Wanna Deny Ignorance? Deny Your Own!

Originally posted by jiggerj
Point being, when a know-it-all with a tenth grade education claims he knows how to levitate, without the slightest clue of just how much energy is needed to accomplish such a feat (imagine someone wearing a jet pack), reading such a post is a total waste of everyone's time.

There's a HUGE difference between asking about levitation and claiming it can be done.

LOL!
So true. Yet, if I were to chime in and point out the insurmountable errors in such a thesis, I can be accused of not "denying ignorance" as well, if you think of my response as me being unable to "fit" this idea within my "worldview."
From the OP:

If you can’t take a moment to look objectively at the possibilities in what someone else is saying because it doesn’t fit your paradigm, then you are wilfully ignorant and subjective in your approach to investigation and learning.

Levitation of 3-ton stones in the construction of the Great Pyramid doesn't "fit my paradigm," not to mention it doesn't fit the known evidence at the site.
Sumerian gods creating humans from H.Erectus certainly doesn't "fit my paradigm" either, and for equally good reason.

But am I guilty of not denying ignorance if I point this out? Am I a "drive-by" poster if I merely point it out without providing the explanation and evidence, with quotes and links, every single time some buffoon posts such hooey?

There are few folks here providing the scientific background that invalidates the above two claims, while there are hundreds here making those claims.

Can I get on the payroll here, or must I be consigned to be a "drive-by poster" who rejects everything that doesn't 'fit into his paradigm?" I mean, who has the time?

That label is a double-edged sword, IMO, and it's been used against me a hundred times here.

Harte

reply to post by Klassified


This is an excellent post.
I don't know if many folks here have ever listened to Mark Passio's WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING?

I highly recommend it.

He covers a lot of excellent information in an attempt to help people become more conscious and aware and most importantly to "know thyself".

If we come to the table with boxes of preconcieved notions and beliefs there is no way that we will ever be able to take in new information that might change us. If you are not willing to change, or are afraid to, or just don't want to.. then stay home. because life is all about change.

whatonearthishappening.com...

I think that regardless of the arguing that goes on, the stubbornness, etc., the opinions exchanged still do everyone a lot of good. I think most people, even while they're stubbornly and heatedly arguing a point, will later privately be affected to some degree by what their opponent said. Debate/arguing always brings out wanting to be right first, so the considering the other side often does happen later, and often is NOT admitted either!

reply to post by Harte

Harte, there's no hope for you. J/K.

Actually, I think you are not as far off the mark as you think I think you are.

If you had no interest in possibilities, you would have little interest in the sciences to begin with. Our sciences are constantly changing as we learn new things about our world, and the universe. What was quackery yesterday, is a scientific fact today. Ohm's law comes to mind. As our knowledge increases, our imagination is stirred, and we think of the possibilities tomorrow might bring. And as Einstein once said, "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."

We know what we know because of those who looked for possibilities and knowledge beyond what they presently understood while keeping themselves grounded in the knowledge of the day.They were willing to consider the impossible in some cases. But had they ignored the simpler, more mundane possibilities that presented themselves, we would not be near where we are today. We must be just as willing to consider the mundane, as we are the grandiose possibilities. So being "open-minded" works in both directions. And more often than not, it is the so-called mundane we need to look at before we start imagining fantastical possibilities. It is often the mundane that leads to greater possibilities.

But am I guilty of not denying ignorance if I point this out? Am I a "drive-by" poster if I merely point it out without providing the explanation and evidence, with quotes and links

What's wrong with pointing out that our current level of scientific understanding doesn't support the idea of levitating 3 ton stones? We have no evidence at this point to substantiate it. It may be true that some of our present understanding started out as an idea in someones head with little to support it. But they still had to put that idea to the test before it became accepted science. And even then, some of those ideas took a very long time to become accepted, even though they were correct.

OK, I've said enough. You get the idea.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte, there's no hope for you.

J/K.

Actually, I think you are not as far off the mark as you think I think you are.

SNIP

We must be just as willing to consider the mundane, as we are the grandiose possibilities. So being "open-minded" works in both directions. And more often than not, it is the so-called mundane we need to look at before we start imagining fantastical possibilities. It is often the mundane that leads to greater possibilities.

But am I guilty of not denying ignorance if I point this out? Am I a "drive-by" poster if I merely point it out without providing the explanation and evidence, with quotes and links

What's wrong with pointing out that our current level of scientific understanding doesn't support the idea of levitating 3 ton stones?

Ahhhhhh!

Validation, rarely found at ATS. It feels so good.

Harte