Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Emperor's New Clothes      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 3
view profile
History
The Emperor's New ClothesPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
Theories fill in blanks based on evidence. Big difference than making sh*t up to keep you from being afraid or alone or in the unknown.

The only way I know is to try to get people to appreciate sense and their minds and to help them keep their minds fit by warning about the toxins out there and how to avoid them.

It's not really their fault unless they choose to stay ignorant when info and facts are presented.

You can't blame anyone under 25 I'd say. Or the handicapped or deluded or the poisoned.

Blame the sickos who f8ck with them.

There are innocent people who sincerely believe lies and they are good people, they are just naive. We can help them with facts.

Some well...sometimes you just got to leave them to learn on their own.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/19/2013 4:22:23 AM
What is your point, OP? Anything in particular?

If all you are asking is, "is there any way to get through to someone who insists that no one is allowed to get through to them?" then the answer is obviously "No," and that INCLUDES that even war wont change their mind.

But if you are fantasizing that you are that little boy, and that you have much greater observational and analytic skills than everyone around you, and that people only disagree with you because they are willfully ignorant, I'm a bit skeptical.

Not because I think that everyone is brilliant, but simply because of another sort of fable-like observation I've made over the eons: that quite often, the person who is loudly fussing and complaining that they aren't being heard, is actually the one who has their mouth open, and their ears closed.

So what's your real beef?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 5
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/19/2013 5:14:04 AM

So... my question is: How do we get people to see reality without starting a war? Who is more likely to become enraged when their cognitive dissonance is pointed out?


They will see if or when they want to stop letting fear motivate them. The fearful are more likely to get enraged.

Ignoring them and being true to yourself might just be the most efficient way. I don't think that people like to be excluded, ex communicated or ignored and if you're walking your walk and doing well, they might just see that it's cool and not as scarey as they thought. Lead by example and do not participate in their b.s. or placate.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 7
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/19/2013 3:18:32 PM
Okay, again with the generalizations.

Who's the Emperor you are trying in absentia here? or are you venting generally about people who argue poorly?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/19/2013 9:38:19 PM

A skeptic demands to be convinced, which requires evidence. I am willing to believe any assertion made as long as there is proof. If the Emperor has new clothes, then there should be some way to prove it. If there is evidence to the contrary, then he's probably naked.

However, if believing he's not naked is one of the core values of your social network then you will insist he's fully clothed. If your identity is wrapped up in believing he's clothed, you won't want to hear anything to the contrary.


Not that long ago someone in another thread actually used the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument to support their position.
Without being too specific, it ran along the lines of 'There are some very high quality, intelligent people who believe in (this thing). But it takes a certain level of intelligence to understand the existence of (this thing)on a level higher than man. I'm sure my dog does not believe in (this thing). Why would he? His reality is only what is before him. He does not have the mental capacity to handle deeper thoughts. It is the same with people who are lacking the capacity to see beyond their limited realities.'

When I pointed out that this ^^^ is actually the argument the two tricksters used to convince the Emperor that the new suit of clothes they'd made for him was wondrous beyond compare, and that the very same argument could be used to 'support the truth' of any delusion, he reacted with hostility and called me 'deluded'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes


So... my question is: How do we get people to see reality without starting a war? Who is more likely to become enraged when their cognitive dissonance is pointed out?

Ideally, and generally, those who acknowledge rationality as their guide are less likely to become enraged and start a war than those who rely on 'beliefs' and 'faith' - for obvious reasons.
A 'rational' person may feel foolish, or disappointed in themselves to have been caught out in a mistake but the mistake is secondary to the mechanism that created it. It (the mistake) is not central to the 'belief system', the method is the central thing so that can be re-engaged without the entire 'belief system' crumbling.

A person who relies, and builds a worldview, on 'faith' or unsupported 'belief' is in a different position though. Particularly when it's considered that many, if not most, articles of 'faith' include a built-in component of 'righteous certainty' that can not be falsified.
It's difficult to step back from, or abandon, such positions without considerable, even catastrophic, personal turmoil. Since it's not just 'the individual mistake' that needs to be addressed, but the whole worldview, including the personality holding it.

History shows that for people facing this ^^^ kind of dilemma it must, quite often apparently, seem easier to fight. In fact, to maintain the cognitive dissonance almost requires it.
Which is presumably why one so often encounters fallacious arguments, hostility, and personal attacks when arguing with people operating from a position of cognitive dissonance - they cannot obliterate the logic, rationality, and facts behind the arguments they face, so they try to obliterate the people presenting the arguments instead, along with taking jabs at the 'meaning' of 'rationality' and generally trying to re-define what a 'fact' is and what the 'evidence' might look like that supports it.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 10
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 12:27:12 AM


How do we get people to see reality without starting a war?


It depends on the person. In the case of the Emperor's New Clothes, or similar delusion based on faith, those who have decided to believe will rarely, if ever, change their position. They are emotionally invested in it and, they fear looking like a fool if they are the only one, or one of very few, to acknowledge the emperor is naked. The quintessential peer pressure.

The other ingredient at play is limited reasoning ability. Anyone that is foolish enough to be mentally manipulated into believing the emperor is clothed demonstrates having very limited reasoning abilities. That reasoning ability is required to overcome the fallacy. Those that believe are the least likely able to overcome a fallacious belief, otherwise they would not have been fooled into believing in the first place.

Lastly, if there is a reward of some kind for believing the emperor is clothed then, attempting to take away the belief will likely cause a war because, along with the belief, the reward from believing is also taken away. Some people are very protective of the rewards they are promised. ;-) There will be wars fought to keep those imaginary rewards.

It's still a jungle out there... evolution is quite uneven... time makes some evolve but not all. :-)



Who is more likely to become enraged when their cognitive dissonance is pointed out?


Fools don't like to be proven fools. Few take it well... particularly when they are proven naked physically or mentally :-)



--------------------------
vanaheim



So my counter-question is, if everything you see is merely what you think is reality, how to do you get people to see yours rather than theirs?


Good question. The answer is, you don't try to make them "see" your reality. You both test and _measure_ reality then compare the measurements. That's why science does not rely on human senses. Whatever is obtained from senses is subjective, what is obtained from verifiable and repeatable measurements is objective, focused, predictable, agreeable and most importantly falsifiable when incomplete or incorrect.

My favorite example of that is, colors don't exist. Wavelengths of particular frequencies exist. The human eye and the brain create an illusion we call colors. It's a very useful illusion but, it is not real.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 12
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 4:25:27 AM
Excellent post, vanaheim. I agree completely.

My own, I think related, observation, took place over a number of years long ago. I "got it" as I transitioned from being able to think of myself as a 'young rebel,' to having to accept that I was a 'grown up.'

I came of age during the so-called liberation movements of the sixties and seventies, and spent most of those years trying to figure out why so many people who claimed to believe in equality, justice, and respect for difference, would nevertheless treat all sorts of people as enemies or as lesser beings, on sight. "Conservatives," who pretended to almost worship the American Constitution and the idea of rebelling against oppression, but who still declared that anyone who looked odd to them were dangerous and evil; "Liberals" who pretended that everyone should be accepted no matter what, but who still ejected anyone with short hair, a suit and tie from their midst.

Then one day, I found myself getting angry, just because of the way someone looked. It was a famous performer of the moment, who was expressing some of the latest fad hair styles of the 80's. Seconds after I had my outburst (which fortunately no one witnessed but me), I stopped and was aghast. Had I really turned into a right-wing conservative persecutor, just because I got old?

Then I got it: it was all about rejection, and one's natural reaction to it. I was angry, not because the person I observed was actively attacking me personally, rather I was angry because their appearance represented a rejection of my own existence, as being "out of it," discardable, and without value.

It was then that I saw that there are a LOT of people who think they are the clever insightful little boys of the world, when in reality, both they, and the 'Emperors' they are pointing out, are actually identical. Each is a "clever boy" in their own self-appreciating minds, even as they are "naked Emperors" to the real world.

The conservatives who attacked young rebels weren't acting to defend phantom values of the establishment; they were defending themselves, from being labeled by those young rebels, as being meaningless fools. Neither they, nor the 'rebels,' realized that BOTH groups were upset by EACH OTHERS' put down of them, and that both groups were negating their own claimed principles, in the very act of moving to their defense.

I think this is why I keep asking for the OP to declare what "Emperor" set him off. Because I always wonder now, when I read a diatribe against thoughtlessness, whether the speaker, or the target, is the "little boy," or the "emperor," or both.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 19
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/21/2013 12:52:46 AM
People don't want to know as much as one would think, if they did, they'd do their own research and check out all views presented using real evidence from many sources instead of going with just what is conveniently offered to them. Follow the money, read reports from all over the world, take it all in with a critical eye and search for facts.

Those that do want to know are often kept too busy just trying to live. This is a shame and a scam.

Some are just mentally or physically incapable, be it they are frightened, deluded, ignorant or whatever the reason.

All we can do is, do what we as individuals need to do and help or guide others where we can even if it means putting up with name calling. Name calling will not affect your being if you do not let it.

When they try to silence us with laws that are not fair, then it's time for us to ignore them and their laws (if they get them passed).
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 20
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/21/2013 8:33:47 AM
There is another issue here. Children are not adults and so have not learned that it is sometimes pointless or rude to contradict people or challenge what they believe. It reminds me of my daughter who, if she says something mean to somebody, and I chastise her, responds “but its true”. She is too young to get it. So is the child in this example given by the op.


People don't want to know as much as one would think, if they did, they'd do their own research and check out all views presented using real evidence from many sources instead of going with just what is conveniently offered to them. Follow the money, read reports from all over the world, take it all in with a critical eye and search for facts.

Those that do want to know are often kept too busy just trying to live. This is a shame and a scam.

Some are just mentally or physically incapable, be it they are frightened, deluded, ignorant or whatever the reason


Some people spend plenty of time researching and drawing conclusions, but many who disagree would still be of the belief that these people were deluded. Face it, among those who have an air of rationality and reason, they are always right and everybody else always wrong.
 Celje
Joined: 6/18/2012
Msg: 21
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/21/2013 8:35:53 AM
Being lawful has little to do with being legal. Legislature can agree to a law that considers oxygen illegal, wouldn't breathing be an unlawful act? People that would suggest something like this believe they are above the law.
Anyone that claims they are above the law, point them to a cliff and ask them to jump off and let gravity prove them wrong. A false God can re-write that law all they want, it'll still have the same force and effect. Sadly most people would gladly take the first step in an effort to agree with a false God.
 Albvs
Joined: 2/14/2013
Msg: 23
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/26/2013 3:45:58 PM

How do we get people to see reality

Is perception of reality a given?

If you looked at the center of a flax flower, for example, you would say that the center is light-colored. Anyone who claimed differently to you would seem insane, wrong or simply not well-connected with reality, in your humble opinion. Clearly, the center of the flower could not be called anything else but "light-colored".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Flax_flowers.jpg

But if you were a honey bee you wouldn't see a light-colored center of those same flowers, they'd be dark. The eyes of a honey bee are sensitive to ultraviolet light and can then hone in on the pollen-covered center which appears very dark to them. Their perception of reality is different from your own.

What you perceive to be reality may be different from someone else's perception. Maybe their eyesight is better or their hearing. In the case of the bee they can see things that you can't. Must you do battle with the honey bees to change their way of looking at the world or could you just accept that perception is involved in our dealings with the world around us?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 26
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/28/2013 3:43:21 AM
I think a fair number of people are missing the point of that old fable.

The thing is, the child being brilliantly insightful just is not in there. The kid isn't the "hero." He isn't "smarter than everyone else." He's just an innocent kid, who hasn't yet learned to follow the social norms that the adults fell into.

The thrust of the wisdom of that story has to do with promoting that each and every person think for themselves, and convince themselves of what is and isn't true, without regard to what they think they SHOULD believe.

If you come away from a given situation where you are patting yourself on the back for being the kid shouting out the truth, to a bunch of self-deluded people, you've only got half of the thing right. Especially if you aren't a kid anymore. Because when an adult shouts out what they think is the 'real truth' in the midst of such a situation, totally disregarding the sensibilities and concerns of the rest of the populace, they are all too often just self-righteous a-holes themselves, indulging in petty self-promotion.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 27
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/28/2013 5:17:58 AM
Igor:

The thrust of the wisdom of that story has to do with promoting that each and every person think for themselves, and convince themselves of what is and isn't true, without regard to what they think they SHOULD believe.


when an adult shouts out what they think is the 'real truth' in the midst of such a situation, totally disregarding the sensibilities and concerns of the rest of the populace, they are all too often just self-righteous a-holes themselves, indulging in petty self-promotion.

Combining the two sentences above, you are saying that the story is recommending people have freedom of thought and expression, but that often leads to people being self-righteous a-holes.

Well even if I accept your premises, I would say that freedom of thought and expression is so vital to reason, innovation, creativity, mental health, morality, and other good stuff that NO frequency of self-righteous a-holeness caused by freedom of thought and expression could EVER be recommending of self-censorship out of shame, intimidation or fear of causing offence for not pandering to everyone's sensibilities at all times. Unless you want everyone to be a snivelling doormat, offending people is going to happen when we freely share our ideas. For the good of humanity, I think I'll have to continue to take my self-righteous a-hole chances.

Forgive me if I caused any offence :)
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/28/2013 1:57:33 PM
The reason I specifically did NOT combine those two sentences, was because I was not saying what you conflated them to say.

My point is based on the all-too-common experience I have had, wherein someone cites something such as this fable, and then uses it NOT as it was originally intended, but rather as an excuse for them to be rude, insensitive, boorish, and selfishly demanding.

You might believe that all who believe in a god are fools, for example. But this folk tale does NOT provide you with any justification for going into someone's church service, and shouting that everyone present is an idiot. Nor would posting insults against believers, be made into an act of insight and wisdom, by telling an old story about foolish naked kings.

From the beginning of this thread, the person who began it has not made any effort to explain why it was important enough to retell the tale. Since I HAVE seen so many misuses of wise sayings and importantly meaningful stories, I am trying to caution those who would leap to blindly support or defend any and all applications of this chestnut.

Nothing more, and nothing less than that.

Other examples, to perhaps make myself more clear:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is NOT a commandment that no imperfect people can ever criticize another (someone tried to use that on me years ago).

" Honesty is the best policy" does NOT mean that you should blurt out everyone else's secrets which you have chanced to learn, in public places.

I'm sure we could all come up with examples of misapplication of "wise sayings" and other positive-sounding principles.

THAT is my concern here.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/29/2013 1:00:45 PM
I like it LOTS more with the back story. Context is essential to morality tales, in my experience.
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 32
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/2/2013 5:00:02 PM
Trailsman5- The Emperors new clothes is not about war.
The tale is a cautionary one about overriding what you know to be true in order to fit in and/or not be perceived as ignorant or stupid.
That was the hook of the kings "tailors", they told the kind only the stupid/unworthy ignorant could not see the clothes, So the king pretended to see them and everyone else pretended to see them because the king did.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 34
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/2/2013 6:43:49 PM

So... my question is: How do we get people to see reality without starting a war? Who is more likely to become enraged when their cognitive dissonance is pointed out?


My point was that the ending, in which the boy is feted as a hero, is unrealistic. In the story, no one saw the clothes. In today's world, no one has seen a ghost (for example) either, but to suggest they aren't there is often met with fierce resistance and accusations of blasphemy.

Having looked over the wiki page to refresh my memory regarding the story and soak in some of the analysis and history behind it, it occurs to me that you might be missing the point of the story. It is saying that people are often pretentious, even against their better judgment or even personal tastes, for the sake of personal promotion and acceptance, and that it isn't a noble trait. Being unpretentious, the way most children are, is a positive trait. It's a paradox of sorts: trying too hard to be "high level" is actually "low level."

It's not saying that if you blow the lid off a group's most dearly held beliefs that you will be rewarded for your insight and boldness.

In the story, all of the adults were pretending to believe for the sake of fitting in with people whom they assumed believed for real. It's as if you visited a church and pretended to be a fellow believer. Groups that truly believe things without reasonable evidence is a slightly different matter. There is no real way to convince them that they are irrational. A rational argument does not cure an irrational belief.

The good news is that UFOologists, 9/11 Truthers, ghost hunters et al are not the ones in charge of anything that important. The bad news is that religious fundamentalists and egomaniacs are in charge in various places around the world, such as Iran and North Korea.
 Jack421
Joined: 12/28/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/2/2013 8:42:07 PM
I think this story sounds alot like modern Judaism and Islam. The general population obviously is more likely to be enraged as it is the natural engagement to politics and commerce. What can I say sex sells and violence is the motiff of popularity. To answer your question about seeing reality without war pretensious is the word, however as a spiritual person I do not think it very possible, unless we find ourselves targeting people with a macy's day trend of specific construtive type of populace of people that disposal means relief. As for the part of seeing reality without war all together peace is not possible it is morality that endevours the values of men's hearts but it is force that endures it that it may hod fast and maintain.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/3/2013 3:49:26 AM
Aiieee! Not again.

Another thread about some general conceptual stuff , getting hijacked by people wanting to regrind the "I hate certain religions religion is bad" crud.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 40
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/4/2013 7:50:27 AM

So... my question is: How do we get people to see reality without starting a war? Who is more likely to become enraged when their cognitive dissonance is pointed out?



Whose reality?

People accept / believe things because of a number of reasons. A few could be:

* Social acceptance
* Trust in the other to knowing better
* Security
* Benefits
* It makes sense
* They see no other reason not to think otherwise / can't be bothered
* It's not too detrimental or confronting enough to them for them to feel challenged enough to question it


There is benefit in walking down on the 'trodded path' or behaving to norms. It provides predictability.

You drive a certain route to work every day, because that's the path you know best that will get you there on time. There are other routes on the map, but you opt not to take those routes bcause you are unsure, and the one you are taking seems to work. I guess once you begin to experience traffic congestion or other issues, you may contemplate taking another route or taking ublic transport instead.

The best solution is not always mere obliteration. Like the Taliban in afghanistan were barbaric b****.... but truthfully, they were the only half decent thing Afghanistan had at the time after the Cold War. Without them there wouldve been more chaos perhaps. They were still idiots and needed to be 'obliterated'. But before you obliterate, you have to provide a better solution, and really delve into why they choose to remain the way they are... once you tap into their core thats when you will get people to freely and willingly follow you instead.
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 43
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/4/2013 2:43:18 PM
Trailsman5- Unless something is fact (a fact has to be provable), then it is an opinion.
Society is made up of all kinds, you have to take the good with the bad.
Some people are open minded, some aren't.
Personally, I am open minded and will listen to others opinions respectfully.
I don't always agree with people, but I respect their right to believe as they choose.
Not everyone is so open.
When I meet someone who is close minded, I just think, too bad for them and move on.
Life is too short to worry about negative people.
They are everywhere, but so are positive people and I try to focus on the positive.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/4/2013 11:53:03 PM

In today's world, no one has seen a ghost (for example) either, but to suggest they aren't there is often met with fierce resistance and accusations of blasphemy.


Well, to be factual about that, lots of people have said that they have seen ghosts. So it's not accurate to say no one has, rather you have to say that you are convinced that these people are mistaken or deluded, or whatever.

In the context of the story that led you to start this thread about the Andersen story, I understand that you want to take a stand against harmful blind belief and warn against believing in something , just because a lot of other people around you seem to. I'm on your side in that for sure.

But I also caution against getting out of balance, and carried away in the other direction as well. Lots of people have got themselves so caught up in crusading against some dicey or outright bad idea, that they went too far, and actually turned truth-seeking into a self-deluding religion itself.

In other words, it isn't an act of wisdom or clarity, if all someone does is replace "always" with "never" (or the other way round).
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 47
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/5/2013 2:05:09 AM
SpitFree

The point I was making was to adress the question of 'how do you convert people to think like yourself' or 'see the light' so to speak.

Hitler's regime may have been comfortable for his elite fans, yet barbaric for the rest of humanity.
It is simply not enough to obliterate Hitler or Taliban or whoever and walk away.
It is also not enough or right to invade acting like a hero, then go about stealing their resources.

The USA did not invade Iraq or Afghanistan because they were justice and truth lovers. Iraq was under Saddam Hussain's dictatorship was decades. And in fact, the USA had pleasant dealings with him at one time... even the Taliban were US's helpers during the Cold War.

When did things get fiesty? When did Bin Laden and Hussain become the bogeyman? When they stopped cooperating. When it wa realised that the only way to get what they wanted was to get rid of the things that were in its way.

Justice delayed is still injustice.

Good intended justice is when you go to the rescue of someone as soon as one can and assist them to their needs... not your needs... not like, "Hey, I will help you so long as you give me your kidneys buddy."


TRAILSMAN



There is objective reality, but the lines between objective and subjectie can be blurred.

Much of the medical advancements goiing on now depend a lot on government funding or public interest... so what happens is, they put out news about some miracle drug or procedure that will cure a certain iillness...
These doctors are most likely honestand truly believe in their assertions and projects.
The reality is, they are probably being a little too optimistic.

About 2 years ago, i was on the News as a 'hospital patient' who had just received a miracle medical treatment. I had an operation that really had little chance of success.
Anyway the hospital got in touch with the TV news channel an yeah, the very same day, the hospital started gtting calls fro interstate ... people asking if it could help this and that...

Anyway, 2 years on, I'm alright, but slowly deteriorating... but anyone who saw that segment probably thinks im going great and now that medical technology is so advanced that anythings possible... ive

There's just a lot more mystery that scientists have no yet figured out.. we just think we know so much...


Trailsman
How is walking on trodded /known path, a thing a dictator would say? Haven't you gone to university or school and studied from a textbook by some guy who lived maybe 100 years ago?
To become a doctor, you learn from the doctor himself... to become a mechanic, you learn from the mechanic himself... he's been there done that... you can very well learn by yourself.. it doesnt mean you have to stick to exactly what the doc/mechanic teaches you... you can tweak and improve on their knowledge too. But point is, past knowledge isnt redundan nor should it be discarded.
 CureCurious
Joined: 1/15/2013
Msg: 49
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/5/2013 4:56:15 AM
Trailsman



Tradition is the opposite of innovation. Those in power tend to want to keep the system that lets them stay in power, even if it is to society's detriment. It's why Mubarak kept emergency laws in place for 30 years and why the US has not reinstated habeas corpus.


Hmm, No.
Tradition IS innovation itself.
Dictators do not secure power via tradition so much as they they secure it via fear, propaganda, and millitary force.

Tradition, customs, and culture has generally been a means for communities to survive. There's good and bad tradition. One has to assess and measure tradition against morality and logic and needs.
Tradition DOES change. It just tends to act very slow to change, because of its self preserving element.
It ensures stability, yes. It ensures that capricious perverted ideas are not easily weaved in.
An element of justice is equality. Equality requires consistency. In law, especially, following tradition is important for this reason.
The key is in interpreting laws progressively.

even in the scientific world, tradition is needed - for example, research being peer reviewed. The very need for peer reviewing is tradition. An intelligent scientist/researcher would read up on previous work done in the area of interest and build on that knowledge or test it.

Anyway, I'm not here to advocate tradition. My purpose was to explain why people would resist new ideas.
Not all new ideas are beneficial.
Arguably, and ironically,
they may in fact use the scientific mindset for the skeptism.

It's like telling a man that there's an easier more effective route to a goal. And he responds with, "ha! Wheres your proof? My father, grandfather, uncle, mother, grandmother have all taken this route and it has served them well." They are, in effect, using rationality and tested proven examples.




How underfunded is Australia's school system that you have century old textbooks? What courses do you offer... advanced phrenology? Gramophone repair? Blacksmithing?


lmao, nah not underfunded at all. Way over funded imho lol.
There are modern authors but one cannot simply avoid the likes of:
Foucault b. 1926
Kant b. 1724
Marx b. 1818
Nietzche b. 1844
Durkheim 1858

etc etc




Some past knowledge should absolutely be discarded, especially when it doesn't stand up to scruitny. A false belief is a false belief no matter what century you're in.



Can you really discard knowledge? I think it's good to understand why even the false information got spread in the first place.
It remains to fascinate me how discarded ideas reappear in different forms.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 52
view profile
History
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 4/5/2013 4:43:57 PM
CureC> May I recommend a great short story for you:

it's from the New Yorker June 26, 1948 Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"

Hopefully you will see why holding onto tradition is NOT in your best interest and thinking for yourself using critical thinking skills is.

Enjoy. (It's a favorite of mine).
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Emperor's New Clothes