Do you think the consipracy nuts will shut up now? (Page 6)
Geoff: Lori, you don't know what evidence is, you have amply demonstrated that you have insufficient analytical ability to judge the provenance of what you encounter - which is why you post bullshit YouTube vids.
I don't harass you on your threads do I? So perhaps you could do me the courtesy of going away.
Geoff: Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”).
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" 2015, Pennycook &al
lori100: from ^^^^^4.3 Epistemically suspect beliefs
Beliefs that conflict with common naturalistic conceptions of the world have been labelled epistemically suspect (e.g., Lobato et al., 2014; Pennycook, Fugelsang & Koehler, in press). For example, the belief in angels (and the corresponding belief that they can move through walls) conflicts with the common folk-mechanical belief that things cannot pass through solid objects (Pennycook et al., 2014).
-----------------Einstein and Tesla among other scientists have said matter doesn't exist ..it is energy...the walls don't exist as we think they do....Bohr said everything is made of stuff that's not real....I posted recently about photons passing through walls...even the photons know walls are not solid....science is returning to it's philosophical roots...the mystics knew what scientists are just now learning...
lori100: trying to get rid of the messenger?...walls are not really solid...angels , aliens, and photons know it....deal with it...
Geoff: Yes, this may be the case. But neither aliens nor angels have any proven means of defeating the various forces that cause matter to act the way it does.
And I like how you so astutely ignored my point about me not harassing you on your threads. No matter how bafflingly ignorant I consider them. Perhaps you could give me the same consideration and get thyself begone.
Geoff: Until you acknowledge the post you have so assiduously ignored, I shall not tolerate any further comments from you.
Geoff: My point is that I don't go to your threads to harass you. Perhaps you could do me the same courtesy.
budshot: And I think your header calls all us conspiracy nuts out lmao, I will not shut up. I bet you believe three jet airliners took down the twin towers? even though it was documented by all the films of it as a controlled demolition. And if the human race went to the moon in the sixties, why in 2016 are we still relying on rocket power?
Hatman20: Orly? because every fucking video I've ever seen of 9/11, I saw fucking planes do it.
Along with several thousand eye witnesses in new York city, one of the most densely populated places on Earth, so don't even try that "the video was faked" horseshit.
Geoff: I think it's fair to say that some people want to believe that there is some shadowy organisation who work hard to keep their lives as boring and miserable as they are than to accept that it's just the fact that they are boring and miserable because that is who they are.
Murrh: why was Stanley Kubricks younguns first movie named so aptly. The arguments held by skeptics and believers are both ultimately compelling. 9/11 videos analyzed as cgi renders, well.. I produce that kinda stuff, it looked a little straight up fake, thing is.. even the expert eye is having trouble discerning what is a million dollars worth of design time/shoved into 20 seconds of video. It's like comparing oranges and apples ultimately.. the apples cater to those that don't want to peel a layer, instead find themselves wanting to munch straight in, for those that like the effort there will always be oranges.
lori100: Different psychic remote viewers saw the same thing (on my 911 thread)....a.missile hit the pentagon, remote controlled planes hit the towers that were then destroyed by controlled demolitions.....they also saw the planners giving the orders...---U.S. govt 'trusted' officials...in the cockpit they saw the pilots trying to get control of the planes that were on automatic pilot...
lori100: they were only given a target to view, not told what it was.....came up with the same info...I posted the video of the missile hitting the pentagon...clearly too small for a plane, had no wings...the govt planned to fly planes into buildings and shoot people on the streets and blame it on Cuba in the 1960's ....Kennedy refused to do it...
(Edited by lori100)