This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do you find it difficult to engage in intellectual conversations with people in general?
It happens to me all the time. My wife encourages me to have dinner with her friend and her friend's husband. "It's the opportunity to socialize and meet new interesting people!", she proclaims. And yet the same boring conversations unfold. The guy rambles on about how many yards this guy ran, and how many interceptions this guy threw, and did you see how many spiders that guy ate on Fear Factor, etc, etc. I ask something like, "Hey, did you see that they possibly discovered the Higgs Boson at the LHC?" And the guy looks at me like I'm from Mars, "The LH what?". Then my wife makes a comment like I'm a nerd then everyone laughs. I'm far from a social misfit or hobbit, I just prefer to discuss things that stimulate me intellectually. I hope I don't offend anyone for saying so, but most of the time I feel like I'm surrounded by people that are intellectually challenged, to put it kindly. And maybe that's just it, if you consider that the average intellectual quotient is around 100. They're easily entertained and amuzed to watch television shows cataloging the "real world" of college kids living in a house together, arguing over who got the most trashed the night before at the club.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Comment deleted
Rick Ryan 10+
Not all things the scientic method discovers and accepts are "Truths". Some are just theories that rigorous testing has failed to prove wrong, so the THEORY is accepted. Yes, I accept the fact the argument can be made that if it wasn't proven wrong, it must be true. But the reality is it may not have been proven wrong YET because we haven't developed the technology to test it to the point where it MIGHT be proved false. Advances in our ability to observe and measure may later produce new evidence to disprove the original accepted theory, so it is then either discarded or amended. If that happens, it was never "true" to begin with...just an accepted theory based on our ability to observe and measure it at the time. Einstein's limit on the speed of light was considered a truth because we had nothing better for now. That may be about to change if some new current theories pass the rigors of the scientific method to disprove them.
On the other hand, some things the scientific method discovers and accepts MAY be considered "truths" that we can use as smaller truths to achieve bigger truths. The cycle continues, until once the "ultimate truth" is reached. Then there would be no more reason to keep looking for answers to anything.
So yes, I agree if someone continues to argue against a proven and accepted truth, there is a problem. But presenting opposing views against an accepted theory is not necessarily wrong. If the current theories challenging Einsten's speed of light limit amend the speed limit, it would be one of the biggest "Oops!" in the history of physics. It's not wrong challenging the limit just because it has been accepted for so long already.
Science has learned this lesson the hard way on several occassions.
Comment deleted
Rick Ryan 10+
Yes, there is Truth. All I was trying to say was it is entirely possible that what we believe to be true today may be proved to be untrue tomorrow.
Is there an "Absolute Truth" that never risks being proven untrue? I don't believe so in the scientific method, but am open to opposing opinion about it. Maybe it exists in other disciplines that are faith or pure belief oriented.
I was just trying to offer a different perspective (idea) on your post. Not trying to "disprove" it. :-)
Frans Kellner 100+
From every new, larger perspective any truth can appear to be partly true or totally wrong.
John Moonstroller 30+
What if moving farther gets exponentially smaller each time? Eventually you will get caught in a loop.