Quackery
Uncategorized

What Do You Think You Know?

A perfectly brilliant observation. We really don’t know enough of anything to think we know anything at all.

The Ethical Warrior

Everyone seems to be so sure about what they think that they know.  Virtually, everyone; from the intellectuals to truck drivers to the so-called “man on the street”.  But what if everything you knew was wrong?

Let’s start with belief systems.  Belief systems can be developed from only one of two sources – experience, or by accepting someone else’s opinion.  That’s it.  Since most people have had limited experiences, they, by definition, owe almost all of their “knowledge” to other people and their opinions.  So it’s more accurate to say that we believe that other people are correct in their opinions than to say that we know for certain.  Then again, if everyone believes that something is true, then perhaps we would be even more comfortable in our certainty.  Of course if we had believed that the sun revolved around the earth, like everyone did once upon a time, then…

View original post 571 more words

Advertisements

About Quackzalcoatl

Phoneticist, Palindrologist, and freelance Sharknadologist. Inventor. Ruler of 2-acre lakes and small streams.

Discussion

6 thoughts on “What Do You Think You Know?

  1. You have no idea how many comments have been moderated into obscurity that take him to task for misrepresenting what’s true so that chicagoja can arrange the dish you so easily swallow. He is neither advocating for what’s ethical nor the least concerned with fighting for what’s true. He won’t tolerate it and then uses the excuse that the ‘critics’ (those who are concerned with what’s true and who do fight the ethical fight against misrepresentations) are followers of some mysterious ‘ideology’. The hostility is exactly right because it is earned. All he cares to operate is an echo chamber with cheer leaders. That’s your role.

    Posted by tildeb | 10 October, 2013, 7:25 pm
    • Yeah, I don’t like moderating or being moderated either, so I can understand your frustration. I’m not really much for confrontation, no matter what it’s concerning. I’m not so much a cheerleader as I am a champion of different ideas, anything that differs from the mainstream or concensus. I haven’t read too many posts yet, so I can’t really comment on anything much beyond what I’ve read so far. Either way, I just shrug my shoulders and laugh. What else can you do?

      Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 10 October, 2013, 9:07 pm
      • Well, you can explore the differences and see how and why others may have opinions different from your own. That doesn’t automatically mean agreement or hostility (or ‘ideological differences’) but it usually means claiming and defending and showing compelling reasons for the opinions. John Zande, for example, is a fountain of information that checks out. (Those arguing with creationsits learn very quickly to not trust any quotation used in its support because it’s almost always a misrepresentation… something our friend does.) When he offers insight, it’s best to follow his comments and use them to learn stuff one probably didn’t know. Agreement with him is not the point; repsecting what he offers and taking them seriously is. Moderating and then banning shows an unwillingness to be respectful of these differences, to ignore the quality of the content offered, to reduce the efforts to be meaningless, and to show that one simply doesn’t care about what’s true… or potentially true. Chicagoja does this and he deserves criticism for his methods. He’s demonstrated that he is intellectually dishonest, and so if someone doesn;t care about respecting what’s true, then why should an yone pay him any attention at all?

        Posted by tildeb | 10 October, 2013, 10:49 pm
        • Yeah, you’ve got a point. And you’re right about John, he’s always got a lot to say and I enjoy his comments. And he’s always pleasant, at least to me, so I respect him very much. I like hearing what he has to say. I certainly don’t have all the answers and there’s plenty to be gained from checking everything out. I welcome your comments anytime!

          Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 10 October, 2013, 11:37 pm
          • And chicagoja has also banned John so we don’t get to see the comment(s) he has made to address chicogoja’s accusations against him. This is not ethical and it certainly isn’t about fighting for what’s true; it’s a kind of tyranny that is intolerant of dissenting voices, a method of control that relegates what’s true to be of little, if any, concern… hidden behind the blanket accusation that dissenters are of a kind, who share an ideology, who won’t respect the quote mining (when in my own case I went to some trouble to show how and where he misrepresents Einstein and distorts the meaning of the quote used time again). That’s not fighting for what’s true; it’s promoting a message in opposition to it and brooking no dissent. The point of his post is countered by compelling evidence that we do, indeed, know a lot… and have the means to be highly confident in what we know. We also recognize what we don’t know and, unlike chicagoja’s contrary assertion, most of us are quite comfortable saying so without jumping to the conclusion that Oogity Boogity must therefore be a casual agent exercising some kind of POOF!ism to causal effect in the universe. The problem with the post is that the approach fails to differentiate between claims of knowledge about how reality seems to work (which we then use to build and formulate applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time) and claims of equivalent knowledge that possess no means to determine if true (Intelligent Design – blessed be His name) There is qualitative difference between these two claims in that only the first demonstrate a reasonable justification for confidence; the latter does not. Chicagoja fails to recognize any such difference but utilizes quotations to try to make it appear that big brained people support POOF!ism. This is disingenuous.

            Posted by tildeb | 11 October, 2013, 7:57 am
            • I don’t understand banning John. Geeze. John’s about the most articulate and respectful guy around. I was wondering why John was getting pissy because it’s so unlike him.

              Yeah, I see your point. I just came across his post and liked it and Chicagoja had a lot of interesting posts, though I haven’t gone through them all. I noticed a lot of what you’re saying, so yeah. I totally understand where you’re coming from. Sorry about my rant on that post. I kind of figured since no one said anything about it, that I’d stepped in the middle of something with a history I didn’t know about.

              Posted by Quackzalcoatl | 11 October, 2013, 8:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: