We’re too intelligent of a species to believe in things that don’t have evidence nor require critical thinking and skeptical scrutiny.
denkokoro- This isn’t intelligence, this is arrogance. True intelligence is the ability to critically evaluate, analyze, scrutinize AND be able to sit comfortably with the idea there are things that truly exist outside the realm of explanation and/or your own understanding.
What is arrogant about it? Being skeptical means desiring validity for claims, and the best justification is evidence. Your explanation of “true intelligence” is descibed in this picture, in a nutshell.
Yes, I’m fine with not knowing, as far as “things that truly exist outside the realm of explanation and/or your own understanding.” However, it is unreasonable to accept them as true based on the lack of data.
That said, where is the issue?
I was reading a book on autism when I took breaks making this song. The author described many autistic’s movements and responses to touch as “mechanical” or “robotic”.
It also went on to talk about how many autistic people have issues with being in crowded places. The first place I thought of was a movie theater, and the term “robotic” stayed in my head. I pictured a place where autistic people can feel comfortable watching a movie without worrying about their surroundings.
Thus, the title of this song is called “Cinema For Robots”; and from now on, I will be using the term “Robots” synonymously with “Autistic People.”
Memories. Such sweet memories.
I couldn’t describe how I develop my beliefs any better.
Skepticism, at its heart, holds that in order to understand something, it is best to actually look at it, analyze it, and make sure it’s consist based on evidence. This means challenging those who make claims, demanding that they show how they derived their ideas, and testing them for validity.
Positions that can be backed by evidence and are deemed logically coherent are kept, while those that fail this test are rejected.
But most importantly, NOTHING is ever held above this challenge.
This is a scientific venture, and it’s a beautiful one.
I love it when people catch me headbanging.
There’s a difference between bobbing your head and headbanging. One is more *cue breakdown* MEEEEEEEETAAAAAAAAL than the other.
I just can’t get over the emotion evident on his face here.
To think that…when he visited Carl in his office at Cornell as an applicant and Carl reached back, grabbed one of his books, signed it, and handed it to him…that one day, all too soon, Carl would be gone. And that he, Neil, would be called upon to host a Cosmos reboot.
Oh, the feels, the feels, the sciencey feels!
This HAS to be on my blog.
I believe that’s an Appeal to Emotion. It’s a logical fallacy/awful way of validating your argument, in which the arguer believes an emotional reaction wins the argument.
This is not logical, nor does it focus on the evidence. Instead of having an objective argument, you’re baiting for prejudice rather than the facts.