Personally, I love to bat around loads of different perspectives, whether or not I actually believe in them, because I think it's interesting and stimulating to consider other peoples' perspectives. But many conversations I've had here and in real life have been restricted to what people truly believe instead. Neither approach is better or worse than the other but I was curious to see if my approach is the strange one
It depends on what it is. Somethings interest me and others don't. Most of the time I just listen until my interest is satisfied. :)
I think the whole main stream science stands on thematic ideas we should keep in mind that
Just theory. that's all I care about.
I think I'll agree with that actually. Everything you think is based in some way on how you interpret your reality, but talking only about facts gets boring very quickly
People would rather talk about the things they believe are true because elaborating on something you dont believe in feels kinda self-contradicting when you have discussions about facts. Otherwise when it's about topics that have two sides they have their pros and cons, I'd definitely try to see both sides so I can truly understand the person on the other side of the argument. That is unless the person is clinging to their opinion because of something irrational such as an emotion instead of actual thinking.
but conversations about religion only have one side right?
That is because my understanding is that there is no god. Because I'd rather follow scientific knowledge rather than to believe that some being just snapped his fingers and made us exist simply because it's a simpler explanation. With my knowledge in biology and chemistry I can not accept religion as the answer because there is no good explanation. Religion itself is contradictory because every religion is a theist for its own and an atheist for other religions.
Are you telling me that I'm a hypocrite?
No, I'm just doubtful that you placed yourself in the right category in this post. And I think this comment, in which you state that you only see reason in the facts you support and cannot or will not consider the alternatives, affirms that
That's one way of seeing it, another way could be that I have not seen a reason to believe the other side, I will gladly consider it when there is proof.
that kind of contradicts the idea of a theoretical alternative, no?
Calling something a theory would assume that it's been tested and accepted as truth. A hypothesis would be more suitable in that case.
yeah, that's the second definition listed
Yes, confirming that the word theory is unsuitable for suggestions or speculations.
not if you're using the first definition of the word. welcome to the weird and wonderful English language
and the "theoretical" alternatives you listed (abortion, etc.) aren't your definition of "theoretical" so it seems strange to be switching which definition you're using now
But... what I understand from the first definition is that an idea being theoretical is just the opposite of practical, as in the idea is applied verbally and not physically. If theory meant speculation then the meanings of the word would contradict themselves, the dictionary people wouldn't allow this.
As in saying that overheating water will turn it into steam instead of actually doing it.
oh shoot my bad I've switched the first and second
Don't tell me you're losing your edge, you don't usually trip.
well that's just not true
"you don't usually trip"
Forgive me, with all that's been said it's not easy to keep track what either of us is referring to exactly without being specific.
I spoke out of my experience.
It's not suitable to always to fully immerse yourself in an alternate idea. If I told you women gave birth from their mouths and not their vaginas would you take my words just for the sake of consideration?
Well the baby does come out of her lips
The point being, knowing you and your rationality you wouldn't accept an alternative of something that you already know as a fact ESPECIALLY if that suggestion is ridiculous.
When I said to consider the other side I meant on issues not based on truth or false but rather wrong or right for instance pro life or pro abortion, politics and etc.
The tough part about discussing religion is nobody knows the first fact, not even what religion is, but they are all set to die for it.
It depends on what the subject and my mood.
The alleged scientific method:
1. Observe something.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Devise a test.
4. If the test fails, go to #2.
5. If the test passes and is confirmed, the hypothesis might be promoted to a theory and used to prove other hypotheses. And it might not.
The actual scientific method:
1. Formulate a theory.
2. Make a computer simulation.
3. Compare the simulation to observed data.
4. If they don't agree, find some way to adjust the data. If you can't adjust the data, ignore it.
5. Be sure your fellow scientists will agree with your findings, then publish.
Wunderscore, it's so good to see you... well, your post(s); I hope that'll encourage more from you :)
Is there any form of thought that isn’t theoretical? If everybody only talked about factual things (which may not exist) people would either sound like parrots.. or the sound of silence would be deafening. :)
This question was up yesterday and still here today, I am bored with it now. You all can carry on having fun
Depends on subject and possible psychotropics.
Ok.. Extra Terrestrials and a psylosybin, tequila cocktail.... :)
There are two problems here.
One is that if you don't believe something, it doesn't make sense by definition. A lot of people will not consider anything they don't already believe because what they believe is the only thing that makes sense. (That is called circular reasoning.) They are the ones who promise to consider your idiotic idea when you provide proof of some sort. IOW they have to be embarrassed before they will change their mind.
The other is the scientific problem: scientists really really want to be certain. They don't really care if they are wrong. And a lot of scientists only want acceptance; they don't even care about certainty or right/wrong. They are the ones who demand "What's your source?" instead of offering some sort of counter-argument.