Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trust No One, Trust Not Even Yourself
We are facing a massive crisis of trust in America, with good reason.
After vast amounts of lying and gaslighting by the media and government, along with plenty of sketchy news sources, we are in the realm where even people on the same side don’t have any common sources.
This goes beyond frustrating — trying to write a piece that challenges a status quo means lots of in-depth research, and it could easily be dismissed by “the study was faked” or “government officials pressured the authors.” Previously, I would say that was crazy talk, but now I’m not sure how to prove a source is actually trustworthy.
On the other hand, I find it hard to take seriously many of the reports I see from people I disagree with. In some cases, there are references, but that raises the time investment involved. There’s only so much time in the day, and I could be doing something enjoyable or beneficial instead of running down sources. Just dismissing people is so much easier, but it means I will never change my opinion.
It makes me wonder why am I spending time on Ricochet at all. How the heck are we supposed to persuade people outside of the conservative movement (such as it is) when it is this hard to persuade each other?
Published in Journalism
See the Futurama example above.
I did a little research on that podcast. I find it entirely theoretical and lacking in any empiricism. Also, Saint Augustine. You have convinced me perhaps more than anyone else that Christians don’t believe in Christianity for rational reasons. Your comparison to believing in testimony and believing in Zimbabwe as being the same thing is a terrible argument because I can visit Zimbabwe and I can’t visit the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I have a limited amount of time and I have to choose to listen to some people and not listen to others. I spent not a little amount of time researching creationist and anti-macro evolution arguments and all I found was garbage. From this evidence, I am disinclined to continue researching at your behest. However, I will do some research for other people skeptical of macro-evolution.
It’s a shame but we are all heuristic in some way.
See what I said above.
Why don’t you get back to me when you have some comprehension of what an argument from ignorance actually is or of what I actually say? Here’s a place to start.
I have about as much direct experience with a different species as you do of Christ’s resurrection. But through the observation and not the Popperian testing of genetics and fossil evidence everything seems to point that over time, micr-oevolution leads to macroevolution.
More importantly, let’s get to brass tacks. You don’t believe in macro-evolution because of your religion right? That’s the real reason you don’t believe in it ain’t it?
You do have a good point. If Omega Paladin wants to cut off this conversation, I will respect his choice. I rather like that Ricochet conversations go everywhere and anywhere but I understand that tastes differ.
Indirect observation is good. But you still seem to have not understood the meaning of my simple question.
For all you have evidence for, maybe I do believe in it, or maybe I have no opinion on the matter. Stop jumping to conclusions. I can promote the rationality of doubt without necessarily disbelieving myself. In another context I would no doubt be gently reminding Christians that theistic evolution is not exactly a heresy.
The fossil evidence that man came from homo habilis seems damn good. Also, look at Weiner dogs and St. Bernards. They can mate with each other through in vitro but they would be disinclined to mate with each other in normal circumstances. They might be considered to be functionally a different species. And I know that their evolution is not natural but around the history of dog breeding indicates that animals can change surprisingly quick which indicates that macroevolution is possible.
Don’t dodge the question. I don’t ask this out of malice but I have always noticed that your logic seems weakest with regard to Christianity. I know that’s not a nice thing to say but I’ve observed it for a good while.
I ain’t reading it. I dislike the way you reference things. If you want to persuade me, make the basic argument and then link to something that isn’t dry and boring and would only be read by academics. I suggest trying to mimic Doctor Bastiat’s writing. I know that’s a very big ask and my own writing is meager in comparison but Bastiat makes the basic argument and writes in a beautiful way before linking to anything.
Thank you. Much better. That is an answer to the question.
Try asking a question that isn’t a loaded question, or at least try breaking it up into two questions.
Which of the two of us is the logic teacher again? HC, You don’t know good logic when you see it, but unfortunately you seem unwilling or unable to learn from me.
You’ve never paid much attention to what my non-academic writing actually says either, but ok–here you are.
Well maybe you aren’t logical. Explain to me how disbelieving in Zimbabwe is the same as disbelieving the accounts of Christ’s resurrection. You lost my faith in you when you made that argument. Make that argument and maybe I’ll read your very long references.
@Omega Paladin
Yes this definitely has nothing to do with your original post.
Straw man fallacy. I never made that argument.
It does now:
You trust yourself to know what I mean, but you have no idea what I mean. I make one comparison of X to Y, and you think I mean they must be the same in every other way. Keep on not trusting me, HC. But stop trusting yourself so much. You are unreliable in reading comprehension (at least on this topic), and in recognizing the structure of an argument.
I have no belief in the Christian story because humans are prone to believing in nonsense. I believe in Zimbabwe because it can be empirically verified by multiple (admittedly second hand) but I can buy a ticket and go there if I so desired. Is my belief in Zimbabwe superior to my a-belief in Christianity?
For the record, that may apply to SA but it is certainly not at all the road I was going down here. Carry on…
So why don’t you believe in macroevolution? I think the evidence is darn good philo.
Yes, your belief in Zimbabwe is superior to your non-belief in Christianity.
I respectfully suggest that you didn’t quite make that argument as clear in previous comments.
Perhaps Flickr remembers that argument. He mentioned that something about how Daniel proved that prophecies were real.
What are you talking about? What argument? Which comments?
What do you think the prophecies in Daniel that @flicker rightly takes as serious evidence have to do with what I actually said about Harare, Zimbabwe?
I lack the evidence so it is OK if you distrust me because ape-spawn are untrustworthy. But I once said that I don’t have faith. You defined faith as belief in another person’s testimony. I said that it made sense to non-believe in Yeshua Christ’s miracles because human testimony is notoriously bad. I recall that you mentioned, “Well don’t you believe in Zimbabwe?” and I found that argument foolish. Flickr was there and he mentioned the Book of Daniel.
In my defense, the search engine of Ricochet is horrible.
I don’t think it is as strong as you think it is.
I’m not saying I “don’t believe” or that I’m not prepared to believe if the case is made. But the conclusions drawn from the evidence often don’t satisfy my (admittedly) simple mind. As an engineer, I spend my days scrutinizing the arm waving used to present test data. The presence of arm waving itself is a sign. The arm waving on multiple issues I see being used to get from micro to macro seem to be articles of faith included within the theory that I’m just expected to accept. So I remain skeptical.
Sorry for the limited general response. As I said earlier, I will have to return to this later when I get back to my reference materials and a proper keyboard. I hate typing on this damned phone.
Much clearer. Thank you!
I defined faith as trust, but that’s about right. Close enough.
Yes, that would be a foolish argument.
That’s why I never made that argument.
I only argued for epistemic parity.
You also have to throw out Zimbabwe if you throw out religious belief simply on the grounds that people are unreliable. That must be what you did–or what you appeared to be doing based on your unclear writing. Otherwise, I never would have mentioned Zimbabwe in any manner resembling what you seem to recall.
But if you want to throw out some religious testimony because it’s harder to verify empirically than Zimbabwe, or for any other other of the very real differences that require religious belief to meet a higher standard of evidence, that’s fine.
(I’ve been talking about those differences since 2015, but you and [Name Withheld] and [Other Name Withheld] seem to have difficulty processing any sentence where I mention them.)
Anyway, that’s fine, as far as it goes. But we can go farther than just that. There is also testimonial evidence which even Zimbabwe lacks, far more empirical verification than you understand (hence my earlier links), reasonable pragmatic arguments that a lower standard of evidence will do and, above all, more evidence. (Details available upon request!)
Yes, that line of reasoning would be Exhibit A in the “more evidence” category. (I don’t remember where that particular conversation happened just now, but I can show you where I alluded to Exhibit A in 2015!)
Yes.
Yes. It is reasonable to doubt.
From both a us tteacher and my college professor, you aren’t allowed to have an opinion in a research paper until grad school. My history prof said I’d lose one letter grade for not citing my conclusions but also said he enjoyed reading them.
My definition of different species is can’t reproduce past one generations.
Some species seem compatible enough that they can breed sterile hybrids.
Other species can’t even reproduce to one generation.
That we consider wolves and dogs separate “species” is not the same as considering a horse and donkey separate species.
There is that great line in The Third Man delivered by Orson Welles:
I think evolution is a bit like that. For long periods of time when everybody is surviving happily in equilibrium, the fossil record is consistent for even millions of years. Then when everything is disrupted suddenly all those little differences start to matter and everybody looks a lot different much faster. If we want to call that macroevolution, so be it.
We have never had a really good scientific explanation for stored potential forms. We just have this seemingly primitive notion that stuff happens (by accident?) and if it is good stuff, it survives. Who survives? The Fit. Who are the Fit? Those that survive. Thanks a pantload for the tautology.
But is there actually some teleology built in? Will there ever be some way to predict more precisely what a given species could be and in what stages? Random point mutations are a really lame way to explain new complex forms. There has to be more to it.
Are you telling G-d how to go about his business? 🤣
@SaintAugustine and @HenryCastaigne – Sorry for the delay. Please feel free to reengage as appropriate:
To get back to my original point, the big issue is misinformation – someone deliberately using a position of trust to spread false information. This is a problem, because the average person does not have the knowledge to give expert opinions in all these areas. For example, despite knowing a lot about human anatomy and pharmacology, I am not even close to a medical professional. I still rely on nurses and doctors for medical advice. If we have garbage medical advice being pushed out, this creates a problem. When can we trust these experts?
News is also a challenge. Aside from media bias, you have photoshopped images, and even deep fake videos. We can’t learn first hand, so who is the one actually trying to portray facts, if anyone?
Start small. There are things that you know, and things that you don’t know. Let’s say you have a cough, and your doctor tells you to treat it with asbestos aromatherapy. Without having gone to med school, even so what you knew before you walked into his office ought to tell you that is a bad idea.
Second, when you catch someone lying to your face, stop listening. My example here is the WHO. Do you recall the bit where their spokesman refused to admit that Taiwan was a country? That told me that he was at least as interested in not offending China as he was in providing accurate medical information, so I stopped listening to the WHO. Even if their positions supported my arguments.