psychic chess masters

Sort:
sapientdust

Not idiots: usually just ignorant of the pervasive cognitive biases that form our natural state as a result of our evolutionary history. They are usually lacking in critical thinking skills, and ignorant of science and the scientific method, our primary tool for protecting us from ourselves.

Ubik42
TheGrobe wrote:

Of course they have thumbs. Opposable thumbs are a universal requirement for technological advancement.

Not to mention for texting things like "wru? wtfdyjs?"

TheGrobe

Now why isn't that taught to every schoolchild? It seems instilling critical thinking skills our citizenry just isn't a priority for those in authority...

...oh, wait, I get it.

TheGrobe

I don't think the "j" applies when your message is traversing light years.

Ubik42
TheGrobe wrote:

Now why isn't that taught to every schoolchild? It seems instilling critical thinking skills our citizenry just isn't a priority for those in authority...

 

...oh, wait, I get it.

Lol!

Knightly_News
sapientdust wrote:

Not idiots: usually just ignorant of the pervasive cognitive biases that form our natural state as a result of our evolutionary history. They are usually lacking in critical thinking skills, and ignorant of science and the scientific method, our primary tool for protecting us from ourselves.

Yes, any observant person understands those biases exist, and understands human's tendency to believe their own hype.

 

Mose self-proclaimed (proud) skeptics have some bias as well, that they often don't recognize, and thus don't always apply science as objectively as it needs to be for an objective result, so skeptics are often religious in that sense.

 

To call oneself a skeptic is to indicate one has an agenda, and real science calls for the *only* agenda to be the pursuit of the truth wherever it leads, perhaps down a line of questioning, but the truth must take precedent over bias or it becomes no saner than a witchhunt.

 

Science has too much religion in it too because human beings are still human beings and not perfect instruments of scientific discipline.

 

What we really know is that we really don't know.

 

Having said that, I respect the tools and progress of science immensely.  I'm just aware of its flaws as well as its gifts, promise and risks.

 

Whenever I think I know anything or anyone might know anything, I ask myself this:  Which came first, the beginning or beginninglessness?

 

 In other words, was something always eternally there (if so, how?) or did something come from nothing (equally unfathomable)?

 

Big Bang, very interesting, except what was before that and how could something come from nothing, again.   What the f' do we know?  

royalbishop

From Santa Claus to Ufo's to invisible anecdotes.

Have we left anything out here?

Knightly_News
royalbishop wrote:

From Santa Claus to Ufo's to invisible anecdotes.

Have we left anything out here?

We haven't. You have :-)

TheGrobe

Reflectivist, in your example I think part of the problem is that the notion of time itself has meaning outside the confines of a finitely time-bound universe with, at a minimum, a beginning. The concept of "before the Big Bang" is meaningless because it was not only the genesis of space, energy and matter, but also of time.

TheGrobe

I should be noted that science is also still very clear on the distinction between theory and proven fact. The origins do the universe are still very much the former.

royalbishop
Ubik42 wrote:

Who is up for some creative spoon bending?

If you are R. Kelly your in some serious trouble.

I use all my spoons for eating cereal and if anything is bending that is none of your business as my football has been bending and breaking in the defense department.

Knightly_News
TheGrobe wrote:

Reflectivist, in your example I think part of the problem is that the notion of time itself has meaning outside the confines of a finitely time-bound universe with, at a minimum, a beginning. The concept of "before the Big Bang" is meaningless because it was not only the genesis of space, energy and matter, but also of time.

Yeah, I've heard all of that too.  I'm a science channel/discovery channel devotee, and follow most of the vogue scientific trends about stuff like that, casually but regularly.

But without time then there would be something like presence or non-presence or existence or non-existence.  Or both at once.  Whatever it is, pretty clear it's beyond the grasp of the confines of rational thought.  Maybe, if Zen Masters and the like are right, one can know it or be it... but to 'think' in the self-limited language of ideas one cannot grasp vast concepts clearly like infinity and eternity, timelessness, dimensions beyond the 4 we are familiar with, non-existence, etc.... 

Bharadwaj-S

nerds!!!

TheGrobe

Dude, it's a chess site. Who were you expecting?

Knightly_News
S-Bharadwaj wrote:

nerds!!!

Nerdvana!

royalbishop
reflectivist wrote:
royalbishop wrote:

From Santa Claus to Ufo's to invisible anecdotes.

Have we left anything out here?

We haven't. You have :-)

I  see you are dangerous as your definiton of we ....

must be you, yourself and I. I can see your loco as must be influencing as i have started talking to myself since i been here. Sorry i did respond back to myself.  :-)

Knightly_News
royalbishop wrote:
reflectivist wrote:
royalbishop wrote:

From Santa Claus to Ufo's to invisible anecdotes.

Have we left anything out here?

We haven't. You have :-)

I  see you are dangerous as your definiton of we ....

must be you, yourself and I. I can see your loco as must be influencing as i have started talking to myself since i been here. Sorry i did respond back to myself.  :-)

Well if I am solopsist I certainly did.  So why am I apologizing to myself?

royalbishop
S-Bharadwaj wrote:

nerds!!!


Nerds? That is an insult to all the perverts and here and they work hard it as they are the best online and always upgrading their skills. What nerve!

We also have peekers. They peek at your profile whether you like it not to see what you on it, day or night.

Irontiger
reflectivist wrote:

(...)I'm just saying my evidence is the best because it's something most people have experienced and can relate to - a very common statistically improbable kind of coincidence that typically makes people wonder if there's more to it than coincidence.  (...)

The Sun revolves around the Earth ! Everyone can feel the Earth does not move, man ! How dare you question "common sense" ?

For those who want the technical term, it's bandwagon (link).

 

Oh, and yes, this one too.

Ubik42

You are beating a dead horse.