4 ms·
So what about your own seemingly mostly emotion-based blanket one-sentence statement that omits even the attempt of citing prove, or even to actually examine th
by Noseshine 10y ago
So what about your own seemingly mostly emotion-based blanket one-sentence statement that omits even the attempt of citing prove, or even to actually examine the issue you present?
Relevant ancient educational tiny story: https://riddlesbrainteasers.com/three-philosophers-tree/ https://riddlesbrainteasers.com/three-philosophers-tree/
I got an epiphany moment about that story when I read a story about a medical doctor visiting a "quack" conference. There was one "esoteric" who complained about the others being "esoteric" (he practiced something else than the others, but still something weird), and the doctor looking down on them all. But the crowning part of that story was that the doctor herself held a believe by now proven to be wrong by studies. So they were all laughing about each other, in addition to the original three-philosopher problem this anecdote included a hierarchy (I am better than you), going over several levels, and it turned out the person who thought was at the top looking down on everybody else actually wasn't and should have had a good look in the mirror herself.
The hint should have been seeing that one guy lamenting that all the others were esoteric, but introspection based up on what we see in others isn't many people's string suit. No, (only) they are "stupid".
The philosophers in the little ancient Greek story/riddle managed to get to the truth by including themselves into their logical reasoning and not just think about the others. When you come to a conclusion about other people, always consider if/how it applies to yourself.
The more modern saying is that about throwing stones in a glass house... but it lacks the educational value of the three philosopher problem because it's only the "TL;DT" (too long, didn't think).
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y agoWhether it is reasonable to believe something does not depend on whether it is true (because you can't know that), but on whether it is the currently best-known explanation of the available evidence. Quacks aren't stupid because what they believe isn't true, but because they believe it without sufficient evidence, or, often enough, despite evidence to the contrary.
- Noseshine 10y agoI don't understand your reply - could you please tell me what connection there is with what I wrote? Seems like random rambling to me.
- kybernetikos 10y agoI presume the argument was that a doctor who is misinformed about the latest studies in wrong is an entirely different way to a quack (e.g. a vaccine denier) who may be 'not even wrong'.
- Noseshine 10y agoYou presume too much and don't understand the story. Maybe you grow into it some day, some things cannot be taught. Not to mention that your reply is the pinnacle of hypocrisy and stupidity. "Even when I'm wrong I'm better wrong than you!" How incredibly stupid.