Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Does Your Opinion Change With New Information


Jeremy Vaeni

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, DebDandelion said:

Not the point P...not the point:ph34r:

OK you have my autism confused.......:wacko:

:lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, DebDandelion said:

That is sort of sad. To think, your childhood was richer for the hope /drive to search. And once investigated (as a grown up, you find its not true), and u literally have ur dreams squashed.

Its horrible to think that innocence can be lost so quickly 

What?

Guy said he spent 35 years looking into it. That's a damn long time to hold on to any childhood dream.

I congratulate Piney for managing to hold onto a childhood dream that long.

If it's sad, it's sad because it took him that long! :D

Harte

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

Where have you read that?

And more importantly, did you seek out an article that would confirm that for you?

 

No, I didn't seek it out. In fact, it's the opposite of my assumption. Here's a link for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115001006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure,. my views expand with additional information.     However,  I'm learning to be more discerning of the accuracy of additional information.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2018 at 3:19 AM, seanjo said:

If there is proof, real proof, my opinion can be changed.

I feel the same. Which begs the question, what constitutes "real proof" in your mind?  I think this highlights the greatest damage the MSM have done to public trust because of their lynch party reporting for 2 years.  They have acted like every new rumor was going to prove this president stole an election and was a criminal.  Those who voted for him (like myself) at first were willing to wait and see but as the weeks turned into months, then years... and STILL no proof that he did anything to steal an election, the bar has been raised very high indeed.  We've seen so many false accusations and tenuous connections to low-level players that we'll tend to need absolute, irrefutable evidence now.  Short of a signed memo or a voice recording of him actually discussing his plans with Putin, I would be suspect of anything they presented.  I fully expect Mueller to issue a report this fall that makes an accusation of obstruction of justice based on the president exercising his prerogatives of Executive power.  The Left will point to the report as vindication and scream for Impeachment while the rest will yawn and move on.  His Impeachment is a foregone conclusion if the Dems retake the House.  At that point, I plan to just unplug from the domestic political news altogether.  I'll wait for the Senate trial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2018 at 8:47 AM, Jeremy Vaeni said:

I've read that well-educated people are the most likely to double down on what they think they know and defend it to the bitter end. You'd think it would be the other way, but apparently not.

Well it kinda makes sense.

Lets take exhibit A -  A person who is well educated.  Now lets consider a thing they are educated about, we'll pick a topic at random ;  Evolution.

Lets assume they know a bit about this topic, enough to know what sort of evidences there are for it, what sort of things the theory entails, that they are able to recall a few examples with minimal effort, and that they know enough to offer few choice rebuttals for its opponents .

Now, lets have somebody present them new information: if this information only deals with a part of the subject at hand then it can be evaluated on the basis of the evidence for it and the reasoning that accompanies it , and can be accepted or not with little struggle- its an improvement, or refinement of the knowledge that went before and doesn't upset the rest of Exhibit A's understanding of Evolution. 

However if this information is an assault against the whole thing then it has a fight on its hands. Say "the whole of evolution is nonsense, this is really whats going on" then the evidence to support such an assertion must not be trivial, and the reasoning behind it must be pretty damn solid. Even if there are areas of uncertainty within the Theory of Evolution (or rather exhibit A's understanding of it) they will still be at least vaguely aware of the masses of evidence that supports it , the consensus amongst other well educated people that it is correct and so on, and so any new assertion has to be backed up by evidence at least as strong, and until this is presented theres not much point accepting the assertion. 

Soooo, yeah, I can certainly see why you could say someone who knows a lot about a topic isn't going to have their understanding of it overturned easily. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, blackstarraven said:

Well if it did not, I would be a p*** poor scientists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find paradigms very interesting, and I am well aware of my own. It's almost an athletic dicipline not to get stuck in one, no matter who you are.

Some people have chosen to be stuck, like deeply religious people or those who believe in conspiracies, others think they are not, when in fact they are.

How do we know if we're stuck in one? We do when we dismiss evidence that shows the opposite of what we deeply believe.

Edited by sci-nerd
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.