Creationist/Flat Earth/Etc Images

[Asmodean]

Honestly, it does surprise me how some people fall for absolute garbage as easily as they apparently do (I don't personally know any such individuals) and then how hard it is for them to "fall out of it" when presented with the evidence to the contrary.

I mean... If the theory of gravity, for example, was shown to be utterly false, I would read until I turned blue, then change my bloody mind. I would not go all "Ooh! But NEWTON said..!" Where does this difference in people stem from, I wonder...

...Also, reminds me of that graph they used at a convention I attended to demonstrate the attitude towards progress. Basically it had about 20% on the far-left. The conservative crowd, represented with a grumpy white man with a thoughtful expression on his face, the thought being "Things were SO much better before!" The next 65% were the fence-sitters/weather vanes/go-with-the-flowers. Basically, ye olde Average Joes. The rightmost 15% were the forerunners. That's where I am. I like new knowledge, science, progress... Change, dammit! And I don't understand those, if the graph is to be believed, 20% who have a strong impulse to resist it. So... Those who actually want to reverse it, well... I can't contort my mind around their minds. 

[Bad Penny II]

For one, chimps and pigs cannot physically have offspring.

They should be allowed to adopt though.

Would evolution have been more palatable for some if it showed we evolved from lions and eagles?

[Asmodean]

Ratties. Ratties are the mother of us all.

Also, Evil is the father of us all and, of course, The Asmo is The Asmo of us all.

[Davin]

Honestly, it does surprise me how some people fall for absolute garbage as easily as they apparently do (I don't personally know any such individuals) and then how hard it is for them to "fall out of it" when presented with the evidence to the contrary.

Is this image animated?


It's not, but our human eyes and brain interpretations make it seem like it is. In the same way that we humans are susceptible to optical illusions, our thinking is susceptible to logical illusions. That is why we need to utilize logic and learn fallacies, because it doesn't matter how smart a person is, we are all susceptible to irrationality. Now, some people won't even question that they are looking at something that only seems logical, and even when it is pointed out that it is not, they tend to deflect criticism rather than vetting it. Then they find smart people who also fell for the same logical illusions, some of them smart enough to come up with seemingly solid arguments for them.

That is how people fall for absolute garbage.

[Asmodean]

...But it's not animated. In fact, it is obviously not animated. :-(

Is not trusting one's own eyes over verifiable evidence a bit... 1540s?

[Dave]

Honestly, it does surprise me how some people fall for absolute garbage as easily as they apparently do (I don't personally know any such individuals) and then how hard it is for them to "fall out of it" when presented with the evidence to the contrary.

Is this image animated?


It's not, but our human eyes and brain interpretations make it seem like it is. In the same way that we humans are susceptible to optical illusions, our thinking is susceptible to logical illusions. That is why we need to utilize logic and learn fallacies, because it doesn't matter how smart a person is, we are all susceptible to irrationality. Now, some people won't even question that they are looking at something that only seems logical, and even when it is pointed out that it is not, they tend to deflect criticism rather than vetting it. Then they find smart people who also fell for the same logical illusions, some of them smart enough to come up with seemingly solid arguments for them.

That is how people fall for absolute garbage.

Interesting, previously I have seen the "pseudo animation" of this image, in other places, but not in this instance . . .

[Asmodean]

If the "animation" depends on movement of your eyes, then it's not animated. If I keep my eyes still, the image is still. If I move them, it seems to sort-of rotate a little, but that has more to do with my analogue nervous processors trying to keep up than with the image itrself.

[Magdalena]

Is this image animated?

Wait...

I need a minute, or an hour.

[Arturo]

Honestly, it does surprise me how some people fall for absolute garbage as easily as they apparently do (I don't personally know any such individuals) and then how hard it is for them to "fall out of it" when presented with the evidence to the contrary.

Is this image animated?


It's not, but our human eyes and brain interpretations make it seem like it is. In the same way that we humans are susceptible to optical illusions, our thinking is susceptible to logical illusions. That is why we need to utilize logic and learn fallacies, because it doesn't matter how smart a person is, we are all susceptible to irrationality. Now, some people won't even question that they are looking at something that only seems logical, and even when it is pointed out that it is not, they tend to deflect criticism rather than vetting it. Then they find smart people who also fell for the same logical illusions, some of them smart enough to come up with seemingly solid arguments for them.

That is how people fall for absolute garbage.

I try to explain to people that people fall for logical fallacies in the same way we fall for optical illusions. Nobody I've told this to understands though. But when it comes to Jebus, "his knowledge passes all understanding."

Now if you can understand that your perception of things is not omnipotent, then why can't you understand you will fall for anything given the right circumstances? Because your knowledge is no absolute, you will easily fall for just about anything. I think it's because they acknowledge their ignorance, they expect everyone to be just as ignorant as them. Or they feel that because they are dumb, they will never understand what they don't currently know.

I'm not sure what the learning curve for the average person is but I see my Father, an old man, always learns new things and there in he is open to accepting knowledge. However, both my Dad and my Step Mom are the kind of people who will reject, angrily at times, anything that doesn't fit their current beliefs. And I think it's because they feel so strongly about them, because the beliefs get reinforced, so they don't see how the another truth could easily knock their belief to the curb.

[Davin]

People I think naturally protect their current beliefs, because being gullible is a bad thing, and an honest evaluation is difficult and takes time, and for me and I'm sure at least some other people, it takes practice. Out of the few choices, just keeping the original belief, maybe altering it a little, is the path of least immediate resistance. I don't agree with it (and wish it was much less common), but I understand it.

[Dave]

People I think naturally protect their current beliefs, because being gullible is a bad thing, and an honest evaluation is difficult and takes time, and for me and I'm sure at least some other people, it takes practice. Out of the few choices, just keeping the original belief, maybe altering it a little, is the path of least immediate resistance. I don't agree with it (and wish it was much less common), but I understand it.

I understand what you say, Davin, I also find that people (including myself) find it very hard to modify things learned early in life, even though my adult mind knows them to be fallacious or irrational.

 Even stupid stuff, like my sister - when I was about 8 and she 13 - say to me, "Blue anf green should  not be seen without another [colour] in between". Silly but I still feel "guilty" when I break that "rule".

[Davin]

Yeah, it sucks that our brains work like that. With some effort and time we can train our brains to operate better. Just like talking, reading, mathematics... etc. we should be teaching children (probably after 12 years old), how to apply logic and how to recognize fallacies. I think it's weird that logic is such a small part of school.

[Magdalena]

Yeah, it sucks that our brains work like that. With some effort and time we can train our brains to operate better. Just like talking, reading, mathematics... etc. we should be teaching children (probably after 12 years old), how to apply logic and how to recognize fallacies. I think it's weird that logic is such a small part of school.

I think they should start earlier than 12 years old. I think we should start teaching children how to apply logic and how to recognize fallacies the minute they are born. 

They're already teaching my kindergartner stuff like that. Every day he brings home a book and he has to circle whether the book he just read is fiction or non-fiction.

The other day he brought home a book about shapes and what we can do with them. One can stalk up squares, round things roll, triangles have angles, etc. He said it's a fiction book because shapes don't have faces, arms, or legs. I told him that they added those things just for fun, but he insisted that it was fiction--he's right, in reality, these things don't have faces, arms or legs.    We went through the whole book again but I covered the faces and I asked him, if, in reality, round things rolled, if squares could be stalked up etc. In the end, he agreed that it was non-fiction. When he finds out that animals speak in a story, he automatically says it's fiction because an animal doesn't speak.  (Try convincing him that a snake spoke to Adam and Eve.) 
 
He seems to want to believe in a magical being who's flying reindeer pull the sleigh and help him deliver Christmas gifts...so he "fixed" the story. He said Santa drives around, he doesn't fly around. He enters homes through the front door, not the chimney. --I think I can live with that. 

I don't know...it must be difficult for religious parents. You know...to have their kids learn the difference between fiction and nonfiction when they're trying to convince their kids, that they have to believe, that one day one man walked on water. 

[Arturo]

I remember Critical Thinking Skills being taught to me in school but I don't remember when. We didn't cover fallacies though. We just covered basic things like what kind of argument to make. And one thing I remember and that I don't agree with is that, the best arguments are the ones that fit in with what we already know. I would think the best arguments are the ones that are right.

[Recusant]

I think they should start earlier than 12 years old. . . .

 

I really enjoyed that, Magdalena.