3 ms·

It's an overview, but not a particularly deep or accurate one. Good on you for starting to think about the big questions, but don't be so dismissive. Serious pe

It's an overview, but not a particularly deep or accurate one. Good on you for starting to think about the big questions, but don't be so dismissive. Serious people with serious reasons have believed every one of these. Don't discount them until you know why they were believed.

fiatjaf 10y ago
It seems to be the classical first-grade-teacher mentality: "look at this shit people used to believe 1000 years ago, they were so stupid!". But if and when you go there and read the work in which these old people said what they believed you got convinced -- and you barely know that you are convinced of the same points you in the past found ridiculous under the guidance of your primary teacher.
- OtterCoder 10y ago
  This is why I'm religious.
  - spacehacker 10y ago
    This is also why I'm agnostic. Thousands of people of equal brilliance have come up with vastly different explanations for what appears to be the same thing. As a conclusion they must all be vastly overconfident.
    - OtterCoder 10y ago
      Also a legitimate stance. I don't claim to have a corner on the truth, I just find that certain beliefs seem to serve mankind better than others, and they've earned my trust through application.
    - 13of40 10y ago
      I used to call myself an agnostic, but one day about 20 years back I sat myself down and asked, all bullshit and personal feelings aside, which narrative I thought was really true - evolution/chemistry/physics or the invisible hand of spirits. Since then I call myself an atheist.
  - fiatjaf 10y ago
    Are you being sarcastic? Because I actually think that is a good reason to be religious.
    - OtterCoder 10y ago
      No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm fairly well read, and I believe in God. I don't think I have a complete knowledge of anything, but I've read and questioned and looked, and yes, I think there's more in favor than against. I also think there are a lot of people who say more than they know, on both sides of the argument, but that's true of any subject.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Also, understanding what went wrong with their ideas is often very illuminating. For example, the failire of the Michelson-Morley experiment is the basis for relativity and their test equipment was essential for QM! LIGO, for all its complexity, is just the Michelson-Morley experiment again, this time sensitive enough to detect waves in the ether rather than drag from our motion. Of course we've switched a lot of terminology around since then, but the idea is the same. Similarly, interferometery is integral to QM studies, and is a critical tool of modern science.
redial 10y ago
> Don't discount them until you know why they were believed. It seems you already discounted most of them and chose the one most comfortable to you.
- OtterCoder 10y ago
  That's quite a leap from a few hundred characters of comments.
azatris 10y ago
Perhaps there should be some sort of a collaborative peer-reviewed page of all ideas like that, so we don't miss out on anything.

fiatjaf 10y ago

It seems to be the classical first-grade-teacher mentality: "look at this shit people used to believe 1000 years ago, they were so stupid!". But if and when you go there and read the work in which these old people said what they believed you got convinced -- and you barely know that you are convinced of the same points you in the past found ridiculous under the guidance of your primary teacher.

OtterCoder 10y ago
This is why I'm religious.
- spacehacker 10y ago
  This is also why I'm agnostic. Thousands of people of equal brilliance have come up with vastly different explanations for what appears to be the same thing. As a conclusion they must all be vastly overconfident.
  - OtterCoder 10y ago
    Also a legitimate stance. I don't claim to have a corner on the truth, I just find that certain beliefs seem to serve mankind better than others, and they've earned my trust through application.
  - 13of40 10y ago
    I used to call myself an agnostic, but one day about 20 years back I sat myself down and asked, all bullshit and personal feelings aside, which narrative I thought was really true - evolution/chemistry/physics or the invisible hand of spirits. Since then I call myself an atheist.
- fiatjaf 10y ago
  Are you being sarcastic? Because I actually think that is a good reason to be religious.
  - OtterCoder 10y ago
    No, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm fairly well read, and I believe in God. I don't think I have a complete knowledge of anything, but I've read and questioned and looked, and yes, I think there's more in favor than against. I also think there are a lot of people who say more than they know, on both sides of the argument, but that's true of any subject.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Also, understanding what went wrong with their ideas is often very illuminating. For example, the failire of the Michelson-Morley experiment is the basis for relativity and their test equipment was essential for QM! LIGO, for all its complexity, is just the Michelson-Morley experiment again, this time sensitive enough to detect waves in the ether rather than drag from our motion. Of course we've switched a lot of terminology around since then, but the idea is the same. Similarly, interferometery is integral to QM studies, and is a critical tool of modern science.

redial 10y ago

> Don't discount them until you know why they were believed. It seems you already discounted most of them and chose the one most comfortable to you.

OtterCoder 10y ago
That's quite a leap from a few hundred characters of comments.

azatris 10y ago

Perhaps there should be some sort of a collaborative peer-reviewed page of all ideas like that, so we don't miss out on anything.