Xander, good that someone brought the needed agnosticism here.
Although I'm probably even more extreme.It's a donkey.
You can redefine set theory, arithmetic, calculus, and everything else with donkeys.Yep, and all the labels are to be reorganized and then thrown away as irrelevant too. (;Colbert probably isn't interested in scientific education of his viewers; only to entertain them.
1. The scientific method evolves. Its most important step is the ability to come up with hypothesis. Which relies on intuition, and usually even the top scientists cannot justify their own source of intuition completely. So it should be called gut-feeling.
2. The human brain is incapable of reasoning without using its centers of emotion, hence all conclusions are based on gut-feeling.
3. Intelligence is the result of a property of the brain to make predictions, all the time, by interpolating old data. If we had to implant a scepticism-chip in our brains, we wouldn't even be able to walk, let alone doing new science.
Regarding 1. above: Each "step" of the scientific method is important, and no more than another. A hypothesis without experimentation is just speculation, albeit hopefully informed speculation based on previous knowledge. IMO, "gut-feeling" is a step down from "intuition." Intuition is a subconscious mental process that, retrospectively, is justified or not by further logical processes. That is, the accuracy of an "intuitive leap" is only confirmed by additional intellectual effort.
Regarding 2. above: Obviously, the brain as a whole includes "centers of emotion" but that doesn't logically justify your statement that "all conclusions are based on 'gut-feeling.'" Emotional centers may provide the excitement, enthusiasm, and energy to inspire scientific thought, but essential hard intellectual effort is still at the core of scientific thinking.
Regarding 3. above: Predictive ability is only a part of intelligence, and may be a small part at that. Rather more important, but not in any way the whole of it, is our ability to logically process information (e.g., data) and deduce conclusions therefrom. Also, note that, by definition, all data are old.
THis thread is sooo "T"! It makes me question the "F" some of us have in our type monikers. Not the thinking itself, or the "facts" being presented. Just the general tone and the way you all are arguing.
A balanced person of any type, should aspire to feel both like an "F" and think like a "T." My INFJ wife is a physician/medical scientist who can easily hold her own and effectively argue with the most detached "NT." Indeed, she sometimes acts like an INTJ like the best of them. Yet, as an NF, she brings an exquisite sensitivity and skill to the doctor-patient relationship that often helps her to diagnose difficult conditions that elude the most discerning NT's. I am convinced that the great Soviet physicist and courageous freedom activist, Andrei Sahkarov, was an INFJ. I am certain that he used his "T" as remarkably effectively as he used his "F."
There's no "yes" and there's no "no" with conspiracy theories, to be perfectly honest. These ideas aren't meant to be proven - that is why they are conspiracy theories; they're simply meant to be discussed. To be pondered, to be considered. Is it wrong to ponder or consider alternatives to what we think we know? Kennedy's assassination. Bigfoot. Dinosaurs living on planet earth. The Vatican hiding the truth about Jesus. The Illuminati. 2012...etc. Discussion about such things is not wrong. I think it can help develop your critical thinking skills if you do. But simply saying "no, it can't happen" or "yes it's the truth" is impossible with conspiracy theories.
So why not just enjoy the discussion and consider the possibilities without the heat?
Sheesh! I agree with you, QP. T-t-too much T-T-T...it's simply something to think about. Not to get overly upset about.
I really don't mean to assert my "T" nature so much, particularly if it makes people uncomfortable. It's just a lot of fun to dissect arguments and then put new ones together. Sometimes the "T" just slips out! Interestingly, I get uncomfortable in a argument if too much emotion is elicited. I find that when anger is expressed during an argument, things fall apart and the argument needs to stop. That's why I'd much rather argue by writing rather than speaking.
One tangential point of interest (at least, to me) is the use of the word "theory." Typically, most people use the word legitimately to mean some assertion that is unproven (almost like a hypothesis). Another legitimate use of the word "theory" is to denote the technical content or knowledge related to a particular subject. Thus the term "gravitational theory" means not that gravitation is an unproven phenomenon, but rather, refers to the technical subject matter associated with gravitation. Thus, when "theory" is applied to evolution, it does not mean that biologists consider evolution unproven. It means that the subject is technically complex. Also, an engineering student might say that he is good at theory (e.g., at doing the engineering mathematics) but bad at practical application (screws up in the lab). Such a student would do well to stay in academics.
Please excuse me for contributing to the "T" feeling of this thread. I apologize if it has made people uncomfortable. Now I shall retreat back into my INTP lair and resume my usual reticence.
*headache*.. wow complicated explanations..
