"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!"
What if monkcreationists
silenced everyone else?
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... which took quite a while. Copernicus himself arguably got the insight from an old book where heliocentrism was dismissed right away. So, even though Jill still sounds like a lunatic in the modern sense and her beliefs are unfounded, Jack's arrogance should teach us a lesson or two.
The first lesson is that Jack was right to consider his view more reliable than Jill's. However, the lunocentric model could still arguably explain the tides, thus presenting a challenge to the geocentric system. Let's not forget that it took us a while to have a descent theory of the tides - and we only achieved that after we ditched the geocentric system, making Jill's challenge well valid.
"Why the hell is Lira bringing this up?". I decided to share this bit of the book-I-never-finish because I've been having quite a few debates recently regarding tolerance: what ideas should(n't) be tolerated, and why. Though I reckon science is the best source of knowledge we've got thus far, the only reason why it is successful is because it's a self-correcting enterprise: and it needs all the criticism it can get. So, when I say we should be a tad bit more humble towards religious people, superstitious folks, and what have you, it's because flawed though their reasoning may be, we need different points of view (even if it's insane to grant them all the same validity). Not all athletes get to go to the Olympics, and not all authors get to win the Nobel Prize, so it's fair to give some ideas more attention than others (so, no, Creationists, you don't get to have your nuttery taught in schools until you can develop something akin to a research programme that yields results that don't just mirror what everyone else is doing).
What ideas then shouldn't be tolerated? I'd be inclined to say that any ideas that put people's life in jeopardy should be avoided, so though homoeopaths should have their say and do experiments in labs, the danger of mistreating people with simple diseases is enough to consider hazardous for mass consumption. And that's the only limit I've got.
Oscar, PKC, you both seemed very enthusiastic to tell me I'm too "open-minded"... well, I think we can direct all criticism to this thread
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
Jan-06-2011 02:28
Joss Weatherby
Banned
Registered: May 2008
Location: The Pacific Northwest, of course
I proposed this question a while ago... though it was more inflammatory and radical.
Jan-06-2011 03:06
AnotherWay83
The B00b Maintenance Guy™
Registered: Aug 2000
Location: land of d(-_-)b
didn't read all of it but i think jill has a nice ass.
Jan-06-2011 03:18
Lira
Ancient BassAddict
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil
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
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
Jan-06-2011 03:22
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion
Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
When they piss pkc off.
Jan-06-2011 03:24
Lira
Ancient BassAddict
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Brasilia, Brazil
And when is that?
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
Jan-06-2011 03:27
EddieZilker
This is the dance.
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Marijuana Sex Camp
Ideas should only be tolerated when they are compliant with excepted norms.
Registered: May 2008
Location: The Pacific Northwest, of course
Any idea that prevents our advancement as a species is not to be tolerated. It is counter-productive.
Jan-06-2011 03:33
EddieZilker
This is the dance.
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Marijuana Sex Camp
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.
Jan-06-2011 04:09
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion
Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
And when is that?
When it is demonstrably wrong or nutty.
Jan-06-2011 04:10
woscar
Starstuff
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Guatemala, Guatemala
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.
