Everyone, watch this

[jpl458]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Very nice article. The sad truth is that I can recognize that we are surrounded by stupidity.

I wonder if part of the problem is that thinking costs too much brain power for some folks so they willingly become slaves to ideals rather than to think carefully about the related ideas behind the ideals.

 

[JonXL]

There was no definition of 'stupid' given in the video. Hard to really comment.

 

[jpl458]

Implied is the lack of critical thinking. You can be smart and stupid at the same time, and dumb and not stupid. It's giving yourself up to slogans rather than ideas..

 

[JonXL]

Well, critical thinking is a learned skill. It's not quite the same as cleverness (which can be acquired or born-with and being born clever can make becoming a good critical thinker easier just like being born with genes for height, etc. can make becoming a good athlete easier but it's not a prerequisite).

Good critical thinking skills are quite rare.
I suspect many folks who consider themselves good critical thinkers really only know how to regurgitate a lot of learned information in the same manner they learned it (slogans, perhaps, of a higher order, but slogans nonetheless).

Sitting on the couch watching TV won't cultivate the faculties needed for developing athleticism. Nor will you develop critical thinking skills without great effort. Your video implies that it's a matter of personal responsibility whether one takes on being a critical thinker or not, but it's really more about laziness (something that is also largely acquired). Good critical thinkers can have a low level of personal responsibility and vice versa - hell, I'd say the best critical thinkers probably get around personal responsibility quite easily and are happy to do so.

Laziness comes in many forms, physical obviously being a very obvious one, but mental laziness exists as well. Folks who become good critical thinkers have a curious drive to know things and, most importantly, to be able to discover things they do not know. Critical thinkers can solve problems with less knowledge that take non-critical-thinkers a lot of learned facts to resolve (note solve vs resolve).

Unfortunately, they historically often find themselves on the wrong end of authoritarians or the wrong side of history.

That last point kind of refutes the point of the video: critical thinkers can be every bit as evil as non-critical types. In fact, their evil may be even more genuine to who they are because they essentially "know better" and cannot claim to have been duped like the folks you'd call "stupid" can.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Implied is the lack of critical thinking

Edward de Bono's 6 thinking hats can help you think things through:-

MindTools | Home

Essential skills for an excellent career

www.mindtools.com

 

[Isaac]

Very nice article. The sad truth is that I can recognize that we are surrounded by stupidity.

I wonder if part of the problem is that thinking costs too much brain power for some folks so they willingly become slaves to ideals rather than to think carefully about the related ideas behind the ideals.

That's an interesting and legitimate question/line of thought.
It made me think for a while.

After that point, I conclude that both ends of that spectrum both 1) require a certain amount of discipline/work, and 2) can also be used as what I used to hear termed as "cop-outs", (lazy ways out of something).

Holding strictly to an ideal - Yes, I'll admit (despite being a big fan of ideals, as you already know) - Yes, it can be a cop-out in place of thoughtfully thinking something through and being intellectually honest.

But intellectualism is another minefield fraught with the possibility and opportunity for more mischief. See, rationalization/thinking/intellect is precisely the way that many vices of life are justified to one's mind. In fact, self-deception--possibly the #1 cause of people's sticky problems in life--has at its core, and its lifeblood consists of, a LOT of strenuous thinking and rationalizations.

To put it bluntly, you can also put a LOT of true WORK into the thinking required to reach the rationalization you desire to justify the ends you wish.

Furthermore, on the side of things being hard/discipline/work, sometimes ideals can be a cop-out in place of thoughtful brainwork, but certainly many times holding to an ideal can require a lot of discipline - for almost too many reasons to list, ranging from it requires discipline to stick to anything consistently, they require self-discipline when they are not easy, and they usually--in modern times--require a going-against-the-flow that brings the term "peer pressure" to a whole 'nother level, and not in a trendy way, either. For example, there is nothing fun about some people concluding I am "homophobic" (which is an irony all in itself, as they have clearly never pondered what the word 'phobic' actually means versus my true view) .... There is nothing fun about being misunderstood or slandered, especially when the opportunities to explain ones self or better yet demonstrate what I really mean by the first portion of "love the person, hate the sin" means.........And there is nothing easy about it.

On a somewhat separate note, people also put a lot of strenuous brain-work into coming up with the junk of today's world too, such as CRT and the invention of complex intangible abstract concepts that are supposed to convince us not to believe our eyes, for example with respect to the consequences people face in life as a result of their choices, which certain groups wish and would rather be seen as the result of some super hard to describe (or believe!) force of systemic racism at play rather than the fairly obvious "You're doing this, thus, you're getting that" that is staring everyone in the face.

When you want to believe (or want others to believe) that the emperor has clothes, sometimes that takes what could be called very hard intellectual work to do. But that does not make it legitimate.

In some cases ideals will carry us through an otherwise confusing jumbo pot of whims and trends.
In other cases ideals could blind us to thinking something through.

I'm sure history has enough examples of both, but I'm afraid in the current time, the former is more relevant.

 

[jpl458]

That's an interesting and legitimate question/line of thought.
It made me think for a while.

After that point, I conclude that both ends of that spectrum both 1) require a certain amount of discipline/work, and 2) can also be used as what I used to hear termed as "cop-outs", (lazy ways out of something).

Holding strictly to an ideal - Yes, I'll admit (despite being a big fan of ideals, as you already know) - Yes, it can be a cop-out in place of thoughtfully thinking something through and being intellectually honest.

But intellectualism is another minefield fraught with the possibility and opportunity for more mischief. See, rationalization/thinking/intellect is precisely the way that many vices of life are justified to one's mind. In fact, self-deception--possibly the #1 cause of people's sticky problems in life--has at its core, and its lifeblood consists of, a LOT of strenuous thinking and rationalizations.

To put it bluntly, you can also put a LOT of true WORK into the thinking required to reach the rationalization you desire to justify the ends you wish.

Furthermore, on the side of things being hard/discipline/work, sometimes ideals can be a cop-out in place of thoughtful brainwork, but certainly many times holding to an ideal can require a lot of discipline - for almost too many reasons to list, ranging from it requires discipline to stick to anything consistently, they require self-discipline when they are not easy, and they usually--in modern times--require a going-against-the-flow that brings the term "peer pressure" to a whole 'nother level, and not in a trendy way, either. For example, there is nothing fun about some people concluding I am "homophobic" (which is an irony all in itself, as they have clearly never pondered what the word 'phobic' actually means versus my true view) .... There is nothing fun about being misunderstood or slandered, especially when the opportunities to explain ones self or better yet demonstrate what I really mean by the first portion of "love the person, hate the sin" means.........And there is nothing easy about it.

On a somewhat separate note, people also put a lot of strenuous brain-work into coming up with the junk of today's world too, such as CRT and the invention of complex intangible abstract concepts that are supposed to convince us not to believe our eyes, for example with respect to the consequences people face in life as a result of their choices, which certain groups wish and would rather be seen as the result of some super hard to describe (or believe!) force of systemic racism at play rather than the fairly obvious "You're doing this, thus, you're getting that" that is staring everyone in the face.

When you want to believe (or want others to believe) that the emperor has clothes, sometimes that takes what could be called very hard intellectual work to do. But that does not make it legitimate.

In some cases ideals will carry us through an otherwise confusing jumbo pot of whims and trends.
In other cases ideals could blind us to thinking something through.

I'm sure history has enough examples of both, but I'm afraid in the current time, the former is more relevant.

Honesty is a big part of it, being honest with yourself as well as others. And too much is packed behind the word believe. I can say I believe this to be true.; better you should know it is true. I once heard politicians on a stage say that they didn't believe in science. Science is not a belief system. We are all geeks in here, do we say I believe this code will work, then walk away? No we don't. If we did, this forum would not exist.

 

[Isaac]

Honesty is a big part of it, being honest with yourself as well as others. And too much is packed behind the word believe. I can say I believe this to be true.; better you should know it is true. I once heard politicians on a stage say that they didn't believe in science. Science is not a belief system. We are all geeks in here, do we say I believe this code will work, then walk away? No we don't. If we did, this forum would not exist.

I'm a firm believer (no pun intended) in using Science for the topics that Science can answer, and being all about facts and figures and observations. And, for not confusing things and thinking Science can answer the questions that Science can't answer. Science has its place, and belief has its place. There are many areas of life that we confront as conscious human beings. Science has its place, but too often I find people confusing Science and trying to apply it in areas that it has nothing to do with.

That would be like trying to apply Python coding principles to a SQL query.
And people do just that sometimes - get so excited about a certain tool, they try to apply its principles everywhere.
When the only tool you know is a Hammer, (or when you already have the bias of believing and really really really wanting to prove that the Hammer can solve all problems) :: Then everything looks like a Nail.

The same is often done with Science - and, yes, religion.

 

[jpl458]

Very well written, it's enjoyable to read good, clear and economical prose.
I would add only one word to your post: "and thinking Science can answer the questions that Science can't answer", yet.

I get leery of ideas that have their basis in slogans and chants..

 

[Isaac]

Very well written, it's enjoyable to read good, clear and economical prose.
I would add only one word to your post: "and thinking Science can answer the questions that Science can't answer", yet.

I get leery of ideas that have their basis in slogans and chants..

That's a fair enough statement. I'm open minded to know that the capabilities of our application of Science definitely grows.

 

[Isaac]

And frankly I think some of the people who believe that Science necessarily contradicts the supernatural, OR, that a devotion to scientific principles necessarily precludes the belief in anything supernatural, often overlook the reality that Observation is the basis of science. And many supernatural things are believed by people precisely because they have been witnessed (observed). Now you can pick apart the witnessing and observing and documenting all you want, but at least admitting that many people are basing their belief on the testimony of witnesses (something our legal system is also based in part on), is an honest start. Beyond that, disagreement on credibility is legit. But the failure to even acknowledge the existence of the claims of observations suggests a need to suppress an argument rather than a capability of debunking it.

 

[Jon]

And frankly I think some of the people who believe that Science necessarily contradicts the supernatural, OR, that a devotion to scientific principles necessarily precludes the belief in anything supernatural, often overlook the reality that Observation is the basis of science. And many supernatural things are believed by people precisely because they have been witnessed (observed). Now you can pick apart the witnessing and observing and documenting all you want, but at least admitting that many people are basing their belief on the testimony of witnesses (something our legal system is also based in part on), is an honest start. Beyond that, disagreement on credibility is legit. But the failure to even acknowledge the existence of the claims of observations suggests a need to suppress an argument rather than a capability of debunking it.

It is true that observation is a fundamental part of the scientific method, and that many people base their belief in the supernatural on their own observations or the observations of others. However, it is important to recognize that scientific observation is a rigorous and systematic process that is designed to minimize bias and other sources of error. This includes the use of controlled experiments, standardized measurement procedures, and statistical analysis to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about the natural world.

In contrast, observations of supernatural events are often anecdotal and lack the rigorous controls and procedures that are used in scientific research. This makes it difficult to evaluate the credibility of these observations, and many scientists and skeptics are skeptical of claims of supernatural events because they cannot be tested or verified using the scientific method.

Overall, while it is important to acknowledge and respect the beliefs of others, it is also important to recognize that scientific observation and investigation are critical tools for understanding the natural world. This requires a willingness to critically evaluate evidence and test hypotheses, even if they challenge our preconceived notions or beliefs.

P.S. I confess to not having written the splurge of text above myself. No prizes from where I got it from!

 

[Isaac]

It is true that observation is a fundamental part of the scientific method, and that many people base their belief in the supernatural on their own observations or the observations of others. However, it is important to recognize that scientific observation is a rigorous and systematic process that is designed to minimize bias and other sources of error. This includes the use of controlled experiments, standardized measurement procedures, and statistical analysis to test hypotheses and draw conclusions about the natural world.

In contrast, observations of supernatural events are often anecdotal and lack the rigorous controls and procedures that are used in scientific research. This makes it difficult to evaluate the credibility of these observations, and many scientists and skeptics are skeptical of claims of supernatural events because they cannot be tested or verified using the scientific method.

Overall, while it is important to acknowledge and respect the beliefs of others, it is also important to recognize that scientific observation and investigation are critical tools for understanding the natural world. This requires a willingness to critically evaluate evidence and test hypotheses, even if they challenge our preconceived notions or beliefs.

P.S. I confess to not having written the splurge of text above myself. No prizes from where I got it from!

True enough and thank you for admitting the last sentence LOL
I can't stop playing with the AI tool either
Both science and a humble curiosity about the possibility of the supernatural are keys to a rich human existence in my personal opinion

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Both science and a humble curiosity about the possibility of the supernatural are keys to a rich human existence in my personal opinion

I respect the right for everyone to believe what they believe, with the added hope their belief isn't merely the result of wishful thinking as an escape from fear of the unknown.

Having said that, almost every claim made regarding the supernatural in the past has later been disproved. The kicker is that many of the older claims turn out to be true but NOT supernatural. As has been previously noted in this thread, science marches on and gives cogent, self-consistent explanations to things that used to be the domain of believers in the supernatural. People used to not believe in evolution, for example, but science has shown that it is real. COVID-19's mutational history alone is enough to prove the "mutation" component of evolution to be real and to be something that can be observed within human lifetimes. Astrology and alchemy used to be treated as supernatural, but science has shown us the truth in each of them with modern astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, and nuclear physics.

I DID say that ALMOST every claim has been either debunked or fully explained. Got to leave SOME things for later generations, don't you know?

 

[moke123]

Having said that, almost every claim made regarding the supernatural in the past has later been disproved. The kicker is that many of the older claims turn out to be true but NOT supernatural.

Has anyone ever had a supernatural experience?

A friend of mine used to own this bar.

Ghosts from the Whaling Days

One of your neighbors posted in Health & Fitness. Click through to read what they have to say. (The views expressed in this post are the author’s own.)

patch.com

 

[Jon]

True enough and thank you for admitting the last sentence LOL
I can't stop playing with the AI tool either
Both science and a humble curiosity about the possibility of the supernatural are keys to a rich human existence in my personal opinion

Haha, I could never word a reply so eloquently!

Yes, it is every addictive. It has given me some great ideas. And I keep asking it for answers, ideas about things, creative stuff. Also, good for getting summaries for coding help.

 

[Isaac]

The kicker is that many of the older claims turn out to be true but NOT supernatural

This is a common claim, but one whose assumed importance to the discussion by the claim-er demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what many people of faith believe.

I believe God works in ways which also have scientific explanations. Arranging the outcome, but in some/many cases doing so under the current rules by which the Universe runs.

For example, I may ask God to help me become less selfish and more giving towards others. An hour later a friend texts me, explaining a tough situation they are going through, and there I have my opportunity to choose my response or help them and set my attitude on a new path.

Does that friend have perfectly good physical reasons in the natural world for why they texted me at that time? Of course - but that doesn't "disprove" that God's hand was involved.

A volcano may erupt at a certain time, and some people will show how scientifically such an eruption was well fitting within the rules known to science. A person of faith may see God's hand at work. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that only one of them can be right.

The biggest thing is the fulfillment of prophecy. Many, many people have done studies on how extremely unlikely (translate: Impossible) for so many of them to come true, but here is just one I found briefly after searching:
1. https://nickcady.org/2020/02/18/the...of-jesus-fulfilling-the-messianic-prophecies/
2. Related book

We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017 (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000).

So I would say it is quite the opposite. As time goes on, the picture becomes clearer in support of many interesting Biblical things, especially the life and advent of Jesus Christ.

with the added hope their belief isn't merely the result of wishful thinking as an escape from fear of the unknown

Out of curiousity, and not that this is the way I live as a Christian, but why would you necessarily be hoping this?
I'm curious why you see a faith - even a hypothetical faith that served no purpose but to give calm, comfort & purpose to someone's life, even if totally false - and effectively "escaping" the more damaging elements of fearfulness?

Are you suggesting it's worse than most of the OTHER things people for escapism? I would argue it doesn't break the top 100
People of faith who are also living a life devoted to such a thing are far more often the ones raising happy, stable, prosperous families.
I've had the chance to rub shoulders with LOTS of Mormons in my time, since they saturate Arizona. I can attest that all you have to do to know whether you are in Mormon areas are look around you. Are they stable, prosperous homeowners in affluent neighborhoods? Are they the ones that have been on-the-job for 20 years? Are they in positions of influence, promotion and trust due to doing a great job in life? Are their kids the ones not in trouble and going on to college and beyond? Then you're in Mormon territory.
I don't agree with some of their beliefs, but I can see how devotion to ideals has served them pretty darn well.
Of course it helps that all those ideals are things generally seen as desirable in employees, managers, leaders, and families, too..

 

[Isaac]

Agree @Pat Hartman

Christianity is unique for many reasons. Some of the notable ones are:

- It's mostly about accepting the free gift of God's righteousness, rather than a framework or scheme for how man can "earn" God's favor. Yes, there are ways we strive to behave/not behave as Christians, but they are mostly a RESULT of comprehending and accepting God's having made us a new creation via His Spirit - not the opposite.

- It is open to every human being. It is not limited by caste, total number, etc

- It is one of the most harshly persecuted religions throughout history, and yet has curiously survived and in fact, generally been revived BY persecution rather than the opposite. The lack of persecution in developed countries has predictably led to certain changes in contemporary 1-st world Christianity. However, even that may be coming to an end more rapidly than we think - and quite accurately as my Dad predicted, even in my lifetime. I just read an article about how in Norway, if you disagree with the current gender-related ideology, you can face a 3-year prison term for merely mentioning it in a public-facing article. If you so much as whisper it in private to a child or family member, 1 year in prison. The ultimate irony in the story I read was it wasn't even a Christian facing the criminal case. It was a lesbian activist who disagreed with the latest and greatest gender ideology concept out there, which happened to involve sexual orientation fluidity. She felt sexual orientation was immutable (a long-standing argument in the gay rights movement, unironically), but some people felt "hurt" by her statements. She is now facing criminal prosecution and may go to prison for 3 years. So much for the rights of gays to speak freely, huh! And this is a perfect example of the chaos that reigns when laws are based on the current whims of the people. In the 1990's, the going argument was these things are immutable and we can say what we want about them. Unfortunately for gays, however, in Norway the going argument has changed. So now a "regular" gay person cannot express their opinion for fear of offending the gender- and orientation-fluid majority. What seemed like a good idea 20 years ago is ALREADY under threat, being tossed to and fro by the waves of majority whims and feelings. It all seems a bit silly, doesn't it? Maybe it would be a good idea to go back to the way it was slightly before that. Persecute/shun/harras/belittle no-one----BUT allow people who believe in absolute truth to express their opinion, in perpetuity. This original US constitutional concept would have solved all of these problems. But we can now see how even those with relatively modern views on the subject are under physical threat by those whose views are still-more-modern.
What shall we do? Every 10 years declare a new definition of 'reality' and persecute those who came 10 years prior? You can see the failure of this way of doing things to ever stabilize to any great degree.

- Christianity is about God reaching down to man, not vice-versa.

- Though there are many religions that use prophecy, only the Christian Bible has a 100% accurate track rate.
Many of the things in the Bible that were previously thought (usually by scientists) to be "inaccurate", turned out to be they just hadn't found the proof yet - and later, the "inaccurate theory" itself was debunked.

- Millions of people around the world turn to Christianity, including from other religions like Islam or Hinduism, and their lives are filled with joy, purpose, effectiveness and positive changes of all kinds. This happens because Christianity works wonders in people's lives. The opposite is not true - for example, most people throughout history who have converted to Islam have done so through force, or upbringing only.

Note - I think the concept of "imposing....by force" is too complex and nuanced to be reduced to a soundbite.
There is quite a continuum of things that some say is "imposing" and "by force". Most of us can agree on the extreme ends of the spectrum by definition, the disagreement comes along the middle.
While we might wish to say we want a secular government with only secular laws, the reality is that our laws are generally based on concepts of right and wrong anyway - no matter what we do to try, we simply cannot escape the built-in spiritual compass inside of us that whispers 'right' to some things and 'wrong' to others.
I don't support trying to "legislate morality", (whatever that means), but I do assert that nobody can agree on what that means.
I think the best we can do in human governments--something the Bible has little to no instruction on, by the way--is to strike a balance of some kind.
Whether people choose to use porn or not, for example, we might not want to legislate the issue.
How widespread and accessible porn is, however, we may want to legislate - and indeed, always have.

No matter how many times people try to tell me that our laws are secular and not based on God's law, I can point to 10 laws that are based solely on a sense of right and wrong - which is a nudge that comes from within, and exists because we are made in the image of God, despite being fallen creatures, we still have inklings of God's presence, love and final power.