The grey area is only there because you need it to be in order to have any chance of actually answering the questions.I have a hard time believing that you didn’t understand the full context of my questions. If you had read my post just prior to the one you answered, it should’ve been absolutely clear as to what I was asking and in which context.
Regarding your first reply, I can point you to experts in any field that will back virtually any claim no matter how perposterous. What if the experts conclusions are not supported by established science? Is it “knowledge” if it’s neither demonstrable nor backed by science? The doctor example you gave sounds like a terrible way to go about determining what to accept/reject. In your example, replace the word doctor with any number of EE’s and tell me you follow this same advice? Additionally, in your example, you conveniently offered up a very simplistic notion in order to support your position. A more accurate example is the following: If a doctor tells you to chant to the witch doctor, visit a chiropractor, or ingest homeopathic remedies to cure your illness, will you “listen and accept his proposition”?
Regarding your second reply, you conveniently left out a third option. That is, cannot know, as in the claim is unfalsifiable, yet the claim is believed and accepted as true. What do you think of those who fall into that category?
I’d appreciate if others would allow Don to answer for himself. The cheerleading, defensiveness, and ‘likes’ of your internet “friends” posts does little in promoting productive dialogue. Thanks.
I have no idea what your goal is in this. This is your previous post:
That was the point; he did not engage except to argue against whatever was presented; his mind was made up and he "knew" the answers whether they matched the science or not. Still a great guy, but I learned to just nod and ignore certain subjects.
No, I did not think about whatever you consider the "full context" of your questions. They seemed the type that try to assign yes or no answers to a very broad range of possibilities.
As for simplistic examples, I'm a simple guy, and certainly have no interest getting into some sort of philosophical debate about knowledge, honesty, and integrity as you seem to be heading with this. BTW, I didn't "conveniently" leave out your third option; I simply did not think of it.
Wisdom comes from experience, and experience from making lots of mistakes. So far, I've lots of experience.
Knowledge does not need to be backed by science. It may or may not be correct, but to me knowledge is what you learn. Could be hands-on, book learning, or taught by your parents or peers. I don't need to know the science behind optical spectra and physiology to "know" when a crayon is red; mommy told me. Many people who drive a car don't understand thermodynamics. We go through life learning, unlearning, and relearning from folk we considered experts at one point in time.
This seems like a series of posts meant to be an attack vehicle against... someone (me? ASR members in general? The PhD who wronged you in a previous life?) In any event, I generally post while a test is running, so tend to be a "fly by" poster dipping into threads now and then. I don't have any interest in pursuing this, would rather spend my posting time elsewhere. Call it running away. Feel free to put me on your ignore list.
Last edited:
