aliens and think it's an actual documentary just because it's on the "history" channel. This is really embarrassing, I'd rather debate a religious fundamentalist.

I suppose this was not a response to me, but anyway, if that is the case, what are you doing here?

[DAMABO]

or is this some joke I'm not getting

[platypus]

I don't think one should abandon reason/intellect, except perhaps for periods where extra creativity is needed (brainstorming). It not so hard for the human brain to generate ideas, weeding out the bad ones is a bigger task IMO.

[Brafarality]

I absolutely cannot take anything you say seriously since you watch Ancient Aliens and think it's an actual documentary just because it's on the "history" channel. This is really embarrassing, I'd rather debate a religious fundamentalist.

I suppose this was not a response to me, but anyway, if that is the case, what are you doing here?

Fear not. I think that was meant for me!

[DAMABO]

Fear not. I think that was meant for me!

I suspected so, but anyway, it was a quite irrelevant response.

[Brafarality]

Started this list with geniuses that Marilyn Vos Savant would beat on an IQ test. Here is Part II, which I hinted at in an earlier post and am unveiling, pulling the sheet off the new contraption:

It is called the Michael Shermer Genius Screening Test

It is similar to the Turing Test, but places a great scientific mind or artisitc genius on one side of the partition and Michael Shermer on the other and they both discuss the interests of the scientist, but Mr. Shermer has no idea who he is talking to.

The disgusting delusional effect that will likely happen, as in the thought example of Mr. Shermer talking to Isaac Newton about alchemy and astrology, is that he or a similar 'skeptic' would come away feeling intellectually superior to some of the greatest minds in history.

The fact that this imagined device can create such a scenario should give 'skeptics' (read: non-contributors) reason to question their value to humanity and if they are not thwarting progress more than helping it along.

I will list some pinnacle scientists to imaginatively participate, especialy those who had strange and seemingly unscientific interests to go along with their science. And, the subject of conversation will be listed.

A few to start off:

Isaac Newton
Alchemy, astrology, Atlantis

Albert Einstein
Politics, theology

James Maxwell
Evangelical Christianity

Michael Faraday
Christianity, calculus (not that his views on calculus were irrational, just that his math knowledge did not even extend to trigonometry, but he is one of the greatest scientists)

Johannes Kepler
Astrology, the 'soul' of the Earth, numerology

Any more?

Edited by Brafarality, 10 July 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[Brafarality]

Drunken Alien

An Ancient Aliens drinking game I play with my beloved:

Whenever they say "Ancient Alien theorists believe...", we have to drink.
And, to tell you the truth, drinking opens our mind and makes what they are saying seem more and more likely. It is a good combination of mind expansion and viewing enjoyment.

[DAMABO]

Started this list with geniuses that Marilyn Vos Savant would beat on an IQ test. Here is Part II, which I hinted at in an earlier post and am unveiling, pulling the sheet off the new contraption:

It is called the Michael Shermer Genius Screening Test

It is similar to the Turing Test, but places a great scientific mind or artisitc genius on one side of the partition and Michael Shermer on the other and they both discuss the interests of the scientist, but Mr. Shermer has no idea who he is talking to.

The disgusting delusional effect that will likely happen, as in the thought example of Mr. Shermer talking to Isaac Newton about alchemy and astrology, is that he or a similar 'skeptic' would come away feeling intellectually superior to some of the greatest minds in history.

The fact that this imagined device can create such a scenario should give 'skeptics' (read: non-contributors) reason to question their value to humanity and if they are not thwarting progress more than helping it along.

I will list some pinnacle scientists to imaginatively participate, especialy those who had strange and seemingly unscientific interests to go along with their science. And, the subject of conversation will be listed.

A few to start off:

Isaac Newton
Alchemy, astrology, Atlantis

Albert Einstein
Politics, theology

James Maxwell
Evangelical Christianity

Michael Faraday
Christianity, calculus (not that his views on calculus were irrational, just that his math knowledge did not even extend to trigonometry, but he is one of the greatest scientists)

Johannes Kepler
Astrology, the 'soul' of the Earth, numerology

Any more?

Alchemy actually was kind of scientific, since it was highly influential to chemistry. Perhaps we can switch alchemy with 'believed he was a prophet send by god'. Newton was a very religious man as well, and wrote quite some pages on the subject - which he himself considered even more important. Euler was a very religious man as well - while being considered the greatest mathematician (the same league as gauss, newton and archimedes). we have another theologian named swedenborg, who besides being a brilliant polymath, wrote much books on the subject. Pascal is another example.
Indeed, if we consider theology irrational, seemingly irrational thoughts on one subject can inhabit the cleverest minds. Therefore ad hominem arguments of the type 'your opinion on this subject cannot be valid since your opinion on another subject is irrational' are to be ignored.

But mostly what one calls irrational is merely a reflection of 'I do not agree with you': we can argue about god, and strong atheist will even say they know there is no god, but in the end no one really knows - given we take god as some broad category, rather than a limited one (in some religions the notion 'god' is highly specified, so its probability of existing is nihil, combined with the extraordinary claims sometimes made). Or perhaps even the fact that astrology was a 'paradigm that failed': they tried to find some useful predictions, but they did not find them. Trying to find useful predictions, given the primitive state of science, cannot be called irrational. They did not have much clue whether this was in line with reality.

[Connor MacLeod]

Started this list with geniuses that Marilyn Vos Savant would beat on an IQ test. Here is Part II, which I hinted at in an earlier post and am unveiling, pulling the sheet off the new contraption:

It is called the Michael Shermer Genius Screening Test

It is similar to the Turing Test, but places a great scientific mind or artisitc genius on one side of the partition and Michael Shermer on the other and they both discuss the interests of the scientist, but Mr. Shermer has no idea who he is talking to.

The disgusting delusional effect that will likely happen, as in the thought example of Mr. Shermer talking to Isaac Newton about alchemy and astrology, is that he or a similar 'skeptic' would come away feeling intellectually superior to some of the greatest minds in history.

The fact that this imagined device can create such a scenario should give 'skeptics' (read: non-contributors) reason to question their value to humanity and if they are not thwarting progress more than helping it along.

I will list some pinnacle scientists to imaginatively participate, especialy those who had strange and seemingly unscientific interests to go along with their science. And, the subject of conversation will be listed.

A few to start off:

Isaac Newton
Alchemy, astrology, Atlantis

Albert Einstein
Politics, theology

James Maxwell
Evangelical Christianity

Michael Faraday
Christianity, calculus (not that his views on calculus were irrational, just that his math knowledge did not even extend to trigonometry, but he is one of the greatest scientists)

Johannes Kepler
Astrology, the 'soul' of the Earth, numerology

Any more?

Kurt Godel - Mathematician
Theist, Mystic

Donald Knuth - Computer Scienst, Winner of the Turing Award, Winner of the John Von Neumann Medal, etc.
Devout Christian and author of "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated"

Edited by Connor MacLeod, 11 July 2012 - 02:32 AM.

[Brafarality]

Started this list with geniuses that Marilyn Vos Savant would beat on an IQ test. Here is Part II, which I hinted at in an earlier post and am unveiling, pulling the sheet off the new contraption:

It is called the Michael Shermer Genius Screening Test

It is similar to the Turing Test, but places a great scientific mind or artisitc genius on one side of the partition and Michael Shermer on the other and they both discuss the interests of the scientist, but Mr. Shermer has no idea who he is talking to.

The disgusting delusional effect that will likely happen, as in the thought example of Mr. Shermer talking to Isaac Newton about alchemy and astrology, is that he or a similar 'skeptic' would come away feeling intellectually superior to some of the greatest minds in history.

The fact that this imagined device can create such a scenario should give 'skeptics' (read: non-contributors) reason to question their value to humanity and if they are not thwarting progress more than helping it along.

I will list some pinnacle scientists to imaginatively participate, especialy those who had strange and seemingly unscientific interests to go along with their science. And, the subject of conversation will be listed.

A few to start off:

Isaac Newton
Alchemy, astrology, Atlantis

Albert Einstein
Politics, theology

James Maxwell
Evangelical Christianity

Michael Faraday
Christianity, calculus (not that his views on calculus were irrational, just that his math knowledge did not even extend to trigonometry, but he is one of the greatest scientists)

Johannes Kepler
Astrology, the 'soul' of the Earth, numerology

Any more?

Kurt Godel - Mathematician
Theist, Mystic

Donald Knuth - Computer Scienst, Winner of the Turing Award, Winner of the John Von Neumann Medal, etc.
Devout Christian and author of "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated"

Connor MacLeod: Thanks for adding!

Damabo: True about alchemy. It WAS chemistry before chemistry existed!
And, I guess that's what I was getting at with the Shermer Test about beliefs in one area not discrediting others...but, I almost want to go further:
That the most original minds almost have to have some form of gullibility and that excessive skepticism is the worst thing for someone who is really really trying to see something new. I think, like a London cab driver's mind is changed by mapping streets for decades, I think Mr. Shermer and other excessive skeptic's mindset is possibly permanently and destructively rewired to prevent any form of genuine novel insight or breakthrough.

But, that could be extreme. Minds are plastic and consciousness may lie partly beyond the physical brain, which could prevent any brain mapping from causing a conclusive, inevitable outcome. So, even excessive skeptics may have hope.

Don't want to ignorantly damn any particular outlook to mediocre, since it will merely show how ignorant I am and not how hopeless they are.

Edited by Brafarality, 11 July 2012 - 06:10 AM.

[DAMABO]

That the most original minds almost have to have some form of gullibility and that excessive skepticism is the worst thing for someone who is really really trying to see something new.

interesting view. it depends on what it is you are trying to see new. for instance, with conspiracy theories, you could consider not believing the official story as excessively skeptic, but on the other hand you can have excessively skeptic people who view the conspiracy theory in this light.

I think we have already mentioned the example of astrology and alchemy - it seems to us that there was little skepticism going on. We could perhaps switch skepticism with skepticism a priori, or prejudice: if there is no evidence counter or pro, then it is easy to see that even skeptics normally can have no opinion. if there is evidence counter and pro, then it is easy to see that skeptics will emphasize the counter and optimists will emphasize the pro. Perhaps Newton could not have been very skeptic of astrology because it didn't have much evidence if it worked.

Still, I am of the opinion that you are correct. Excessive skepticism leads to a narrowminded view, which in many cases will be what the common opinion is (not necessarily right, but often right-ish), and in some cases might be blatantly refuted. Narrowmindedness surely has a way of sticking with common accepted dogma. An openminded view, on the otherhand, is open to a whole range of ideas - which in many cases can give the result that one takes unconvential ideas who often by the majority are considered incorrect. Both have their merits and pitfalls, I believe.

But on what point do we change the word 'open-minded to new ideas' to 'skeptic to old ideas'? I would say 'openminded people' consider always a multitude of options, whereas 'narrow-minded people' consider only the most accessible (the most popular, or agreed upon) option. However, is then not openminded also being skeptic? I believe the distinction is that the 'excessively skeptic' or the 'narrowminded' are the ones are skeptical to non-conventional ideas, whereas the 'openminded' is skeptical of all ideas, and thus has no reference point from which to choose without long active thought. The openminded thus has more options , and he might be somewhat overworking himself. This can sometimes result into a gullible belief.

Edited by DAMABO, 11 July 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[hooter]

Excessive skepticism most likely does not lead to a narrowminded view, because that is not at all what it means...... it just refers to a scientific and socratic approach to knowledge and analysis, not being skeptical of literally anything. That would be stubbornness, in reality the opposite of skepticism.

Skepticism is evidence based reasoning, not jumping up and down and yapping "OH NAH THATS FALSE PROBABLY, LOL'

[DAMABO]

Excessive skepticism most likely does not lead to a narrowminded view, because that is not at all what it means...... it just refers to a scientific and socratic approach to knowledge and analysis, not being skeptical of literally anything. That would be stubbornness, in reality the opposite of skepticism.

Skepticism is evidence based reasoning, not jumping up and down and yapping "OH NAH THATS FALSE PROBABLY, LOL'

I would consider what you mention 'healthy skepticism', and 'being skeptical of literally anything' to be 'excessive skepticism'. Excessive is here used to indicate a negative connotation. Words are all fluid in meaning of course, somewhat of a problem in many discussions. Another point I made with regard to skepticism is that so called 'openminded' people, are skeptical to everything in the sense that they consider each idea worth consideration. Of course, this indicates a certain boundary to 'worth consideration' - which for everybody is different of course.
Anyway, I don't think one should discard the ideas of another based on some to the topic irrelevant characteristics (such as believes a certain quacky documentary).

[Brafarality]

The Longecity forum has such a preserved history of my inconstancy and waffling that it is pretty embarassing:

i. Hey, you're the guy who hates Frasier and Star Trek: Voyager
ii. Hey, aren't you the guy who thinks bears are more powerful than tigers?
iii. Aren't you a climate change skeptic?
iv. Don't you think exercise is negative?

i. No, I love Frasier and Star Trek Voyager
ii. No, I think tigers and felines in general are among the most powerful predators and beings on the planet
iii. No, I believe initiatives to slow or thwart global warming and climate change should be started right away
iv. No, although extreme training probably wears out the body, moderate exercise is extremely useful, and all good

It goes on and on and on.

Same here:
No matter how much I try to become fully anti-intellectual, anti-IQ, I just got so caught up in a competitive mental challenge, that I cannot help but realize how false are my professed views here, and that I just see them as some form of counter-nerd cool, which they are not. We started on this two bit 80 point ($1) Xbox Indie game of finding the odd shape of 4, and progressed to video chess and Brain Challenge. I cared too much about the implications of losing and got so caught up in playing hard that it really should cause one to doubt his seemingly (though not really) 'cool' anti-intellectual beliefs and be more TRUE TO HIMSELF!

Can't reply for a few days till I am more certain of where I really stand on the matter of IQ and intellect. But, thanks so much all for contributing!

Edited by Brafarality, 12 July 2012 - 05:35 AM.

[DAMABO]

hihi. let us know what the outcome is

[Brafarality]

DAMABO: Will do. Took a diversion back into my redundant assailing of the Hipster Majority:

Some new thoughts (is it OK to add this to this thead since I started it and since its in the anything goes category?) on the Dominant Culture Hipster-Emo-Indie Hybrid (aka The Hipster Majority):

i. Faux Culture

Someone not long ago expressed how they woudn't listen to classical music if it was in one of those "Beethoven For Breakfast" CDs, and felt pretty cultured after stating this weak and pathetic attempt to distance her average self from other average people. There is a big problem with this viewpoint:
It doesn't indicate refinement at all. All it really indicates is that the person is 100% controlled by marketing and packaging:
It's the packaging and marketing of the CD that she minds, not the typically high quality recordings on such CDs.

If you want to be a force of benevolence in the world, the next time someone says something like "Oh, I don't listen to those crass Bach for Brunch CDs", reply with something to the effect of: "I see you are very influenced by marketing and packaging then"
This should stop such a pathetic cultural rat-race attempt to scratch and claw for every cultural inch in its tracks. That is, if the person is open minded. Of course, don't be confrontational. It is just calling out the falseness in a flawed attempt to seem refined.

ii. The Emo Bar

This is the culture-level bar I mentioned earlier but did not name. It is the bar that emos, goths and indies set just high enough so that (in their perception) they can be above it and look down on the Bud drinkers, Archie Bunker, Nickelback and the McDonalds goers. But, they NEVER set the bar so high that it only includes the elite and excludes all average people, including themselves. Sincek, in truth, all they really have going for them is Urban Outfitters mass produced clothing and a few mass popular 'indie' bands, like the Ra Ra Riot and the Smith Westerns, both with very well known songs featured in nation-wide advertising campaigns, or Vampire Weekend with its 18 milion view videos on YouTube.

It is a bar that is somewhere around the upper 49th percentile. Barely above average, if even that. That is a generous assessment.

iii. The Hipster Majority

Kinda like the republicans and democrats more or less compose the national population, both being the dominant political affiliations, the Hipster Majority represents all things Urban Outfitters, Hot Topic, Starbucks, dyed hair, 'indie music', The Pixies, Beck, graphic novels, Red Stripe, Moleskine, The Decemberists, and Haruki Murakami.

The problem is, I don't think there is a term that describes the other majority/dominant culture that includes Archie Bunker, Mc Donalds, Nickelback, Ben Affleck, Football, Budweiser, Van Halen, Levis, and Norman Rockwell.
Anyone got a name for this other dominant culture?

Put the Hipster Majority together with this other unnamed group and you pretty much cover 80% of the American population.

iv. Robert Louis Stevenson and the Modernist Establishment

The Modernist Establishment is very powerful. Those who think America is a bunch of crass people who like Michael Bolton and barn dances and that their small average clique rise above this are sadly mistaken. The problem with such delusions is they allow a powerful modernist and post-modernist estabishment to dictate public education and culture at all levels, even into faddish pop culture. As much as the hipster majority wants to believe it so they can feel special about themselves, American culture at the university and public school level is not dicated by people who like Garth Brooks and rodeos. It is dictated by a powerful elite who EXCLUDE all things like Garth Brooks and Zane Grey and who only allow in 'Modern' culture of the late 19th and into the 20th centuries (except for a few classics like Apology, Hamlet, Inferno, etc).
An example:
I am not a fan of Robert Louis Stevenson, but the Modernist Establishment excluded him from antholigization and school and university cirriculums. This is unfortunate, since light adventure tales written by a master are a fantastic bridge between pop literature and great literature for those who are reaching and fumbling through life looking for a sign.

Here is a well-referenced Wikipedia excerpt on the plight of Robert Louis Stevenson's literature in modern volumes and classrooms. Apologies to the Hipster Majority: As much as you want to contrast yourselves from an America that is run by the Big Mac crowd, it just isnt like that. After the rise of Modernism, nothing except modernism had made university and school teachings. When was the last time a romance novel was 'taught' in high school?

Stevenson was a celebrity in his own time, but with the rise of modern literature after World War I, he was seen for much of the 20th century as a writer of the second class, relegated to children's literature and horror genres.[80] Condemned by literary figures such as Virginia Woolf (daughter of his early mentor Leslie Stephen) and her husband Leonard, he was gradually excluded from the canon of literature taught in schools.[80] His exclusion reached a height when in the 1973 2,000-page Oxford Anthology of English Literature Stevenson was entirely unmentioned; and The Norton Anthology of English Literature excluded him from 1968 to 2000 (1st–7th editions), including him only in the 8th edition (2006).[80] The late 20th century saw the start of a re-evaluation of Stevenson as an artist of great range and insight, a literary theorist, an essayist and social critic, a witness to the colonial history of the Pacific Islands, and a humanist.[80] Even as early as 1965 the pendulum had begun to swing: he was praised by Roger Lancelyn Green, one of the Oxford Inklings, as a writer of a consistently high level of "literary skill or sheer imaginative power" and a co-originator with H. Rider Haggard of the Age of the Story Tellers.[81] He is now being re-evaluated as a peer of authors such as Joseph Conrad (whom Stevenson influenced with his South Seas fiction), and Henry James, with new scholarly studies and organisations devoted to Stevenson.[80] No matter what the scholarly reception, Stevenson remains popular worldwide. According to the Index Translationum, Stevenson is ranked the 26th most translated author in the world, ahead of fellow nineteenth-century writers Oscar Wilde and Edgar Allan Poe.[3]

If America was truly running rampant with beeftards and cowpokes, the above modernist elitist exclusion of Stevenson from the curriculums followed by 100s of millions of public school and university students would not have happened.

For the record, I am a rabid modernist and am never happier than when at the MoMA or Guggenheim in the overwhelming and heart-palpitating presence of my favorite masterworks, but the truth cannot be denied. If Modernism/Post-Modernism (as outlooks, not as what is 'modern' in the literal sense) wants to reign for another 100 years, it should open its doors to lowbrow culture beyond Warhol and Lichtenstein. In his time, Shakespeare was closer in public perception to Crichton than to Yann Martel, Murakami, and Faulkner. That is another painful truth for the Hipster Majority.

Edited by Brafarality, 15 July 2012 - 08:01 AM.