What do CTs remind you of?

[tolman]

Which is why I suggest questioning (as opposed to following or "parroting other peoples theories") is always a good thing.

So not so much questioning 'the establishment', as questioning anything - establishment, anti-establishment, and one's own ideas?

[Pebble]

Questioning and challenging the status quo is at the root of all progress, science and truth seeking.

So not so much questioning 'the establishment', as questioning anything - establishment, anti-establishment, and one's own ideas?

I'll go with tolman on this. By defintion progress requires a deviation from status quo, however, it does not follow that this is a generalised revolution, the changes are incremental - one idea/area at a time as evidence permits. The Russian revolution and its aftermath is an example of challanging the status quo, so it helps to be clear on what precisely you have in mind. Removing religion from society and politics is nice in theory, the evidence such as is possible would support such an outcome, but allowing religions to destroy themselves is the only really practical way of achieving this.

[smudge]

So not so much questioning 'the establishment', as questioning anything - establishment, anti-establishment, and one's own ideas?

Yes.
As in 'questioning anything and everything' is always good thing in my view.

[smudge]

I'll go with tolman on this. By defintion progress requires a deviation from status quo, however, it does not follow that this is a generalised revolution, the changes are incremental - one idea/area at a time as evidence permits. The Russian revolution and its aftermath is an example of challanging the status quo, so it helps to be clear on what precisely you have in mind. Removing religion from society and politics is nice in theory, the evidence such as is possible would support such an outcome, but allowing religions to destroy themselves is the only really practical way of achieving this.

I never stated otherwise.
I never said that all (or any!)change or revolution is good. Simply that challenging the status quo and questioning it (and everything else for that matter) IS. I have not advocated enforcing any change (as in the Russian example you cite). Simple exploring and debating it.

It seems to me Pebble, you are making some assumptions regarding what you think I believe rather than responding to what I am actually saying? That is in no way meant to be provocative BTW.

[Pebble]

I never stated otherwise....

It seems to me Pebble, you are making some assumptions regarding what you think I believe rather than responding to what I am actually saying? That is in no way meant to be provocative BTW.

What assumptions? I was simply illustrating the lack of specificity involved in perjorative statements like 'challanging the establishment'.

Questioning individual aspects of status quo (among other things) is skepticism, CTers on the other hand require that there is a massive conspiracy supported by the establishment to hide the ugly truth from those who dare to question 'status quo'. Where questioning is guided and directed based on such assumptions, then it is no longer useful to engage other than to shine the light of logic on the perpetrators, knowing that this is a 'wavelenght' to which they are insensitive.

[tolman]

The problem with conspiracy believers is that some seem to elevate challenging the status quo or 'the establishment' onto a higher plane than any kind of other challenging, and also somewhat corrupt the basic idea of challenging.
For many, the act of publicly challenging at full volume is seen as laudable in and of itself, even if the challenge is actually outside their competence to make, whereas in reality, it's the internal idea that explanations can be looked at critically that's the real key to understanding.

While it might be worth someone wondering if something's wrong with Maxwell's equations, that uncertainty should in the first instance propel the person to actually ensure they understand the equations, and then if they think see a flaw or have a better idea, to then see if they can convince other people by sensible argument.

The average CT believer, rather than attempting elevate themselves to the point where they really understand the explanation they are trying to attack seems instead to resort to trying to drag the explanation down to their own level of understanding, with little regard for the distortions that such action necessarily involves, then attempt to criticise the buggered-up interpretation in their head.

Someone who was actually bright might try and understand the explanation somewhat outside their areas of knowledge and not entirely succeed, yet be bright and honest enough to realise that they don't entirely understand it, and if something doesn't make sense, that might well be their fault, rather than the fault of the explanation.
Indeed, the capacity to realise the limits of one's understanding may be less a product of intelligence and learning than a cause of them.

[Croydon Bob]

You should have started this thread where it belongs, in the "Pseudo-Sociology" section.

I didn't start this thread. Idiot.

[smudge]

What assumptions? I was simply illustrating the lack of specificity involved in perjorative statements like 'challanging the establishment'.
.

I can only refer you to my previous response RE Russian revolution. It seemed rather a leap to me.

[smudge]

The problem with conspiracy believers is that some seem to elevate challenging the status quo or 'the establishment' onto a higher plane than any kind of other challenging, and also somewhat corrupt the basic idea of challenging.
For many, the act of publicly challenging at full volume is seen as laudable in and of itself, even if the challenge is actually outside their competence to make, whereas in reality, it's the internal idea that explanations can be looked at critically that's the real key to understanding.

While it might be worth someone wondering if something's wrong with Maxwell's equations, that uncertainty should in the first instance propel the person to actually ensure they understand the equations, and then if they think see a flaw or have a better idea, to then see if they can convince other people by sensible argument.

The average CT believer, rather than attempting elevate themselves to the point where they really understand the explanation they are trying to attack seems instead to resort to trying to drag the explanation down to their own level of understanding, with little regard for the distortions that such action necessarily involves, then attempt to criticise the buggered-up interpretation in their head.

Someone who was actually bright might try and understand the explanation somewhat outside their areas of knowledge and not entirely succeed, yet be bright and honest enough to realise that they don't entirely understand it, and if something doesn't make sense, that might well be their fault, rather than the fault of the explanation.
Indeed, the capacity to realise the limits of one's understanding may be less a product of intelligence and learning than a cause of them.

I'd agree with that.

Only question we may disagree on is that I'd suggest even ill informed, poorly thought out, unsubstantiated 'questioning' by someone with low intelligence is a better thing than blind acceptance (by same person). I do not excuse, support or encourage such, as I would much rather see well thought out, evidence based, informed 'questioning'. But as there are poorly educated and unintelligent people in the world I would rather they questioned than be sheep. In the case of CTers, the first step they take (to question) is fine. They fail on the second step which is to back up theory with evidence and logic. The questioning is not the problem.

[tolman]

...But as there are poorly educated and unintelligent people in the world I would rather they questioned than be sheep.

In the case of CT believers, many still seem to be sheep labouring under the profound misapprehension that they are tigers.

[smudge]

In the case of CT believers, many still seem to be sheep labouring under the profound misapprehension that they are tigers.

Point taken!

[Matt]

Creationism, specifically the teleological argument. If x it related to y and z is also related to y then we leap straight to "what is the reason for this" bypassing the rather obvious, "is there a reason for this"

This assumption of design from the appearance of design is a strong correlation ebtwene the two mindsets.

[tolman]

Creationism, specifically the teleological argument. If x it related to y and z is also related to y then we leap straight to "what is the reason for this" bypassing the rather obvious, "is there a reason for this"

Or maybe "What is the reason for this?" rather than "Are there any reasons for this?"

[gorgeousgertie]

there does seem to be a lot of 'victim' type personalities who seem to favour conspiracies,who prefer to do a lot of typing about the subject and very little else (altho not all!).

Noticed that 'sceptics' seem more 'doer' types!

[The Inquisitor]

Creationism, specifically the teleological argument. If x it related to y and z is also related to y then we leap straight to "what is the reason for this" bypassing the rather obvious, "is there a reason for this"

This assumption of design from the appearance of design is a strong correlation ebtwene the two mindsets.

The problem with that is that people can always find reasoning for things, regardless of how bizarre or equally sublime it may be. You have to consider what the reasons are before considereing if they are relevant, otherwise you'll always be thinking inside a very small box.