4 ms·

I wouldn't deny that there are lots of smart people who disagree with me on certain foundational issues. I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do ar

I wouldn't deny that there are lots of smart people who disagree with me on certain foundational issues. I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. And if smart people are acting in an idiotic manner, the fact that they have mental horsepower to do better is actually worse.

dragontamer 12y ago
I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. Of course, the typical person is dumb. Similarly, the typical evolutionist and typical global-warming guy or pro-vaccines is also dumb. They just happen to be correct on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything #%$#. 90% of creationists are dumb, for the same reason that 90% of the population in general (including evolutionists) are dumb. Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. Carbon Dating has a maximum effectivity of a few thousand years, not really long enough to be on the scale of evolutionary changes. Simple geological facts, for depth of fossils and such can also be contested, and the typical pro-evolution person out there will be lost in the argument. Despite being on the correct side of the debate, pro-evolutionists typically can't argue their way out of a paper-bag. But this is true in general, very few people have decent debate skills. And thats what makes "intelligent people with wrong worldviews" so dangerous. They win every argument in colloquial settings, because they're pretty smart and can win debates even when the facts are tilted against their favor. The realization that I myself might be one such person is not lost upon me of course. I generally win debates online, in person and such. But after years of experience, I've learned that this isn't because I'm correct... its because I am a decent debater. And everyone who posts in online discussions tends to be an above-average debater. We constantly debate each other and organize our own (and each other's) thoughts.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  >>>> Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. <<<< I haven't really argued against my own 'side' but I do examine my own thoughts frequently, and it's kind of alarming how little I know about things. I felt bad about this for a while, but then I realized that this is a necessary state of affairs in the modern world. We can't all be experts on everything. The crucial point is that if you're going to diverge from the scientific consensus on something, then yeah, you better be an expert. I am willing to entertain Joe Mathematician when he says that some foundational beliefs about math are wrong; I am not willing to believe Joe Small-Business-Owner on the same topic. Put another way, what's getting lost in all of this is where the burden of proof lies.

dragontamer 12y ago

I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. Of course, the typical person is dumb. Similarly, the typical evolutionist and typical global-warming guy or pro-vaccines is also dumb. They just happen to be correct on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything #%$#. 90% of creationists are dumb, for the same reason that 90% of the population in general (including evolutionists) are dumb. Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. Carbon Dating has a maximum effectivity of a few thousand years, not really long enough to be on the scale of evolutionary changes. Simple geological facts, for depth of fossils and such can also be contested, and the typical pro-evolution person out there will be lost in the argument. Despite being on the correct side of the debate, pro-evolutionists typically can't argue their way out of a paper-bag. But this is true in general, very few people have decent debate skills. And thats what makes "intelligent people with wrong worldviews" so dangerous. They win every argument in colloquial settings, because they're pretty smart and can win debates even when the facts are tilted against their favor. The realization that I myself might be one such person is not lost upon me of course. I generally win debates online, in person and such. But after years of experience, I've learned that this isn't because I'm correct... its because I am a decent debater. And everyone who posts in online discussions tends to be an above-average debater. We constantly debate each other and organize our own (and each other's) thoughts.

shanusmagnus 12y ago
>>>> Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. <<<< I haven't really argued against my own 'side' but I do examine my own thoughts frequently, and it's kind of alarming how little I know about things. I felt bad about this for a while, but then I realized that this is a necessary state of affairs in the modern world. We can't all be experts on everything. The crucial point is that if you're going to diverge from the scientific consensus on something, then yeah, you better be an expert. I am willing to entertain Joe Mathematician when he says that some foundational beliefs about math are wrong; I am not willing to believe Joe Small-Business-Owner on the same topic. Put another way, what's getting lost in all of this is where the burden of proof lies.