121–130 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. " Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space). So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge. If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned re…
> Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat have you never seen a hill or a hole?
But other people grew up in flat areas, far from the sea and maybe exposed with too much BS and maybe drugs at some points in their life, so ended up with a very different point of view.
It was interesting for me to find ways to maybe guide them back to reality and sometimes I succeeded a bit, but I don't think that argument would have helped me. On average and to our senses the earth is pretty undisputable flat.
It takes thinking to go further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. " Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space). So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge. If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned re…
> That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation It does! Sit on a beach near a harbour and watch how far you can see the waves and ships. Aristotle did this and came to the same conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The earth is not flat. This is indisputable fact. " Well, the earth you walk is indisputable flat. That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation (except for the very few people who have been in space). So I dare you to actually argue with flat earthers. It is a good way to test your basic scientific knowledge. If you poke deep, you will find, that most people learned science the way people learned re…
The thing about this particular topic is that humanity has known this fact for millennia, not because we flew or went to space, but because we sailed. Any human who has watched ships come in to a harbor would be able to trivially tell you: We see the masts before the ship. Where I grew up you can stand by the shore on a clear day and see the tree tops on the neighboring island, but not the beach. Sailing there, the b…
The main cause I could determine was rather a deep trauma of some sort or the other and with the result of them now mistrusting everything mainstream by principle and only now trusting their eyes and "intuition".
And believing the earth is flat is maybe the most anti mainstream position ever.
Edit: and my conclusion sort of was, that the only thing, that would really convince some of them is indeed to let them see it with their own eyes. So maybe I will organize a high altitude baloon trip for some people some day, but personally I also always wanted to get as close to space as possible at least once in my life..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That all of earth is round, comes not from direct observation It does! Sit on a beach near a harbour and watch how far you can see the waves and ships. Aristotle did this and came to the same conclusion.
The standard nonsens reply to this is something with perspective. Like a train track in the distance get closer together, the ship gets closer to the ground and then infinitely small. Doesn't make sense, but abstract enough to make some believe there is another explanation possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard nonsens reply to this is something with perspective. Like a train track in the distance get closer together, the ship gets closer to the ground and then infinitely small. Doesn't make sense, but abstract enough to make some believe there is another explanation possible.
Standard answer: Ships do not get infinitely small - they visibly "sink" behind the horizont. Starting with the bulbous bow, which you stop being able to see at a distance of, i estimate, 10 kilometers?
Edit: Oh and also there is some "proof" with a certain camera model they present. Where they zoom in closely to ships on the horizont, while not knowing the difference between optical and digital zoom. I am still not sure what they were trying to proof with that, but I did saw a visual glitch of the image processing on high digital zoom. Some vague impression that indeed you can enlarge the ship again fully, despite it being over the horizon. To me it was rather pixel soup, but for them confirmation. So to be on topic a bit again, if you want to influence irrational people of anything, logic only gets you so far and appealing on emotion quite further.
Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say. If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their…
This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable…
That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, s…
Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.
Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. There is no influence without manipulation. A baby smiling at you is manipulation. This is nothing bad in itself.
Feels to me like that is addressed by the very first sentence in the article: > We influence others every day, whether we intend to or not. And then it’s expanded as it continues. > Every effective communication is manipulation to a degree. Yes, to a degree . Seems to me the author is attempting to be pragmatic and not let excessive pedantry cloud the larger point. A friend trying to convince you to stop smoking beca…
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.