Small Minds

[Bill]

In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss
events; small minds discuss people.". The thread is about
people. It is not about what they may have said but what is
alleged to be their motives.

This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
thinking about and ignore the rest.

Bill

[Roger Shrubber]

An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
thank you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:43:23 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Cool! Now you get to define how to objectively tell the
difference before thinking about them (note the word
"objectively"). Start here:
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.

If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for the
theory of biological evolution, it would be immediately and
vociferously rejected. Since the logic and evidence is the
same in both cases, why prefer one to the other? Well, gee,
one supports one bias and the other, another one. The
evidence just doesn't matter.

Since preferring one explanation is based on what one
already believes rather than any evidence, the issue becomes
who believes what instead of what is believed. The ensuing
disagreements will necessarily be ad hominems. We end up
talking about people instead of ideas.

Bill

[Roger Shrubber]

Bill wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
>>> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
>>> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The thread
>>> is about people. It is not about what they may have said
>>> but what is alleged to be their motives.
>>>
>>> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
>>> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>>
>> An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
>> are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
>> thank you.
>
> Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
> worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
> anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
> unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
> possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.

You have observed that, as far as we know, the Earth is
the only planet that hosts intelligent life. Then,
you have repeatedly claimed that this is equivalent to
claiming that the Earth is unique in the universe in hosting
intelligent life. You don't seem to understand that these two
things are not even close to being equivalent.

The first observation is true. It reflects the limit
of our knowledge. The second makes a positive claim
about knowing that there is no life elsewhere in the
universe. You don't seem to understand that it does so,
apparently your idiosyncratic view of the English language
is different from nearly everyone else.

> If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for the
> theory of biological evolution, it would be immediately and
> vociferously rejected. Since the logic and evidence is the
> same in both cases, why prefer one to the other? Well, gee,
> one supports one bias and the other, another one. The
> evidence just doesn't matter.

Your arguments, to the extent that you actually make arguments,
have repeatedly strewn random non sequiturs about with an
impassioned bravado. It generally makes one doubt your
sincerity except for the possibility that you just have no
grasp of sound logic at all. And that is mingled with evidence
that you are using various words in non-standard ways.

It's possible that your writing reflects a defect in language
processing that flows into the processing of logic. The two
are related and we see other examples of the same.

> Since preferring one explanation is based on what one
> already believes rather than any evidence, the issue becomes
> who believes what instead of what is believed. The ensuing
> disagreements will necessarily be ad hominems. We end up
> talking about people instead of ideas.

It necessarily because about your particular claims, and your
particular language, which turns out to be unusual. You use
words like "unique" in ways that conflict with common usage.
Thus the issue is _your_ arguments and _your_ claims with a
difficult challenge of separating what _your_ words mean
according to standard English, and what you meant when you
wrote them --- with these apparently being different things.

It's quite difficult to keep you out of it.

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
>>> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
>>> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The thread
>>> is about people. It is not about what they may have said
>>> but what is alleged to be their motives.
>>>
>>> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
>>> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>>
>> An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
>> are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
>> thank you.
>
> Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
> worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
> anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
> unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
> possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.

Nope. You failed to offer evidence that earth is unique, and you confuse
the objection that you failed to provide any evidence for the uniqueness
of earth with the claim that earth is provably not unique

>
> If that same logic

Your "logic" the the fallacy of the false dichotomy

was used to counter the evidence for the
> theory of biological evolution, it would be immediately and
> vociferously rejected. Since the logic and evidence is the
> same in both cases, why prefer one to the other?

Because it isn't, and there are sound reasons that require only the most
basic logical capacity to see them

[Bill]

Since you forgot to provide your evidence of my errors, how
can I improve my reasoning skills? Since your only objection
seems to involve my choice of words, it must be that
different words will earn your approval.

How about, the Earth is the only planet in the universe
known to contain life? While it's not clear how this differs
from the word, unique, at least the words are unique to this
sentence.

The more people quibble over my choice of words the more
defective their arguments become.

>
> The first observation is true. It reflects the limit
> of our knowledge. The second makes a positive claim
> about knowing that there is no life elsewhere in the
> universe. You don't seem to understand that it does so,
> apparently your idiosyncratic view of the English language
> is different from nearly everyone else.

Not knowing is not going help your claims. The not knowing
part of this argument is significant in that there are no
exceptions to a claim of uniqueness. You can substitute
claims of ignorance with some probability of knowledge and
still be abysmally ignorant.

>
>> If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for
>> the theory of biological evolution, it would be
>> immediately and vociferously rejected. Since the logic
>> and evidence is the same in both cases, why prefer one to
>> the other? Well, gee, one supports one bias and the
>> other, another one. The evidence just doesn't matter.
>
> Your arguments, to the extent that you actually make
> arguments, have repeatedly strewn random non sequiturs
> about with an impassioned bravado. It generally makes one
> doubt your sincerity except for the possibility that you
> just have no grasp of sound logic at all. And that is
> mingled with evidence that you are using various words in
> non-standard ways.

I notice that your evidence is still absent. Maybe there
isn't any. Maybe the problem is unique to this newsgroup and
nowhere else would anyone make your arguments.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:FIidnZu1NsMe7o3I...@giganews.com...

> Bill wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
>>>> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
>>>> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The thread
>>>> is about people. It is not about what they may have said
>>>> but what is alleged to be their motives.
>>>>
>>>> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
>>>> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>>>
>>> An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
>>> are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
>>> thank you.
>>
>> Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
>> worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
>> anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
>> unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
>> possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.
>
> You have observed that, as far as we know, the Earth is
> the only planet that hosts intelligent life. Then,
> you have repeatedly claimed that this is equivalent to
> claiming that the Earth is unique in the universe in hosting
> intelligent life. You don't seem to understand that these two
> things are not even close to being equivalent.

Disprove it.
>

[Roger Shrubber]

Of course your choice of words matter. The word "unique"
means something and the word unique is central to your claim.
A claim of the form X is Y is highly dependent upon the
choice of the words X and Y.

> How about, the Earth is the only planet in the universe
> known to contain life? While it's not clear how this differs
> from the word, unique, at least the words are unique to this
> sentence.

It's completely clear to most of the English speaking world.
The claim that the Earth is unique makes a positive assertion.
It is distinctly different from the claim that the Earth is
unique as far as we know because it lacks the context of
"as far as we know". If you honestly don't understand this,
I'm forced to question both your ability to communicate,
and your ability to think.

> The more people quibble over my choice of words the more
> defective their arguments become.

It is not a quibble to point out that your choice of
words renders your claim incorrect. Words are like
that. Claims are dependent upon the words you use.
It should be obvious to anyone that your claims are
entirely dependent upon the words you use. Using
different words tends to generate different claims.

>> The first observation is true. It reflects the limit
>> of our knowledge. The second makes a positive claim
>> about knowing that there is no life elsewhere in the
>> universe. You don't seem to understand that it does so,
>> apparently your idiosyncratic view of the English language
>> is different from nearly everyone else.

> Not knowing is not going help your claims. The not knowing
> part of this argument is significant in that there are no
> exceptions to a claim of uniqueness. You can substitute
> claims of ignorance with some probability of knowledge and
> still be abysmally ignorant.

I know how your claims parses in commonly accepted English.
The contradictions and non sequiturs in your claims point
to problems either in your thinking, your writing, or both.
Both appears to be the most parsimonious explanation.

>>> If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for
>>> the theory of biological evolution, it would be
>>> immediately and vociferously rejected. Since the logic
>>> and evidence is the same in both cases, why prefer one to
>>> the other? Well, gee, one supports one bias and the
>>> other, another one. The evidence just doesn't matter.

>> Your arguments, to the extent that you actually make
>> arguments, have repeatedly strewn random non sequiturs
>> about with an impassioned bravado. It generally makes one
>> doubt your sincerity except for the possibility that you
>> just have no grasp of sound logic at all. And that is
>> mingled with evidence that you are using various words in
>> non-standard ways.

> I notice that your evidence is still absent. Maybe there
> isn't any. Maybe the problem is unique to this newsgroup and
> nowhere else would anyone make your arguments.

You attempt to transition from a lack a knowledge to a claim
of knowledge. Logic does no support that transition. Period.
Not knowing if life exists elsewhere does not support your claim
that it does not exist elsewhere (that the Earth is unique in
hosting life). That's what the words mean. What the words mean
matters.

[Inez]

I can explain to you how this differs from the word "unique." The above phrasing accepts that we really don't know about the rest of the universe. The word "unique" suggest we do.

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 23 March 2015 21:49:09 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
> > Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
> >> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
> >> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The thread
> >> is about people. It is not about what they may have said
> >> but what is alleged to be their motives.
> >>
> >> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
> >> thinking about and ignore the rest.
> >
> > An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
> > are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
> > thank you.
>
> Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
> worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
> anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
> unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
> possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.

No. Your evidence was that: We do not have evidence if earth
is or isn't unique therefore earth is unique. That is it.
How there is any spark of logic in it what to reject?
You yourself say we have no information either way so nothing
can be concluded from it.

> If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for the
> theory of biological evolution, it would be immediately and
> vociferously rejected. Since the logic and evidence is the
> same in both cases, why prefer one to the other? Well, gee,
> one supports one bias and the other, another one. The
> evidence just doesn't matter.

Theory of evolution is fully logical. The offspring is similar
to parents. It is more similar than to others of same specie.
It always also differs a bit from parents. The average amount
of genetic changes per generation and under various conditions
is measured by scientists. Life is not easy. The more fit offspring
will more likely survive and become parents of their offspring.
So the fittest pass their genes (with slight changes) on and on
and on. It is hard to imagine what can be wrong about such
sound theory.

> Since preferring one explanation is based on what one
> already believes rather than any evidence, the issue becomes
> who believes what instead of what is believed. The ensuing
> disagreements will necessarily be ad hominems. We end up
> talking about people instead of ideas.

You mix two things up. One is belief. For example I do not believe
neither extraterrestial sightings nor jesus sightings. I believe
those are results of mental illnesses, hallucinations, humans
tendency to lie, fantasize and daydream. I have no proof and no
evidence so this is purely belief. You have full right to believe
that I am wrong and there are angels or jesuses or ufos roaming
around and doing whatever.

However theory of evolution has enough evidence to consider it
conclusive enough. Even if something of it is wrong then not
everything. It can be used in human engineering, research and
design. It has nothing related to faith in it, it is as useful
in practice as theory of gravity.

[Bill]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> On Monday, 23 March 2015 21:49:09 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
>> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>>
>> > Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
>> >> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
>> >> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The
>> >> thread is about people. It is not about what they may
>> >> have said but what is alleged to be their motives.
>> >>
>> >> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
>> >> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>> >

Bill

I don't dispute that a theory of evolution can be logical
nor do I deny that explanations abound and multiply daily.
Of course such theories explain things. The question is, are
the explanations sufficient to exclude all other
explanations? I see that as an open question.

...

>
> However theory of evolution has enough evidence to
> consider it conclusive enough. Even if something of it is
> wrong then not everything. It can be used in human
> engineering, research and design. It has nothing related
> to faith in it, it is as useful in practice as theory of
> gravity.

A belief based on science that requires belief that it's
complete. Yes, I believe in science too. Even so I would
have to be a scientist practicing a particular science to
know beyond doubt that my belief is justified.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/23/15 5:09 PM, Bill wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
>> [...]

>> Theory of evolution is fully logical. The offspring is
>> similar to parents. It is more similar than to others of
>> same specie. It always also differs a bit from parents.
>> The average amount of genetic changes per generation and
>> under various conditions is measured by scientists. Life
>> is not easy. The more fit offspring will more likely
>> survive and become parents of their offspring. So the
>> fittest pass their genes (with slight changes) on and on
>> and on. It is hard to imagine what can be wrong about such
>> sound theory.
>
> I don't dispute that a theory of evolution can be logical
> nor do I deny that explanations abound and multiply daily.
> Of course such theories explain things. The question is, are
> the explanations sufficient to exclude all other
> explanations? I see that as an open question.

Why in hell would you *want* to exclude all other explanations? Have
you ever looked at the results of an FAA accident report? The cause of
the accident is never just one thing; it is a combination of factors
such as equipment failure, maintenance failure, insufficient training to
deal with emergencies, management failure, etc. Likewise, species
change is already known to be due to a number of causes, including
mutation, differential mortality from any of a myriad of causes,
migration, environmental factors, and more. If you any additional
explanations you would like to add to the mix, the scientific community
would be happy to see your evidence for them.

> ...
>
>>
>> However theory of evolution has enough evidence to
>> consider it conclusive enough. Even if something of it is
>> wrong then not everything. It can be used in human
>> engineering, research and design. It has nothing related
>> to faith in it, it is as useful in practice as theory of
>> gravity.
>
> A belief based on science that requires belief that it's
> complete.

Huh? Anyone who knows the first thing about science knows that nothing
in it can ever possibly be complete. In fact, that incompleteness (and,
crucially, recognition of it) is how science gets to be more reliable
than any other field of human endeavor, excepting perhaps mathematics.

> Yes, I believe in science too. Even so I would
> have to be a scientist practicing a particular science to
> know beyond doubt that my belief is justified.

Just like you have to be a professional political scientist to know
whether your vote choice is justified, and you have be a medical doctor
to know if your consent to a medical procedure is justified. And, you
might add, you have to be a professional philosopher to know that your
conclusion above is justified. So where did you get your philosophy degree?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[RonO]

Actually the purpose of the By Their Fruits thread is to give anyone
access to posts like this so that they can see for themselves the lame
state of the ID/creationist scam at this time. What Great Idea have you
put forward to discuss? Did you ever make good on your claims against
the 100% failure rate of the ID junk? Did you ever put up the
alternatives to the ID perps that you claim exist? Did you ever put up
any alternative ID science that you claim exists? If anyone wanted to
take the time, I give them access to as many of your posts as they can
stand to read to determine just what the state of things are for
themselves. Really, the purpose of the thread is to let anyone that
wants to look into the situation the ability to see for themselves what
the fruit of the ID/creationist movement is. Look up the Biblical quote.

Ron Okimoto

[Ray Martinez]

Ron quote-mines the Bible, that is, the source of Creationism, and says, by implication, that the Bible condemns those who accept the Biblical explanation of life as bad fruit.

It just doesn't get any nuttier. Ron is a completely deluded moron without any ability to think clearly or logically. He has been told that the observation of design, seen in each species, falsifies the theory of evolution and its patterns suggesting common descent and unguided natural causation.

If fact Ron is so nutty, not even fellow Evolutionist Peter Nyikos dares to lend him intellectual aid.

Case Closed.

Ray

[Chris Thompson]

On 3/23/2015 3:46 PM, Bill wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
>>> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds
>>> discuss events; small minds discuss people.". The thread
>>> is about people. It is not about what they may have said
>>> but what is alleged to be their motives.
>>>
>>> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
>>> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>>
>> An excellent post, until the last phrase. Defective ideas
>> are provide useful teaching moments. So thank you, and
>> thank you.
>
> Yes, there's mostly defective ideas expressed here and the
> worst part is that being defective doesn't seem to bother
> anyone here. Consider that I offered evidence that Earth is
> unique and it was rejected because counter evidence may,
> possibly, perhaps, could or should exist.
>

You offered no evidence. You speculated about completely unknown
conditions, assumed you were correct, and trumpeted a faulty conclusion.

> If that same logic was used to counter the evidence for the
> theory of biological evolution, it would be immediately and
> vociferously rejected.

Absolutely correct, since your idea of logic pretty much amounts to
"whatever spoiled tripe I want to believe." Thus, I for one would
certainly reject your bowl of decomposing cow organ.

I asked you recently in another thread what your standard of evidence
was, that you rejected the evidence for evolution. Consider the question
asked again.

> Since the logic and evidence is the
> same in both cases, why prefer one to the other? Well, gee,
> one supports one bias and the other, another one. The
> evidence just doesn't matter.

Before you run around charging 99%+ of the biologists on the planet of
bias, why not get your ducks in a row? Pick an appropriate peer-reviewed
paper and present your evidence of bias. Re-analyze the data properly to
reach your alternate conclusion.

>
> Since preferring one explanation is based on what one
> already believes rather than any evidence, the issue becomes

What a load of bollocks. Scientists reject pet hypotheses all the time-
more so, much more so than most other people in other occupations, and
certainly more so than religions have ever done. Don't you think most
geologists wanted to believe that continents were static?

> who believes what instead of what is believed. The ensuing
> disagreements will necessarily be ad hominems. We end up
> talking about people instead of ideas.
>

One gets the impression that evidence could emerge from your body like a
Guinea worm, and you still would not acknowledge it.

Chris

[Dana Tweedy]

Apparently Ray is concerned that he sees that Ron is correct in
identifying creationism as bad fruit.

>
> It just doesn't get any nuttier.

Well, it could be a bit nuttier... one could believe, for example that
seeing a resemblance to something means one has seen the thing itself.
That's much "nuttier" than anything Ron has said.

> Ron is a completely deluded moron without any ability to think clearly or logically.

Ray, you misspelled your own name here, and wrote "Ron" instead.

> He has been told that the observation of design, seen in each species, falsifies the theory of evolution and its patterns suggesting common descent and unguided natural causation.
>

See, now that above is truly "nutty". Ron's claims don't even come close.

> If fact Ron is so nutty, not even fellow Evolutionist Peter Nyikos dares to lend him intellectual aid.

Why do you imagine Ron needs 'Intellectual aid"?

>
> Case Closed.

What, no cross examination? No discussion of the evidence?

I move for a mistrial.


DJT

[jillery]

And what do you think qualifies as an ideas worth thinking about?

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 02:14:09 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

The existing scientific theories are not and can not be
sufficient to exclude all other possible explanations. There
is always something more that is yet undiscovered. Science
has constantly grown and changed since we learned to record
information (to write) and will remain like that.

> > However theory of evolution has enough evidence to
> > consider it conclusive enough. Even if something of it is
> > wrong then not everything. It can be used in human
> > engineering, research and design. It has nothing related
> > to faith in it, it is as useful in practice as theory of
> > gravity.
>
> A belief based on science that requires belief that it's
> complete.

Science and complete? It will never happen. Our knowledge
will be always slightly wrong or incomplete. For example
why does mutation rate of (at least some of) bacteria grow
tenfold under stress? Appears there must be something that
*does* the mutations and *controls* (at least) the rate.

> Yes, I believe in science too. Even so I would
> have to be a scientist practicing a particular science to
> know beyond doubt that my belief is justified.

That is not how scientists think. They *are* in doubt. They
constantly search for ways to produce new evidence,
contradicting evidence and other ways to explain existing
evidence. Engineers can often use the fruits of science
since it is usually well thought thru, disputed and tested.
Science simply can't use goddidit explanations because there
are nothing to test or dispute. It can be well so that God
does things. Scientist can't add to end of the theory that
"that is always so unless Brahma alters it" because that will
insult other scientist who believes into Allah and third
scientist who believes into neither. So they have stopped
doing it.

[Burkhard]

That's not what explanations do, they do not come with a "and that is
all there is" quantifier attached (unlike philosophical theories, which
might)

Everybody who thinks they have a better explanation can put it on the
table - it then needs to show that it improves upon the existing one.
This can be done e.g. by showing that it explains data that the existing
theory does not explain, or by showing that it is ceteris paribus
simpler and requires fewer problematic assumptions (while keeping all
the explanatory power). Or by showing that it removes inconsistencies
with other theories we think are correct. Or, by trying to test the
alternative, leads us to new and interesting observations and opens new
research questions that can be solved with the theoretical vocabulary of
that alternative theory.

That is as soon as you have a fully formulated alternative explanation,
it is normally possible to decide which one does a better job.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:15:47 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Why would he want to even try to disprove that his statement
is correct when it is in fact correct? The two statements
are not equivalent.

[Roger Shrubber]

Glenn also seems to occasionally suffer from a mind that
leaps to false dichotomies. Of course, he sensibly almost
never explains what he is thinking and instead snipes from
the sidelines. That's one reason he's in my killfile. I
just can't recall him posting anything worthy of attention
that involves his own words. And the things he cuts and
pastes miss the point as well, at least the way I see it.

But if he tries to pony up and show that Bill's two claims
are equivalent, or that there's a legitimate logical link
between the two, it might be entertaining if somebody
replied so I could see it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:51:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

I doubt that will happen, especially since his "challenge"
indicates that he thinks it's up to others to disprove
unsupported assertions, such as Bill's regarding evidence
that Earth is unique.

[Walter Bushell]

Unfortunately Sir Terry Pratchett never got around to writing _Small
Minds_.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Roger Shrubber]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> Unfortunately Sir Terry Pratchett never got around to writing _Small
> Minds_.

It would have involved something (not a tortoise) that birds drop.

[Burkhard]

Or a crab that tries to get out of its bucket, but the others are
holding it back

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 3/26/2015 9:27 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> Unfortunately Sir Terry Pratchett never got around to writing _Small
> Minds_.
>

It's about people who don't think Pratchett's novels are funny.

Mitchell Coffey

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El lunes, 23 de marzo de 2015, 17:44:09 (UTC), Bill escribió:
> In reference to the thread, "By Their Fruits" by RonO,
> consider: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss
> events; small minds discuss people.". The thread is about
> people. It is not about what they may have said but what is
> alleged to be their motives.
>
> This thread has a Great Idea: Think about ideas worth
> thinking about and ignore the rest.
>

> Bill

we all have motives, Bill. For we are social animals. We had received a
wisdom of sorts, more or less. Then, our intelligence is the intelligence
of our predecessors, and our truths and our lies, are inherited... or I
would rather say "are programmed in our neurons". Then, our intelligence
is not autonomous, we are a sort of robots that are playing the role it
had been inscribed in our brains.
Then, the people of science had been training to learn the past intelligence
of our predecessors. In a few cases, some people can determine that some
former piece of intelligence is wrong, and they change it. Well, it is
not that easy. Those special people have to wait for their new truths to
be accepted. It is not automatic the acceptance of new ideas.

People outside science is in a similar case and they can be defending the
truth of their false gods for some millennia.

In the case of science, it is not easy to change a line, but it is not
impossible. For science admits that "there are not certainties".

While in religion I am awaiting for someone to say, that the bible is
a falsification written by liars, and so for all the holy books of
the planet.

Then, we are all social animals, and our behavior is conditioned. Our
acting is not autonomous, it is a program that was written in our brain.
In general, we have not the means to detect if our truths are real
truths or are simply lies.

eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

You have not any errors, Bill. Error is a relative concept.
You are with some program of thinking it has is own rules of
reasoning. Then, within your own paradigm only another person that
pertains to your own world can tell you are in error.

A scientist has also different rules of reasoning, and we are not
in a situation to say you are wrong if you believe in the holy
trinity, to put a trivial example. Even if you do not believe in
the holy trinity, there is a lot of questions you believe and a
scientists do not.
So, it has not any sense to spit accusations to each other across
the lines of fire, shouting you are wrong. The rules of reasoning
are quite different.
I would had added that even among scientist, there are also some
divisions or borders, that define subtle differences in thinking.
This is easy to understand, when you consider that an expert in a
field cannot understand some concepts of another field. The diverse
kingdoms of science have different rules of thinking. Or this is
what I am thinking in this moment. I had never read this anywhere.


But you seem to pertain to some set of thinking or reasoning that
is not coherent or intersecting the world of science.

Well, perhaps between scientists and not scientists it must exist
some intersection of common logic, but only applies to trivial
questions.
You can count the sheep in the same way a scientist can count the sheep.
And you can drive a car in a similar way that a scientists do it.
You can roast some pieces of meat in a similar way if you are a Christian
or a Muslim, or a theoretical physicist.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Nothing can be prove nor disprove. All is true or false according
to a program each one has in its brain.

That is the reason it does not make any sense the disputes among
scientists and believers in some supernatural entity.

But even if you are not a believers in a supernatural entity your
brain has as well a proper program that is rarely coherent with
that of another person. So most disputes are futile and sterile.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Oh, Inez. Bill has several reasons to think this planet is unique.
He had been taught that it was made by god to put us in it. Dot.
Then, according to this, it is "true" this planet is unique.

Remember that truth is a social construction. Something is true for
it has been repeated some tens of thousands of times, and this acts
work as a proxy for some physical experiences. The repetition makes
a sort of "conditioned reflex" and that it becomes a truth. On the
other hand, this repetition is not the only argument to make a truth.
A truth a is shared believe in something we call truth.
It does not mind if it is in science or religion. If a sufficient that
a number of people with some social rank believe in something for
automatically to become a truth.

That explains why the Nazis prosecuted and killed most known communists
till they were unable to make any propaganda against the Nazi doctrine.
Any people with some doubts shut up their mouths frightened, etc, etc.

Then, the word truth has only a relative meaning. It only means that
a number of people accept something as truth. In general we use this
word for not trivial questions like there is a hell of a heat, or it
is down pouring a lot of rain, etc. If one is eating something tasty
do not speak about a truth. The word truth is reserved for abstract
questions too far out from our trivial experience. This is the main
reason for a truth to be false. No one is going to say of a horse that
is a dog, or a cat. This names are too trivial to enter into the
category of abstractions. But a horse is really an abstraction of sorts
for it is very difficult to define. I mean that we have not disputes
about a horse being a horse, and a dog being a dog. The disputes
start when a question is a little far from our experience.

A reason to accept the idea of Bill that this planet is unique, it is
that we do not know of other like this one in which we could live so
well, even if not everywhere. For some parts of this planet are sort
of mortal. If you fall in the Antarctica on a parachute, you are going
probably to die very soon. Of you land in crater of an active volcano
etc. or in a very hot and dry desert.
Then, out planet is unique, specially if it was made a god creator some
7,000 years ago. It cannot be more unique. But if there is not any
god creator and there trillions and trillions of planets in the galaxy
it is easy to figure that some, even a few, of those planets could be
similar to the earth. But it is not a good idea to go there, for we
can be eaten by the inhabitants that are there, or by ferocious microbes
we are not prepared for. We can fall in a planet like ours in a nasty
moment of its geological history, in the end of a Permian Extinction and
this must be a very bad moment to land there. We must wait some 20 million
years for the situation of the planet to get prettier. Perhaps we must
wait as much 200 million years, to put an example. Then, we have a lot
a patience when going to visit a foreign planet. Even this very planet
could be rather nasty if we had come in a visit some 65 million years
ago.
Then, a nasty planet full of dinosaurs cannot be called "unique" but a
"nasty planet", or a nightmare planet.

But just figure this unique planet starts in new glacial age. Not a global
warming age. Some more simply, a glacial age. It is about time to start a
new one. Then, according to some gloomy haruspex, they read in the liver
of the sheep that the oil is going to be exhausted in 20 years. By this
time it is clear that the glacial age has started. The thermometers are
plunging down years after year. We are blaming to the sooth of the coal
we are burning to heat our homes and to produce electricity. Also we are
blaming the sulphur dioxide on the stratosphere. In fifty years it could become rather nasty, and our best regions to grow grain are failing. We
are cultivating now farther south. Just figure than in a thousand years
the average temperature had dropped only six degrees. Will you hear Bill
telling this planet is unique for Yahweh made it thus to piss us all?
Probably not.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

oh, dear Bill. You will never be sure beyond doubt that something
is true in science. Well, unless it is something trivial like the
number pi, e, or the cos of an angle. I mean, some trivial questions
of math seem for the present quite outside any doubt. But for the
rest of science, this would never occur. A question would give you
some amount of confidence. But I have the idea that most questions
we are searching would remain outside our total comprehension for
the next 100 thousand years. Perhaps, this technological civilization
would not outlast our energetic resources of oil and coal. In the
next 100 years this modern man we know would not exist anymore. All
knowledge would be erased in two hundred years. Only a few thousand
humans would know by then, is to go hunting with stone tools and spears.

Eri