Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

help me make them believe we are stardust


turbotim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes there is a Winning culture in US - however the statement attributed as All americans has this mentality, is a detriment to the extent of saying a certain group of people are all terrorists/muggers...thieves...etc.

If the case in point were true - then nobody in their right mind would play for the cinncinati bengals american football team :)

We should accept people on the terms we find them and not stick labels on them with pre conceived notions of what they are like - stereotyping is one of the biggest sins that man has in his locker and without it - the world would be such a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes there is a Winning culture in US - however the statement attributed as All americans has this mentality, is a detriment to the extent of saying a certain group of people are all terrorists/muggers...thieves...etc.

If the case in point were true - then nobody in their right mind would play for the cinncinati bengals american football team :)

We should accept people on the terms we find them and not stick labels on them with pre conceived notions of what they are like - stereotyping is one of the biggest sins that man has in his locker and without it - the world would be such a better place.

I did not for a moment want to claim all Americans have an overly competitive attitude, my apologies if anyone took the remark that way. I have many friends in the states with greatly varying degrees of competitiveness. I think there is more (perceived) pressure from the US society as a whole to be a winner than there is here. Cultures differ, that does not make one('s own) better than the other. Understanding the differences makes it easier to communicate (which given the Babel fish example can lead to more and bloodier wars than anything else;)). I think my American friends were mainly suprised at someone who had just been beaten being so pleased, bouncing around going YES!!!YES!! at her performance. It thoroughly amused them as well.

I have been to a lot of places, and my conclusion is that though you can find awful people everywhere, you can also find wonderful ones everywhere. Most others are somewhere in between.

Edited by michael.h.f.wilkinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that debate, especially over things that people hold sacred, is fundamentally a good thing. Without loud arguments for heliocentrism or evolution, for example - against people who were very set in their beliefs - we'd know a lot less than we do now. individuals may not be swayed easily, but over time the pressure builds up within a society and the opinions of the next generation may be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from critical thinking (and that critical attitude should include a critical attitude towards your own dearest ideas (critically :))), you need to teach people that winning is not the point of debating, learning is. When you "lose" a debate you often gain more insight than if you win it.

This I think chimes in with the observed difference between SGL and CN. I have many American friends who seem to be far more focused on winning than is typical of the attitude here in Europe (though seeing some parent "cheering" their children on at sports events over here can be thoroughly embarrassing :)).

My wife was an exchange student in the US for a year. She played tennis for her school there and on one occasion had to face a girl who was simply a much better player. Two things can happen when you are outclassed by your opponent: (i) your own game goes to bits, or (ii) you raise your level of play. In my wife's case the latter happened, and though she lost, she was thoroughly pleased with her own performance. In her own words, she had never played so well, and did things with the ball she did not know she could. Her American friends and the people she stayed with (great people BTW) were totally confused. They expected her to be in tears for having lost. To say you enjoyed the game when you were beaten was new for them.

I am not trying to bash the US, but there is more of a focus on winning in their culture than there is in the Netherlands at least. Being competitive is fine, but there are areas in which winning (or even defining what constitutes a win) is totally missing the point. I think a more relaxed attitude to debating can be learned, and should be taught.

This is quite true Micheal. The winning mentality is what drives, many negative debates about any subject. Fully agreed on that. Unlike your wife, not everybody is as humble in defeat.

Which is evidenced, by the americans seemingly confused by your wifes happy learning state. To hold a position Micheal, is often to choose a side. To choose a side, can often mean defending it at all costs. when that position is under attack. Many are not really as interested in learning, than as much as they are defending.

If as human beings we can learn to be more open to others ideas, and less defensive of our own. true learning, without fear of losing ones position can begin. I belive its a lot more complicated than many would care to admit to themselves, we are really just scratching the surface here i think. though im reading many thought provoking responses. which im surprised, and quite pleased about.

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there is a Winning culture in US - however the statement attributed as All americans has this mentality, is a detriment to the extent of saying a certain group of people are all terrorists/muggers...thieves...etc.

If the case in point were true - then nobody in their right mind would play for the cinncinati bengals american football team :)

We should accept people on the terms we find them and not stick labels on them with pre conceived notions of what they are like - stereotyping is one of the biggest sins that man has in his locker and without it - the world would be such a better place.

This is very true, and how many times do i see people stereotyped on SGL for holding a belief that others do not. It happens all the time im afraid. And for the most, uniformly joined in with. like a cool club to which is preferable to be a member of. Otherwise your just not cool. Thats when it becomes easy to belittle and ridicule.

I actually belive this conversation is becoming interesting. I admit, i stereotyped a lot of you guys. but so far im pleased to say i was wrong to do that.

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that debate, especially over things that people hold sacred, is fundamentally a good thing. Without loud arguments for heliocentrism or evolution, for example - against people who were very set in their beliefs - we'd know a lot less than we do now. individuals may not be swayed easily, but over time the pressure builds up within a society and the opinions of the next generation may be different.

This again is very true. But i will add often the process is perhaps a lot more drawn out, and difficult than maybe it had to be. those that like to stick to there guns will say thats the only way, to a degree thats true but not intirely, we need to at least learn to debate without hate and anger, and fear of losing ones position, which can often drive a debate irrationaly Emotionally.A damaged ego, has more to answer than most actually realize perhaps ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When i debate someone who seems very set in their ways, i usually think "I can't change their mind, no matter how hard I try" but I think it's important for me to continue because there are potential bystanders who might not have made up their minds, in this internet age especially.

It's the 'Undecided voters' i really want to reach, and if that means conducting a drawn out (civil) discussion with someone who's mind i know i can't change, that's fine. If i make my points well enough, and avoid ridicule or childish insults, then that might be what someone else needs to see in order to help them make an informed decision.

I am a skeptic, but i assure you, given sufficient evidence, I'd update my views on anything, and happily accept i was wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection, I think that ridicule of two particular forms is very important in science. First, we need court jesters whose job it is to take the mickey out of everything in science, lest we start believing too strictly in theories we hold dear, and thus become dogmatic.

The second form is that of self-mockery, which Voltaire quite rightly held as one of the highest human virtues. If you are not able to laugh at your own follies and foibles, you are in a bad state, and hearing someone else laughing at them may hurt.

"I err, therefore I am"

and

"I laugh, therefore I am"

are good mottoes to live by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Actually, if they say they believe, they allow others to believe otherwise, based on the same evidence. "

What I meant is that belief is all there is because there is no evidence. Lack of ability to find a explanation for every single sighting is not evidence for alien visitation. It's just evidence that we haven't been creative enough to figure it out or that someone is lying.

These UFO people know they are right and that aliens exist. They get pretty angry if you argue them into a corner. In other words, you present the evidence clearly enough and these guys will lash out an bite. It's happened to me. The mistake is to think that the UFO crowd are open minded because they take alien visitation to Earth seriously. They aren't open minded. They're actually very close-minded because this belief has become a religion which cannot be challenged. They ignore reasonable explanations because it challenges their belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha, best thread ever made me chuckle a few times, but what made me laugh most was when it was said if we ever made it to the beer cloud we would never find our way back..... well i disagree reason being no matter how drunk i have ever got i always managed to find my way back home no matter how bad of a state i was :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Actually, if they say they believe, they allow others to believe otherwise, based on the same evidence. "

What I meant is that belief is all there is because there is no evidence. Lack of ability to find a explanation for every single sighting is not evidence for alien visitation. It's just evidence that we haven't been creative enough to figure it out or that someone is lying.

These UFO people know they are right and that aliens exist. They get pretty angry if you argue them into a corner. In other words, you present the evidence clearly enough and these guys will lash out an bite. It's happened to me. The mistake is to think that the UFO crowd are open minded because they take alien visitation to Earth seriously. They aren't open minded. They're actually very close-minded because this belief has become a religion which cannot be challenged. They ignore reasonable explanations because it challenges their belief system.

Maybe they were open minded, but their brain fell out :)

Not a good opening gambit in any discussion with these people, as you will note :)

I agree that there is no conclusive evidence. There are unexplained sightings, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha, best thread ever made me chuckle a few times, but what made me laugh most was when it was said if we ever made it to the beer cloud we would never find our way back..... well i disagree reason being no matter how drunk i have ever got i always managed to find my way back home no matter how bad of a state i was :)

Unless you get caught. Drunk in charge of a time or space ship is a pretty serious offense. They tend to lock you up in a planet's stone age and tell you to evolve into a more responsible being.

(close copy from Douglas Adams)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work in science and if someone talks ***** then they're called out on it. I've even been in seminars where people have pretty much used those words. You learn two things. Firstly, that it's the creative, open-minded, people who tend to do the best in science. Secondly, that it's really hard to amass evidence to show that something can reasonably be considered true. It's easy to fool yourself and you have to be open minded to avoid that. If you don't do that, you'll fail. I'll make no apologies for being blunt here: in comparison, what the UFO crowd bandy around as evidence amounts to silliness. The feeling of cautious accumulation of evidence is not present.

I've been involved in a discussion with someone who has put forward flimsy and unsupportable evidence in favour of the ET stuff. I have carefully deconstructed it piece by piece. I even remained polite. You know what happens? Everyone gets terribly upset that I'm disturbing this guy's beliefs. "Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, you know." "It's not right to say that someone is wrong since nobody really knows." The reason this language is being used is because everyone knows (deep down) that there is no evidence and people just believe this stuff because it makes them happy. That's fine and they go ahead and do that. However, if they run around like the creationists and proclaim that there's evidence for this stuff then they have to be prepared to be unapologetically bashed over the head by reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space coppers are as corrupt as Earth coppers, just bung 'em a bag of 'space cash' and they'll turn a blind eye or three....

You need to be careful with that, as getting a descent exchange rate (or the right currency at all) can be a problem. Last time I checked they did not accept euros, pounds or US dollars. Don't get me started on Mastercard or Visa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the believer, no proof is necessary. For the sceptic, no proof is possible.

Can I come back to this, because I'm not entirely happy with it?

A sceptic doubts, but surely does not have to doubt indefinitely? By definition a believer must believe indefinitely. The mighty Feynman described science as a culture of doubt, but doubt is not not 'obligatory disbelief' so much as just doubt. And so, I think, is scepticism.

Descartes set out to doubt everything that could reasonably be doubted and came up not with infinite doubt but with Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am.) This seems to be one of the few things he said which is standing up to the test of time!

So a sceptic doubts instinctively and will always do so, but will also have an eye on a growing concensus of rigorous observation and analysis. While always doubting it he will call it science. He is my hero.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work in science and if someone talks ***** then they're called out on it. I've even been in seminars where people have pretty much used those words. You learn two things. Firstly, that it's the creative, open-minded, people who tend to do the best in science. Secondly, that it's really hard to amass evidence to show that something can reasonably be considered true. It's easy to fool yourself and you have to be open minded to avoid that. If you don't do that, you'll fail. I'll make no apologies for being blunt here: in comparison, what the UFO crowd bandy around as evidence amounts to silliness. The feeling of cautious accumulation of evidence is not present.

I've been involved in a discussion with someone who has put forward flimsy and unsupportable evidence in favour of the ET stuff. I have carefully deconstructed it piece by piece. I even remained polite. You know what happens? Everyone gets terribly upset that I'm disturbing this guy's beliefs. "Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, you know." "It's not right to say that someone is wrong since nobody really knows." The reason this language is being used is because everyone knows (deep down) that there is no evidence and people just believe this stuff because it makes them happy. That's fine and they go ahead and do that. However, if they run around like the creationists and proclaim that there's evidence for this stuff then they have to be prepared to be unapologetically bashed over the head by reality.

Well i kind of think that even if there is evidence, due to the nature of the problem, there will only ever be circustantial evidence. So although circustantial evidence, can not ever be 100% conclusive. It can if theres enough of it suggest if something could have a basis of truth. Enough circustantial evidence has probably convicted people in courts. So of course its really up to the individual to decide if the circumstantial evidence deserves further look or not.While researching this recently i was quite surprised how much of this circumstantial evidence actually exists, and while like you im not convinced its proof of any thing.

Its at least interesting enough to deserve discussion. Though i more than sense that you do not agree with that And i absolutely respect your view.

But for others that may be interested in perhaps looking at what information there is out there ill include some things that appeared interesting to me at first glance. If anyone knows information that can show some of this to be undeniably rubbish, please input, because obviously if thats so, then it rather becomes a waste of time bothering to research it.

The problem is there is so much nonesense out there about this subject, from many sources of more than dubiouse credibilty. That i feel it tends to Cloud the smaller amount of perhaps interesting occurences that appear to have happened. its mentioned about 5%

Captain Lawrence Coyne UFO Helicopter case 1973

Not sure what to make of Nick pope, as clearly some of hes evidence appears wrong. Having said that, what im not sure about of course is because of hes position in the ministry of defence if he was privvy to more information than perhaps hes being allowed to discuss. But he mentions Dog fights on this news interview with him ?

Fox News,Nick pope talked about UK Military tried to shoot down UFO's,27th January,2009 UFO - YouTube

A rather long commentary by Nick pope with one such incident involving a order to shoot down a ufo, tracked on ground radar, and then by the pilot also Radar locked on. Major Milton Torres seemed very emotional at the begining, he seemed relieved to be finally speaking about the incident. And also seems quite unwell. with what appears some kind of chest condition. I notice that the only explanation ive been able to find that makes any sense at all, is that this was some kind of millitary test ( trick if you will ) to determine i assume if they can create this kind of scenario to a pilot.

Which to me rather speaks of the ufo landing outside the whitehouse really being a military hologram, to see if they can fool civiliens into beliving what they are seeing is real. Rather than of course a UFO being tracked on two radars with orders to down it.

and a ufo actually landing outside the whitehouse, if we continually get these kind of explanations then of course, there can never ever really be any evidence, other than UFO material in the hands of the worlds scientists. Which may or may not ever happen of course.

Again not sure what to think of this Nukes apparently shutting down while a ufo is observed by a security police patrolman at the base. And lol the ufos turn to shoot at us, sounds ridulouse i know, but watching all parts 1 2 and 3. again im not sure what to think of there testimony ? maybe there lieing i dont know ?

Larry King - UFOs shut down Nuclear Weapons (Part 1) - YouTube

Larry King - UFOs shut down Nuclear Weapons (Part 2) - YouTube

Larry King - UFOs shut down Nuclear Weapons (Part 3) - YouTube

Same for Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell

Maybe they are lieing, but i do not think they are ? What a way to end there important careers, By talking such nonsense, it strikes me as very odd ?

Gordon cooper

Edgar mitchell

Food for thought, even if i havent a clue if theres any truth to any of this. Im pretty confused, particulaly about Edgar mitchell, And Gordon cooper ?

Its surprising so many millitary people seem to be coming foward with this kind of information. I can not tell what is actually going on here. because the explanations to explain these types of incidents seem to be getting harder and harder to explain. And for the most part always seems to involve those involved in them, as being duped in some way. like another secret test to determine, this or that. The white house landing hologram explanation if you will. once we get enough of these types of explanations a pattern seems to emerge. that seems rather odd to me ? Of couse i have no way of knowing what any of this means, there could be rational explantions for all of them. But there are so many millitary people coming foward, often with official goverment documents, that show either a incident did infact take place. Or the inviduals who claim to be who they say they are. actually are who they say they are, and were infact stationed in positions they claim to be in. when such incidents are alleged. Im not convinced. but im certainly perplexed enough to talk with others, who may not have seen these individuals, and what they are saying

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I come back to this, because I'm not entirely happy with it?

A sceptic doubts, but surely does not have to doubt indefinitely? By definition a believer must believe indefinitely. The mighty Feynman described science as a culture of doubt, but doubt is not not 'obligatory disbelief' so much as just doubt. And so, I think, is scepticism.

Descartes set out to doubt everything that could reasonably be doubted and came up not with infinite doubt but with Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am.) This seems to be one of the few things he said which is standing up to the test of time!

So a sceptic doubts instinctively and will always do so, but will also have an eye on a growing concensus of rigorous observation and analysis. While always doubting it he will call it science. He is my hero.

Olly

Hi Olly No i am not sure a beliver does have to belive indefinitely. Its possible some could start to become a believer. and then actually change hes mind to become a skeptic, And conversly a skeptic could change hes mind to become a believer. None of this has to be set in stone, i do not think. Surely theres room to change ones mind, what ever position some one holds. But of course the biggest sticking point is breaking the laws of physics as we currently know it. Either our understanding of the laws of physics is wrong or incompelete. Or these things just can not be.

Is it possible there will be breakthroughs in understanding of physics and possibly dimensions in millions of years time ( if we as humans live that long of course, which does seem unlikey ) That would transform the possiblity of vast distance travel. And or something more perculiar dimensional travel ?

I have no way of knowing. But i guess many will say, no it will always remain impossible.

That does seem a little short sighted, because that would assume we know everything that could ever be discovered, here now and the future. The understanding of physics for example pretty much gets confusing when we start learning about the forces involved with black holes.

Many scientists have gone on to say that our understanding of those forces are very incomplete. suggesting its possible discoverys might be possible. which at our current technology seem infact impossible.

I get the feeling Dr Mitchell belives this. I havent a clue if intersteller travel, dimensional travel. or some kind of way of creating short cuts through space and time, do become possible to civilisations that do not blow themselves up. Or poison there enviroment over millions of years of technology.

Is it possible ? impossible ? I have no idea. but some scientists like stanton friedmen do not discount the possibillty. Though i also know of many that do. Whos right. I dont belive we can answer that right now. Though im guessing many say they can. And of course ive read that. But i dont for one second pretend to have a opinion thats worthwhile, my opinion is for all intents and purposes useless. Because my understanding is not complete enough. And i accept that. but still we have opinions dont we. even very incomplete ones

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.