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 -

Dogmatic people seek less information


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

 

Common sense is not to dismiss a body of cases but to give fair consideration.

if i've given something fair consideration & feel a need to dismiss it- is that ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

if i've given something fair consideration & feel a need to dismiss it- is that ok?

Only if you want to get ripped on by a dogmatic believer.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

if i've given something fair consideration & feel a need to dismiss it- is that ok?

Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes. 

now, this is interesting:

why do you assume that if someone disagrees with your outlook, opinion (or others who feel the same as you) they have not given fair consideration to the subject at hand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dejarma said:

now, this is interesting:

why do you assume that if someone disagrees with your outlook, opinion (or others who feel the same as you) they have not given fair consideration to the subject at hand?

I do not assume that although that may be the case. The other possibility is that we have a difference of opinion after fair consideration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I do not assume that although that may be the case. The other possibility is that we have a difference of opinion after fair consideration.

so don't suggest that people who disagree with you don't do their 'homework' / 'look into it before commenting 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

so don't suggest that people who disagree with you don't do their 'homework' / 'look into it before commenting 

I will continue to do that when I feel it applies in a particular case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

On the other hand, catmatic people are always curious.

Sorry..when I seen the term 'catmatic' I was thinking of....cats. :blush:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I will continue to do that when I feel it applies in a particular case.

So every chance you get then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I will continue to do that when I feel it applies in a particular case.

hmmm, that's suggesting there are some in here who just reply without thinking first... who are they?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papa, how about giving an example?  One where the claim was dismissed by skeptics unfairly, and you were shown to be right.

It's just that my flawed memory suggests there hasn't been a single case ... many cases where you demonstrably.. er .. 'won'.

 

So surely you'd want to take this opportunity to prove how flawed the memories of skeptics are, by posting a really good example?  I know I'm ready to apologise... it will be a cathartic and memorable change to my whole worldview...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

I know I'm ready to apologise

How about you give an example of a genuine apology you have given someone on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:D I'm guessing those aren't quite what you are after.  But I wasn't talking about previous occasions - I've committed to doing it HERE and NOW, so there are 2 things you can now do:

1. YOU point out any where I didn't apologise and should have.  Really, that's what you should have done in your posting - a decent, honest, valuable poster would do that, I reckon.

and / or

2. Help out Papageorge.  Post your best example where skeptics were unnecessarily harsh, proven wrong, and should have apologised...

 

Or you can just keep on whining and handwaving, if you think that gains cred..

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little reminder... totally under rated 

Quote

 

[00.04:09]

~

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 12:25 AM, Still Waters said:

People who are dogmatic about their views seek less information and make less accurate judgements as a result, even on simple matters unrelated to politics, according to a study led by UCL and Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics researchers.

The researchers say their findings, published in PNAS, point to differences in thinking patterns that lead people to hold rigid opinions.

Dogmatic people are characterized by a belief that their worldview reflects an absolute truth and are often resistant to change their mind, for example when it comes to partisan issues. This tendency can have societal impacts by polarizing political, scientific and religious debates. However, the cognitive drivers of dogmatism are still poorly understood.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-dogmatic-people-uncertain.html

Well i would have thought that was b......obvious :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 4:42 AM, openozy said:

How about you give an example of a genuine apology you have given someone on here.

how about you give us an example of what ChrLzs asked

Edited by Dejarma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 2:54 AM, ChrLzs said:

Papa, how about giving an example?  One where the claim was dismissed by skeptics unfairly, and you were shown to be right.

isn't it fascinating:clap: i luv this place:nw:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

:D I'm guessing those aren't quite what you are after.  But I wasn't talking about previous occasions - I've committed to doing it HERE and NOW, so there are 2 things you can now do:

1. YOU point out any where I didn't apologise and should have.  Really, that's what you should have done in your posting - a decent, honest, valuable poster would do that, I reckon.

and / or

2. Help out Papageorge.  Post your best example where skeptics were unnecessarily harsh, proven wrong, and should have apologised...

 

Or you can just keep on whining and handwaving, if you think that gains cred..

Your humbleness knows no bounds Charley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, openozy said:

Your humbleness knows no bounds Charley.

It's almost as huge as your avoidance.  Why not bring me down by simply answering the questions asked of you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

how about you give us an example of what ChrLzs asked

An example, lol. How about the fact most paranormal posts cannot be proven not to be genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

It's almost as huge as your avoidance.  Why not bring me down by simply answering the questions asked of you?

Sad you will never win on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, openozy said:

An example, lol. How about the fact most paranormal posts cannot be proven not to be genuine.

?????????  Yeah, just exactly like I can't prove that I'm not a pink unicorn.  What an absolutely pointless and ridiculously daft thing to say - you still don't understand the burden of proof concept, even after all the times you've had it explained to you?

JUST ONE example with proof would change the ballgame, and I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

But you cannot post that single example, as there isn't one.

Oh well, maybe papa has more cojones.... hmm.. Where did he go? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

and I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.

And I'd be delighted if you could prove me wrong on the paranormal, but you can't, not one time. It's that one fact that skeptics can't get over. We aren't in court so you can shove your " burden of proof concept".

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a fallacy that.  in a  debate, the onus of proof is only on the proposer of a proposition 

Where an  opponent  wishes to discredit or disprove the proposition, the y are equally required to provide evidences and proofs to do so.

  Other wise the y can disbelieve, but not disprove/reject,   another person's  theory or proposition as false. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2020 at 3:42 AM, papageorge1 said:

My point was that my beliefs are formed after more information from all sides than the hard skeptic acquaints himself with.

That's not the case. You reject science and spearhead your efforts to finding cultural ideologies that validate your predetermined conclusion. I don't think I've ever seen you consider that which critical thinkers do. As opposed to understanding evidence, you simply seek to destroy it with ideologies. All your thought processes go into defence mode rather than educational mode. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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.