How Are Your Views More Correct Than Another's?

[MNoBody]

Why do you feel you have the right to impose your personal worldview upon another whose views don't align with yours?

Do you know more about pragmatic reality than they do?
Why...or how?

-No, I assume no such position, unless the individual has some impact on something I am doing and have to put my warranty on, like a job-site that is my contract, then yes all rights reserved absolutely, if I have to hold the warranty.... otherwise hell no you go right on thinking whatever you want to.....Live and let live.
[ or in the case of some critic telling me what my art means or what I must have meant by what i said....as if someone else knows better than you, what you meant or intended.....that would be an acceptable exception]

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough, but I'm talking about when all that gets boiled down to a plan. At that point, something is going to be created where maybe you can't alter what was made

Well, again, hopefully the experimental aspect was done well before hand.

And, in practice, especially with large projects, it is not uncommon to update the overall plan if some component is found not to work as expected. Nonetheless, large projects tend to have a 'freeze date' by which the final version is set and only emergency revisions are allowed.

This happens frequently in space probes, where technology is often changing rapidly, but where design aspects require that newer technology NOT be used because it would necessitate a total redesign. That said, the older technology is still 'good enough' to accomplish the original mission.

I find it to be much more common that the experts are ignored and major disasters happen because of that.

One example off the top of my head is the Hyatt Regency collapse, where the bolts recommended by the designers were swapped out for cheaper ones, leading to the collapse of a walkway and loss of life.

Another example was the Challenger disaster, where the experts were saying NOT to launch because of concerns about the temperature, but political considerations over-ruled that recommendation.

 

[YoursTrue]

And, probably, if we took a large enough sample size and a long enough study of a wide variety of people, we could learn if it is actually 'good for the heart' and in what circumstances. it may not be a simple yes/no question.



And this is another aspect of this. ANY law can seem like an imposition to those who disagree with the law. And, if that law is backed up by 'experts', it becomes a case of the experts imposing their viewpoints.

A number of issues: to what extent are those experts actually experts? On what do they base their knowledge? How confident can we be in their conclusions? Is it based on ideology or is it based on scientific study? Are the 'scientists' being yes-men for the politicians?

One of the big issues today in the US is the politicization of science. When a scientific statement is politically unpopular, the scientists are trashed as biased. This is usually done by people with no expertise.

As far as imposing one's view on others, as far as religion goes (and right now I'll stick to that), some people like Michael Servetus, a scientist and religious person a few centuries ago, was burned at the stake for having an unorthodox view of who God is. So other religious people burned him at the stake. Imposing their viewpoint on him. If I ask, in a conversation, some pointed questions about the other person's viewpoint, I wouldn't say that was disagreeing with God. And plus why would be an imposition to ask questions a person may or may not be able to answer? But evidently, some people do consider that an imposition.

 

[YoursTrue]

On the contrary, I would expect the architect and the engineer to be continually updating their knowledge of the various materials available, their characteristics, the local laws, best practices, etc.

It is precisely because lives are on the line that I would expect the experts to be continually re-evaluating their procedures and figuring if they can be improved.

And, the top level engineers *do* have an experimental attitude to determine these characteristics. The experiments are, of course, prior to actual use in critical systems. But the experiments must be done to guarantee that things work as intended.

Let me put it this way: if I had to have an operation, I can only hope and pray the doctor gets enough sleep, and that he does a good job.

 

[YoursTrue]

And, probably, if we took a large enough sample size and a long enough study of a wide variety of people, we could learn if it is actually 'good for the heart' and in what circumstances. it may not be a simple yes/no question.



And this is another aspect of this. ANY law can seem like an imposition to those who disagree with the law. And, if that law is backed up by 'experts', it becomes a case of the experts imposing their viewpoints.

A number of issues: to what extent are those experts actually experts? On what do they base their knowledge? How confident can we be in their conclusions? Is it based on ideology or is it based on scientific study? Are the 'scientists' being yes-men for the politicians?

One of the big issues today in the US is the politicization of science. When a scientific statement is politically unpopular, the scientists are trashed as biased. This is usually done by people with no expertise.

Some claim to know better, sorry to say, even those with some form of scientific expertise. What I find fascinating in my older age are the tests that are done. I'm talking about research. For instance, a new study was done about the efficacy of vitamin D supplements, and the results were "disappointing," according to the report, because they were hoping it would have a good effect on heart disease, but found out through a controlled study, that it did not. Interesting, to say the least. But not enough studies are done and publicized.

 

[Clara Tea]

It's often stated that one is right and all others are heathen, infidel, or pagan.

Isn't it lucky that among thousands of religions, worldwide, that EVERYONE'S parents picked the right religion.

Isn't it lucky that our nationality got word of a Middle Eastern Messiah (who traveled to various Mediterranean countries in and out of Europe).

We have to ponder why the Lord didn't choose to make his presence known in far-flung regions (perhaps America, as Mormons claim). Mormons also claim that Europeans might have been the first settlers of America (and the Solutrean Hypothesis might well prove that).

Christians must be humble, yet it takes hubris (opposite of humility) to declare oneself right. Debates are not won my stomping one's foot and declaring oneself to be right, but dictatorial rants do proceed in that manner. Hence, beheadings, hangings, and burning at the stakes were rife in the days that the church was right and everyone else was wrong. They had a mandate to fight evil, just as President W. Bush was "fightin' evil." They felt that they had a higher calling to send Crusaders into heathen lands and kill infidels.

It would have been interesting to see the Aztec religion and artifacts before Spain kidnapped their king and stole their loot. Spain was rich with all that gold, so it shut down it's rug production, then the gold ran out and there were no more rug makers so they went broke (karma?).

We can be reasonable sure that killing and robbing is not sanctioned by God (God even said so in the 10 commandments of Moses). Why, then, do those with huge hubris oppose God?

America is supposed to have freedom of religion, so that everyone can continue practicing their beliefs. Yet, when strife occurs (911 attack), we forget God's commandment to turn the other cheek and not to kill (and as it says in Revelation, don't attack Iraq or face God's wrath).

As Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. once said. . . It is easy to be good in good times, but it is very difficult to be good in bad times. The real test of faith is to refrain from violence during attacks (just as God ordered), and to rein in our hubris so we don't think that we know more than God.

Like it or not, faith rules our lives. Even atheists have to abide by decisions (or suffer from decisions) made by theist presidents. Thus, if the president says that we have to send our kids back to school, during a COVID pandemic, we have to send the kids to school (though I would keep my kid home regardless). The notion that kids are not badly affected by COVID doesn't matter. When one kid catches it, and several get infected from him, then several get infected from each of those....eventually this exponential growth curve will kill the sick and elderly. So, going back to school is a dumb idea (especially since a vaccine is just a few months away).

From wars, to healthcare, to education (teaching of evolution), religion has a huge impact. The Religious Right elected Reagan and both Bush presidents, and they, in turn, packed the Supreme Court with far right justices who will rule for many decades (perhaps a half century).

 

[YoursTrue]

It's often stated that one is right and all others are heathen, infidel, or pagan.

Isn't it lucky that among thousands of religions, worldwide, that EVERYONE'S parents picked the right religion.

Isn't it lucky that our nationality got word of a Middle Eastern Messiah (who traveled to various Mediterranean countries in and out of Europe).

We have to ponder why the Lord didn't choose to make his presence known in far-flung regions (perhaps America, as Mormons claim). Mormons also claim that Europeans might have been the first settlers of America (and the Solutrean Hypothesis might well prove that).

Christians must be humble, yet it takes hubris (opposite of humility) to declare oneself right. Debates are not won my stomping one's foot and declaring oneself to be right, but dictatorial rants do proceed in that manner. Hence, beheadings, hangings, and burning at the stakes were rife in the days that the church was right and everyone else was wrong. They had a mandate to fight evil, just as President W. Bush was "fightin' evil." They felt that they had a higher calling to send Crusaders into heathen lands and kill infidels.

It would have been interesting to see the Aztec religion and artifacts before Spain kidnapped their king and stole their loot. Spain was rich with all that gold, so it shut down it's rug production, then the gold ran out and there were no more rug makers so they went broke (karma?).

We can be reasonable sure that killing and robbing is not sanctioned by God (God even said so in the 10 commandments of Moses). Why, then, do those with huge hubris oppose God?

America is supposed to have freedom of religion, so that everyone can continue practicing their beliefs. Yet, when strife occurs (911 attack), we forget God's commandment to turn the other cheek and not to kill (and as it says in Revelation, don't attack Iraq or face God's wrath).

As Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. once said. . . It is easy to be good in good times, but it is very difficult to be good in bad times. The real test of faith is to refrain from violence during attacks (just as God ordered), and to rein in our hubris so we don't think that we know more than God.

Like it or not, faith rules our lives. Even atheists have to abide by decisions (or suffer from decisions) made by theist presidents. Thus, if the president says that we have to send our kids back to school, during a COVID pandemic, we have to send the kids to school (though I would keep my kid home regardless). The notion that kids are not badly affected by COVID doesn't matter. When one kid catches it, and several get infected from him, then several get infected from each of those....eventually this exponential growth curve will kill the sick and elderly. So, going back to school is a dumb idea (especially since a vaccine is just a few months away).

From wars, to healthcare, to education (teaching of evolution), religion has a huge impact. The Religious Right elected Reagan and both Bush presidents, and they, in turn, packed the Supreme Court with far right justices who will rule for many decades (perhaps a half century).

You got a lot of that straight. When Jesus came to the earth, however, he preached. He taught his disciples to preach. He said he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Not to any other group, although he didn't hold back from relating to non-Jews who realized his power. But after his death, his disciples were told to preach to as many as possible. He did not force his views on anyone, although he spoke straightorwardly at times, and also told his disciples to do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure my views on mathematics are more correct than most other people's views. I'm pretty sure that my understanding of what modern physics claims is more correct than most other people's.

I think that there is such a thing as expertise and that means your ideas are more likely to be correct about that area of expertise than those of other people.

Of cot says nothing at all about areas outside of that expertise. For example, I know next to nothing about Sumerian verbs or about football.

We are all ignorant, just about different things.

Furthermore, my *job* is to 'impose' my viewpoints on other people: as an educator, that is precisely what I am paid to do. I am also paid to evaluate the correctness of the views of others.

My feelings exactly, though my degree of expertise is less than yours. I do get frustrated when people that are ignorant of rational ways of testing the world that we live in avoid learning how to test their beliefs. Many religions have a built in restriction against testing themselves. Perhaps because the religions that did test themselves have found themselves wanting.

 

[Polymath257]

Let me put it this way: if I had to have an operation, I can only hope and pray the doctor gets enough sleep, and that he does a good job.

While I hope he has been well-trained, well-practiced, and well-informed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My feelings exactly, though my degree of expertise is less than yours. I do get frustrated when people that are ignorant of rational ways of testing the world that we live in avoid learning how to test their beliefs. Many religions have a built in restriction against testing themselves. Perhaps because the religions that did test themselves have found themselves wanting.

Good, you say many religions and not went for all.

Now shall we test if there is a limited to testing rationally and if that doesn't always work?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why do you feel you have the right to impose your personal worldview upon another whose views don't align with yours?

Do you know more about pragmatic reality than they do? Why...or how?

In the end, of course I don't have "the right" to literally impose my ideas on others - they are capable of thinking for themselves, and will continue to do so no matter how hard I push my ideas on them in any sort of imposition.

However, as for speaking out against certain ideas, or trying to sway people to a line of thinking I may hold, of course I have "the right." I am able to speak, potentially able to get others to listen, able to voice my ideas and opinions, able to challenge others opinions. It's the same reason that proselytizers have "the right" to also continue to appeal to people, attempt to get them to listen, attempt to convert people to their ways of thinking. I don't like what proselytizers do... and I am damn sure that they don't like what I do. Haha... but it isn't like I will be stopping any time soon, and I obviously do not expect them to - though I will continue to try and talk them out of it. There is no actual imposition here. I would not force them to listen to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

While I hope he has been well-trained, well-practiced, and well-informed.

Those things would help. Along with not being sleepy and possibly making a poor decision or the wrong slice. Otherwise, he could 'impose' a slip of the hand or bad decision on the patient. Now that we've settled that, when it comes to imposition, we don't always have to agree. But it probably would be better if both would stop trying to convince the other, or -- perhaps the other doesn't understand or want to listen. It's like a parrot squawking,that can be very annoying if he doesn't stop. He would be imposing on the listener, probably not caring.
But I did think your reference to the building that collapsed because the wrong screw was used was interesting. (Where was that?) And the other sad occurrence with the imposition forceably on the space craft. Thanks for mentioning those.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the end, of course I don't have "the right" to literally impose my ideas on others - they are capable of thinking for themselves, and will continue to do so no matter how hard I push my ideas on them in any sort of imposition.

However, as for speaking out against certain ideas, or trying to sway people to a line of thinking I may hold, of course I have "the right." I am able to speak, potentially able to get others to listen, able to voice my ideas and opinions, able to challenge others opinions. It's the same reason that proselytizers have "the right" to also continue to appeal to people, attempt to get them to listen, attempt to convert people to their ways of thinking. I don't like what proselytizers do... and I am damn sure that they don't like what I do. Haha... but it isn't like I will be stopping any time soon, and I obviously do not expect them to - though I will continue to try and talk them out of it. There is no actual imposition here. I would not force them to listen to me.

Very interesting. It could be why the apostle Paul was approached in a vision and blinded for a while.

 

[Polymath257]

But I did think your reference to the building that collapsed because the wrong screw was used was interesting. (Where was that?) And the other sad occurrence with the imposition forceably on the space craft. Thanks for mentioning those.

Hyatt Regency collapse in Kansas City.

Hyatt Regency walkway collapse - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

Hyatt Regency collapse in Kansas City.

Hyatt Regency walkway collapse - Wikipedia

Thanks for that information.

 

[TheSimpleView]

Is this happening frequently in your neck of the woods?

Yes, Seems like one of the top five political subjects. However, it works as definable proof of the real existence of God, if it wasn't true why fight Him so hard.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am interested. Are these occurrences a product of a group's or an individual's views, or are these moreso random acts of violence?

Sorry, mate...took me a while to get to this. I often post from my phone, and I just couldn't drum up the enthusiasm for story time on a phone. Much prefer hammering away at a keyboard, where my words can keep up with my thoughts (more or less).

So, 2 examples that sprang to mind. One is possibly 'random violence', but I'm not convinced. The other certainly wasn't, I believe.

1. In Papua New Guinea, locals can hunt sea turtles for food (at least, they could when I was living there). I lived in an extremely remote part of PNG (worked for a logging company...!) but I was in the nearest town one month to get some groceries. A group of 4-5 young men had caught a turtle. It was alive, and distressed as they kind of dragged it around with ropes. They were laughing as they used their bush knives (machetes) to cut pieces off it's flippers. I had the 'pleasure' of seeing a lot of animal cruelty while I was up there. The guy I was with wasn't having any of that, so he jumped out of his car and I followed. 2 of us, both unarmed, at least 4 of them, all armed with machetes. It quicky devolved into a yelling match, and they killed the turtle, at which time we left. They were doing this on the main street, and no-one was making any comments. So...random violence? Maybe. It was accepted, though, at least where I lived. The turtle was going to die and be eaten, and I killed animals for food up there too (mostly seafood). And I was working for a timber company chopping rainforest timber, so I'm not claiming some moral highground in general. But on this particular occasion I did try and enforce my views as best I was able, since I thought they were more correct.

2) Also in PNG. I was teaching at a single teacher school. Between 8 and 13 students (I taught there a bit over a year) at the same remote location. Youngest were 5 years old, oldest was 15.
I became aware that a small group of my students were detouring on the way home from school to pass near a hermit's house. He suffered from dwarfism, and had been shunned by the local communities, although it can be simplistic to assume it was just because of dwarfism. Still...it was almost certainly the major factor.
They would pause at the house, and throw rocks at both the building and the man.
I found out, and read them the riot act (I'm pretty controlled and calm, actually, but by my standards it was a quite discussion). I then walked the two main instigators home (they were brothers) and spoke to the parents about it. Whilst the father (who was Australian) was somewhat apologetic (to me, not to the target...) the mother had quite a different view. She was full-blooded PNG, and thought it was sensible to keep the hermit scared, since 'everyone knows he's a sorcerer'. I decided not to engage on that, and instead took the route that my job was to prepare her sons for Australian schools, and that behaviour would not fly in Australia (Editors Note : at least, not unless they went to a fancy boys school...ahem...)
I also said they wouldn't be welcome in my school if they continued to undertake either unprovoked violence, or initiated any sort of bullying. The boys were actually nice kids. They were pretty wild, and had been taught that this hermit was a subhuman, and worth both derision and almost pre-emptive violence, lest he decide he could hang around the community.

I have a bunch more examples from PNG. They are simply more stark than examples from Australia, as it's often in the mixing of different beliefs and cultures that you get this cognitive dissonance.

(oh...the 'fancy boys school' comment. It's odious in the extreme, but this was a pretty big story here recently in case you're interested : Full list of Shore School’s challenges revealed)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am interested. Are these occurrences a product of a group's or an individual's views, or are these moreso random acts of violence?

Oooh...strikes me that you might have been asking about the witch burnings.
That's tougher for me to answer, since I didn't see one personally. They weren't common where I lived (PNG has pretty distinctive cultures in different parts of the country).

However, a few quick facts...

1) No one is exactly sure how many 'witches' are being killed. 150 per year is the generally accepted conservative estimate. So, think one every second day, and you're in the ballpark. The country has a little over 8 million people. So about the population of Virginia. Can you imagine a witch being killed every second day in Virginia? Yeesh...

2) They're not all burnt. Some are pushed off cliffs, some are electrocuted, shot, stoned...it varies.

3) It's been repealed now (about 7 years ago) but believing someone was a sorcerer was a valid defence for murdering them. This was tested and upheld in court, and I've linked to the old law (horribly written as it is).
Sorcery Act 1971

4) Who can tell how much of the killing is based on 'honest' belief in witchcraft, and how much is targeting women for various reasons? I think it's fair to say both things occur a lot. Women have an extremely low place in much of PNG society, and I could have struck female servants who walked between me and the television (we had one in the mess) without anyone commenting. Of course I didn't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oooh...strikes me that you might have been asking about the witch burnings.
That's tougher for me to answer, since I didn't see one personally. They weren't common where I lived (PNG has pretty distinctive cultures in different parts of the country).

However, a few quick facts...

1) No one is exactly sure how many 'witches' are being killed. 150 per year is the generally accepted conservative estimate. So, think one every second day, and you're in the ballpark. The country has a little over 8 million people. So about the population of Virginia. Can you imagine a witch being killed every second day in Virginia? Yeesh...

2) They're not all burnt. Some are pushed off cliffs, some are electrocuted, shot, stoned...it varies.

3) It's been repealed now (about 7 years ago) but believing someone was a sorcerer was a valid defence for murdering them. This was tested and upheld in court, and I've linked to the old law (horribly written as it is).
Sorcery Act 1971

4) Who can tell how much of the killing is based on 'honest' belief in witchcraft, and how much is targeting women for various reasons? I think it's fair to say both things occur a lot. Women have an extremely low place in much of PNG society, and I could have struck female servants who walked between me and the television (we had one in the mess) without anyone commenting. Of course I didn't.

My, oh my,thanks for posting. Very interesting. I was just reading a book about the History of Psychiatry, seemed to relate at the beginning, the history of civilization with the various ideas about God, mysticism, magic, as civilization "progressed," they say, more elaborate rituals and customs evolved. (Such as Egyptology, pharaohs, pyramids, and so forth).