= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Do we ever act or simply react according to our habits. I do believe habitual thoughts about our own character determine the basic principles at play in our decisions/actions. Our actions re-enforce habits, habits re-enforce actions and so on. Rarely, it seems, do people allow the possibility within themselve to act in a way that is "out of character" and are thus reduced to being vertual automatons, reacting to their established habitual proclivities. Perhaps this is true for everyone. Occassionally acting "out of character" may be just another habitual response. To change requires us to be stimulated either internally or externally, by thoughts or experiences, in ways that seems more desirable than the pre-existing conditions.
In response to
Simpson's Paradox
All variables cannot be accounted for. Without knowing what variables are missing in statistical data, how can you trust the results of any statistical evidence. How could one analysis be more accurate than another. People love statistical truths as they create a basis for deciding what to believe (or confirming perceptions of reality) and give only little thought to the inherent flaws in their creation.
In response to
Scientific Self-Help: The State of Our Knowledge
The problem with self help is that most people don't know what they really want. If they did then maybe self help books might work.
In response to
Simpson's Paradox
I believe probability and statistics ignore a fundamental aspect of reality. Uniqueness. Everything is unique in every moment. All the variables cannot be seen, understood and calculated (yet). Putting any faith in statistical probabilities is just that, Faith. Given our limited abilities any jugdements based on statisics should be taken with a grain of salt. The less variables factored in the less Faith one should have in the informations validity. In the case of treatment A or B in the example, if this is all the information you have to go on I'd probably tossing a coin.
I've known adult biblical literalists who seemed to have a genuine fear of hell who were no more isolated from viewpoints than the average theist. I can't think of any adult biblical literalists who appear to genuinely fear hell and not believe for any other reason, who are also not exceptionally isolated in their viewpoints, but that would be a prohibitively small set anyway, so if they exist I would not have a strong expectation of having met any and knowing about it.
This particular person was raised by an absolute nutter. From a very early age they were told there were demonic forces at work everywhere and the end of the world and the second coming were about to occur. This kind of upbringing probably necessitates a literalistic approach to life. If is not against the law to teach children such things, then it should be.
You're basically saying that kings and aristocrats exist. Everybody knew that (I don't think anyone doubted the physical existence of George III), so it obviously can't have been what the Declaration of Independence meant. Why are we even discussing this?
What the Declaration of Independence seems to mean (to me atleast) is that these dynasties of kings and aristocrats don't exist deservedly or "naturally".
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The topic asked for examples of bad logic. The use of the idea "all men are created equal" by people absolving themselves any responsibility for the destitute and failures in societies today is the use of bad logic I was trying to refer too.
This particular idea itself (not the entire declaration of independence), however, is poorly phased and open to ridicule because of its obvious falseness. Political ideas are routinely used and interpreted in ways that demonstate poor or bad lagic. All I was trying to point out was the pained feeling I get when I here someone using and idea like this one to argue an inconsistent and ridiculous position.
I have not been posting long and am beginning to learn very quickly that I need to make my ideas as clear as absolutely possible. (as I would argue the authors of this idea probably should have)
I'm wondering whether your relative believes that God is good. Because if so, combined with zhir other beliefs, zhir morality would seem very scary.
Next time ask your relative "What if God only saves atheists, and sends believers to hell?"
They would probably reply "Thats not what athiests say".
In response to
A sense of logic
"I think therefore I am"
Would it be more accurate to say I think therefore I think I am. What if I think I am not am I not. If I think I am a goldfish or a black hole is this what I am. If you were to show me a thought it would be by an action, so perhaps it should be I act therfore I am.
The question of what constitutes an "I" is the question that needs first to be answered in order to be able to demonstrate "I am".
(probably gone a little to far with this one, just interested in the nature of the self and what others think about this kind of idea. Maybe point me to a different more relevent post)
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The questioner is nothing but the answer. We are not ready to accept this because it will put an end to all the answers which we have accepted as being the real answers. u.g. Krishnamurti