It is a tragedy that the vast, vast, majority of people are completely ignorant to scientific thought, and form their beliefs on nothing but assumptions and emotions.
It is a tragedy that the vast, vast, majority of people are completely ignorant to scientific thought, and form their beliefs on nothing but assumptio...
It's called common sense and it works pretty well for daily things.
It was common sense 500 years ago that the plague was caused by "bad blood". "Common sense is wrong, subjective, and usually doesn't work, unless it is shockingly simple and obvious. You are a moron.
the origin and cause of plague is not a daily thing
In medieval times it was
What is?
That anon is kinda right, but its not about common sense. Well, maybe a little. There are fricktilion of things that needs to be done daily that require specific knowledge or skills that have little to do with science or just cover very small area of it.
People do these things as a day job, it takes a lot of space in their heads, then when you throw family there and possibly some hobby, there is really very little space for science.
They don't care and its understandable, whatever utopia you would want to sell them if they all cared, truth is, they don't need it to be happy.
> Hyperreality is a concept in post-structuralism that refers to the process of the evolution of notions of reality, leading to a cultural state of confusion between signs and symbols invented to stand in for reality, and direct perceptions of consensus reality.[1] Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which, because of the compression of perceptions of reality in culture and media, what is generally regarded as real and what is understood as fiction are seamlessly blended together in experiences so that there is no longer any clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins.[2]
having an objective view of reality is apparently not mandatory as far as evolution is concerned.
>There are fricktilion of things that needs to be done daily that require specific knowledge or skills that have little to do with science
You could figure them out using science, it's very impractical for the average person, but that isn't even the point.
>People do these things as a day job, it takes a lot of space in their heads, then when you throw family there and possibly some hobby, there is really very little space for science.
This misses the point I'm mostly talking about public policy, politics, their core beliefs.
Is that you, Plato?
This. Appeals to emotion and athority has been figured out before Jesus walked the Earth
true but who perfected it?
>perfected it
Thats the problem, any complete moron can utilize these fallacies. That's literally how "I trust the science" can even be possible
(they) fear the thinking man. gotta keep'em in the dark
No most people aren't able to distance themselves from their emotions AT ALL, or admit they are wrong.
the weird part is that seems to work as a feature, not a bug. those emotions are constantly farmed
Its common sense that personality is 50% of dating.
1. Love at first sight can only be predicted by physical attraction. [ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12218 ]
2. Attractiveness and race matter the most in online dating. [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656621000131?via%3Dihub ]
3. Being physically attractive makes your personality seem better. [ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610388048]
4. Height determines your dating pool. [ https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/ ]
5. Short men have 2x the suicide rate of tall men. [ https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.7.1373 ]
6. Tall men have more kids and partners. [ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002650100370 ]
7. The most important dating bio term is being +6ft. [ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/dating-app-tinder-bio-words-most-right-swipes-music-gym-6-foot-badoo-a8512541.html ]
8. Height predicts relationship satisfaction. [ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147470490900700310?icid=int.sj-related-articles.similar-articles.45#articleCitationDownloadContainer, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147470491000800401, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917302003?via%3Dihub ]
cont.
9. Men's facial masculinity determines female interest. [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661305003 ]
10. Symmetry is universally attractive/attractiveness is objective. [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513897000032, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00629.x#articleCitationDownloadContainer, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16318594/ ]
11. Your looks define perception of your personality in online dating. [ https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/okcupid/weexperimentonhumanbeings.html ]
12. Parents treat attractive children better. [ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050412213412.htm ]
13. Physical attractiveness in adolescence predicts better socioeconomic status in adulthood. [ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063975 ]
14. Attractive people are perceived much more positively than they really are. [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4757567/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4415372/, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912005028?via%3Dihub ]
16. Realtionships signifigantly predict happiness. [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918305348?via%3Dihub, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-019-00074-1 ]
every belief relies on assumption, except for 2: "i am conscious" and "i exist". those are the only 2 things you can or will ever know for sure.
I am conscious and I exist. how do you understand the two concepts anon?
to be conscious is to be aware that anything is happening. to exist is to be actual.
You better be lying to me Mr Satan or else we got a very serious problem in hell
what
This is stupid, it assumes that since everything is 100% completely perfectly guaranteed true there is no point in trying to scientifically find what's true in the most objective manner.
your post doesn't make any sense
Yours doesn't, not everything is an assumption because isn't 100% verifiable without a shadow of a doubt. It's like you forgot to mention that there are many, many things that may not be 100%, but are also 99.9999%. Even then, scientific reasoning and doctrine always has the best outcomes.
that is how it works. every belief apart from those two eventually terminates at some kind of assumption if you keep digging. and due to those unfalsifiable assumptions, other beliefs cannot be said to be unequivocally true.