Noah's Ark

[655321]

Curious whether any of the poster's here are willing to admit that they believe the story about Noah and the ark...

 

I shouldn't, but ...

[hrothgar]

I always need to ask the motivation of question like this.

The motivation should be pretty clear cut...

 

Luke Warm, DrTodd and the like have some pretty strong convinctions in a wide variety of areas. The make some interesting assertions about evolution, global warming, religion, and the like...

 

I think that pinning them down and seeing whether they believe in the literal truth of some of the more outlandish pieces of the Bible might have some bearing on the reliability of their analysis in other areas.

 

So how about it Peter...

I'm asking you for the third time...

Do you believe in the story of Noah's ark...

 

The cock is getting ready to crow

[luke warm]

you are making, not for the first time, a logical fallacy (actually several)... whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

 

for example, the fact that you believe co2 to be causing global warming has no bearing on anything else you might believe or reaons, regardless of the ridiculousness of the co2 argument

[helene_t]

Richard, if someone whose intellectual level and core values you generally respect appears to disagree strongly with you on some important issue, I can certainly understand you want to dig into it. But if someone you consider morally and/or intellectually bankrupt appears to disagree with you, why not just ignore him/her? Especially on a bridge forum. I mean, it would be nice if you could convince the World that the Pope is an evil moron, but who cares about anonymous posters at the off-topic section of an entertainment forum?

 

Well I guess it's your own choice.

[Hanoi5]

If I'm not mistaken the deluge story appears in several cultures, so it might have some truth to it, the truth being, IMO, that there were floods which wiped out lots of people except for some who had 'ships' and they were the ones able to save others. I think I even watched a program where they showed evidence of an inmense flood ocurring somewhere around present-day Turkey.

 

I think taking things from any book and stating that they are facts without proving them with other data is just wrong. It's like reading a fable and believing animals used to talk in the past, is like reading and listening to anyone and believing everything they write or say. There are many sides to every story. Some people even deny facts from History, some historians add make-up to facts in order to embelish them and not to use any 'Universal' history fact:

 

In Venezuela's independence war there was this country man who led other country men into battle. In one famous battle they were being chased by the Royalists who happened to fall into a ditch or something like that. The country man leader shouted something to the troops so that they were back into the fray and they did, winning an important battle. Venezuelan history books claim the country man shouted 'Turn your faces back!' (Vuelvan caras!), while some people argue that the guy wouldn't use such a refined vocabulary and that the troopers wouldn't understand it either. He probably said 'Go f****** back!' (Devuelvanse, carajo!) or something like that.

 

Anyway, people should just try to get the deep meaning from anything they read not just the surface stuff.

[hrothgar]

Richard, if someone whose intellectual level and core values you generally respect appears to disagree strongly with you on some important issue, I can certainly understand you want to dig into it. But if someone you consider morally and/or intellectually bankrupt appears to disagree with you, why not just ignore him/her? Especially on a bridge forum. I mean, it would be nice if you could convince the World that the Pope is an evil moron, but who cares about anonymous posters at the off-topic section of an entertainment forum?

 

Well I guess it's your own choice.

Ever seen the following

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Al_U_Card]

Gilgamesh, Noah or whomever, nice story, good moral, happy ending....why not take it for what it is and leave the pontificating to the pontiff?

 

The use of tracts to convince (and convict) based on belief is as old as writing. Some day we may well get beyond it, if we survive.

[PassedOut]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong. Conversely, those who admit the possibility of being wrong are much more likely to be correct.

 

I learned this first as a young man in the corporate world (and then found that I had an inclination to overuse that stereotype, so became more willing to hear people out). A good place to start, nevertheless.

[Al_U_Card]

Exactly. Neither the verisimilitude nor the intent but what you do with the information and how it impacts those involved.

 

Creating a belief or a sectarian movement.....hardly the intention of the storyteller.

[Lobowolf]

I always need to ask the motivation of question like this.

No, Phil, you really don't.

[luke warm]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

[mikeh]

What's a good religion-bashing thread doing without me contributing to it? :) :P :unsure:

 

I'm with helene here, and perhaps Phil as well.

 

There is no real point served by goading the literalists. They are generally impervious to reason, since they have minds that accept revealed truths as absolute. Surely we have seen enough of this in other threads.

 

And, frankly, I see no reason to think that we need some kind of litmus test in order to realize how Jimmy or Dr. Todd prefer to believe rather than to weigh evidence and think... Richard already knows this... asking this kind of question reminds me of when, as a young child, I developed a large cavity... sticking my tongue in it make it ache, but I couldn't resist doing it anyway.

 

I have been doing some reading (work related) on the functioning of the brain, with emphasis on what happens when it is subjected to traumatic injury. It is fascinating, in a morbid sort of way. There is something called cortical blindness, which arises from damage to the occipital lobes, responsible for sight. In some cases, the patient is completely blind AND had NO awareness of being blind. I am still trying to wrap my head around that concept: the authors of the text I am reading afford no insight into what that subjective experience would be. But it carried with it, as I read this, that maybe that is what it is like to be Jimmy. He has no awareness of his own intellectual form of blindness: he has his certainties and can't even comprehend life without them.

 

Of course, this could be and probably is condescending and meaningless bs on my part, but the feeling was there. The point being, as I belatedly realized after other protracted exchanges with Jimmy, that there is no useful purpose served by provoking him or responding to his posts.

[Lobowolf]

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

[jdonn]

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

[Lobowolf]

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction --

 

1. Let's not goad the literalists.

2. They're impervious to reason.

3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it.

 

Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone!

 

I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

[mikeh]

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction --

 

1. Let's not goad the literalists.

2. They're impervious to reason.

3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it.

 

Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone!

 

I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

I never claimed not to have a dog in this fight :unsure:

 

I am admitting that I am doing precisely what I suggested richard not do. Ok, mea culpa and I will try to stop now.

 

Edit: Btw, I can certainly see how it is possible to argue that people like me may share some of the very characteristics that I attribute to people like Jimmy. Naturally (inevitably?) I would argue that there are distinctions.. my being (at least apparently) willing to concede that I may be in error being one important characteristic.. but some would argue that my assertion of that possibility is inconsistent with the contents of my posts... and so on. What fun!

[PassedOut]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post. :unsure:

[luke warm]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post. :unsure:

i know... don't you love it? heheh

Of course, this could be and probably is condescending and meaningless bs on my part, but the feeling was there. The point being, as I belatedly realized after other protracted exchanges with Jimmy, that there is no useful purpose served by provoking him or responding to his posts.

in that case, i appreciate the nonprovacative nature of this post

[jdonn]

On a related topic, there's no need to *****ing cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction --

 

1. Let's not goad the literalists.

2. They're impervious to reason.

3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it.

 

Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone!

 

I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

I understood Jimmy's sarcasm in the post right above this one much better than yours. But now I see it. You certainly had a point.

[mikeh]

Yes, both had very valid points :unsure: One of these days, I will learn to stop tyoing after making (or thinking I have made) my main point.. but, so far, I can't seem to stop babbling thereafter. Oh well.

[PassedOut]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post. :unsure:

i know... don't you love it? heheh

Yep! There is plenty of foolishness on both left and the right, because both sides contain true-believer types who get attention by making strongly-worded pronouncements.

 

Philip Tetlock calls such people "hedgehogs": Outfoxing the Hegehogs

 

Tetlock did not find, in his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs, who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes.

We are not surprised.

[hrothgar]

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post. :unsure:

i know... don't you love it? heheh

Yep! There is plenty of foolishness on both left and the right, because both sides contain true-believer types who get attention by making strongly-worded pronouncements.

 

Philip Tetlock calls such people "hedgehogs": Outfoxing the Hegehogs

 

Tetlock did not find, in his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs, who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes.

We are not surprised.

The reference actually dates back to Archilochus

[PassedOut]

The reference actually dates back to Archilochus.

Yes, and is popular.

[barmar]

Gilgamesh, Noah or whomever, nice story, good moral, happy ending....why not take it for what it is and leave the pontificating to the pontiff?

What IS the moral to the Noah story? If some entity has lots of power, do what they ask you to do or they'll smite you? I guess that's a good way to get kids to obey their parents, although spanking probably works just as well (and I'm sure one doesn't obviate the other).

 

And the ending was only happy for Noah, his family, and the two of each animal he packed onto the Ark. Not so happy for all other animals and people in the world, though. Was everyone else so evil that they deserved to die?

[Al_U_Card]

The moral is to pay attention to what you see so that you will know what to do.

 

So many preconceived notions abound (and not just the true believers) that to remain open and receive with neutrality is a triumph in itself. The conditioning that we receive (one way or the other) must be fought off, the yolk that restricts our freedom to deal with things as we see fit must be removed and the ability to share and profit from the synergy of our complicity must be taken advantage of.

 

The happy ending was that there will always be a "morning after" and you have to be ready for that too. :P