TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- When shouldn't ideas be tolerated?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

When shouldn't ideas be tolerated?

"You don't respect my beliefs", Jill said exasperated. "I'm a lunatic, and I believe the Moon is the centre of the universe because it's the most perfect celestial body up there, it's a gift from the Goddess, controlling the tides and this planet's vital force!". Jack just couldn't believe she was saying such nonsense. For centuries humanity had known the truth - the data don't lie. How else could you explain the success of astronomical predictions up to that moment with such a stupid idea? Naturally, he couldn't let that happen and told her what she needed to head. "Hyperbollocks, you silly cow, we all know what's in the centre of the universe and anyone who says otherwise should be impaled on a rusty spear - it's the fucking Earth!"

I proposed this question a while ago... though it was more inflammatory and radical.

didn't read all of it but i think jill has a nice ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I proposed this question a while ago... though it was more inflammatory and radical.

And you wouldn't take either "yes" or "no" for an answer... it's not quite the same question, by the way

When they piss pkc off.

And when is that?

Ideas should only be tolerated when they are compliant with excepted norms.

















That's right. I said, excepted!

Any idea that prevents our advancement as a species is not to be tolerated. It is counter-productive.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Any idea that prevents our advancement as a species is not to be tolerated. It is counter-productive.

I have determined this idea to be counter-productive since it doesn't allow for dissenting ideas which could possibly be correct while not necessarily accepted.

I skimmed tru something about jack and jill and ideas and pkc... cor version plz.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And when is that?

When it is demonstrably wrong or nutty.

Re: When shouldn't ideas be tolerated?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira This dialogue above could well have happened before the Copernican revolution took place: The Ptolemaic had been used for ages and, though it's easy to oversimplify history and blame the Church, History is far more complex than we take it to be. After all, the predictions worked and there was no need to ditch the geocentric model until a challenger appeared, and this new idea had to prove itself worthy before being adopted

The predictions that the geocentric model made did not "work" at all and any idea that it did stemmed from the fact that many of the so called "explanations" that it provided were post hoc rationalizations of what was observed. Furthermore, when most people think of the geocentric model, they think that it entails simply swapping the places of the Earth and the Sun. In reality, it was much more complicated than that. In order to agree with observation, placing the Earth at the center of the solar system meant that planets moved like this:



So, as you see, when Copernicus rehashed Aristarchus of Samos' idea of a heliocentric system it wasn't a "crazy" idea at all. It was a model that agreed with observation far better than Ptolemy's model did and had the virtue of being simpler. It still had its fair share of problems because Copernicus posed circular orbits that still couldn't explain the apparent retrograde motion of the planets and those merry blokes sitting in Rome with their funny hats and fancy dresses didn't like the idea of not being at the center of all things. The first problem was not solved until Johannes Kepler nearly broke his mind while thinking up elliptical orbits and it would have come much sooner if the Catholic church hadn't threatened scientists with stake burning for daring to think outside the box. Up until here, I agree with you: we need a constant flow of ideas -good or bad, sane or crazy- to keep the scientific enterprise moving forward. As hinted by the opening sentence of this paragraph, I'll take my agreement with you even further and say that we need to keep ideas and analyze them closer before dismissing them as ramblings from madmen. An even better example of this -and a much more recent one as well- is the current shitstorm that Sam Harris is talking from both scientists and philosophers for proposing a science of morality. These are highly educated men and women with PhDs in Philosophy, Psychology, etc. that are unable to let go of their preconceptions and admit that there is at least some value in what Harris and others like him are saying.

However, comparing the examples both of us mentioned to the Astrology vs Psychology "debate" is quite misguided. Both cases pertain to contemporary gaps in our knowledge (contrary to common knowledge, there were people that saw the flaws of the Ptolemaic model and were more than justified to look for alternatives), rather than to rehashing ideas that were already demonstrated to be wrong. Astrology is a remnant of our ignorance of human behavior that refuses to go thanks to a certain number of idiots and charlatans that see a way to make a quick buck. Sure, it doesn't really damage anyone personally, but to say that it's harmless is again, quite misguided. The harm that superstitious bullshit like Astrology causes is intellectual, it exaggerates the limitations of science in a way that is pernicious to society because it makes people think that ideas that contradict well established scientific knowledge are equally valid. Sounds too much like postmodernism, isn't it? And if there is one thing that I hate just as much as superstition and mysticism, that's postmodernist bullshit.

And finally, while your stance is much clearer now, you must admit that the way in which you explained it on the other thread made it very easy for PKC and myself to misunderstand it and justified the "brains falling out" comment.

Wait a minute, now Oscar is posting videos in between a wall of text?

Do you see what you have started, Lira?

I feel there's a useful proverb that bears relevance to this and no doubt similar discussions regarding the extent by which we plausibly entertain counter-intuitive and dissenting perspectives: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

I think we can meaningfully formulate an attitude 'tolerance' (assuming we understand tolerance, in this discussion, to be the providing of avenues for others to expatiate on their divergent viewpoints) relative to that which we can reasonably estimate, and accept, to be the truth, until such time as we have reason to question the accuracy of that estimate. I realize that this just prompts the question regarding the means by which we can estimate that our estimates are correct, and who is qualified to make such a determination in the first place, but I nevertheless feel that this is a sound and reliable premise to begin.

In any event, it would seem apparent that adopting an intolerant and hostile demeanor towards unorthodox and nonconformist viewpoints would have the counterproductive effect of further bolstering their stance, as it's often perceived as denying a vocal minority of an opportunity to advance their positions because the truth they carry poses a threat to the status quo, a threat that needs to be quashed and silenced as rapidly as possible. This winds up draping their worldview with a subversive characterization that tends to attract like minded people, or just people who are generally mistrusting of authority in the first place, until an entire movement develops around it.

It may very well be, then, that adopting an especially tolerant, accommodating, and openly interactive attitude towards opinions that we ought to dismiss is the most effective way by which we can mitigate the extent of their impact (assuming, of course, that these are wrong-headed viewpoints that deserve to be dismissed in the first place).

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

inb4woscar with Sagan citation.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker inb4woscar with Sagan citation.

"Useful proverb that bears relevance to this and no doubt similar discussions regarding the extent by which we plausibly entertain counter-intuitive and dissenting perspectives"/"There's a nifty quote by Carl Sagan": same thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost In any event, it would seem apparent that adopting an intolerant and hostile demeanor towards unorthodox and nonconformist viewpoints would have the counterproductive effect of further bolstering their stance, as it's often perceived as denying a vocal minority of an opportunity to advance their positions because the truth they carry poses a threat to the status quo, a threat that needs to be quashed and silenced as rapidly as possible. This winds up draping their worldview with a subversive characterization that tends to attract like minded people, or just people who are generally mistrusting of authority in the first place, until an entire movement develops around it.

in my experience (which is admittedly limited mostly to nutter forums) levels of intolerance or hostility have little impact on the capacity for idiots to congregate and attract other idiots. the minority idiot opinion is already bolstered by the fact that they're running against the "mainstream" viepoint(s) (ie your subversive characterisation), which gives them a feeling of superiority due to their "secret knowledge" and such feelings would exist with or without outside hostility. sure, some people see hostility from others as evidence that they're "onto something", but there's very little that doesn't reinforce the idiot opinion anyway.

since logic, evidence and critical thinking are useless against 99% of the nutters, i don't really see that abusive mockery does any harm (as they have always already made up their mind), and fuck me if i don't enjoy it

This generally speaks more towards the scale and context by which we express tolerance and intolerance towards other points of view, something I'm a bit unclear on from the Lira's original post. If we're assuming a tolerant or intolerant stance within something as limited as a passing, inconsequential skirmish on some faceless forum, then I imagine you'd be correct when suggesting that both welcome and unwelcome attitudes are also inconsequential. If Lira is referring to something of a collective cultural attitude towards a dissenting minority, then I'd suspect it would be quite a bit different.

I also realize that I'm using descriptions like dissenting, counter-intuitive, nonconformist, and unorthodox interchangeably, here.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost If we're assuming a tolerant or intolerant stance within something as limited as a passing, inconsequential skirmish on some faceless forum, then I imagine you'd be correct when suggesting that both welcome and unwelcome attitudes are also inconsequential. If Lira is referring to something of a collective cultural attitude towards a dissenting minority, then I'd suspect it would be quite a bit different.

yeah, you could be right. im probably too pessimistic.

though i tend to think people should be punished for holding really poor opinions, and if collective cultural scorn is all that works, then so be it! most people that believe ridiculous, outlandish notions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are highly unlikely to change their mind regardless of how they are perceived or treated by people or society at large. sure, they might go shoot up a workplace but they probably had a higher chance of doing that anyway.

we marginalise people in so many different ways for all kinds of things, what's one more candidate?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I also realize that I'm using descriptions like dissenting, counter-intuitive, nonconformist, and unorthodox interchangeably, here.

yeah, they could be different or the same, depending on the topic. im really just referencing ideas that are obviously factually incorrect, and which we can be sure about (insofar as we can be sure about anything).

ie such topics as http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, you could be right. im probably too pessimistic.

Crazy talk, man.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Crazy talk, man.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Crazy talk, man.

haha. its not my fault man continues to disappoint me!

I think I need to get a better handle on what exactly you mean by "tolerated" in order to give a firm opinion on this one. Generally, I think all beliefs need to be scrutinized and challenged; however, I wouldn't deny someone the right to believe even after scrutiny... is that tolerance? I wouldn't even suggest a person be denied the right to believe something others would consider dangerous; however, I would support preventing said person from being able to put those beliefs into action that has a demonstrably harmful impact on others. Personally, I would consider myself tolerant.

I think beliefs must be tolerated, as long as they can be explained.

If you can't adequately explain your belief, or your explanation boils down to "I SAID SO, SO ITS TRUE" then stfu.

No belief that can't stand up to criticism can be respected: If you have a left-field belief i think that's totally cool, AS LONG as you understand it, and can defend it against more accepted paradigms.

This goes for all beliefs too, not just religious, or metaphysical. If you can't explain the scienfitic theory you brag on about then don't claim to know it (as i said a lot of times)-- If you don't know something, just admit it. Like PKC said, if people are being idiots, i think they should have their faces rubbed in it

Dammit Marcus, you can't start this thread and then not post on it again!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.