New theories are trash ?????

[Ophiolite]

One can train oneself to look at things from multiple perspectives. One can train oneself to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities. One can make lateral thinking a normal part of ones process of discovery.

 

What you seem to be saying is that you have only recently discovered this, or find it difficult to do and are now branding everyone else with the same weakness. That suggests you have still not learned to look seriously at other possibilities. I find that amusing - that you are probably guilty of the very failings you see in others.

[Le Repteux]

One can train oneself to look at things from multiple perspectives. One can train oneself to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities. One can make lateral thinking a normal part of ones process of discovery.

We might be able to follow our intuitions without questioning them, as it seems to be the case for some artists or performers, but how could we learn new ideas faster than what we are able to, and moreover, how could we learn at all a new idea that we do not like?

 

What you seem to be saying is that you have only recently discovered this, or find it difficult to do and are now branding everyone else with the same weakness. That suggests you have still not learned to look seriously at other possibilities. I find that amusing - that you are probably guilty of the very failings you see in others.

Being able to recognize our own resistance in a discussion does not imply that we can change faster, but it sure implies that we can understand better the phenomenon, thus avoiding to feel guilty for our own resistance, or to induce voluntarily this feeling on others.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Ophiolite]

We might be able to follow our intuitions without questioning them, as it seems to be the case for some artists or performers, but how could we learn new ideas faster than what we are able to, and moreover, how could we learn at all a new idea that we do not like?

 

Being able to recognize our own resistance in a discussion does not imply that we can change faster, but it sure implies that we can understand better the phenomenon, thus avoiding to feel guilty for our own resistance, or to induce voluntarily this feeling on others.

By behaving like a rational being rather than an emotional cripple.

 

Your entire argument is based upon your personal inabilities to do the things you claim are difficult. This is precisely why I said one can train oneself. I don't find it difficult to explore new ideas, or to accept ones that are of substance. I have trained myself to overcome any natural resistance to change I might have. This is not difficult - all it requires is an act of will. Please don't judge the millions of people who have no problems with doing this on the basis of your own restrictions.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Let's tone down the rhetoric please ladies and gentlemen.

 

Criticise the argument - not the person.

 

[Le Repteux]

By behaving like a rational being rather than an emotional cripple.

You seem to believe that I fond my ideas on emotions rather than on reason, which is not the case.

 

Your entire argument is based upon your personal inabilities to do the things you claim are difficult.

I did not say I had more problems than others to change my automatisms, I said that what I observed was that everybody had this problem, and I emitted the hypothesis that it was an unconscious phenomenon.

 

This is precisely why I said one can train oneself. I don't find it difficult to explore new ideas, or to accept ones that are of substance. I have trained myself to overcome any natural resistance to change I might have.

We cannot train to adapt to a new idea precisely because it is new and we have thus nothing to guide us.

 

Please don't judge the millions of people who have no problems with doing this on the basis of your own restrictions.

What I propose is that people resist subconsciously to a change in their automatisms: it is thus not a judgment, but an hypothesis.

[swansont]

 

We cannot train to adapt to a new idea precisely because it is new and we have thus nothing to guide us.

 

And yet people have adapted to new situations all the time and continue to do so.

 

Or, to paraphrase a joke, what do you mean "we"? It sounds like you are incorrectly extrapolating here.

[Le Repteux]

Resisting to a change in our automatisms does not mean not being able to change them. Bodies resit a change in their direction or speed and still execute that change when we accelerate them.

[cladking]

 

 

I did not say I had more problems than others to change my automatisms, I said that what I observed was that everybody had this problem, and I emitted the hypothesis that it was an unconscious phenomenon.

 

 

 

You can almost say that consciousness itself acts as a filter to what we see. Consciousness occurs in language now days and all the unconscious derives first from the conscious. While the two are intimately connected it is actual thought patterns and language that prevent us from seeing new things or changing physical habits or habits of thought.

 

Some of this is mere termoinology and is a result of perspective.

[Strange]

Resisting to a change in our automatisms does not mean not being able to change them. Bodies resit a change in their direction or speed and still execute that change when we accelerate them.

 

So, perhaps, after 15 pages we can summarise your position as: some people may sometimes be somewhat reluctant to adopt to some new ideas.

 

I think that falls into the category of "no shit, Sherlock".

[Le Repteux]

So, perhaps, after 15 pages we can summarize your position as: some people may sometimes be somewhat reluctant to adopt to some new ideas.

Not exactly. I would summarize like this: everybody resist unconsciously to a change in their automatisms, and some resist consciously too, adding this way to their unconscious resistance.

 

I think that falls into the category of "no shit, Sherlock".

As long as it does not fall in the trashcan category, its OK for me.

[John Cuthber]

Not exactly. I would summarize like this: everybody resist unconsciously to a change in their automatisms, and some resist consciously too, adding this way to their unconscious resistance.

 

 

And yet, we change.

Or have you not noticed that we are no longer in the stone age?

 

Actually it goes further than that; you say "We cannot train to adapt to a new idea precisely because it is new and we have thus nothing to guide us."

Well, were you born with all the ideas and views you currently hold, or have you adapted to them?

We all started with little or nothing to guide us- yet we learned a lot.

[Strange]

Not exactly. I would summarize like this: everybody resist unconsciously to a change in their automatisms, and some resist consciously too, adding this way to their unconscious resistance.

 

Any statement about humans that includes the word "everybody" is almost certainly wrong.

[Le Repteux]

Actually it goes further than that; you say "We cannot train to adapt to a new idea precisely because it is new and we have thus nothing to guide us."

Maybe I should have said: "We cannot train to adapt faster than usual to a new idea...."

 

Well, were you born with all the ideas and views you currently hold, or have you adapted to them?

We all started with little or nothing to guide us- yet we learned a lot.

We learn with what was given to us in the beginning, and we add automatisms to automatisms, thus when comes the time to change one, it takes the time to be sure it is worth to change it, the time to forget the old one, and the time to learn the new one. This process takes time, and it also takes time when we discuss our ideas. It is thus not because a new idea works that it will be accepted instantly, even if it meets all the scientific criteria.

Any statement about humans that includes the word "everybody" is almost certainly wrong.

Everybody is born, everybody gets older, everybody dies. The laws of nature apply to every human, except for superman of course, and to me, resisting to change is a law of nature.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

Resisting to a change in our automatisms does not mean not being able to change them. Bodies resit a change in their direction or speed and still execute that change when we accelerate them.

 

The laws of physics do not directly apply to thought and emotion. Physics is massively off-topic for this discussion. (Do I really need to continue to say this?)

It is thus not because a new idea works that it will be accepted instantly, even if it meets all the scientific criteria.

 

And yet some people adopt new ideas really quickly. Once again, you are extrapolating based on a single or small number of examples, and that's a fallacy (Hasty Generalization)

[cladking]

And yet, we change.

Or have you not noticed that we are no longer in the stone age?

 

 

This is indeed true but it's also true that at every turn most of the human race has been dragged kicking and screaming from the status quo.

 

The greater the change, the greater the resistance.

[Le Repteux]

The laws of physics do not directly apply to thought and emotion.

If thoughts and emotions are related to chemical and biological processes, why would they not resist a change? It takes time for those process to change.

 

And yet some people adopt new ideas really quickly.

How quickly? Starting at the moment he began to discuss them, how long did it take for Einstein's ideas to be adopted, for instance?

 

Once again, you are extrapolating based on a single or small number of examples, and that's a fallacy (Hasty Generalization

I never saw anybody change his mind in the discussions that I saw on all the forums I participated to. People change their mind so slowly that this kind of change is almost impossible to observe.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

How quickly? Starting at the moment he began to discuss them, how long did it take for Einstein's ideas to be adopted, for instance?

 

Pretty much immediately. He had such a compelling argument.

 

 

I never saw anybody change his mind in discussions that I had on all the forums I participated to.

 

That may be because you are always wrong. Why would anyone change their mind to agree with you.

[Le Repteux]

Pretty much immediately. He had such a compelling argument.

Measures from the bending of starlight came years after he began telling about his ideas, isn't it?

 

That may be because you are always wrong. Why would anyone change their mind to agree with you?

I meant the discussions I saw, not the discussions I had. I edited the precision.

[Strange]

Measures from the bending of starlight came years after he began telling about his ideas, isn't it?

 

They had to wait 3 years for a total eclipse. But the idea was generally accepted already.

[Le Repteux]

Accepted by what proportion of the scientific community? Do we have approximate numbers for that.

[John Cuthber]

Maybe I should have said: "We cannot train to adapt faster than usual to a new idea...."

 

 

It may have escaped our notice, but changes are happening faster than they ever did before.

 

This is indeed true but it's also true that at every turn most of the human race has been dragged kicking and screaming from the status quo.

 

The greater the change, the greater the resistance.

That would explain why there has never been a revolution anywhere, at any time.

[cladking]

 

That would explain why there has never been a revolution anywhere, at any time.

 

 

Truth wins out in the long run. Maybe science and scientific knowledge are causing the duration of the "long run" to collapse but this would primarily apply to those things which fit existing paradigm.

[Strange]

this would primarily apply to those things which fit existing paradigm.

 

Apart from all those recent paradigm-changing developments.

[Phi for All]

Accepted by what proportion of the scientific community? Do we have approximate numbers for that.

 

You're trying so hard to paint science in a bad light. You've spent 15 pages telling us how you think science should be, and we keep telling you it works better than anything humans have ever tried. The fact that you want to change it without understanding it fully should tell you something about the way you approach learning.

[xyzt]

 

You're trying so hard to paint science in a bad light. You've spent 15 pages telling us how you think science should be, and we keep telling you it works better than anything humans have ever tried. The fact that you want to change it without understanding it fully should tell you something about the way you approach learning.

...making Trash the appropriate place for the thread.