• Science Versus Pseudoscience

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 11 00:35:15 2024
    Article by a scientist <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/>
    on how to deal with pseudoscience. He argues in favour of being more
    tactful, and trying to understand why pseudoscientific ideas appeal to
    so many people.

    Ultimately, though, at some point the pseudoscientific belief will hit
    some stubborn aspect of reality that refuses to give in to the
    fantasy. And then we see the denial kick in: the one who keeps drawing attention to that reality is “fake news”; the believers try
    desperately to interpret the facts to mean something other than what
    they mean. Once you go too deeply down the rabbit hole, it seems there
    is no turning back.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordon@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Thu Jan 11 03:57:27 2024
    On 2024-01-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Article by a scientist
    <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/>
    on how to deal with pseudoscience. He argues in favour of being more
    tactful, and trying to understand why pseudoscientific ideas appeal to
    so many people.

    Ultimately, though, at some point the pseudoscientific belief will hit
    some stubborn aspect of reality that refuses to give in to the
    fantasy. And then we see the denial kick in: the one who keeps drawing attention to that reality is “fake news”; the believers try
    desperately to interpret the facts to mean something other than what
    they mean. Once you go too deeply down the rabbit hole, it seems there
    is no turning back.

    Faith is a very powerful emotion, religion is based upon it. Thought history
    we have people who have gone to war with God being on there side.

    Few people will admit they are wrong, so the battle/arguement continues, sometimes into war.

    The Emperors news clothes applies here as well.

    The saying, Never argue with a fool; for then there will be two fools, also applies.

    In short, it has been going on for a long time, it is human nature and it
    will go on for many more centuries.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to Gordon on Thu Jan 11 21:50:55 2024
    On 11 Jan 2024 03:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2024-01-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Article by a scientist >><https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/>
    on how to deal with pseudoscience. He argues in favour of being more
    tactful, and trying to understand why pseudoscientific ideas appeal to
    so many people.

    Ultimately, though, at some point the pseudoscientific belief will hit
    some stubborn aspect of reality that refuses to give in to the
    fantasy. And then we see the denial kick in: the one who keeps drawing
    attention to that reality is fake news; the believers try
    desperately to interpret the facts to mean something other than what
    they mean. Once you go too deeply down the rabbit hole, it seems there
    is no turning back.

    Faith is a very powerful emotion, religion is based upon it. Thought history >we have people who have gone to war with God being on there side.

    Few people will admit they are wrong, so the battle/arguement continues, >sometimes into war.

    The Emperors news clothes applies here as well.

    The saying, Never argue with a fool; for then there will be two fools, also >applies.

    In short, it has been going on for a long time, it is human nature and it >will go on for many more centuries.

    New Zealand is now quite a secular society - a majority profess not to
    have any religion, although many of the moral lessons of Christianity
    followed by most of our ancestors still has some influence on our
    expectations. Some however regard money as all they need to be
    concerned about - rabbit holes are useful to the unscrupulous, and
    have sadly affected politics and business practices, including the
    integrity of our news media. Your description of the denial of reality
    for "fake news" is sadly correct.

    I was a little too young to go to one of the Billy Graham "Crusades",
    but I knew a few who committed themselves to Christianity based on his presentation. He undoubtedly did very well for himself, but
    importantly he used the money raised for good purposes. The modern
    equivalents appear to be less altruistic . . . The same is to a
    certain extent true of some political organisations around the world -
    the propaganda and personal interests have become more important than
    professed aims and ethical standards - Trump is probably the most well
    known example of how corruption can be successful . . he has "shown
    the way" for others seeking power . . .

    We build on those that have gone before us - let us hope that we can
    remain as hopeful as your post indicates you may be; certainly when
    dealing with crazy people it does not always help to let them know how
    others see them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BR@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Jan 12 04:29:28 2024
    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:35:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    Article by a scientist ><https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/>
    on how to deal with pseudoscience. He argues in favour of being more
    tactful, and trying to understand why pseudoscientific ideas appeal to
    so many people.

    Ultimately, though, at some point the pseudoscientific belief will hit
    some stubborn aspect of reality that refuses to give in to the
    fantasy. And then we see the denial kick in: the one who keeps drawing >attention to that reality is fake news; the believers try
    desperately to interpret the facts to mean something other than what
    they mean. Once you go too deeply down the rabbit hole, it seems there
    is no turning back.

    If you want to fight pseudoscience, fight the climate fraud.

    Bill.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Thu Jan 11 19:10:41 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On 11 Jan 2024 03:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2024-01-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Article by a scientist >>><https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/01/the-key-to-fighting-pseudoscience-isnt-mockery-its-empathy/>
    on how to deal with pseudoscience. He argues in favour of being more
    tactful, and trying to understand why pseudoscientific ideas appeal to
    so many people.

    Ultimately, though, at some point the pseudoscientific belief will hit
    some stubborn aspect of reality that refuses to give in to the
    fantasy. And then we see the denial kick in: the one who keeps drawing
    attention to that reality is fake news; the believers try
    desperately to interpret the facts to mean something other than what
    they mean. Once you go too deeply down the rabbit hole, it seems there
    is no turning back.

    Faith is a very powerful emotion, religion is based upon it. Thought history >>we have people who have gone to war with God being on there side.

    Few people will admit they are wrong, so the battle/arguement continues, >>sometimes into war.

    The Emperors news clothes applies here as well.

    The saying, Never argue with a fool; for then there will be two fools, also >>applies.

    In short, it has been going on for a long time, it is human nature and it >>will go on for many more centuries.

    New Zealand is now quite a secular society - a majority profess not to
    have any religion, although many of the moral lessons of Christianity >followed by most of our ancestors still has some influence on our >expectations. Some however regard money as all they need to be
    concerned about - rabbit holes are useful to the unscrupulous, and
    have sadly affected politics and business practices, including the
    integrity of our news media. Your description of the denial of reality
    for "fake news" is sadly correct.

    I was a little too young to go to one of the Billy Graham "Crusades",
    but I knew a few who committed themselves to Christianity based on his >presentation. He undoubtedly did very well for himself, but
    importantly he used the money raised for good purposes. The modern >equivalents appear to be less altruistic . . . The same is to a
    certain extent true of some political organisations around the world -
    the propaganda and personal interests have become more important than >professed aims and ethical standards - Trump is probably the most well
    known example of how corruption can be successful . . he has "shown
    the way" for others seeking power . . .

    We build on those that have gone before us - let us hope that we can
    remain as hopeful as your post indicates you may be; certainly when
    dealing with crazy people it does not always help to let them know how
    others see them.
    Hopefull;y you are doing exactly that, reading how others see you - but I doubt it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 11 22:15:51 2024
    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:50:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    On 11 Jan 2024 03:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    ... although many of the moral lessons of Christianity
    followed by most of our ancestors still has some influence on our expectations.

    There is still this implicit assumption, is there not, that morality is something associated with your particular religion, and not with any
    other.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 12 01:05:48 2024
    On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:22:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    ... yes those with religious views did see
    morality as being an integral part of religious belief, but there have
    been many over a few centuries who have seen that moral principles for
    an effective and coherent society can be developed independently of
    religion ...

    They must be independent of religion. Because otherwise, you get the
    question: do different gods define different ideas of right and wrong?

    I don’t see that as the path to religious tolerance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Jan 12 13:22:11 2024
    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:15:51 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:50:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    On 11 Jan 2024 03:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    ... although many of the moral lessons of Christianity
    followed by most of our ancestors still has some influence on our
    expectations.

    There is still this implicit assumption, is there not, that morality is >something associated with your particular religion, and not with any
    other.

    Your selective snipping has attributed to Gordon the quoted extract
    from my response to Gordon. In general, snipping is favoured by those
    that do not like what they have written, or responses to those posts,
    and use selective snipping to avoid responsibility for their own
    words. Originally there may have been cause to snip to reduce the size
    of messages, but bandwidth is no longer a problem.

    To get back to your post above, yes those with religious views did see
    morality as being an integral part of religious belief, but there have
    been many over a few centuries who have seen that moral principles for
    an effective and coherent society can be developed independently of
    religion, also recognising that there are some elements of morality
    that are shared by most religious groups. New Zealand was in the early
    19th century much more focused on religion and its traditions that it
    is now, and we also have a greater variety of religious beliefs. we
    still have prayers at the opening of parliament for example, but I
    think this no longer references Christianity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Rich80105@hotmail.com on Sat Jan 13 20:30:50 2024
    Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 22:15:51 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 21:50:55 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    On 11 Jan 2024 03:57:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    ... although many of the moral lessons of Christianity
    followed by most of our ancestors still has some influence on our
    expectations.

    There is still this implicit assumption, is there not, that morality is >>something associated with your particular religion, and not with any
    other.

    Your selective snipping has attributed to Gordon the quoted extract
    from my response to Gordon. In general, snipping is favoured by those
    that do not like what they have written, or responses to those posts,
    and use selective snipping to avoid responsibility for their own
    words.
    Only to your small mind - snipping is a good way to shorten unwieldy threads and in the case of your posts to remove lies, abuse and defamation.
    Originally there may have been cause to snip to reduce the size
    of messages, but bandwidth is no longer a problem.
    Bandwidth was only one reason, conciseness and brevity was one of the other reasons and still is.

    To get back to your post above, yes those with religious views did see >morality as being an integral part of religious belief, but there have
    been many over a few centuries who have seen that moral principles for
    an effective and coherent society can be developed independently of
    religion, also recognising that there are some elements of morality
    that are shared by most religious groups. New Zealand was in the early
    19th century much more focused on religion and its traditions that it
    is now, and we also have a greater variety of religious beliefs. we
    still have prayers at the opening of parliament for example, but I
    think this no longer references Christianity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Willy Nilly@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Sat Jan 13 21:51:44 2024
    On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    There is still this implicit assumption, is there not, that morality is >something associated with your particular religion, and not with any
    other.

    That's actually a recent development over the long haul. The Jewish
    Old Testament (c. 600BC?) may have been the first to describe ethics
    as handed down from God -- e.g., the "Ten Commandments". Elsewhere,
    the Earth deities -- which led to the Greek & Roman gods -- were just
    as badly & arbitrarily behaved as were people, so you didn't get your
    ethics from them. In those days, civil conduct was essential to the
    running of society, and those people understood better (than us) how
    thin the veneer of civilisation is. So criminal deeds were harshly
    punished, but their gods had nothing to do with that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)