The bliss of ignorance

[danot]

I think it's more subtle than that, evidence might be presented, but the intransigent poster is unable to counter it with evidence of their own or unwilling to consider the evidence of others-their position is based on instinct..I still believe the sky is green by the way, even though I've never ventured outdoors or opened my curtains

But what evidence are you talking about BF?.. it still hasn't been established.

 

Are you talking about 'links', news reports etc that corroborate with(not prove to be true)the claims being made by a poster?.

[boyfriday]

But what evidence are you talking about BF?.. it still hasn't been established.

 

Are you talking about 'links', news reports etc that corroborate with(not prove to be true)the claims being made by a poster?.

 

I'm talking about anything that creates a discussion point, rather than the fingers in the ears school of discussion. (did you read the OP danot? )

[danot]

I'm talking about anything that creates a discussion point, rather than the fingers in the ears school of discussion. (did you read the OP danot? )

Naar couldn't be bothered.

[boyfriday]

As my dad told me when I first started complaining about people on SF completely ignoring any evidence based arguments I make: Generally speaking, you can't change people's minds with evidence. It just doesn't work with regards to any issues that they feel strongly about.

 

What you need is a good strong appeal to emotion, or perhaps authority, much more likely to be successful.

 

This is why critical thinking should be brought to the forefront of education, no child should leave school without a decent grounding in ti, purely so they can filter out the nonsense that is most of everything.

 

I think that's right jimmy, there are posters here whose views I vehemently disagree with, but they present their argument concisely and offer rebuttals to arguments which enhance my own thinking.

[boyfriday]

Naar couldn't be bothered.

 

QED

[JFKvsNixon]

As my dad told me when I first started complaining about people on SF completely ignoring any evidence based arguments I make: Generally speaking, you can't change people's minds with evidence. It just doesn't work with regards to any issues that they feel strongly about.

 

What you need is a good strong appeal to emotion, or perhaps authority, much more likely to be successful.

 

This is why critical thinking should be brought to the forefront of education, no child should leave school without a decent grounding in ti, purely so they can filter out the nonsense that is most of everything.

 

A very good post, I admit that my entire outlook on life changed during my visit to university. When I reflect upon what you posted it was probably due to being taught how to think critically.

[Alien]

you, me or anyone else is hardly likely to ever claim the sky is green BF. So without using any more ill fitting analogies;), what evidence could you or another poster provide that could prove to me that what you or "another poster" are claiming to be true is indeed true?.

 

The analogy wasn't that ill fitting. The question is either true or false. If you believe the sky is green and a billion people think it's Blue then it's down to the individual as opposed to the billion to state their case. Einstein, Darwin had that gift, and those gifts were born on the shoulders of others with gifts. Excusing yourself with "there you go again Mr Link man" is hardly a good argumentative tool. Even the limited thinker must base his/hers limited thoughts through some form of analytical process. My guess is most that use links do so in order first to question or verify their thoughts rather than basing it on instinct through prejudice.

 

So..as opposed to the billion that thinks it's Blue you as the Green thinker must make a pretty heady case because the other Billion just won't listen.

[boyfriday]

Even the limited thinker must base his/hers limited thoughts through some form of analytical process.

What's frightening though is that a lot dont, and they have the vote.

My guess is most that use links do so in order first to question or verify their thoughts rather than basing it on instinct through prejudice.

That's probably true, I've had my prejudices both confirmed and denied!

[JFKvsNixon]

What's frightening though is that a lot dont, and they have the vote.

That's probably true, I've had my prejudices both confirmed and denied!

 

Lots of people always seem to base their opinions on their "gut feeling". The problem this approach is that it makes any information that backs up this hunch seem more appealing, it also makes the person more dismissive of any information that contradicts it.

[boyfriday]

Lots of people always seem to base their opinions on their "gut feeling". The problem this approach is that it makes any information that backs up this hunch seem more appealing, it also makes the person more dismissive of any information that contradicts it.

 

I think it's something we're all tempted by JFK, at the more extreme end of the spectrum many of us are encouraged to play further if we match 3 numbers on the lottery, even though the statistics dictate it's a far more likely to be a relationship where we're disadvantaged in the long term. But the desire to 'believe' overwhelms rational thinking.