4 ms·

Disappointed that he doesn't agree with you? Why?

by rabbyte 12y ago

sigsergv 12y ago
It's really unclear what does he mean while telling “questioning Darwinism”. Evolution theory is a proper science theory and it's intended to be questioned. Just propose another scientific theory that explain things better. And about “God does not exist”. Strictly speaking it's untrue because we don't have any definition what “God” term means. So we cannot tell anything about this statement, it's neither true nor false.
stickfigure 12y ago
Disappointed because these statements taken together seem to suggest that Thiel is a creationist. The best analogy is probably Kary Mullins. I like a true iconoclast more than most, but at some point contrarian beliefs just venture into inanity. Past achievements do not excuse present stupidity - although, sadly, they often enable it.
- rabbyte 12y ago
  I can't help but think you're proving his point. The question he posed was "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?" and the relevant quote preceding the reference to God is this: > The reason it is hard to answer in the interview context is that the correct answer is one that the person asking the question is unlikely to agree with. The question is personal. There's no wrong way to answer it yet we proceed as though there are only a few right answers. How does that happen? Well, what might happen if I were to give an answer that sounded like a creationists answer? You might be disappointed, associate my thinking with Kary Mullis, and call into question my intelligence as a whole. Conformity in this case gives me a more favorable option as I can answer your question in a way that has a high probability of being well received at the expense of an honest existence. Thoughts?
  - stickfigure 12y ago
    Some questions do only have a few right answers. I'm perfectly willing to grant him climate change - climate is very complicated and despite present scientific consensus, it is very possible that future discoveries will turn our understanding of the subject upside down. On the other hand, the theory of natural selection is firmly established by evidence (by experiment, even!) and any future corrections will come as Einstein's relativity came to Newton's mechanics - refinement not invalidation. To believe otherwise puts you on the same rational footing as HIV denialists, 9/11 truthers, birthers, and alien abductees. It's not enough to be an iconoclast, you need to be an iconoclast with good critical thinking skills.
    - rabbyte 12y ago
      The contentious bit for me is that it's convenient for you to grant him climate change because your understanding of that issue is in close proximity to his understanding. Breaking conformity would require a willingness to hear out ideas that make you uncomfortable as well. Beyond that I totally agree with you.
      - stickfigure 12y ago
        This really has nothing to do with me or anything subjective to me. In objective terms, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is significantly less well established than the theory of natural selection. This is not to say that climate change theories are not strong, but natural selection is almost as firmly established as Newton's law of gravitation. Anyone with a microscope and a petri dish can demonstrate it. Crazy ideas do not make me uncomfortable. Crazy people make me uncomfortable because you never know when god/the prophet/the voices/etc are going to say "kill all the green eyed ones".

Disappointed that he doesn't agree with you? Why?

by rabbyte 12y ago

Disappointed that he doesn't agree with you? Why?

It's really unclear what does he mean while telling “questioning Darwinism”. Evolution theory is a proper science theory and it's intended to be questioned. Just propose another scientific theory that explain things better. And about “God does not exist”. Strictly speaking it's untrue because we don't have any definition what “God” term means. So we cannot tell anything about this statement, it's neither true nor false.

stickfigure 12y ago

Disappointed because these statements taken together seem to suggest that Thiel is a creationist. The best analogy is probably Kary Mullins. I like a true iconoclast more than most, but at some point contrarian beliefs just venture into inanity. Past achievements do not excuse present stupidity - although, sadly, they often enable it.

rabbyte 12y ago
I can't help but think you're proving his point. The question he posed was "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?" and the relevant quote preceding the reference to God is this: > The reason it is hard to answer in the interview context is that the correct answer is one that the person asking the question is unlikely to agree with. The question is personal. There's no wrong way to answer it yet we proceed as though there are only a few right answers. How does that happen? Well, what might happen if I were to give an answer that sounded like a creationists answer? You might be disappointed, associate my thinking with Kary Mullis, and call into question my intelligence as a whole. Conformity in this case gives me a more favorable option as I can answer your question in a way that has a high probability of being well received at the expense of an honest existence. Thoughts?
- stickfigure 12y ago
  Some questions do only have a few right answers. I'm perfectly willing to grant him climate change - climate is very complicated and despite present scientific consensus, it is very possible that future discoveries will turn our understanding of the subject upside down. On the other hand, the theory of natural selection is firmly established by evidence (by experiment, even!) and any future corrections will come as Einstein's relativity came to Newton's mechanics - refinement not invalidation. To believe otherwise puts you on the same rational footing as HIV denialists, 9/11 truthers, birthers, and alien abductees. It's not enough to be an iconoclast, you need to be an iconoclast with good critical thinking skills.
  - rabbyte 12y ago
    The contentious bit for me is that it's convenient for you to grant him climate change because your understanding of that issue is in close proximity to his understanding. Breaking conformity would require a willingness to hear out ideas that make you uncomfortable as well. Beyond that I totally agree with you.
    - stickfigure 12y ago
      This really has nothing to do with me or anything subjective to me. In objective terms, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is significantly less well established than the theory of natural selection. This is not to say that climate change theories are not strong, but natural selection is almost as firmly established as Newton's law of gravitation. Anyone with a microscope and a petri dish can demonstrate it. Crazy ideas do not make me uncomfortable. Crazy people make me uncomfortable because you never know when god/the prophet/the voices/etc are going to say "kill all the green eyed ones".