Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DeWitz

Credulity vs. Certainty

14 posts in this topic

Our world knows many people who are credulous to a fault, believing in everything from the Cardiff Giant to Piltdown Man without foundation. Another segment is certain about many things (but only as demonstrable by physical evidence), especially that some others' opinions are incredible, and respond more as naysayers rather than positing theories. I would appreciate hearing from UMers about how folks arrive at certainty, especially when the scientific method is technically open-ended, as well as how others experience as credible (religious faith; extraterrestrials; cryptids, etc.) notions that are unthinkable for some.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I would have to say through personal experience, introspection and faith in yourself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We only think we know what we know, we are fooled by our brains into accepting an approximation of reality which allows us to function.

Br Cornelius

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our world knows many people who are credulous to a fault, believing in everything from the Cardiff Giant to Piltdown Man without foundation. Another segment is certain about many things (but only as demonstrable by physical evidence), especially that some others' opinions are incredible, and respond more as naysayers rather than positing theories. I would appreciate hearing from UMers about how folks arrive at certainty, especially when the scientific method is technically open-ended, as well as how others experience as credible (religious faith; extraterrestrials; cryptids, etc.) notions that are unthinkable for some.

I wrote an article about this subject.

Its too long to reproduce here.

http://religion.wiki...iki/Rationalism

Edited by granpa
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our world knows many people who are credulous to a fault, believing in everything from the Cardiff Giant to Piltdown Man without foundation. Another segment is certain about many things (but only as demonstrable by physical evidence), especially that some others' opinions are incredible, and respond more as naysayers rather than positing theories. I would appreciate hearing from UMers about how folks arrive at certainty, especially when the scientific method is technically open-ended, as well as how others experience as credible (religious faith; extraterrestrials; cryptids, etc.) notions that are unthinkable for some.

I'm trying to deal with this situation delicately.

My cousin Marc and I have had these debates for decades. Casually at first but since I seriously got interested in researching paranormal claims online 5 years ago, I feel able to discuss things more intelligently.

Marc got online this year and seems to be accessing credulous sites exclusively, that support paranormal claims.

Before his pc he was into watching Sylvia Brown on Montel, bought her book: "everything you need to know about the paranormal".

Then it was crop circles.

Then it was Richard Hoagland.

Since he started using a computer, he's been emailing me every other week, more or less, with youtube links to all manner of woo, and tried to maintain a civil attitude but I'm resigned to not ever changing his mind.

I think he understands not to label me as close minded after I responded: "if you reject my pov then how are you any more openminded than me?"

Here's his latest:

Larry,

This is ultimately the Q&A after the premiere of the movie SIRIUS (which I have not seen yet) with Dr. Stephen Greer talking about said movie. I DO believe that this is the true version of our state of reality in the world. Government is controlling our knowledge in certain ways i.e. the "official" scientific model in use today. There are so many logical things said in this Q&A, just based on those, compared to what the Government, and science say, I can even see the simplicity in "free energy (Which "does not exist") From water alone. (They make hydrogen power seem so complicated, when they explain it.)

The problem now with our communication is, when you cite a scientific source to prove a point, it may be within the accepted science rule, But I think: "Is "accepted science" playing with a full deck of cards?" Which may explain a lot of weird stuff. (we are dealing with different sciences.)

Look up the International Press Club hearings on disclosure of UFOs, or the citizen hearings, but better yet, use your inner feelings.

Inner guidance systems are what religion and the powers that be don't want you to use. You know. (I'll tell you, I had a deep conversation with myself before I made the Paradigm change to "what is possible".) Conciseness is universal.

http://www.anonymousfo.com/TheLatestUFOs/LatestUFOs.html

Click on the first window.

It explains a lot of the discussions we have had.

I hope you don't think I am forcing my OPINIONS on you, as I respect your position on things.

I hope this brings something to your table...

talk to you later,

Marcus

I see lots of believers here at UM that would surely agree with him, and I try not to engage in the snarky threads that really do nothing to advance skepticism or critical thinking in those who identify as 'believer'.

I look for scientific literature to back up my claim or at least a rebuttal from a reputable publication.

A problem with that is if a believer has no respect for science, or thinks "we are dealing with different sciences", I don't see what else can be said without truly speaking my mind.

So I say nothing. For now.

I'm interested in how mythology is created and in cognitive psychology.

I want to understand more of the philosophy of science and I got a tip to look up Karl Popper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote an article about this subject.

Its too long to reproduce here.

http://religion.wiki...iki/Rationalism

Thanks for the article, granpa. Is this related to Wikipedia, or another entity altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to deal with this situation delicately.

My cousin Marc and I have had these debates for decades. Casually at first but since I seriously got interested in researching paranormal claims online 5 years ago, I feel able to discuss things more intelligently.

Marc got online this year and seems to be accessing credulous sites exclusively, that support paranormal claims.

Before his pc he was into watching Sylvia Brown on Montel, bought her book: "everything you need to know about the paranormal".

Then it was crop circles.

Then it was Richard Hoagland.

Since he started using a computer, he's been emailing me every other week, more or less, with youtube links to all manner of woo, and tried to maintain a civil attitude but I'm resigned to not ever changing his mind.

I think he understands not to label me as close minded after I responded: "if you reject my pov then how are you any more openminded than me?"

Here's his latest:

I see lots of believers here at UM that would surely agree with him, and I try not to engage in the snarky threads that really do nothing to advance skepticism or critical thinking in those who identify as 'believer'.

I look for scientific literature to back up my claim or at least a rebuttal from a reputable publication.

A problem with that is if a believer has no respect for science, or thinks "we are dealing with different sciences", I don't see what else can be said without truly speaking my mind.

So I say nothing. For now.

I'm interested in how mythology is created and in cognitive psychology.

I want to understand more of the philosophy of science and I got a tip to look up Karl Popper.

Sounds as though you are a reasonable person interested in discussion, not in arguing for the sake of arguing. But Marcus appears to have solidified a position of, "yes, it may be scientific, but only 'officialdom's' science;" or something like that. It seems to be inherently irrational, and not amenable to discussion. Good luck with that.

I have read just a bit of Popper, on falsifiability. I actually first learned of him years ago in a book about "theology and the philosophy of science," of all things. There's a bio-historical book out there also(published maybe 10 years ago) about a famous, almost traumatic debate between Popper and Wittgenstein that ended badly--but was instrumental in both of their careers. I'm sure you can find it if you 'google' their names together.

Joseph Campbell is a good, respected resource on the origin and development of myths worldwide. He had a series with Bill Moyers that's on DVD in most public libraries ("The Power of Myth," I believe it's entitled.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds as though you are a reasonable person interested in discussion, not in arguing for the sake of arguing. But Marcus appears to have solidified a position of, "yes, it may be scientific, but only 'officialdom's' science;" or something like that. It seems to be inherently irrational, and not amenable to discussion. Good luck with that.

I have read just a bit of Popper, on falsifiability. I actually first learned of him years ago in a book about "theology and the philosophy of science," of all things. There's a bio-historical book out there also(published maybe 10 years ago) about a famous, almost traumatic debate between Popper and Wittgenstein that ended badly--but was instrumental in both of their careers. I'm sure you can find it if you 'google' their names together.

Joseph Campbell is a good, respected resource on the origin and development of myths worldwide. He had a series with Bill Moyers that's on DVD in most public libraries ("The Power of Myth," I believe it's entitled.

Thanks and I'll definitely check that out.

Campbell is amazing.

I lent my copy of 'Hero With A Thousand Faces' to my niece.

I remember watching Power Of Myth on PBS about 20 years ago. I saw the complete collection on the shelves of the nearby bookstore before they went out of business(going for about $200). It never occurred to me to look for it at the library.

I do have his "Western Quest" 5 hour audio collection. Very thought provoking stuff.

I was impressed by his statement about it being the responsibility of the philosophers and artists to mold their generations myths to fit modern society.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know gullible people and cynical people. To me the middle and best way is skepticism, which I see as not "believing" anything but holding various opinions with varying degrees of assurance based on a combination of their inherent likelihood or reasonableness and the quality and amount of evidence.

I suppose the differences among us here can be ascribed to "personality." Actually, though, I have little time for the gullible or the cynical and usually, once I realize that such is what I am dealing with, I stop reading their posts.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the article, granpa. Is this related to Wikipedia, or another entity altogether?

Wikia is completely unrelated to Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I check my mail every day waiting for certainty to arrive. The older I get the less I'm sure of and the more things I question. And when ever I get so bold as to proclaim my certainty, that's the very moment I realize how wrong I am. It's like some kind of unwritten universal law. Am I the only person subject to this apparent universal law?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I check my mail every day waiting for certainty to arrive. The older I get the less I'm sure of and the more things I question. And when ever I get so bold as to proclaim my certainty, that's the very moment I realize how wrong I am. It's like some kind of unwritten universal law. Am I the only person subject to this apparent universal law?

If you don't get more uncertain you have ceased to learn.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is what we know we know

What we know we don't know

And by far the biggest aspect to life is

What we do not know that we do not know

I'm paraphrasing a philosopher, can't remember which one - Socrates I think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikia is completely unrelated to Wikipedia.

Thanks. And it's a helpful article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.