Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 143 (250213)
10-09-2005 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Annafan
10-07-2005 11:21 AM


Re: not the best words
interestingly there are some medical conditions that are more closely linked to religious thinking than others.
Religion: Is it all in your head?
The neurologist believes that somewhere in the brain's temporal lobes there may be neural circuitry for religious experience; he points to the fact that about 25 percent of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy are obsessed with religion. "I have temporal lobe patients walking into my laboratory wearing a huge cross and carrying a 500-page tome on the nature of God," says Ramashandran, of the University of California in San Diego.
There are others.
Also See Holy visions
And the "god" helmet.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Annafan, posted 10-07-2005 11:21 AM Annafan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 99 of 143 (251622)
10-13-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
10-12-2005 12:52 PM


World Views
When one is unable to support ones beliefs, there are two options. A person can sit down and honestly reevaluate those beliefs in light of evidence, or run away.
I think there is another issue involved here, and that is the personal conviction that one option is not valid no matter what the evidence says. This is grounded in the {world view} of the person at such an {early\fundamental(NOTfundie, general usage)} level of consciousness that it is no longer open for debate, but just IS.
This leaves the person with two possiblities: to discard their whole world view or to necessarily reject the contradicting information. It is not a choice, it is a confrontation.
This happens on both sides of the debate, but is more visible to the majority in the minority. You also see it in the liberal vs conservative discussion.
We all see through a thick haze darkly, and the question comes down to who really has the better {view\vision\ validity utility}
To me, the measure of the validity utility of the world views is the level of information that has to be denied to maintain it: the higher the level of denial needed the lower the validity utility. In a perfect world view there would be no need to deny any evidence from any quarter as there would be a home for it.
{edited per comments from Ben, changed subtitle}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*14*2005 02:34 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 10-12-2005 12:52 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 10-13-2005 11:18 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 10-14-2005 4:33 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 113 by Omnivorous, posted 10-14-2005 10:09 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 120 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 12:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 143 (251718)
10-14-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Modulous
10-14-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Surveys
I wrote an article that touches on the lengths survey makers go to to ensure accurate results.
don't you mean the lenghts good survey makers go to the ensure accurate results?
the number of bad surveys you see is really astounding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 10-14-2005 9:41 AM Modulous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 143 (251729)
10-14-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Omnivorous
10-14-2005 10:09 AM


Cognition limits, World view barriers
we are debating with those who have already embraced belief-without-reason, i.e., faith
Their world view includes supernatural as well as natural. This is what I believe iano was refering to:
iano msg 112 writes:
This is a statement of someone who considers themselves limited to their senses. Not of someone who isn't.
and rejected by Parasomnium:
Parasomnium msg 114 writes:
On that note, you could say that the world doesn't have much to do with their view.
While I believe it is possible to stand solidly in the natural world and allow for supernatural connections, things we don't know if we can validate but which we also cannot invalidate.
... occurs during ... a sort of meltdown/recrystallization process ...
I think we will see some results from neuroscience and pschology of cognition that will show some of this tendency to be {chemical\brain} induced. The god-helmet is a clue in that direction.
We will also see some genetic repairs to disfunctional brains, like parkinsons and alzheimers, in very the near future.
What will be of interest to me is that when such cures become more commonplace, whether there will be some side-effects from such cures to cognition in other areas.
seems like a variation of Occam's razor...
That was the intent.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Omnivorous, posted 10-14-2005 10:09 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 143 (251785)
10-14-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Ben!
10-14-2005 12:13 PM


Re: Validity? or Utility
okay, I see your point -- some aspects of some world views are not open to being validated (as I had mentioned as well), so yes, utility would be a better word.
it implies more of a usefulness in mapping new information between {world view} and {unknowable real world}
Consider my post ammended.
a person's world view should be judged soley on it's ability to allow them to work with others. Anything beyond that... who cares?
For myself I care about the utility of my world view, and expect no less of others. Ultimately it comes down to interactions, but our interactions are not only with other people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 12:13 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 2:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 128 of 143 (251796)
10-14-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
10-14-2005 4:33 AM


Re: unfortunately...
Will end up simply supporting majority decision on a subject as being the proper evaluation for the validity of world views. Though I suppose that doesn't change anything much from how it is currently handled.
I look at it more as a way for an individual to assess the utility (to use ben's observation of a more valid word ) of their own world view more than for others to be involved. I reject the notion of ghosts and spirits because I have not experienced anything like that (although I have had an out-of-body experience). People can recognize elements they reject as nonsense.
Certainly at some social level, though, there is a tendency to do this already: we judge certain people to be insane or deluded because of the difference of their world view to that of the majority.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 10-14-2005 4:33 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 3:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 143 (251827)
10-14-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by nwr
10-14-2005 3:20 PM


Re: unfortunately...
your world view is the {map\reference\model} you have of the real world based on your particular understanding of {life the universe and everything}
what is real to you is what fits with your world view
what is nonsense to you is what does not fit with your world view
Hmm, maybe we are drifting off topic.
but it is the difference in world views that leads to ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness when there are extreme differences
this is like translating languages and the more different the languages the more ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness creeps into the translations.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 3:20 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 4:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 136 of 143 (251830)
10-14-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Ben!
10-14-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Validity? or Utility
I completely disagree. Fundamentally disagree. And... I will ignore the comment, because I find that discussion much less interesting than the one we're talking about. We can take this discussion elsewhere, if necessary.
(just realized, ... maybe this is due to your the thought behind your "mapping" statement above. Maybe we have to discuss it after all? awww.. )
oh gosh. this is heading towards another ... column ... and yes I do have some material assembled on this issue in an essay of mine -- perhaps we should discuss this elsewhere.
Are you talking about how the earth really is like one organism, and that interaction is not just with people, but with all things?
When we walk into a door we interact with it whether it exists in our world view or not. Just an extreme example. We walk on "solid" ground, but physically we cannot define that solidness as a {multi-linear\surface} boundary but as a set of discrete particles interacting on a much different scale than our perceptions of it. We need layers of understanding to include that in our understanding of the whole {life the universe and everything} enchilada.
{abe}
It may explain experiences that they, and they alone, had. These experiences definitely include feelings and the like. A world view that is not "useful" in the "cultural" or "interpersonal" way I mentioned above still may turn out to be the most "useful" world view for that individual.
Definitely. The unavoidablility of that occuring is what makes it predicatable that world views would be different for every individual, even for twins.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*14*2005 04:58 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 2:48 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 4:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 138 of 143 (251832)
10-14-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nwr
10-14-2005 4:53 PM


Re: unfortunately...
that's the good kind to have. the inflexible ones are prone to tearing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 10-14-2005 4:53 PM nwr has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 139 of 143 (251833)
10-14-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Ben!
10-14-2005 4:58 PM


Re: Validity? or Utility
cool
that's give me the whole weekend to work on it ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Ben!, posted 10-14-2005 4:58 PM Ben! has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024