Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:39:55 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡
   I spent a year living with people like this. Fun times... I don't really miss the ``conversations``.
   
   https://sputnikglobe.com/20241225/nasa-rebuffs-conspiracy-theory-about-starliner-crews-santa-hats-on-iss---reports-1121263300.html
   
   In other news, the continent of Antarctica surrounds the flat earth and is home to a holographic projection system controlled by space aliens from the BuyBull.
   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:21 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • agaperealm
     @h4890 @agaperealm
     
     When people start evangelising flat Earth to me, I often relate this legend to them...
     
     The story goes that there was once a group of people who located the edge of the flat Earth for real. Once they got there they started circumambulating the edge to see how far it went. However now it's been many generations they've been doing this and they have changed their minds about it. Their descendants all now insist it's not actually a flat Earth in the shape of a disk as everyone once thought, but if the evidence of their experience is any judge, is actually a straight line Earth with only endless land on one side and endless void on the other.
     
     See also: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/201
     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:22 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • agaperealm
     @h4890 @agaperealm
     
     That was among the things I virtually tape recorded to play back whenever I'd get into a discussion with someone about flat Earth. Does it mean cellphones and satellite communications won't work? Does it effect the price of groceries? Is there a restaurant I can book a vacation to to look out over the edge? Okay... so (rhetorically speaking) why should I care?
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:23 JST h4890

     in reply to

     • agaperealm

     @toiletpaper @agaperealm Another tool I use is "effect". And with that I mean, can I affect "it" in any way, or can it affect me? If I cannot do anything about it, and if it cannot affect me in any meaningful way, I mostly ignore it unless I'm just curious and want to learn more.

   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:24 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • agaperealm
     @agaperealm @h4890
     
     That's really sad. And even more sadly, not uncommon. Personally I've never really trusted the medical establishment, especially pharmaceuticals companies. When I am faced with the question of whether or not something involves a conspiracy, and I have no other means to discern it, I use these four criteria.
     
     Means, motive, opportunity, and historical track record.
     
     In the case of pharmaceuticals companies, they check all four boxes required for me to lean towards them operating a conspiracy for their own financial gain. That is my default judgement. Any interest in human health is always subservient to their profit motive, without fail. As to other forms of modern medicine, it's a bit of a toss up. When the doctors themselves aren't utterly incompetent fools wallowing in their own conceit, some of the techniques they can bring to bear are genuinely life saving. But most of the time in my experience they are incompetent conceited idiots. It's no wonder that the third leading cause of death in Canada and USA is medical malpractice.
     
     This being said, not all science ticks those four boxes. A lot of it does, but definitely not all. Moreover, unlike the medical establishment which has inviolate financial incentives to collude to distract, deflect and deny their own malfeasance, science (when properly conducted) in general is all about debunking the established dogma. That's practically it's central thesis (aka: falsifiability/falsification). Modern academia has it's own issues, with scientific publishing being a virtual circle jerk in competition over grant money and so forth, but at the end of the day it still produces real tangible technologies and advancements we benefit from daily. Moreover, there're financial incentives for that to be the case, and given the overwhelming greed inherent to our economic system, that is a fairly reliable motive.
   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:25 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     • agaperealm
     @agaperealm @h4890
     
     You raise a good point. At the same time "question everything" can go too far sometimes, to the point of rejecting all knowledge (hence "post truth", postmodernism/poststructuralism, etc). There are so many people I've encountered who feel betrayed by the political, medical and scientific establishment, that they have rejected (at least consciously) all scientific knowledge bar none (notwithstanding still using cellphones etc). If you try to argue based on science or logic, or any kind of received authority, then you might as well be the enemy. That's why it's not sufficient merely to question, but is also necessary to have some means of arriving at answers. And moreover answers which are actually practicably testable rather than just glorified opinions.
   • Embed this notice
     agaperealm (agaperealm@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:25 JST agaperealm

     in reply to

     • h4890
     @toiletpaper @h4890 I think you are right about having a balanced and scientific approach to questioning things. And, perhaps the last 5 years have jaded me more than is good for me. But, let me tell you a true story that demonstrates why today I personally think erroring on the side of disbelief in any human authority, including scientific authority, is the safer bet.
     
     About 32 years ago my then wife and I were friends with another couple that my wife had grown up with from childhood. We were all in our mid 20s and doing the upwardly mobile climb into the middle class. He was finishing studies to be a pediatrician. I can't remember what his wife was doing at that point in her life. I do know that she became pregnant and delivered a healthy baby girl named Hailey. It was their first and, being childless ourselves, we loved Hailey as she began unlocking new parental instincts in both of us as well.
     
     I believe it was at five months that I learned Hailey had passed away suddenly. My wife and I rushed to the hospital and were shown to a private room where the couple sat holding their dead child. They both seemed soulless. Devoid of spirit as they clutched their lifeless Hailey. It was just the five of us in the room and I remember thinking that this was the first time I had ever felt this depth of sadness before. Hailey's funeral, with her tiny coffin, was surreal to me.
     
     Prior to childhood immunizations crib death statistics were not even recorded because they were so rare they were statistically insignificant. The Amish receive no immunizations and have no crib death. These are things I've learned only in the past four or five years.
     
     After Hailey's death I went to all of the SIDS fundraisers, SIDS runs, etc.. I made sure my own infants never flipped on their stomachs and that blankets stayed out of the crib. Imagine that. Me, an adult with an IQ of 121, believing that a perfectly healthy human baby could be killed by sleeping on its stomach or by a blanket in the crib and that otherwise, crib death was just a big medical mystery with no other known reasons. Yet, that's exactly what I believed. I'm not a scientist, but if today you were to ask me which scenario was more likely to have killed Hailey, a blanket in her crib or a cocktail of chemicals injected into her body just days before, today I would choose the latter.
     
     I think of this story and dozens of others like it and am amazed at how easily I was fooled by illegitimate authority. Illegitimate and compromised science. Illegitimate and compromised expert opinion. I think about how comfortable I was living in a realm where I didn't have to concern myself with research and large swaths of science. The experts did that for me. All I had to do was take their food pyramid advice on life and I would be happy. I am disappointed I wasn't instructed to be more questioning of everything no matter what and am regretful I didn't have this understanding and resolve when my children were young.
     
     We don't know what we don't know and this more often than not includes our own limitations and weaknesses. Having a reflexive response of, not doubt necessarily, but curiosity and question about all things is what I currently believe to be the safest position, regardless of the authority.
   • Embed this notice
     agaperealm (agaperealm@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:26 JST agaperealm

     in reply to

     • h4890
     @h4890 @toiletpaper It is human nature (particularly when a human has an IQ above 100 or so) to question things.
     
     "What will happen if I sail my ship too far past the horizon?"
     
     "You will fall off of the earth you crazy man. Everybody knows that you crazy conspiracy theorist."
     
     Incongruence begets curiosity which begets questions which begets theories and hypothesis which begets advancement, innovation and understanding. The questions, hypothesis, innovations and understanding aren't always correct but we are less human when we allow our natural curiosity to be stifled. When was the last time you heard a parent or teacher tell a child to question everything? Pretty sad, isn't it?
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:27 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper But some people crave answers, any answer, rather than no answer.

     I find that a very fascinating human reflex. Why do we crave answers so much and so strongly, that even a wrong answer is preferable to no answer in many cases?

   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:28 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     @h4890
     
     *nods* I honestly don't think most of these folks even know what solipsism is in the first place to have any depth of thought about it. It's not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed we're dealing with.
     
     In terms of doubt, I tend to view truth and doubt as being reciprocal. Doubt is custodian of truth, in that it constantly refines our sense of truth and guards us against falsehood. Take for examples the scientific method (falsifiability/falsification), or jurisprudence (presumption of innocence), etc. Truth isn't really a fixed mark, but an ever receding horizon, with doubt being the wind which propels us perpetuation towards it.
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:28 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper This is the truth! That is why I find the agnostic position in matters of spirituality the most beautiful one. You are (or try to be) open, but you are also honest enough to admit that there is no proof. Only individual experience.

     I see the scientific method as kind of receding "fog of war" in computer games. Doubt would perhaps be what decides which direction of the map you are trying to explore at the moment.

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:29 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper thing that they do not dare to challenge gravity, but no. That argument seldom works either. ;)

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:30 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper n since nothing can be argued out of it. Doesn't work. Then I try ti argue that since they are in fact arguing, they cannot seriously entertain the idea of solipsism and doubt, since if they did, what point would the be in arguing with a fictional/non-existent entity? Not, that doesn't work either.

     Same thing goes with idealists who doubt the external world, yet, when challenged if they doubt gravity, they never dare to tests their non-belief in gravity. I argue that it means some

   • Embed this notice
     ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡ (toiletpaper@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:31 JST ⚡Lord of Misrule⚡

     in reply to

     • h4890
     @h4890
     
     I've run into that more often than not too. Brandolini's Law... Or I get the rhetorical philosophical question about how do I know it's not true, or that whatever I believe is more likely to be true, along with a total resistance to having any kind of further discussion of epistemology whatsoever. It's amazing how indignant people can get when their delusions are called into question.
   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:31 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper This is the truth! I always try and watch myself, when I get that internal friction when someone is questioning something I say. That feeling signals that it is a belief that has "attached" itself to my core. If there is no friction when being questioned, the idea is loose and free enough, since it is not attached to my ego/core.

     Another frustrating response is eternal doubt. I try to insist that eternal doubt of everything leads to solipsism and that it is a self refuting positio

   • Embed this notice
     h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 20:40:32 JST h4890

     in reply to

     @toiletpaper Very interesting people! I tried to argue with one once, and his standard reply was a 12 hour youtube video. Since no one wanted to bother with watching 12 hours of gibberish, everyone gave up, since he would not summarize his position, but only refer to the 12 hour video. Very interesting technique for evading discussions. ;)