81–90 of 177 posts
I think it just seemed out of place, like someone bringing up a topic in a forced way. Kind of “trying too hard”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their personal knowledge some, certainly yes. i don't think anyone would disagree that some claims are more plainly ridiculous than others. i'm replying to someone who let themselves be convinced the tree octopus was real by a page picturing an octopus climbing a tree. let's…
I think you'll find your idea of "common sense" is perhaps not so universal as you think. For example, why is a tree octopus any less likely than the platypus, a venomous aquatic mammal that has a beak, lays eggs, and detects prey by sensing electric fields like a shark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't mean to spoil the fun, downvote me if this is not in the spirit, but it took me way too long to figure this out and others may be as slow as me and save some time by reading this comment: I believed it too. The thing is, this is something no one is really incentivized to lie about. If some website says "politician did X", then your lie detector turns on, because it's worth it for lots of websites to lie or…
It reminds me of a friend in high school who convinced me that he grew scallions in his bathroom. It seemed weird but he described it in some detail, how the humidity from the shower is good for them, etc. Then when I believed him he said of course I don't do that, how could you think something so ridiculous. I don't and didn't feel like believing him in this context made me gullible for the same kinds of reasons you…
Or at least pretend to.
I don't mean to spoil the fun, downvote me if this is not in the spirit, but it took me way too long to figure this out and others may be as slow as me and save some time by reading this comment: > The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by a humor writer under the pseudonym Lyle Zapato. Since its creation, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus website has been commonly referenced in Inter…
I don't mean to spoil the fun, downvote me if this is not in the spirit, but it took me way too long to figure this out and others may be as slow as me and save some time by reading this comment: > The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by a humor writer under the pseudonym Lyle Zapato. Since its creation, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus website has been commonly referenced in Inter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their personal knowledge some, certainly yes. i don't think anyone would disagree that some claims are more plainly ridiculous than others. i'm replying to someone who let themselves be convinced the tree octopus was real by a page picturing an octopus climbing a tree. let's…
I think you'll find your idea of "common sense" is perhaps not so universal as you think. For example, why is a tree octopus any less likely than the platypus, a venomous aquatic mammal that has a beak, lays eggs, and detects prey by sensing electric fields like a shark?
1) obviously photoshopped -- a real octopus on a tree branch would look totally different, it would sag in some places, it would affect the pine bristles underneath, it wouldn't have a shadow that makes it look like it's hovering an inch above the branch, etc. Also, that octopus image looks totally out of proportion, but I can't pin down why -- I _think_ it's because the level of detail is higher than for the branches.
2) It looks exactly like a regular octopus. Not only should an animal the size of a small bird have different proportions from a regular octopus (compare e.g. bats and fruit bats, or cats and tigers), but it should also look only distantly related to a regular octopus because it's adapted to a totally different biome.
All that leads me to the following conclusion: Common sense, in the sense of broadly understanding how the world works, really is what prevents you from getting fooled, and the more things you understand, the less likely you are to get fooled. Also, the more information a hoax has, the more likely it is to get exposed, because just one sufficiently glaring inconsistency can sink it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i know enough about octopuses and forests that i don't have to care about the author's motives--i just have to skim the text or look at the photoshop. thinking a tree octopus is real because you saw a lot of words and can't relate them to a nexus of disinformation is a perfect example of gullibility
There are large crabs that climb trees and eat coconuts. There are fish that can survive on dry(-ish) land for extended periods of time. And don't get me started on the utterly bizarre slime mold. The number of species that defy our expectations is countless. Bluntly, there's a lot of arrogance in the claim that anyone should be able to easily and automatically rule out the existence of some species based on their pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stoop? I challenge you with a perfectly valid example of an unlikely animal, and your response is to claim I'm somehow, what, failing to argue at your level? I suppose that's enough to make my point for me.
you asked me how i would ascertain that an animal documented to exist is more likely to be real than a hypothetical animal depicted with _a photoshop of a different animal climbing a tree_, as if there is no reasonable expectation of intelligence or intuition for an abled, functioning adult the difference between people who initially believed this and those who didn't is gullibility, and this is a great example of gu…
But I suppose you have your deficiencies too, same as those who thought it to be real (however briefly).
I don't mean to spoil the fun, downvote me if this is not in the spirit, but it took me way too long to figure this out and others may be as slow as me and save some time by reading this comment: > The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by a humor writer under the pseudonym Lyle Zapato. Since its creation, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus website has been commonly referenced in Inter…
> I don't mean to spoil the fun, downvote me if this is not in the spirit, but it took me way too long to figure this out and others may be as slow as me and save some time by reading this comment: I believed it too. The thing is, this is something no one is really incentivized to lie about. If some website says "politician did X", then your lie detector turns on, because it's worth it for lots of websites to lie or…
Is there a subtle truth to your friend's lie? It need not be related to scallions. We perceive the world through narrative. Perhaps your friend was introducing a fundamental truth through the revelation of scallions growing in a bathroom. Or at least that's how we would interpret it on my home planet of Zeta Reticulii IV. Of course the "fact" that I'm from Zeta Reticulii IV is a lie. I grew up in Texas. You can make your own decisions regarding the relative adherence to consensual reality between Texas and Zeta Reticulii IV.
Perhaps the story of growing scallions in the bathroom is nothing other than the creation of a shared history. Does it matter that history is counter-factual? We're social beings. We do things like that.