Is discussion of mass psychology, religion, today’s rejection of science by some belongs here?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Dissily Mordentroge, Aug 20, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,859
    I have not had occasion to read or hear much Afrikaans, but from occasional news, if it is relatively close, I usually can extrapolate the gist of the posit. I must admit I am now more fluent in English than Dutch. It's been a long time.
    I came to US via Canada. My immediate family lives in Canada now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,105
    Judging by the avatar icon, it might have been Xelasnave's more respectable appearing younger brother???
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,175
    Compressed air?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,428
    Now that is a sign of a troll.
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  8. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Yessiree, Bob.
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,982
    But, what kind of troll? From the eclectic luggage of the opening post, I couldn't unpack an agenda, though I suspected there was one.
    From the mention - and mischaracterization - of 'political correctness', I had a whiff of something off, but still couldn't identify it.
    I so envy Dr. Toad's nose! (and I've been around - and around - since 1996)
     
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,366
    11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"
    With all due respect, what you have posted so far is very typical of those who venture on the board with something they really wish to express but need to set the stage to eventually express it.

    Even so ... welcome to sciforums and consider that you are not the first nor the last member to do as you appear to be attempting to do. IMO

    It is not that you are a troll but that you are posting with what is perceived as an "evangelistic" ulterior motive which tends to indicate that you may be, aggravating those who are waiting for the "great revelation" of your opinion towards the debate: science vs religion. Perhaps you fail to see the hypocrisy you imply when you title a thread in the way you have and then quote the Bible passage that you chose in such a candid manner? "Strong delusion", Pretending to be something other than what you are, would indeed be one such fraud yes?...

    The forum category that perhaps would be more applicable would be the Comparative Religion is my guess, as this is where your debate about the merits of "religious" dogma whether being traditional religion or scientific dogma and the effects on the masses would be worth undertaking.

    It could be argued that both can be believed with such devotion. yes?

    Regardless if you wished to entertain an honest debate on such a serious topic then perhaps it would be wise to start with honesty and post in a way that declares your personal preference/bias or open mindedness in a way that invites open discussion.

    Suffice to say that Mass psychology - hysteria is a serious global concern regardless of apparent causation. ( social media, globalization etc) IMO
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Rejecting science is almost equivalent to rejecting reality.

    Science is basically the foundation for useful technology. What does the term "rejecting science" mean?

    Perhaps lack of belief in the validity of laws (actually equations) of physics, which seems silly.

    Perhaps belief in magic as the basis of what the laws of physics are generally believed to describe.​
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,317
    Pretty much what it sounds like.

    Climate change deniers reject atmospheric science in favor of a more politically correct opinion, like "it's not warming" or "we have no effect on the climate."
    Most creationists reject the science of evolution in favor of their religion's dogma, because they feel the two conflict.
    Apollo hoaxers reject the science of spaceflight, and claim things like "no one could survive that radiation" or "no rocket could have made it to the Moon."

    People often believe things very strongly, and when science is in conflict with their beliefs, they go with their beliefs.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,110
    Including, of course:
    Those who reject blindly certain obvious possibilities of human evolution, such as the "wading ape" hypothesis;
    those who reject blindly certain long obvious possibilities of anthropological discovery, such as densely populated and sophisticated civilizations widespread in the Americas;
    those who reject blindly certain obvious possibilities of sociological and biomedical discovery, such as the influence of racial bigotry on a wide variety of phenomena;
    Those who reject blindly certain aspects of economic reality, including consistently irrational agent behavior and suboptimal equilibria in market economies;
    those who reject sound criticism of current GMO research and deployments, including corporate influences and major risks of the technology both known and unknown;
    and so forth.

    Many of these blanket denials and rejections of what are in all other respects perfectly sound "scientific" arguments, established possibilities, even straight ahead observations, are by established scientific researchers and organizations and academics of high repute. Many feature startlingly obtuse, inadequate, and unsound "arguments" notably similar to those of creationists and CO2 deniers.

    Calling it "science denial", while accurate, can obscure its agency in some areas.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,110
    More to the point, as that was not clear: what is called "science denial" has two aspects: rejection of authority; rejection of reasoning from evidence.
    The much (and justifiably) mocked "science denial" is heavily infused with rejection of authority, even more so than reason in many cases.
    It's fellow traveler in more sophisticated circles - in the circles of professionals and authorities - has much less of that, but the circumstance highlights what it does feature: rejection of reasoning from evidence (especially: lack of information).

    The Bandarlog chant - "we all say so, so it must be true" - is no more defensible in those circles than in any others. Neither are the common rejection techniques: strawmanning, willful misrepresentation, refusal to consider positions in good faith or in their strongest light.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,439
    Before leaving, did the OP at any point, present a cogent thesis for the thread to discuss?

    Only one post had any expository content (the other three being self-referential meta-posts), and I'm trying to find any assertion - or question - in post 5.
    It seems more like nostalgic musing as a form of preamble.
     

Share This Page