Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #618835 > unrolled thread

How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

Started by	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
First post	2023-08-24 20:15 -0700
Last post	2023-09-06 07:20 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 78 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#619485

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-09-03 08:11 +0200
Message-ID	<klima5Fid5lU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619277

Am 31.08.2023 um 08:52 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
> On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 08:19:30 UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 29.08.2023 um 08:44 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>>> Bullshit, sorry, that's not how a cult works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>> I thought, that system would be kind of 'fool-proof' and would use, what
>>> is common among people.
>>  From my own experience I would say:
>>
>> people just love to be accepted into a restricted club!
>
> The knights of The Shit are free of weeknesses of
> ordinary mortal worms.
>

All exclusive clubs share this habit of claiming superiority above the 
common people.

But such superiority needs no proof anymore, once people have been 
accepted by that club.

Add inheritence of membership and you can see such clubs drift away into 
obscurity, because the requirement of superiority cannot be inherited, 
but had to be earned.

In effect very ordinary people gather, do obscure things, which are 
meant to raise them above the common 'worms'.

But, as a matter of fact, the rituals don't do the trick and cannot 
really replace hard earned merits.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619533

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-09-03 13:01 -0700
Message-ID	<64F4E61C.16F1@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619485

There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619549

From	nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date	2023-09-03 23:10 +0200
Message-ID	<1qgi69q.9jeq417sy8srN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl>
In reply to	#619533

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices

Famous, and quite dated by now, (1983) and off-topic here,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619590

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2023-09-03 21:32 -0700
Message-ID	<64F55DCF.4F43@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#619549

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices
> 
> Famous, and quite dated by now, (1983) and off-topic here,
> 
> Jan

wat do you mean, the Subject heading reads:  intelligent people ,
foolish things


Don't you French people understand inglish?

intelligent people = Smart People

foolish things = things that are chosen


palayvooo inglish?

ooohhh la la!

sacre le blue

merci boucoooo



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#620423

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-09-17 08:00 +0200
Message-ID	<kmnit1Fgos3U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#619533

Am 03.09.2023 um 22:01 schrieb The Starmaker:
> There is a famous book entittled: Smart Women, Foolish Choices
>

Well, that happens all the time, especially in relations.

Ok, not all partners chosen were actually a bad decision, but certainly 
quite a few are.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618849

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 02:32 -0700
Message-ID	<c3499b6a-4a6f-4d4f-9916-392151b779dbn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618835

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> 
> Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> 
> Because they weren't persuaded by reason.

No, you simply don't understand the problem and why
a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is.

Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists
being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618877

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 13:21 -0700
Message-ID	<44f41046-6347-4c7a-973b-333258f8b84fn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618849

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > 
> > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > 
> > Because they weren't persuaded by reason.
> No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> 
> Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618894

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 15:26 -0700
Message-ID	<db53c195-0d4f-45ec-9ab7-dc36a97a198fn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618877

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > 
> > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > 
> > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > 
> > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!

You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim
that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that
ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots.

The twain don't even come close.

This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said
that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.)

You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like
all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with
the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as
a "justification".

Real life does not work that way.

If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire
human culture and civilisation goes out the window because
within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to
use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity",
which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic.

So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you
make your claims, you sleep in them :-)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618895

From	"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 15:35 -0700
Message-ID	<1a5400c4-f38c-4bea-9d62-271b0ca684bcn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618894

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > 
> > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > 
> > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > 
> > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
> You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> 
> The twain don't even come close. 
> 
> This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> 
> You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> a "justification". 
> 
> Real life does not work that way. 
> 
> If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> 
> So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> 
> -- 
> Jan

Einstein knew man would have to wait on the scientific unified field.
That is the far future of math and science. Einstein said he did not
find it... only that it was his dream...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618896

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 15:40 -0700
Message-ID	<9e3e5efe-6494-450a-adc6-b44d412e72fdn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618895

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:35:25 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > 
> > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Jan 
> > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > 
> > The twain don't even come close. 
> > 
> > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > 
> > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > a "justification". 
> > 
> > Real life does not work that way. 
> > 
> > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > 
> > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> Einstein knew man would have to wait on the scientific unified field. 
> That is the far future of math and science. Einstein said he did not 
> find it... only that it was his dream...

It's not really known whether the better theory should be field theory
or something perhaps lattice-based or something yet different.

Field theory would be nice because it's easier to work with continuous and
infinitely divisible structures but life usually intrudes upon such
idyllic scenarios.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618911

From	"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 20:29 -0700
Message-ID	<bca0bb53-ad61-40a3-b0b5-83305fee40b7n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618896

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:40:23 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:35:25 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > 
> > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > 
> > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > 
> > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > a "justification". 
> > > 
> > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > 
> > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > 
> > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > Einstein knew man would have to wait on the scientific unified field. 
> > That is the far future of math and science. Einstein said he did not 
> > find it... only that it was his dream...
> It's not really known whether the better theory should be field theory 
> or something perhaps lattice-based or something yet different. 
> 
> Field theory would be nice because it's easier to work with continuous and 
> infinitely divisible structures but life usually intrudes upon such 
> idyllic scenarios. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan

Who can judge an ultimate theory?
How would man know?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618908

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-25 20:18 -0700
Message-ID	<8f69202a-445c-4cb0-b8dc-d4aefa170943n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618894

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > 
> > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > 
> > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > 
> > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC!
> You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> 
> The twain don't even come close. 
> 
> This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> 
> You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> a "justification". 
> 
> Real life does not work that way. 
> 
> If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> 
> So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618965

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 12:36 -0700
Message-ID	<740e79ba-3197-496b-a082-f451c383e7bdn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618908

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > 
> > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Jan 
> > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > 
> > The twain don't even come close. 
> > 
> > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > 
> > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > a "justification". 
> > 
> > Real life does not work that way. 
> > 
> > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > 
> > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.

They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing
*commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not
exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his
remark about "extraordinary proofs".

Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X.
The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con.
Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is
true and correct. Period."

What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true,
exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"?

It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God".

The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously.

So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+
years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category
than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.

> When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?

We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already
pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain
anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an
explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that
both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal
facility.

For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is
something "wrong"
with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes
it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates.
So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this
concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation.

(The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course
impossible on a text-based forum.)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618983

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 14:46 -0700
Message-ID	<a83db5c4-75c4-4cde-a2b1-0014c2b805cdn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618965

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 21:36:36 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > 
> > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > 
> > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > 
> > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > a "justification". 
> > > 
> > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > 
> > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > 
> > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
> They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 

The mumble of ypur idiot guru wasn't even consistent, it has
been proven here many times, and the only thing your bunch
of idiots can do about is is - either pretending that you didn't
notice or spitting with Polish jokes.

> So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.

Yes, it's a claim from a different tale. And?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619016

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 20:31 -0700
Message-ID	<15e27d64-4141-4e5a-a701-8816b8925c5an@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#618965

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > 
> > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > 
> > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > 
> > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > a "justification". 
> > > 
> > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > 
> > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > 
> > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason.
> They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> 
> Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> true and correct. Period." 
> 
> What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> 
> It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> 
> The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> 
> So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper.
> > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials?
> We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> facility. 
> 
> For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> something "wrong" 
> with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> 
> (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas. Try stating his criteria in an objective way.  Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619017

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 20:47 -0700
Message-ID	<20057540-fd54-493b-babe-ca28ced76a6dn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619016

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > > 
> > > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > > 
> > > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > > 
> > > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > > a "justification". 
> > > > 
> > > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > > 
> > > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > > 
> > > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Jan 
> > > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. 
> > They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> > *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> > exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> > remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> > 
> > Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> > The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> > Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> > true and correct. Period." 
> > 
> > What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> > exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> > 
> > It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> > 
> > The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> > 
> > So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> > years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> > than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper. 
> > > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials? 
> > We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> > pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> > anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> > explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> > both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> > facility. 
> > 
> > For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> > something "wrong" 
> > with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> > it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> > So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> > concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> > 
> > (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> > impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas. 

No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in
different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the
past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately.
Just stating it is hot air.

> Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.

The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as
Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were
abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you
twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to
dissect the obvious any further. 

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619020

From	"mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-26 20:58 -0700
Message-ID	<7c37f276-5949-446f-971c-594511a9f4e5n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619017

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > > > a "justification". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. 
> > > They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> > > *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> > > exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> > > remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> > > 
> > > Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> > > The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> > > Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> > > true and correct. Period." 
> > > 
> > > What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> > > exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> > > 
> > > It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> > > 
> > > The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> > > 
> > > So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> > > years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> > > than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper. 
> > > > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials? 
> > > We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> > > pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> > > anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> > > explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> > > both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> > > facility. 
> > > 
> > > For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> > > something "wrong" 
> > > with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> > > it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> > > So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> > > concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> > > 
> > > (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> > > impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
> No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in 
> different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the 
> past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. 
> Just stating it is hot air.
> > Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.
> The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as 
> Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were 
> abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you 
> twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to 
> dissect the obvious any further. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan

Sagan was a fake. He wasn't a scientist.
Jan? a fool is foolish about himself...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619091

From	Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-27 20:42 -0700
Message-ID	<6675087e-7fb8-4cbb-9b6e-f6be8ebeb74an@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619017

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > > > a "justification". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. 
> > > They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> > > *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> > > exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> > > remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> > > 
> > > Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> > > The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> > > Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> > > true and correct. Period." 
> > > 
> > > What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> > > exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> > > 
> > > It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> > > 
> > > The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> > > 
> > > So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> > > years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> > > than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper. 
> > > > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials? 
> > > We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> > > pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> > > anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> > > explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> > > both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> > > facility. 
> > > 
> > > For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> > > something "wrong" 
> > > with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> > > it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> > > So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> > > concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> > > 
> > > (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> > > impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas.
> No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in 
> different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the 
> past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. 
> Just stating it is hot air.
> > Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary.
> The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as 
> Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were 
> abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you 
> twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to 
> dissect the obvious any further. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619128

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-28 12:06 -0700
Message-ID	<9f9cc1da-07ee-4a70-a122-44f60e6517ean@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619091

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > > > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > > > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > > > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > > > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > > > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > > > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > > > > a "justification". 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > > > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > > > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > > > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > > > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > > > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. 
> > > > They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> > > > *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> > > > exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> > > > remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> > > > 
> > > > Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> > > > The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> > > > Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> > > > true and correct. Period." 
> > > > 
> > > > What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> > > > exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> > > > 
> > > > It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> > > > 
> > > > The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> > > > 
> > > > So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> > > > years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> > > > than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper. 
> > > > > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials? 
> > > > We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> > > > pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> > > > anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> > > > explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> > > > both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> > > > facility. 
> > > > 
> > > > For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> > > > something "wrong" 
> > > > with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> > > > it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> > > > So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> > > > concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> > > > 
> > > > (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> > > > impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Jan 
> > > You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas. 
> > No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in 
> > different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the 
> > past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. 
> > Just stating it is hot air. 
> > > Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary. 
> > The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as 
> > Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were 
> > abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you 
> > twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to 
> > dissect the obvious any further. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan
> This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.

You are just repeating your claims. They are extraordinary (outlandish,
requiring that entire generations of people around the planet and of
various cultural etc. backgrounds were/are all idiots) without
commensurate proofs.

It simply means nothing when just stated. It's just random talk.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#619130

From	Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com>
Date	2023-08-28 12:19 -0700
Message-ID	<45280568-031d-489b-b025-aba5e6bbe569n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#619128

On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 21:06:39 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:42:39 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:47:22 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:31:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:18:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 3:26:54 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 1:21:56 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:32:57 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 8:15:24 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > By being indoctrinated in an ideology. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Why can't they defend that with reason? 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Because they weren't persuaded by reason. 
> > > > > > > > > No, you simply don't understand the problem and why 
> > > > > > > > > a certain solution to it is precisely the way it is. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Stop dreaming about hundreds of thousands of physicists 
> > > > > > > > > being all idiots. It's idiotic on your part. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > > > > argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity. KEY INDICATOR OF RELATIVIST: INEPT AT LOGIC! 
> > > > > > > You don't understand. It's simply a completely different thing to claim 
> > > > > > > that some people are wrong about something versus all physicists that 
> > > > > > > ever lived since 1905 were/are idiots. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The twain don't even come close. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This is why Carl Sagan's dictum is so relevant here, he said: 
> > > > > > > "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". (He said 
> > > > > > > that in the context of claims of UFO abductions.) 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You cannot simply say something completely outlandish and totally random, like 
> > > > > > > all physicists for the past 120 years are idiots, and simply leave it at that, with 
> > > > > > > the mere one-liner: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity" as 
> > > > > > > a "justification". 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Real life does not work that way. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If we allowed this sort of arguing device, then practically our entire 
> > > > > > > human culture and civilisation goes out the window because 
> > > > > > > within ANY debate whatsoever, you give yourself the right to 
> > > > > > > use a nuclear option: "argumentum ad populum is sheer stupidity", 
> > > > > > > which ends of ALL debate on practically any topic. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So we can't have this in the normal world. In the real world, you 
> > > > > > > make your claims, you sleep in them :-) 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Jan 
> > > > > > All you can do is double down on two fallacies (argumentum ad populum ad ad verecundium) and still fail to reason. 
> > > > > They are not fallacies. One cannot make random claims without providing 
> > > > > *commensurate* proofs. Otherwise, any discussion on any subject could not 
> > > > > exist. Sagan was not being flippant or humourous when he made his 
> > > > > remark about "extraordinary proofs". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here is how it would go: imagine a discussion about some topic X. 
> > > > > The participants are arguing providing all sorts of arguments pro and con. 
> > > > > Suddenly you appear and say: "I am God and declare that such-and-such is 
> > > > > true and correct. Period." 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What are the other participants to do? Just accept your claim "I am God" as true, 
> > > > > exactly as if you said: "I am Swedish"? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's simply a very different thing to claim "I am Swedish" than to claim "I am God". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The burden of proof resting on the latter is much higher, obviously. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So when you claim (implicitly, necessarily) that all physicists of the past 120+ 
> > > > > years were/are idiots, you make a claim that's in an entirely different category 
> > > > > than a claim regarding, say, a particular technical point in Einstein's paper. 
> > > > > > When will the defenders of relativity here give reasons instead of unreasoned denials? 
> > > > > We gave TONS of reasons but it's a very well known phenomenon (already 
> > > > > pointed out by people like Goethe and Newton) that one can never explain 
> > > > > anything to an ignoramus. Never ever. The reason is that in order to make an 
> > > > > explanation in the first place, a certain minimal set of concepts must exist that 
> > > > > both the explainer and the explainee can employ with a more or less equal 
> > > > > facility. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > For example, when Richard H. on another thread claims, falsely, that there is 
> > > > > something "wrong" 
> > > > > with Einstein's use of calculus in a certain physical situation, he also makes 
> > > > > it clear that he does not know how the notion of the function limit operates. 
> > > > > So it's impossible to explain his mistake to him because it's precisely this 
> > > > > concept that would necessarily lie at the heart of any such explanation. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (The alternative would be to lecture him on real analysis but this of course 
> > > > > impossible on a text-based forum.) 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Jan 
> > > > You are very weak on logic. Sagan's idea is plainly stated in arbitrary and subjective terms. The status quo employs it to assert its dogmas. 
> > > No. Reread what I wrote. The entire point of this is that claims come in 
> > > different orders of magnitude. If you claim that all physicists for the 
> > > past 120+ years were/are idiots, you have to justify it appropriately. 
> > > Just stating it is hot air. 
> > > > Try stating his criteria in an objective way. Obvious starting point: define extraordinary. 
> > > The difference in the orders of magnitude is obvious, just as 
> > > Sagan said. If you say you twisted your ankle because you were 
> > > abducted by a UFO it's very different than you saying that you 
> > > twisted your ankle tripping on a sidewalk. There is no need to 
> > > dissect the obvious any further. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Jan 
> > This has already been gone into in detail as to why they would believe false ideas. Relativity functions as an ideology: "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" Peter Hayes. It's obvious to the indoctrinated, not to the reasonable.
> You are just repeating your claims. They are extraordinary (outlandish, 
> requiring that entire generations of people around the planet and of 
> various cultural etc. backgrounds were/are all idiots) without 
> commensurate proofs. 


Jan, poor idiot, there is nothing extraordinary about a
bunch of idiots. No, no way whole generations. Just some
idiots; true - various cultural etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

How can highly intelligent people wind up believing foolish things?

Contents

#619485

#619533

#619549

#619590

#620423

#618849

#618877

#618894

#618895

#618896

#618911

#618908

#618965

#618983

#619016

#619017

#619020

#619091

#619128

#619130