Religious People are Not Stupid

[paarsurrey]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

"Finally, I believe"
"No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human."

And what about the non-religious people? Are they all wise, please?
Regards

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That's an irrational conclusion. Not knowing anything for certain means that we can only presume that what we think we know to be true, is true.
The only absolute, here, is our uncertainty. And that remains regardless of how certain we presume ourselves to be, so long as we remain non-omniscient.
Certainty does not come in "degrees" unless it is also uncertainty, which is an inherent contradiction of the term. What you are referring to is relative surety based on limited and incomplete information, experience, and understanding. What you are referring to is an informed opinion.
This is a meaningless boast that we cannot back up, because we cannot logically know how right or wrong we are without having ALL the pertinent information. It is an opinion trying to pass itself off as "near certainty". I recognize that we humans do this all the time. But I also recognize that it causes us no end of problems when we do so. Basically, because it's dishonest, and thereby invites misunderstanding and dysfunction.
Again, this a boast that you can only assert by ignoring your own profound ignorance. By ignoring what you don't know and how it would effect what you do know if you could know it.
Your lack of omniscience is all the evidence I need to reasonably assert the possibility that your presumptions are wrong, and that your boast is therefor unfounded. I am not asserting that you ARE wrong. I am simply asserting that it's possible. And that because it's possible, other people are not wrong to doubt, question, or reject your presumptions.

Thank you. Let's clear up a few terms that you seem fixated on. A presumption is a claim made based only on the probability that the claim is true. An assumption is a claim made based on absolutely zero evidence that the claim is true. Unless you are a newborn, no one is profoundly(near absolute) ignorant. Since my opening examples were all based on evidence, any presumption becomes irrelevant and not applicable. Now, you can go to the zoo or the aquarium and search for the evidence that will prove animals can speak to humans. This will certainly demonstrate that I am only making an assumption/presumption. Or, you can jump out a two-story window to see if the laws of nature can be suspended(I advise against it). Or, you can camp-out at different cemeteries, in the hope that you can play chess with one of its residence. The fact that no one can prove or disprove these metaphysical or supernatural event, does not give the events a pass on their degree of certainty. Until at least one verifiable objective piece of evidence is produced, their existence will always be just an argument from ignorance. Lets simply talk about what we do know, not what we don't know. The more knowledge we have, the less faith and belief we need to rely on.

Trying to hamstring or deflate our natural sense of wonderment, or our abilities to learn and acquire knowledge with your claim of profound ignorance, says more about you than the species you belong to. Nature has provided each new generation with the potential to acquire more knowledge(in general), than the generation before it. I sincerely thought that my statements would be obvious and intuitive to all. I never expected this much unnecessary complexity. Maybe you would like to address some other area of my post, or can explain why some intelligent people can believe that they will be picked up by aliens and taken to a paradise full of virgins?

No, all I need is to know that I do not possess absolute knowledge of anything. This does not require that I possess absolute knowledge of anything. In fact, it only requires that I don't. Our profound ignorance is self-evident. Or it would be if we were not so in the habit of ignoring it for the sake of fear, ego, and relative functionality.

I'm afraid I have no idea what any of this means, but it does sound good.

Then you should be able to point this inconsistency out. But so far you have not done so. All you've pointed out is your presumption-based misunderstanding of my position.

Is you position that we are so profoundly ignorant, and lack absolute knowledge, that we can't claim that any supernatural event is impossible? Since you have no evidence that it does, your argument is from ignorance only. Have I pointed it out now?

I also disagree that that there are no degrees of certainty. Do you exist? How certain are you? Do you know your name or the name of your children? Do you know their gender and age? How certain are you? Do you know what happens when you throw a ball into the air. Are you certain? Why? But, do you know if the sun will rise again tomorrow, or that nothing bad will happen to you next week. How certain are you that your wife will become pregnant, or your car will start in the cold. I think you can see, that for some events in our reality we are profoundly certain of the outcome. For other events, we are relatively certain of the outcome, and for still others, we are not certain at all. Clearly there are degrees of certainty.

Again, this a boast that you can only assert by ignoring your own profound ignorance. By ignoring what you don't know and how it would effect what you do know if you could know it.

How do you ignore something that you don't even know? How does not knowing something affect what you do know? Everything that you know, you know. Everything that you don't know, you don't know. Everything that you think you know, you don't really know. But everything that you know you know, you do know. Therefore, we all possess all the knowledge of the Universe, we just don't know it yet.

Claiming that I do not have absolute knowledge is not a boast, it is a fact. If you choose to model your life based on your faith and imagination, then your logic and rationale is slightly different than mine. You are truly an example of why intelligent people can believe in not-so-intelligent things.

I think that it might be time for us simply to agree to disagree.

 

[David T]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

T

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

I think the heart of what you say lays in the nature of bookness. The texts in religion like all fields takes on a reality determiner. And to be honest if we start there with books determining that's confused whether it's religion or science. We tend to be very smart and that sometimes is our weakness as well.

 

[PureX]

They who ? The ones that came up with those stories ?
We who ? What is your source for this claim ?

You can't track down the origins of such old stories to any particular individual, let alone figure out what he had on his mind when he created the story. At best, and even that is hard to show depending on how far back you go, you can tell me how it was used later on by other individuals.



"According to rabbinic tradition, all of the teachings found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God through the prophet Moses, some at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah that exists today." - Source

Do I need to say anything else ?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am here to convince you of something, and that I care that you believe me. I'm not, and I don't.

 

[PureX]

It's the not insignificant minority however, - those who take scripture close to literally - that cause a lot of freakin' trouble.

Perhaps, but the reason they are so troublesome is not that they believe what they believe, but that they are bigoted and intolerant of other beliefs. And this character flaw is as likely to occur among non-religious "believers" as the religious ones. Bigotry and intolerance is not a religious manifestation. It's a human flaw that manifests through religion, politics, race, sex, ethnicity, commerce, and any other form of human interaction.

 

[Audie]

Believe me, people do believe in miracles. The bible isnt an atheistic book. How far they go to express it, thats totally different.

Weird, isnt it, how people will not believe in somethig
like, say, that ol' naughty ToE, but miracles?

No data, no explanation, no evidence, no predictability,
no nothing. But believe they do.

 

[Audie]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am here to convince you of something, and that I care that you believe me. I'm not, and I don't.

Well! If that is not the refined essence of debate,
then prease say what is!

 

[dfnj]

I think the Bible is quite stupid in many ways, but that doesn't mean we all know the things you said are false.

You can't prove that it is.

So, you are giving opinions rather than facts.

You don't know that it is all false. That is a fact!

The essential message of the Bible is morality is important. Human beings are imperfect. Why would you think the Bible would be a perfect expression of what is divine given people who wrote it were imperfect and the people who read it are in imperfect. I'm not the biggest fan of the Bible and Christian doctrine yet at the same time I try not to be disrespectful to people who do value it.

 

[PureX]

Well! If that is not the refined essence of debate,
then prease say what is!

I'm not here to "debate". I'm here to share my observations and ideas about my experience and understanding of reality, and to read about those of others. To "debate" implies reaching a 'right and wrong' state of understanding and I don't believe we can achieve that beyond relative functionality and subjective bias. I respond here to clarify, not to "win a debate".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You think you know because of your arrogance. Humans know things basically through faith in testimonies. You take the existence of black holes for a fact simply because the testimonies of our scientists in this perspective are reliable and credible. It's not because you have the proof or evidence. It's rather you believe that the scientists (as eyewitnesses) have the evidence. This is the fundamental way of how humans approach a truth of any kind, including but not limited to science.

Ghosts and etc. are started with possible human testimonies/witnessing. However the credibility may be in question. The fundamental difference between ghosts and flying spaghetti is the former doesn't lack human accounts of testimonies while the latter lacks. It is thus apples and oranges to equate ghosts to red unicorns. Red unicorns are the absence of human testimonies while ghosts are the presence of human testimonies but with credibility in question. That lies the difference (fundamentally very much different, i.e., one is a false while the other is a possible true).

We can't confirm ghost mostly because it's out of our science to reach. Science is about a truth confirmed by establishing repeatable experiments. Ghosts are about the advocate that a spiritual realm exists besides our physical realm. Humans are incapable of going into this realm to establish experiments to confirm anything. This advocate on the other hand is much older than the existence of our science itself. That is, long before science even emerged, ghosts had already been categorized as outside the scope of our science. This realms thus can only be reached by faith in human testimonies/witnessing, even if it truly exists.

That said. Certain kind of spirits need or have the passion to posses a host. They can be cast into a group of pigs (a story of the Bible). It means that they can live inside an animal such as a donkey. That makes a donkey appears to be able to speak human languages. The perception of the spiritual realm from our end can be visually and verbally independent. It means that we may hear something without seeing it, or see something without hearing it, or both see and hear it. In Balaam's case, he hears what the spirit says but without actually seeing both the spirit (he sees only the donkey in our realm) and the angels the spirit trying to warn about.

Here I am not trying to prove anything. Just to try to open the possibilities which you have considered impossible.

Thank you. I do agree that the belief in ghost and the supernatural existed long before the evolution of modern scientific inquiry. The existence of Black Holes have nothing to do with faith or testimonials. It only has to do with mathematical predictions, rational logic, and the convergence of observable indirect and direct evidence. This information is easily accessible to anyone, over the internet, in libraries, in institutes of higher learning, or in the print media. Testimonies are irrelevant. The real problem I think, is trying to frame your logic to fit a deep-seated preconceived narrative. You are absolutely correct that I believe in most scientific narratives, because they ARE credible, they ARE reliable, they ARE predictable, they ARE repeatable, they ARE observable, and they actually work. Unfortunately, science is limited by the laws of nature, that do not extend into the world of superstitions, the supernatural, the spiritual, or the metaphysical. Science do not possess the metaphysical tools to investigate the nature and complexity associated with their existence.

We are all organic physical beings. We are totally dependent on our sensory organs to provide us with a composite representation of our subjective reality. As we age, the efficiency of these organs also age. This can be easily seen as a result of stress, aging, chemical and environmental factors, trauma, lost of senses, or through disease. Any change in sensory input, will also change mental perception. Our senses can be easily fooled, therefore, testimonials are simply unreliable without other supporting evidence. Do you believe that you are something greater than the sum of your parts? I believe that we ARE the sum of our parts.

If there is no way for me to confirm the existence of the metaphysical, or the supernatural, then why should I believe in their existence? Why would I model my life according to any unproven religiosity? What is the rationale behind any voluntary servitude? Why is confirmation unnecessary? I think I have explained this in my post.

Finally, I don't think that I am arrogant. Anymore, than I believe you are saying, that if a lot of people can testify that something is true to them, then it must be true. Or, that the reason science can't prove it, is because it's exists outside of science. This would also be another argument from ignorance.

 

[Audie]

T

Finally, I don't think that I am arrogant. Anymore, than I believe you are saying, that if a lot of people can testify that something is true to them, then it must be true. Or, that the reason science can't prove it, is because it's exists outside of science. This would also another argument from ignorance.

I dont think of myself that way either, though I
have been told I am.

What do you think?

You do come across as arrogant, I think
few here would say otherwise.

Maybe that feedback could prove useful to you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

To clear up your confusion it would be necessary for you to approach the Bible with a belief that it is truth. If you don't believe that, it will never make sense.

1Cor 1:18,

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.​

If you are sincerely searching for truth, God will make it know to you via the scriptures. Regardless, I'll tell try to answer your questions the best I can. Google "royal we." Tradition may say trinity, but I addressed tradition vs truth earlier.



After their disobedience life took a bad turn for Adam and Eve.

Gen 3:16-19,

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
​

Had they eaten of the tree of life they would have gone on for eternity in their fallen state. That's not what God wanted. He made plans to give them a new body in a new heaven and earth which will come to pass in the book of Revelations. To get the new body, the old one had to die, hence the need to prevent them from living forever in their fallen body state. The 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians goes into some detail if you are curious.

So if you believe the Bible is truth, these answers should make sense. If you don't believe it, they may not, but it's the best I can do. Take care...

Thank you for clearing up my confusion regarding the second part of my question. However, I understand the "us" is referring to the "saved" in 1Cor 1:18. But who is the "us" that is being referred to in Gen 3:22?

 

[atanu]

Did you just say "Science is aware"?
Yes. You're right. We are human.

Yeah. You should know that most more intelligent people know that 'science is aware'.

 

[Koldo]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am here to convince you of something, and that I care that you believe me. I'm not, and I don't.

You misunderstand me. I am just showing how you have criticized someone for doing something that you are guilty of doing in the very same topic.

 

[Thief]

hmmmm......seems to me.....

after the first answer.....I have many more questions
after those answers.....I have even more questions

so.....the more I learn.....the less I know

 

[PureX]

Thank you. Let's clear up a few terms that you seem fixated on. A presumption is a claim made based only on the probability that the claim is true. An assumption is a claim made based on absolutely zero evidence that the claim is true. Unless you are a newborn, no one is profoundly(near absolute) ignorant.

Well, this would be a matter of semantics, wouldn't it. As how "near to absolutely ignorant" would one have to be to be "profoundly" ignorant? I suspect not all that near. (And I do appreciate your clarification, here.)

Since my opening examples were all based on evidence, any presumption becomes irrelevant and not applicable.

Evidence is ultimately subjective. So it's as relevant or irrelevant as we choose, relative to the paradigm through which we're choosing it. This is why language is so 'pliable'.

Now, you can go to the zoo or the aquarium and search for the evidence that will prove animals can speak to humans.

Or you could go to literature, where it appears to happen rather often. See what I mean about evidence being subjective?

This will certainly demonstrate that I am only making an assumption/presumption. Or, you can jump out a two-story window to see if the laws of nature can be suspended(I advise against it). Or, you can camp-out at different cemeteries, in the hope that you can play chess with one of its residence. The fact that no one can prove or disprove these metaphysical or supernatural event, does not give the events a pass on their degree of certainty. Until at least one verifiable objective piece of evidence is produced, their existence will always be just an argument from ignorance.

But there can be no "objective evidence", because objectivity is an intellectual impossibility.

Lets simply talk about what we do know, not what we don't know. The more knowledge we have, the less faith and belief we need to rely on.

What you are continuing to overlook is that "what we know" is subjective, biased, limited, speculative, and very likely wrong. And it's only through our own faith in ourselves that we can act on it often enough to see if it 'works' for us well enough to "believe in" it.

Trying to hamstring or deflate our natural sense of wonderment, or our abilities to learn and acquire knowledge with your claim of profound ignorance, says more about you than the species you belong to.

I am trying to do no such thing. I am trying to interject some honesty and humility into the faith process by which we humans must inevitably live. I understand that we have to trust in our presumptions (informed opinions) because we lack logical certainty. But I also can see that many of us fall into the delusional habit of pretending that our 'informed opinions' about the nature of reality are in fact 'the truth of reality'. It's one thing to trust in our own judgment, act on it, and see what happens. But it's something else to pretend our judgments are reality, itself. And yet we do this all the time, very often to our own great misfortune and suffering.

Is your position that we are so profoundly ignorant, and lack absolute knowledge, that we can't claim that any supernatural event is impossible? Since you have no evidence that it does, your argument is from ignorance only. Have I pointed it out now?

My position is that we have no right to be making claims on the truth of a reality that we have little access to, limited experience with, and a very poor understanding of. And that goes as much for the theists as the atheists. Posing possibilities is fine, fun, and sometimes informative. But we need to keep in mind that what is reasonably possible is also quite possibly wrong. And given our severe lack of information, quite probably wrong.

 

[PureX]

You misunderstand me. I am just showing how you have criticized someone for doing something that you are guilty of doing in the very same topic.

If so, then who better than me would know it when they see it?

 

[Thief]

As how "near to absolutely ignorant" would one have to be to be "profoundly" ignorant?

ah .....you do suspect.....

there are two levels of ignorance

they who are not informed are ignorant

they who choose to ignore are profoundly ignorant

the second level may not have a cure

 

[Koldo]

If so, then who better than me would know it when they see it?

Anyone reading your post. It is often tricky to notice one's own mistakes.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Please could you favour us by showing your version of the scientific method?

Thank you.

Thank you. I believe that the scientific method is an objective organized approach for observing nature. It's application systematically eliminates bias, emotions, and personal perception. It is not affected by the intrusion of religious dogma or any other cultural beliefs. It's only goal is to provide reliable empirical evidence of natural events, to help scientists constantly improve their understanding of the natural world. The basic steps are, "Observe, Hypothesize, Experiment, Conclude, and Observe anew". This cycle of refinement is ongoing and never ending. With peer review added, it is also self-regulating.

So, the scientific method is a method of inquiry that uses observation, measurements, predictions, experiments, data, intuition, and deductive/inductive reasoning, to provide the best possible explanation describing natural phenomena.