On The Limits of Human Talent

dissonance
[dis-uh-nuhns] noun

1. inharmonious or harsh sound; discord; cacophony.
2. Music.
   1. a simultaneous combination of tones conventionally accepted as being in a state of unrest and needing completion.
   2. an unresolved, discordant chord or interval. Compare consonance ( def 3 ) . See illus. under resolution.
3. disagreement or incongruity.

consonance
[kon-suh-nuhns] noun

1. accord or agreement.
2. correspondence of sounds; harmony of sounds.
3. Music. a simultaneous combination of tones conventionally accepted as being in a state of repose. Compare dissonance ( def 2 ) . See illus. under resolution.
   1. the correspondence of consonants, especially those at the end of a word, in a passage of prose or verse. Compare alliteration ( def 1 ) .
   2. the use of the repetition of consonants or consonant patterns as a rhyming device.
4. Physics. the property of two sounds the frequencies of which have a ratio equal to a small whole number.

world-view
[wurld-vyoo] noun
noun
Weltanschauung.
[velt-ahn-shou-oong]
noun German.
a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.
Origin: literally, world-viewIf we consider our worldview analogous to a cell, then we can consider the cell membrane to be a filter that allows good things (consonant with the worldview) and blocks bad things (dissonant with the worldview).Any dissonant information that gets inside is then treated like an infection that is either attacked, ignored, neutralized or absorbed and the cell can adapt to accept and use the new information, incorporating it into the worldview.This is how cognitive dissonance theory predicts behavior related to new information.In addition the strength of the belief is related to how strongly new information that is dissonant with the belief is attacked or ignored.Enjoy

And how should we be able to do that a priori?
Back in the times when alchemy was all the rage, all of our current scientific knowledge would have fallen under the category of what we can't understand. Ooops, but you file some of our current knowledge under that category as well.So let me guess, the borderline between the two is any knowledge that challenges your personal understanding of the biblical narrative?I would wager that you're probably ok with the physics that led to the understanding and development of the A-bomb used to win WWII and yet it is the same physics that makes possible radiometric dating which you'd probably declare to be one of those areas we can't fully understand. Am I correct?
If not, no matter, there is some similar area of science that will illustrate the same point. Everyone has a vote. Are you dictating to the rest of the population how they should vote? You are intent on burying our nation beneath all others?Luckily then, all lot of research is privately funded. The areas that get funded by government are primarily those that get ignored by industry because of a lack of immediate monetary return. Nevertheless there are many spin-offs from these areas of science that benefit mankind in numerous ways.How exactly does your approach to carrying on scientific research function?
"Hey Joe, I keep running this test and the results keep coming up positive."
"Yes, Jack, but that contradicts the biblical narrative, maybe we should just shelve this whole experiment. It must be one of those areas we can't understand."
"But it is apparent from our research in this other area that we can understand, that this should also be the case."
"Jack, will your hair look nice without an occasional hair cut?"

BLT, Biblcal lettuce and tomato."So let me guess, the borderline between the two is any knowledge that challenges your personal understanding of the biblical narrative?"The funny thing is that is exactly the position taken. Look up baraminology for a good laugh. It starts with basic Kinds as specified in the Bible stories, so man is a kind and cattle is a kind and antelope is a kind and raven is a kind and dove is a kind and cloven hoofed is a kind and chews cud is a kind and ...It's absurd.

But the funny part came just previous to this. Baraminologists deny 'hoax' charges, threaten legal actionWell I say funny, but to quote marc9000, "I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry."

quote:

---

[quoting Shalamabobbi]
"So let me guess, the borderline between the two is any knowledge that challenges your personal understanding of the biblical narrative?

---

I've thought about this some more and to be fair I am sure that he includes findings that are politically unacceptable to him, too.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

And socially unacceptable to him too.

quote:

---

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain

​

The whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans
The Germans hate the Poles

​

Italians hate Yugoslavs
South Africans hate the Dutch
And I don't like anybody very much

---

I agree. You pointed it out, but with no evidence. All accounts, or just some accounts? Those organizations and authors had/have a different purpose in what they publicly do, than in what someone like me does on forums such as these.The personal opinions of Morris, Gish, and others at creationist organizations might very well be slightly different than mine, no question there is more diversity in mainstream U.S. thinking than there is in the narrow minded scientific community, which seems to promote nothing but more atheist science, more big government, and less liberty. It wouldn’t necessarily be a "failure", it would be more like a subject that's not addressed by an organization, or book authors who are trying to appeal to a much wider audience than I am here. But I've little doubt that if most all those at the ICR were to see this thread's O/P, they would agree with me.But getting back to the broad approach, in a diverse society like the U.S., a lot of money and conflict could be saved if the scientific community wasn't given such free reign for determining what's important to study, just because it's important to them and promotes atheism.

Many would consider it common sense, and would like to see more public interests contribute to the decisions of what public money will be spent on to explore it, not just leaving it all up to the scientific community. As one example, depending on which astronomer is asked, the Milky Way galaxy has 100 billion to 400 billion stars. Which is it? The 300 billion difference is a big number. The scientific method, we're told, requires actual science to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. It would be logical to expect the 100 billion number, and the 400 billion number to be tested, and one of them falsified.Ah yes, Alchemy, a protoscience.

quote:

---

On protoscience Thomas Kuhn said that they "generate testable conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns.

---

Alchemy - WikipediaPhilosophy and arts? But it became science anyway.

quote:

---

In the eyes of a variety of esoteric and Hermetic practitioners, the heart of alchemy is spiritual.

---

And in the eyes of todays atheist scientific community, Intelligent Design is spiritual. So it won't be able to become a protoscience. Bad guess, the O/P clearly refers to the public in general, not me personally. Correct. I'm okay with science that has practical applications that we can use here and now, not when the same science, coupled with an extra guess and a promise, is used to try to prove the Bible wrong. Yes, everyone has a vote. So why does the scientific community constantly claim that only the scientific community has the right to determine what is science? Why do they only want to use the courts to make decisions about things like Intelligent Design? Hey Joe, I keep looking in this microscope and discovering that Michael Behe's book is right, the simplest forms of life that we know just fell together by unguided processes are so complicated that mathematicians are likely to show some really long odds that they came about that way.Yes Jack, but that contradicts the views of the atheists that sign our paychecks. Maybe we should invent "entrance requirements" for Michael Behe's work to become science, all the while guessing about the number of stars in the Milky Way, the number of galaxies in the universe, how the earth was formed billions of years ago, how the first life form originated, etc.But Joe, do you think enough of the general public will be soundly enough asleep to not question our double standards?Jack, you said that too loud - here comes the boss down the hall - will your body look nice without it's head? Oh, my little quote stayed with you for a few days, did it? Sorry if you lost any sleep. Remember though, lots of difference between atheist/scientific websites little funnies, compared to supposedly serious evolutionist posters who were proven to not read what they're angrily responding to.

You, a creationist, need evidence of what a prominent creationist organization believes? Really? Well, here ya go (from Discover ICR | The Institute for Creation Research): They don't agree with you.--Percy

Many have considered it common sense that the world is flat and stationary. This is one reason why common sense sucks when compared to (for example) science.And your "common sense" apparently sucks worse than common sense which is actually common. Actually, the government doesn't just write a big check each year payable to science, they pick the direction of research and we pick the government. Well then, you should write to your Congressman and say that you want more spending on astronomy. Let me fix that for you: "In the eyes of today's scientific community, atheist and religious alike, Intelligent Design is bullshit." And yet the public in general isn't writing your posts. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are not speaking for them in everything you write. Then you'll be pleased to know that the dumb shit you've made up in your head doesn't actually happen. I think they'd acknowledge that any scientifically literate person can tell science from pseudoscience. And that scientifically illiterate idiots can't. Your question appears to relate more to a fantasy world in your head than to the real one we actually inhabit. Thing is, scientists don't say stuff like that, 'cos they're not morons. Or stuff like that, 'cos they're not shrieking twitching paranoid lunatics gibbering with terror at the imaginary boogeymen that dwell in the dark sick recesses of their heads.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Naturally there is more diversity in fantasy than in fact.Interesting pair of standards you've got there, by the way. When scientists are in agreement, apparently that shows how narrow-minded they are. But when they are in disagreement, as for example on the topic of how many stars there are in the galaxy, this does not evoke a paean of praise for their open-mindedness. No, they're bad if they agree with one another, and they're bad if they disagree with one another. Creationists are apparently exempt from this rule, because you have a double standard concerning when to apply double standards.

Ah see? Shotgun rather than rifle and the posts grow exponentially out of control. There's no time to gather up each pellet and asses its merit. The one who pulled the trigger thinks each pellet hit the target doing some damage that never really took place and so he pats himself on the back thinking he's ahead in the debate. In reality there are no pellets in the shell, it is only stuffed with paper bits that never travel far from the end of the muzzle and settle harmlessly onto the floor. He never has to think too long or deeply enough about any one idea to see how his logic fails and come to understand something new that he didn't know before. He never has to modify his world view so he can leave the hammer and chisel in the drawer and enjoy another work free day of idleness. All the while the rising anger within his heart gets projected onto his imagined adversaries which are not really so but perhaps the only true friends he has though he doesn't see it.Dr Adequate has already done a point by point reply that I find to be, well,... adequate. But if I have time later I'll see if I can add anything from another perspective. You are interested in other perspectives aren't you?post #37 What is your purpose on forums such as these?

It doesn't depend on which astronomer you ask, any astronomer will tell you that the current estimate is 100-400 billion. It has an error range like any value in science.
Current equipment can not resolve the correct number any better than this. As soon as the equipment improves the error range will narrow.Secondly, even the way you have phrased the range is incorrect. 100 billion and 400 billion are not competing estimates to be falsified against each other. Think about it, what theory would propose either of these numbers. Rather we have measured the value to be somewhere within the range 100-400 billion, with better estimates waiting for better equipment.

Marc, listen carefully. The people who developed techniques of organ transplantation didn't do it to annoy Jehovah's Witnesses. The makers of electrical appliances aren't in it to vex the Amish. Arms manufacturers don't sell weapons of war with the intention of pissing off the Quakers. Pig farmers aren't in it to irk the Jews, nor brewers to taunt the Muslims. Cartographers don't make globes to distress flat-Earthers. And geologists don't find the age of rocks in order to make YECs throw tantrums. They do it because they want to know how old the rocks are.Now it is true that upsetting YECs is one of the incidental consequences of their research, just as the death of a bug might be the result of a guy driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, if his tires happen to pass over the bug. But he didn't take the road trip in order to run over the bug. He didn't notice the existence of the bug. He didn't notice that he drove over the bug. And if you told him, he wouldn't care. What he cares about is getting to San Francisco.Like most paranoid people, you combine your paranoia with grandiosity amounting to megalomania --- you unite the delusion that They are out to get you with the delusion that you're important enough to merit so much of Their attention. But scientists don't give a shit about your stupid cult. Most of them are, if at all, only vaguely aware that it exists, and they couldn't care less that their findings contradict it. It's the bug under their tires. Maybe the bug doesn't understand this --- bugs, after all, don't understand much. Maybe the last thing the bug thinks is "He's driven hundreds of miles just to run me over? He must feel so threatened by my existence." But the real tragedy of the bug is that the driver was completely unaware of and utterly indifferent to its existence.You guys really only have two ways to get the attention of scientists. One is sending them hate-mail. This they largely ignore. The other is trying to get your religious doctrines taught in science class with public money. At that point a few of them will spend a little time dealing with this minor nuisance, for the sake of the children, the teachers, and the First Amendment. At that point you're not so much a bug under their tires as one that's spattered on their windscreen. They turn the wipers on. They turn the wipers off. And then they forget all about it and continue on to their destination.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But you missed the coup de grace:

quote:

---

They’re rioting in Africa. There’s strife in Iran.

​

What nature doesn’t do to us will be done by our fellow man.

---