The Illusion of Superiority

by Coded Logic 47 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  To give an example. Suppose someone wrote a very long post under the heading "The illusion of superiority" and it began:

  After reading dozens and dozens of posts and hundreds of comments, it seems to me that a great many people on this forum think that since they figured out TTATT, they must therefore be a highly intelligent and incredibly knowledgeable individual. Let me take a moment to congratulate everyone. Its a big step to figure this out - I know.

  That said, IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A GENIUS! Nor does it make you a knowledgeable person. In fact, there is a great number of people on this forum who don't seem to understand even the most basic tennants of science. Ironically, the people who don't understand science are usually the quickest ones to accuse other people of being "unscientific." And, I would venture to guess, almost everyone who has read this far is currently nodding their heads and thinking to themselves - "Yes, there are a lot of people who are bad at science on this site." - without even the slightest consideration that they may fall into that catagory.

  What do you think about this way of writing it? Do you wonder if the person thinks you belong in this category of unscientific individuals who have deluded themselves into thinking they know something? Do you think this is an example of good/efficient scientific communication even if the critisism is correct?

  Instead, suppose you started a thread under the heading: "Something interesting about [eg.] thermodynamics", and gave an example of something you had observed many people got wrong, why it was wrong and what the right answer was. I imagine you wouldnt get a lot of pushback, that many would find it interesting to read and all would think you knew something about thermodynamics.

  On the other hand if you consider a 2 page angry rant on the subject that people know jack shit about science even if they think they do; well, that person may or may not know something about science but he sure haven't demonstrated it; at the very least few are likely to read the thread and come away thinking "geh, i should really learn about thermodynamics!"
• 

  Onager

  "Because the two questions I asked in my OP were, "Do you know what logic is?" and "Have you ever studied logic?" Instead of considering these they instead asked "How do we know you're not suffering from the DK effect?""

  I'm sorry but, again, you're assuming that they haven't considered your questions. In effect you're commiting the Cum Hoc Fallacy. You're assuming that their answer relates to your question. It doesn't.

  It can be frustrating to construct a playground and then have people come into it that don't want to play by your rules, but that's pretty much the essence of the internet.
• 

  Caedes

  How to make friends and influence people! Now where is the popcorn?
• 

  Reality vs Delusion

  Coded, you speak like someone who has been brutally honest with your own emotions and your thinking. You seriously want to get past the JW thinking and the general nonsense that drown people their entire lives. That is commendable and rare.

  When someone is aggressively honest with themselves, they tend to assume others are also honest. Sadly, that is not true.

  Most people wallow in their problems and react angrily at anyone who doesn’t validate their issues. That is just people. They will complain: “You didn’t take my issues into consideration” or “That’s not what I want to believe” or "You're mean". They want you to make them feel good about themselves, nothing deeper than that.

  An honest person cares about the validity of what is said, not how sweetly it is conveyed. Continue being brutally honest with yourself. I would suggest only having serious conversations with others that are just as honest and are already moving in the same direction as you.

  Here is a perfect example of what you can expect, read Viviane's thread "What is spirit, exactly?". Viviane asks a simple, honest question & courageously insists on a real answer. You will be amazed at the all the personal attacks and dishonest gibberish that is spewed in response.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/279886/1/What-is-spirit-exactly#.VAiJzMVdW-k
• 

  humbled

  Coded Logic,

  Forms of logic that I have not learned that you have studied: Epistemology, Inductive Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning, Abductive Reasoning, Instrumental Rationality, Syllogisms, Logical absolutes, and Synthetic and Analytic Distinctions.

  But this in no way suggests that I lack what is the first prerequisite of reasonableness or the ability to be logical: having an open mind.

  Even when a person doesn't know these things you named, they may yet possess the positive attributes of skepticism that allow for successful navigation in the world of conflicting claims. Naming a Logical Absolute or an Instrumental Rationality is not essential to reasonable thought, is it?

  Does my confession of ignorance of logical forms mean I need a lesson how to have an open mind? What? You directed me to the video which featured a lesson in how to have an open mind simply because I do not know the list of words given above? Is that logical?

  I am not sure of what to think of this situation. But is it possible that the illusion of superiority can cause one to assume that no uneducated person can have an open mind?

  A great hero of mine is an illiterate former slaves named Sojourner Truth whose simple grasp of logic was a powerful instrument in countering the educated voices that believed that blacks were inferior to whites and that women were not deserving of rights equal to men.

  By the way, Coded Logic, that was a great video-- everyone in the world should see it--no one needs to go to college to understand what it is saying.

  Maeve
• 

  DJS

  CL,

  My points to you were spot on, without defect. I did exaggerate a bit about the 'great many' being everyone but you, but my hyperbole was intended to make you think. Obviously you missed that point. I'm a lot of things. Cute is not one of them. You probably aren't capable of tying my shoelaces. Again, everything I stated to you was spot on. Learn from it, and others such as Bohm. Or don't and continue to present yourself as an arrogant jerk.

  You insulted almost everyone on this site; your presentation skills suck. You drew conclusions without supporting evidence and made definitive statements, again, without evidence. That falls into the dumbass category. I was nice the first time. I won't be again. There are a lot of highly intelligent and highly educated people on this site; you don't appear to be one of them.
• 

  M*A*S*H

  Hang on Viviane, I buy fish from the chip shop all the time... they definately do not have bones.

  Anyway...

  fiSH / noun noun: fish ; plural noun: fishies ; plural noun: Double cod 1. a limbless cold-blooded battered animal which goes well with chips and mushy peas.
• 

  bohm

  Coded Logic: Oh yeah smarty pants

  Hello Coded Logic!

  Coded Logic: Not all logical arguements are scientific theories - but all scientific theories are logical arguements.

  Interesting. However notice you have now substituted "logical argument" for "logic"; recall your original statement was:

  Coded Logic: logic is a mental construct that we use to model reality. Just like the validity of a map is in its ability to show us where things are, the validity of logic is in its explanatory and predictive capabilities. This is important because the better model of reality we have, the better decisions we're going to be able to make.

  I pointed out one could just as well replace "logic" with "scientific theory" in that definition and you now say this is obvious since "scientific theory" is a "logical argument". However your definition was of logic and not a logical argument so i am still puzzled. We might well agree a scientific theory should be logically consistent (but IS a scientific theory like the cell theory a "logical argument"? is it "logic"?. I do not see why this is obviously the case or how we could determine this was the case..) however this has no bearing on the definition of "logic" as such which is what we are actually talking about. Later, ofcourse, you heap upon this confusion by the statement: "seemingly unaware that science is a form of logic".

  Quite frankly I dont understand what you are getting at.

  However, as my OP was purely in reference to real world claims, a definition of the former was given.

  So eg. the work of Godel on first and second order logic is not included in your definition of logic? interesting.

  I provide both a great deal of information on logic and its definition

  So you keep telling me, but whenever I ask some questions you respond in a hostile manner.