Value of Thought

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I like how you were able to put a sneer in that sentence without having to use any facial muscles.
So when you use the word respectable, are you meaning it in the same way the media use it when describing scientists who reject the status quo on global warming?
In other words, wouldn't any scientist who doesn't hold to the current company line, i.e, popular opinion, necessarily be removed from the respectable members of their fields?

To answer your questions, No, and I was thinking more of scientific opinion rather than popular opinion.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Oh yes it is. Set out thinking you are travelling West-North-West and you'll find yourself in a completely different position to the one you thought you would. The Pacific Islanders traveled across huge distances, end up in the wrong place and you are stuck at sea without fresh water.

But the basic point is that no account based on a flat earth can ...[text shortened]... equired to reproduce observation, not fly in the face of it. You need to find a better example.

Your response does not answer the question.

Originally posted by moonbus
Whodey: "Really what is being discussed here are belief systems." On the whole, I agree: isolated thoughts have little significance. But once in a while, a thought refreshes parts of you other beers cannot reach and a paradigm shift is set in motion. Ask an adult who suddenly 'got' religion, or who suddenly fell away from religion; they often report that som ...[text shortened]... imately quite simple but profound insight came to them "in a flash" and changed their worldview.

I would say that isolated thoughts have no significance, not little significance. How can a thought have significance without another thought assigning it value or meaning? This requires a belief system of some kind.

As for your theory on a paradigm shift, I look at things a bit differently. I am taken back to the parable Jesus told about building a house on sand and a house on solid ground. They both believe that their house will never fall, however, one falsely believes his house will never fall when in reality, it is doomed to fall. So lets assume that the man in question has spent his entire life building that house on the sand and most of his money? The longer he goes and the more money he has spent, the less likely he will throw up his hands and start over if he is ever confronted with the truth that his house is doomed to fall into ruin.

Of course, we all have different foundations. For some, religion is but a minor aspect of a house, not a foundation. Let's say religion for you is your kitchen sink. In reality, losing it may bum you out but not catastrophic. You could easily replace it. As a result, religion for you could swing either direction and it would not really effect you in a substantial way, so the chances of you changing that sink increase as a result. These are the people I think of who have been raised "religious". To them, religion is just something they used to do every Sunday as their parent dragged them to church. In a way, it comforts them to attend church because it is tradition but they could by in large do without it. They have no real personal relationship with God nor do they really want one or even know what one is.

However, someone who devotes their life to God and has him at the center of their life has made him their foundation. They are much less likely to surrender their belief system regarding religion.

Of course, the same could be said for the atheist. If the atheist has a life style and foundation that conflicts with religion, they are less likely to abandon their investment and more likely to defend their world views to the death.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I disagree. Religion does no such thing. The ones trying to control what people think, or suppress what people think, are evil people, whether within a religion or without.

'Religion' incorporates people. When we refer to the Christian religion suppressing certain ideas in Europe in the 'dark ages', we are including the people involved in the religion who did so for personal or political reasons.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Your response does not answer the question.

It wasn't meant to. I was countering your claim that a flat earth is a valid scientific position. Also, I disagree that it is irrelevant to the question in the original post.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It wasn't meant to. I was countering your claim that a flat earth is a valid scientific position. Also, I disagree that it is irrelevant to the question in the original post.

The original post asked the question: What difference does it make, for instance, if a person rejects the notion of the earth as a globe?
Which was an example of the original question: why does a person's thoughts matter?

Your previous response did not directly address either of these.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The original post asked the question: What difference does it make, for instance, if a person rejects the notion of the earth as a globe?
Which was an example of the original question: why does a person's thoughts matter?

Your previous response did not directly address either of these.

Well, it means that their belief in what should be possible is incorrect. So they will not attempt to circumnavigate the world, the consequence is that they'll incur an opportunity cost. What is more they'll consume resources making course corrections because they'll sail along loxodromic curves and then have to back track, rather than using great circles. Long distance navigation would be more risky. In a world with GPS belief in a flat world verges on madness.

Let's cut to the chase and ask the question whether it matters if a person does not believe in the "Theory of Evolution" (in the sense that that is normally understood). Well there's the opportunity cost implied in not selectively breeding animals. If there is any point in doing that then a theory of evolution becomes somewhat compelling.

As a general point resource allocation depends on politics and politics depends on what is in peoples heads. If people believe things that aren't true there is a real risk that resources will not be allocated to the right place and we'll make less progress than we should. So yes, it matters if people believe in flat earths and seven day creation theories.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well there's the opportunity cost implied in not selectively breeding animals.

That is something farmers have done without knowledge of evolution and most evolution deniers will not dispute the possibilities. In fact most YECs I know believe in much faster change than scientific theory considers possible.

For another 'opportunity cost' consider how important an understanding of evolution is in modern medicine. There is an excellent course on the subject here:
YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is something farmers have done without knowledge of evolution and most evolution deniers will not dispute the possibilities. In fact most YECs I know believe in much faster change than scientific theory considers possible.

For another 'opportunity cost' consider how important an understanding of evolution is in modern medicine. There is an excellent course on the subject here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNk0OgRbnzg

You do however need to not have a theory of "not evolution". If that theory dominates peoples consciousness they'll not investigate what they believe to be impossible options. Ignorance is less of a problem than false knowledge, at least there are no preconceptions to mislead one.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You do however need to not have a theory of "not evolution".

Actually in my experience that is not the case. Instead they have a religion of 'not evolution'. Many actually think evolution is valid, they are just religiously bound not to admit it. I have certainly not talked to anyone who disputes evolution that actually has a counter theory.
But I agree, false knowledge, especially when religiously held, can be far more damaging than no knowledge.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, it means that their belief in what should be possible is incorrect. So they will not attempt to circumnavigate the world, the consequence is that they'll incur an opportunity cost. What is more they'll consume resources making course corrections because they'll sail along loxodromic curves and then have to back track, rather than using great circ ...[text shortened]... we should. So yes, it matters if people believe in flat earths and seven day creation theories.

You're getting rather far afield on this one.

Well, it means that their belief in what should be possible is incorrect. So they will not attempt to circumnavigate the world, the consequence is that they'll incur an opportunity cost.
I should not have to tell you that the term circumnavigate means nothing more than to go around, i.e., go around traffic, around the surface of a flat plane or etc.
One does not need a globe in order to circumnavigate the surface of the thing.

What is more they'll consume resources making course corrections because they'll sail along loxodromic curves and then have to back track, rather than using great circles. Long distance navigation would be more risky. In a world with GPS belief in a flat world verges on madness.
You're contradicting yourself here, but let's just start with a known.
The shortest distance between two points is a...

If that is true, consider the following thought experiment.
With an open mind, if possible.

You have opted to take an intercontinental flight to LAX from Taipei, Taiwan.
Because of the excitement of the trip, you forget to pack your epinephrine injector which is required in case of a bee sting.
As luck would have it, after the doors on the plane are closed and you are en route, a bee lands on you, stinging you in his agitation.
Also as luck would have it, the epi pen which is normally included in the first aid kit onboard is missing.
Your situation is dire: you will die if you don't receive the antidote quickly.
From Taiwan to LAX, the official distance by time is nearly 14 hours, with no where to stop in between.
Question: do you take your chances on getting to LAX within the next 14 hours, or do you ask the captain to make an emergency stop at Ted Stevens International Airport in Alaska?
[Just to save you some time researching, Taiwan to Ted Stevens is 19 hours 15 minutes]
Your life is on the line.
Which is the closer destination?

HINT: The madness of which you speak is going to make a pretty big splash in a very short amount of time...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
HINT: The madness of which you speak is going to make a pretty big splash in a very short amount of time...

The splash it makes will likely cover you with a somewhat unpleasant odour.

You have not stated how far along in the journey you are. I do find it odd that you have claimed a longer time to fly for the shorter distance. But then thought clearly isn't your strong suit.

I wonder if there are any 'flat earther' maps of the pacific region and what they would show. Is Freaky perhaps talking about flying West from Taiwan, because he believes going the other way would result in falling off the edge? But even so, where would he get a map to guide him as every single map you can lay your hands on is drawn with a near spherical earth in mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
'Religion' incorporates people. When we refer to the Christian religion suppressing certain ideas in Europe in the 'dark ages', we are including the people involved in the religion who did so for personal or political reasons.

And therefore, the religion is not to blame. People are evil with or without religion. It's more of a "cart before the horse" thing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And therefore, the religion is not to blame. People are evil with or without religion. It's more of a "cart before the horse" thing.

It is more complicated than that. Both the people and the religion are to blame. People can be evil with or without religion. People can also attempt to suppress thought with or without religion. Communists in fact turn communism into a religion in order to suppress thought. But I would think this, if anything demonstrates that religion is a useful tool for the thought police and that therefore some blame must be placed on the very concept of religion. Religion by its very nature encourages the suppression of critical thought as is frequently and amply demonstrated by your good self.