|
|
On November 20 2012 08:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:21 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 20 2012 08:17 Emzeeshady wrote:On November 20 2012 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc based on god, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world. There's a difference between telling a kid that their answer is wrong and telling the kid that he or she holds the wrong beliefs. Any decent teacher should be able to understand the difference and handle the situation appropriately. it seems like there isn't much of a difference sometimes tbh On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. You're both arguing that there is no difference between believing and understanding. You are both wrong. not rly. note the '' around believe. i was talking about a kid who uses religious belief as an excuse to not learn about the material, dispute the facts. in any case, there is necessarily dissonance involved when you understand a particular theory, yet believe a religious story over it. engaging in systems of belief level talk is not really science at all. let's say there is an exam question like: "The earth is _____ old" A. 6000 years B. 3 million years C. 4.5 billion years D. all of the above the religion answer, science answer etc talk is pretty irrelevant, is it not.
You've changed your position. Originally the student had to believe (" or not) or fail the test. Now you say you meant that only when belief precludes study does it mean a fail. This is what I was trying to get at. There is no dissonance involved when you understand a thing but don't believe it. That pretty much flies in the face of all critical thinking. How can you even know if you believe a thing or not until you understand it?
For you exam question context is important. The context is: "it's an exam". The "correct" answer is determined by the examiner. If I chose to play the game then I'll try to give the answer the examiner is looking for.
On November 20 2012 08:42 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 08:21 Dapper_Cad wrote:On November 20 2012 08:17 Emzeeshady wrote:On November 20 2012 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
that sounds needlessly pandering. if a kid raises a wrong claim, it should be called wrong. when a christian says something about the origins of the world or life etc based on god, he is not claiming any special area of knowledge. he just made a wrong statement about the world. There's a difference between telling a kid that their answer is wrong and telling the kid that he or she holds the wrong beliefs. Any decent teacher should be able to understand the difference and handle the situation appropriately. it seems like there isn't much of a difference sometimes tbh On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. You're both arguing that there is no difference between believing and understanding. You are both wrong. But at a young age, the difference between the two is very blurry. The concept of proof is more of a trust-issue than actual scientific discourse. If your mother says something and your teacher says something it is all about who you trust the most on the subject if you are about 10 years old. Moreover textbook science has to be agreed upon by about 95% of the scientific community in a certain field. I'll give you that lower level textbooks are probably very close to 100%, but the point is that certainty is not a given in science and how your teacher deals with that disagreement is how well you understand a subject. At primary school you are not equipped to handle this dissonance and the teacher does best by keeping it out of the classroom if possible. Even at high school it is more of a distraction from the real science than anything useful since you lack the basics to really be able to push the boundaries. Only at college or higher education the disagreement can become a real issue if you are pushing on the boundaries of the scientific knowledge in a field. The distinction is logical and reasonable but for the kids sake, it is not something they are equipped to handle and any dissonance of the sort of religion vs. science is dealt with based on trust at that age. Understanding needs a base and if religion is made that base at a young age you are really damaging the potential for academic development for the kid.
This is not about proof. I'm not talking about Knowledge vs. belief. I'm talking about understanding vs. belief and they are very different if you think about it, it's not about degrees of certainty.
You try these two sentences on a 10 year old and see what they make of it:
"I used to believe in evolution"
"I used to understand evolution"
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Do both sentences make sense?
Can you describe a person who might say one of these sentences?
Can you describe a situation in which someone might say each of these things?
On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
when the teacher tells you, the earth is n billion years old, that is not a negotiable position. if you don't 'believe' it, you fail. that's about it.
otherwise it would be discriminating against different religions. Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it.
I challenge you to find a diplomatic way to say "Your mother is stupid".
On November 20 2012 11:12 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 10:54 NicolBolas wrote:On November 20 2012 09:50 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:15 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 09:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 09:07 KwarK wrote:On November 20 2012 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 20 2012 08:51 frogrubdown wrote:On November 20 2012 08:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Correct. But you can't go one step further and tell the kid that believing otherwise is wrong outside of the science class as well. The most charitable interpretation I can make of this post is that you're equivocating on 'wrong'. The belief that the earth is 6000 years old has the same content inside and outside of a classroom and that content cannot magically change its truth value in the interim. So, if by 'wrong' you mean 'false', then to tell them that their belief is wrong inside the classroom just is to tell them that their belief is wrong outside of the classroom. But if by 'wrong' you mean something like, 'immoral or forbidden for anyone to hold', then no one is arguing against you. Sorry you are way off base. The original scenario was that a child was told that his mother was retarded for believing that the Earth is 6,000 years (or whatever) old. Aside from the harsh language the comment went well beyond correcting an answer and into the realm of denigrating a religious belief. Teachers should both teach the appropriate material as well as promote tolerance. They are not mutually exclusive! She's retarded is a shortened version of "she is either stunningly unaware of all the scientific material regarding the age of the world or incapable of understanding it, draw your own conclusions as to why this might be but either way, don't trust anything she says". KwarK, if you think that's an appropriate answer to give a child than I have to question your own intelligence. I'm sure there is a diplomatic way of saying it. Why say it at all? Drawing a distinction between science and religion isn't hard. Once you do that you can restrain the class discussion to only scientific thought and end the problem there. Harming the child - which would happen if you publicly insult the mother - is unnecessary. What possible distinction could you draw that doesn't basically say "what she believes is nonsense". It is nonsense, there's no way for an educator to describe the belief in something clearly, provably untrue and utterly irrational in any other terms unless you start using "that's religion" as a synonym for "that's total and utter horseshit". If you keep doing that eventually they'll catch on that whenever you mean to call a belief retarded you call it religious and you won't have gotten anywhere. Even if you describe how scientific beliefs are based in observation of things that happen and religious beliefs are based on the lack of observation of things which don't happen it won't be long before the children begin to work out that one of these systems works better than the other. There's a difference between what someone infers you're saying and what you're actually saying. If someone comes to believe that their parents are "retarded" based on them finding science more useful or whatever than their parents' teachings, the teacher isn't responsible for that. It's that student's choice to interpret such things in that fashion. However, if the teacher tells them that those people are "retarded", then that's a real problem; you remove the choice from the student. We don't want teachers imposing their beliefs. Being taught scientific precepts and ideas does not automatically mean you give up the ones you had before or will assume that people who don't hold such beliefs are "retarded." However, being taught that such people are "retarded" is more likely to do so. Teachers should teach the facts; questions of someone's beliefs that contradict them should not be part of the curriculum. Nor should teachers encourage the idea that someone is of lesser mental quality just because they don't agree with facts. What the hell? Not agreeing with proven facts is just about a textbook definition of stupidity. Would you respect the opinion of someone who didn't believe in gravity? Or Oxygen? There not two sides to every debate, and both sides don't always have a point. Sometimes, or more often than not perhaps, someone is just right and someone else is just wrong. Appeasement of absurd beliefs in the guise of tolerance is counter-productive and inhibits development. I realise being told that your view of the world is incorrect can be profoundly unsettling, but it is a necessary development process that everyone goes through at some point. If someone is telling a student nonsense, no matter who that may be, a teacher has a moral and professional duty to inform that student that the people telling them said nonsense are wrong. No insult is inferred or necessary. There is nothing shameful or demeaning in being wrong.
That's a large burden to put on a teacher. There are a lot of people that talk nonsense. It's a bit like telling a fisher woman that it's her moral duty to provide her starving neighbour a fish every time he is hungry. I simply don't think it's a reasonable ask.
|
United States41584 Posts
Teachers are paid to teach their students, both about the world and also the mental skills to apply their learning to the world. It's a bit more like telling a fisher woman it is her moral duty to provide her starving neighbour a fish every time he is hungry and has paid her to provide him with a fish.
|
Really any teacher who would tell their students that the earth is 6,000 years old should just retire in disgrace. Like richard dawkins says, to err by several billion years is a non trivial error.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
You've changed your position. Originally the student had to believe (" or not) or fail the test. Now you say you meant that only when belief precludes study does it mean a fail. This is what I was trying to get at. There is no dissonance involved when you understand a thing but don't believe it. That pretty much flies in the face of all critical thinking. How can you even know if you believe a thing or not until you understand it?
For you exam question context is important. The context is: "it's an exam". The "correct" answer is determined by the examiner. If I chose to play the game then I'll try to give the answer the examiner is looking for.
i was responding to a post saying the teacher does not have to challenge students' erroneous beliefs when expressed in class. if the challenge is expressed on a test, such as disputing the correctness of a question, with the excuse that the student doesn't believe the science answer, then it's not going to fly.
as for dissonance, there is a fork of perdition here for the religious thinker. either the science is not understood well enough by him, or he has to go even more extreme lengths to purely simulate the well understood scientific theory, or constantly try to fit in a god of the gaps into everything.
the dissonance comes in the relationship that the more well understood the science, the harder and more distorted a slavish attachment to religious doctrines become.
there is strong dissonance when it is just facts being disputed.
|
On November 21 2012 00:32 KwarK wrote:
Teachers are paid to teach their students, both about the world and also the mental skills to apply their learning to the world. It's a bit more like telling a fisher woman it is her moral duty to provide her starving neighbour a fish every time he is hungry and has paid her to provide him with a fish.
Unfortunately she has 30 neighbours that require feeding in the first hour of her day. And another 30 after that, and another 30 after that. Whether it's a lot of starving people or just a lot of children deluged with bullshit doesn't really matter, it's an impossible task. Better to teach them to fish for themselves. Apart from anything else (And the dodgy metaphor is really going to fall to pieces here) you can never be absolutely sure that the fish you provide are correct in the first place.
On November 21 2012 01:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +
You've changed your position. Originally the student had to believe (" or not) or fail the test. Now you say you meant that only when belief precludes study does it mean a fail. This is what I was trying to get at. There is no dissonance involved when you understand a thing but don't believe it. That pretty much flies in the face of all critical thinking. How can you even know if you believe a thing or not until you understand it?
For you exam question context is important. The context is: "it's an exam". The "correct" answer is determined by the examiner. If I chose to play the game then I'll try to give the answer the examiner is looking for.
i was responding to a post saying the teacher does not have to challenge students' erroneous beliefs when expressed in class. if the challenge is expressed on a test, such as disputing the correctness of a question, with the excuse that the student doesn't believe the science answer, then it's not going to fly. as for dissonance, there is a fork of perdition here for the religious thinker. either the science is not understood well enough by him, or he has to go even more extreme lengths to purely simulate the well understood scientific theory, or constantly try to fit in a god of the gaps into everything. the dissonance comes in the relationship that the more well understood the science, the harder and more distorted a slavish attachment to religious doctrines become. there is strong dissonance when it is just facts being disputed.
I'm not sure that a teacher does have to challenge a student's beliefs when expressed in class. I'd go for comprehension of the subject myself and let the beliefs fall where they may. I'm also not sure it's possible to invent an exam that is a challenge to belief ... or are you pointing at the student challenging the question on the exam? If so then we can say that the limits of science are very clearly defined and if the student is not willing to respond to a scientific question posed in a science exam at the end of a science course with a scientific answer then they fail. Their freedom is not being challenged. They simply chose not to participate, that doesn't mean we need to change the rules.
As for cognitive dissonance in a religious thinker who increases their understanding of science. That may be. But I don't think it's necessarily the case. The human mind is a complex place so I'm told.
|
If a teacher isn't going to challenge a student's beliefs what the fuck is the point of going to school
|
On November 21 2012 03:02 Dapper_Cad wrote:
I'm not sure that a teacher does have to challenge a student's beliefs when expressed in class. I'd go for comprehension of the subject myself and let the beliefs fall where they may. I'm also not sure it's possible to invent an exam that is a challenge to belief ... or are you pointing at the student challenging the question on the exam? If so then we can say that the limits of science are very clearly defined and if the student is not willing to respond to a scientific question posed in a science exam at the end of a science course with a scientific answer then they fail. Their freedom is not being challenged. They simply chose not to participate, that doesn't mean we need to change the rules.
You speak as if comprehension of a subject and someone's beliefs are always mutually exclusive. I assure you, they are not*. When personal beliefs conflict with subject comprehension, a teacher should favor subject comprehension; reconciliation if desirable, challenge if not.
A failure to "participate" in basic science because of one's personal beliefs is NOT a good thing. Not for the student, and not for his compatriots. And certainly not for the country at large. Unless we find a way to export "nonparticipants" in a form of psychological warfare or something.
*I doubt even you believe this. Someone whose personal beliefs exclude anything that cannot be seen by the naked eye is NOT going to comprehend cellular biology.
On November 21 2012 03:02 Dapper_Cad wrote:
As for cognitive dissonance in a religious thinker who increases their understanding of science. That may be. But I don't think it's necessarily the case. The human mind is a complex place so I'm told.
This statement is cognitive dissonance in of itself, unless you can better explain why a complex mind means less cognitive dissonance. After all, the ability to contort positions into pretzels is the hallmark sign of cognitive dissonance, and is much more readily done with complex thought.
|
On November 21 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote:
If a teacher isn't going to challenge a student's beliefs what the fuck is the point of going to school
I would think that the age of the student and the nature of the "challenge" important to define.
|
On November 21 2012 03:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote:
If a teacher isn't going to challenge a student's beliefs what the fuck is the point of going to school I would think that the age of the student and the nature of the "challenge" important to define.
yeah there's a reason they don't let me teach small children
|
On November 21 2012 03:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote:
If a teacher isn't going to challenge a student's beliefs what the fuck is the point of going to school I would think that the age of the student and the nature of the "challenge" important to define.
By the time kids hit high school, they should be challenged to think critically. I think I have mentioned this before, but my favorite class during high school was a history class my senior year where the teacher used Zinn's "A People's History of the US" as the textbook. No opinion was safe in that class.
|
On November 21 2012 03:23 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 03:02 Dapper_Cad wrote:
I'm not sure that a teacher does have to challenge a student's beliefs when expressed in class. I'd go for comprehension of the subject myself and let the beliefs fall where they may. I'm also not sure it's possible to invent an exam that is a challenge to belief ... or are you pointing at the student challenging the question on the exam? If so then we can say that the limits of science are very clearly defined and if the student is not willing to respond to a scientific question posed in a science exam at the end of a science course with a scientific answer then they fail. Their freedom is not being challenged. They simply chose not to participate, that doesn't mean we need to change the rules. You speak as if comprehension of a subject and someone's beliefs are always mutually exclusive. I assure you, they are not*. When personal beliefs conflict with subject comprehension, a teacher should favor subject comprehension; reconciliation if desirable, challenge if not. A failure to "participate" in basic science because of one's personal beliefs is NOT a good thing. Not for the student, and not for his compatriots. And certainly not for the country at large. Unless we find a way to export "nonparticipants" in a form of psychological warfare or something. *I doubt even you believe this. Someone whose personal beliefs exclude anything that cannot be seen by the naked eye is NOT going to comprehend cellular biology.
If you understood me to be saying that belief and comprehension are always mutually exclusive then I have done a poor job of expressing myself. It is self evident that this is not the case. What I was saying was that one can comprehend a system without believing in it.
I play DnD 4th ed. about once a month. I comprehend the game board, the various dice rolls and what they are intended to represent, a dragon's breath here, a spell cast here. My comprehension is demonstrated by my ability to control my character reasonably well and roughly predict the outcome of my actions on the board. that doesn't mean I "believe" that there are fire breathing dragons and magic missiles.
There is no need for personal beliefs to interfere with subject comprehension at all. Although thinking on it I guess it depends on the belief. Any belief along the lines of "understanding X subject will send you to hell" or some other expression which specifically precludes comprehension / understanding /discussion then yes, there is a direct and potentially insurmountable conflict. If the belief is that dinosaurs invented the wheel then we're pretty much good to go.
"Let me explain the steps that some other people took which brought them to a different conclusion."
I agree that failure to participate in a class that has been deemed mandatory by the state in a democratic society is a problem. But I'm not discussing participation, only the difference between understanding and belief. I think resolving problems of hardcore Christians refusing to even participate in science subjects in the U.S. in much more complex.
On November 21 2012 03:23 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 03:02 Dapper_Cad wrote:
As for cognitive dissonance in a religious thinker who increases their understanding of science. That may be. But I don't think it's necessarily the case. The human mind is a complex place so I'm told. This statement is cognitive dissonance in of itself, unless you can better explain why a complex mind means less cognitive dissonance. After all, the ability to contort positions into pretzels is the hallmark sign of cognitive dissonance, and is much more readily done with complex thought.
My experience with my own brain has been that it is very adept at holding two mutually exclusive positions, each of which I'm happy to act on at different times.
i. guy cuts me up in traffic. me: "What a cock gobbler" I give him the finger.
ii. I cut some guy up in traffic, he gives me the finger. me: "I'm late, my time is important, get over it."
I'd tentatively suggest that in most cases this is my brain fooling me for my "benefit". I'd also go so far as to say that the process of rooting out these inconsistencies will not end until I'm dead... But I'm kind of changing conversation... Perhaps complex is the wrong word. Compartmentalised?
On November 21 2012 03:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 03:29 farvacola wrote:On November 21 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote:
If a teacher isn't going to challenge a student's beliefs what the fuck is the point of going to school I would think that the age of the student and the nature of the "challenge" important to define. yeah there's a reason they don't let me teach small children
In a classroom setting beliefs should be challenged. It's not necessary, or always desirable, for the teacher to take on the role of challenger. As you mentioned it kind of depends on who you are teaching. Though it's not just children that balk at the prospect of teacher-as-antagonist. As a personal example: I recently put myself in the position of trying to teach 15-25 year olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. They were dying for me be in direct conflict with them as it made me much easier to dismiss out of hand. I tried to have them challenge their own and each others beliefs. I think my instincts were right though I wasn't very good at it.
|
Oh, for sure, a true Zen master conference leader never says a damn thing, just sits there exuding wisdom and letting everyone else challenge each other. that's wuwei in action friends
|
Thanks for demonstrating how ineffective a direct challenge to someone else's dogma can be.
|
On November 21 2012 04:52 Dapper_Cad wrote:
If you understood me to be saying that belief and comprehension are always mutually exclusive then I have done a poor job of expressing myself. It is self evident that this is not the case. What I was saying was that one can comprehend a system without believing in it.
Of course it's possible to comprehend something without believing in it. However, it's not always possible to comprehend something given your beliefs.
Both of these statements are true. Only the latter statement matters for education. I think you're starting to get this, judging from the latter half of your post. Though your example is flawed; it's quite possible for some people to hold the dinosaur cheese dissonance in their head, it's quite another thing to say that all people would or should be able to do the same. Reconciliation when desirable, yes. But if not possible, challenge should be done.
Your second example confused two completely different things; whether you think dragons and magic are real, and whether you think the rules governing the RPG are sufficient.
On November 21 2012 04:52 Dapper_Cad wrote:
My experience with my own brain has been that it is very adept at holding two mutually exclusive positions, each of which I'm happy to act on at different times.
The example you listed isn't cognitive dissonance, there's nothing dissonant or mutually exclusive about your actions. It's called selfishness.
|
On November 21 2012 05:05 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 04:52 Dapper_Cad wrote:
If you understood me to be saying that belief and comprehension are always mutually exclusive then I have done a poor job of expressing myself. It is self evident that this is not the case. What I was saying was that one can comprehend a system without believing in it.
Of course it's possible to comprehend something without believing in it. However, it's not always possible to comprehend something given your beliefs. Both of these statements are true. Only the latter statement matters for education. I think you're starting to get this, judging from the latter half of your post. Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 04:52 Dapper_Cad wrote:
My experience with my own brain has been that it is very adept at holding two mutually exclusive positions, each of which I'm happy to act on at different times. The example you listed isn't cognitive dissonance, there's nothing dissonant or mutually exclusive about your actions. It's called selfishness.
Yea, but let's be specific about the cases in which it might not be possible to comprehend something given your belief.
"If a belief concerns the nature of comprehension then it may preclude comprehension."
Is that safe? I just don't see how "jebus did it" stops anyone understanding anything.
Although a human who believes that "jebus did it" might well also hold beliefs about the nature of comprehension which are problematic. We might even say that someone who believes that "jebus did it" is more likely to believe that "understanding should sometimes be avoided" than someone who doesn't. But we aren't talking cause and effect here, we're talking about a nonsense of loosely affiliated and often conflicting ideas which constitute religious belief which may or may not include injunctions about science class. The conversation started with "child x claims earth is 6,000 years old" if this is all I know about child x then I shouldn't assume that child x is unteachable or that in order to teach child x about plate tectonics I need to directly challenge that belief. If the conversation started with "child x claims that understanding gravity is like eating an apple given to you by a talking snake" then the child has expressed a belief concerning the nature of comprehension which may make the child unteachable.... and possibly mentally ill.
The driving example I gave isn't exactly laser like but was not an example of selfishness. Just to remind myself a little
"i. guy cuts me up in traffic. me: "What a cock gobbler" I give him the finger.
ii. I cut some guy up in traffic, he gives me the finger. me: "I'm late, my time is important, get over it.""
An equally applicable example might be:
i. girl cuts me up in traffic. me: "well she probably has somewhere important to be".
ii. I cut some girl up in traffic on the way to an event that I deem to be of life changing importance, she gives me the finger. me: "What am I doing? how could I be so selfish?"
As I understand it, if I managed to bring either of these two examples of opposing thoughts together in my mind at the same time I would achieve cognitive dissonance. This cognitive dissonance is avoided by my brain never allowing me to compare these two events consciously.
|
On November 21 2012 05:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Yea, but let's be specific about the cases in which it might not be possible to comprehend something given your belief.
"If a belief concerns the nature of comprehension then it may preclude comprehension."
Is that safe? I just don't see how XXXXX stops anyone understanding anything.
Imagine someone who cannot, in good conscience, hold contradictory beliefs on XXXXX in their head. Imagine that they don't care for cognitive dissonance, and just cares about what is "true" and what is not. Are you saying that such a person cannot categorically exist? Can a person like this have issues understanding things that contradict his "truths"?
The inability to hold contradictory thoughts about certain subjects isn't a religious thing, it's a life thing.
On November 21 2012 05:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
The driving example I gave isn't exactly laser like but was not an example of selfishness. Just to remind myself a little
"i. guy cuts me up in traffic. me: "What a cock gobbler" I give him the finger.
ii. I cut some guy up in traffic, he gives me the finger. me: "I'm late, my time is important, get over it.""
An equally applicable example might be:
i. girl cuts me up in traffic. me: "well she probably has somewhere important to be".
ii. I cut some girl up in traffic on the way to an event that I deem to be of life changing importance, she gives me the finger. me: "What am I doing? how could I be so selfish?"
As I understand it, if I managed to bring either of these two examples of opposing thoughts together in my mind at the same time I would achieve cognitive dissonance. This cognitive dissonance is avoided by my brain never allowing me to compare these two events consciously.
Note how the gender (edit: not actions) changes across both scenarios. Still different, and not mutually exclusive.
|
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
|
We're doomed. 4 years from now, American might not even exist.
|
On November 21 2012 09:23 Boraz wrote:
We're doomed. 4 years from now, American might not even exist.
Such alarming evidence you provided! I'll be sure to alert my family and friends to start packing their bags because American might not even exist in FOUR YEARS.
You sir, are a scholar.
|
On November 21 2012 06:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 05:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Yea, but let's be specific about the cases in which it might not be possible to comprehend something given your belief.
"If a belief concerns the nature of comprehension then it may preclude comprehension."
Is that safe? I just don't see how XXXXX stops anyone understanding anything. Imagine someone who cannot, in good conscience, hold contradictory beliefs on XXXXX in their head. Imagine that they don't care for cognitive dissonance, and just cares about what is "true" and what is not. Are you saying that such a person cannot categorically exist? Can a person like this have issues understanding things that contradict his "truths"? The inability to hold contradictory thoughts about certain subjects isn't a religious thing, it's a life thing.
In your first sentence you are conflating belief and understanding. The person you are describing refuses understanding because of a belief. This means the belief concerns understanding. Which means my statement remains valid.
I don't think it's a completely useless observation because it means that a teacher that is confronted with "The earth is 6,000 years old." doesn't need to get sidetracked into a discussion of belief if they can establish that the student is happy to learn about a world view with no strong pressure on them to stand by it as True.
Contradictory thoughts are a "life thing". How do you think religions survive? Or do you believe U.S. evangelical Christianity is entirely internally consistent?
On November 21 2012 06:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2012 05:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:
The driving example I gave isn't exactly laser like but was not an example of selfishness. Just to remind myself a little
"i. guy cuts me up in traffic. me: "What a cock gobbler" I give him the finger.
ii. I cut some guy up in traffic, he gives me the finger. me: "I'm late, my time is important, get over it.""
An equally applicable example might be:
i. girl cuts me up in traffic. me: "well she probably has somewhere important to be".
ii. I cut some girl up in traffic on the way to an event that I deem to be of life changing importance, she gives me the finger. me: "What am I doing? how could I be so selfish?"
As I understand it, if I managed to bring either of these two examples of opposing thoughts together in my mind at the same time I would achieve cognitive dissonance. This cognitive dissonance is avoided by my brain never allowing me to compare these two events consciously. Note how the gender (edit: not actions) changes across both scenarios. Still different, and not mutually exclusive.
The genders are irrelevant, chop and change pronouns as you wish. All I did was demonstrate that it's not selfishness I'm talking about but cognitive dissonance. Though there are problems with my example. The main one is, I think, that it assumes you believe that any moral standard or law that you apply to yourself goes equally for others and vice versa.
On November 21 2012 06:48 sam!zdat wrote:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
"man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
