Conspiracy Theories

[Questingpoet]

I think you are mis-understanding what I was trying to say. I was not uncomfortable with the point-counterpoint of the arguement. I was simply observing that this was a very "T" like thread. I agree with you totally on the part about being balanced with "F" and "T", it only adds to your abilities. I just look at the "INFJ" next to some peoples names, and then I read their posts and think "Wow, that REALLY does not sound like an INFJ talking to me!" That was really my point. I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, just an observation.

 

[Whitefire89]

You use the term "Scientist" as if it were synonymous with "religious leader." This is your interpretation. I think that most religious leaders and scientists would disagree.

I do but thats because it is so dependent upon like a religion in my eyes. When are people NOT scared of somtething? When They PROVE it should bring them no Fear. How do we know if something is safe? If we prove it. To me, idk i still think im being miss heard. I do not doubt the greatness of science. I just dont see how people can call me dumb for NOt living insides the "safe box". Thats all really.

It would help if you could clearly express your basic premise in one true and simple sentence. That would help both you and us.

Humans Only want to see the world with answers(science), And if they dont have an answer for something its a oblivious belief.

Hope that helped. Actually let me nkow if it did.

@ Whitefire: I know the feeling of trying to convince people that there are things out there that science can't even imagine to comprehend.

You have no idea how good it felt to hear those words.

Unfortunaly, the people in this world like proof, evidence that supernatural phenomena and conspiracy theories are real. I think it would be a better idea to try to find the proof necessary to show everyone of what you say is true. It's the only way that you're going to make progress and people actually will take you seriously. I've been in your same shoes but I've learned that unless you can show the non-believers tangible and sensible material, don't waste your breath trying to convince others of your point of view. Let the frustration of the sceptics out there to be the motivation necessary to go out there to world and gather the evidence of what they need to see in order to believe. Alas, there will be some poeple that in despite of showing them all the proof necessary, they still won't believe, but it will no longer be your burden of proof, but theirs.

With that said, I hope I didn't offend you, it's just that I know what you're feeling when people think less of your opinions just because they can't be backed up with evidence. Good day to you my friend.

Well no you never offended me with this post but rather i think helped me realaize that yes, when people dont wanna believe something they wont. It still just annoys me. but thanks i really needed to hear that post to stop KILLING myself on this thread getting a point thru.

 

[Eric86]

I agree with BenW and Norton that this stuff is bunk. And Whitefire, us not agreeing with you does not equate to us being closed-minded. Such an assertion is utterly illogical and ridiculous, not to mention that it shows that the person making it is the one who is truly closed-minded, because that is the defense that a person who has no real argument and backing to their opinions falls back on since they would rather not have their world of wishful thinking challenged, and so they use this defense as it requires little to no effort; it cannot be engaged on equal ground with anyone because it's based solely on feelings, and in the end, it's nothing more than a cop-out like plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" I've seen this so many times, and it really sickens me.

 

[Whitefire89]

... and in the end, it's nothing more than a cop-out like plugging your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" I've seen this so many times, and it really sickens me.

Wait a minute.....r u saying IM the one going LA LA LA I CANT HEAR U!!!....?

Cuz if so that would be SO WRONG!

this whole time ive done NOTHING but say how i do not deny Sciences way or beliefs but that tTHERE-IS-NO-ONE-WAY to every single problem or answer!

Im not sayying your freaking wrong for the last time! shoot....

 

[soulseeker]

Wait a minute.....r u saying IM the one going LA LA LA I CANT HEAR U!!!....?

Cuz if so that would be SO WRONG!

this whole time ive done NOTHING but say how i do not deny Sciences way or beliefs but that tTHERE-IS-NO-ONE-WAY to every single problem or answer!

Im not sayying your freaking wrong for the last time! shoot....

hey friend!!!! chill dude!!!! just chill ..chill and be happy

LA LA LA I CANT HEAR U!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
what's with that line?

hahahaha la la la la la

chillaxx!!!!!

 

[enfp can be shy]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/295.pdf
Even though the studies are ongoing, certainly the old understanding of emotional and rational has changed. Patients who lose emotions become incapable of rational decisions either.

 

[Norton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/295.pdf
Even though the studies are ongoing, certainly the old understanding of emotional and rational has changed. Patients who lose emotions become incapable of rational decisions either.

The brain is an extremely complex, integrated whole organ, with neuronal pathways of many different functions passing through most areas. Lesions to the areas of the brain associated with emotion likely also cause damage to other functions such as cognition, reasoning, executive functioning, etc. Indeed, destruction of any one part of the brain often causes unexpected deficits in seemingly unrelated functions. This is typical of a synergistic system. So, it's unlikely that investigators have isolated a single variable function in the brain (e.g., emotion) when it's not certain that other functions of the brain haven't also been affected. This is all to say that one brain function cannot truly be separated from another, but this is really no surprise.

But we already know that emotions affect thinking. That's why it's not a good idea to make an important decision when you're upset, depressed, or otherwise emotionally distraught.

I might also point out that many people, with or without emotions, are incapable of rational decisions and critical thinking.

 

[Xander]

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.

A few pieces of "science" I love to pull out when people think it's all fact.
1. The universe is beige.
2. The universe is saddle shaped.
3. Time slows down round a black hole.
4. Holes in the pattern researched recently based on scans of the universe is evidence of alternate dimensions.

Let's face it, science should be factual but you have to wonder what some of them are smoking and when it's going to be released for general consumption so the rest of us can be so smugly certain.