The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Perceiving and believing but not knowing > Comments

Perceiving and believing but not knowing : Comments

By Michel Poelman, published 18/5/2012

How sense can create nonsense, and we knowingly accept the nonsense over the sense.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Interesting article...and I must admit to getting my ruler out to measure the tables!
Posted by Phil Matimein, Friday, 18 May 2012 1:02:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The confirmation bias remains very much alive and well! Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 18 May 2012 3:22:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would have been better if the tables were actually the same shape. They are not, the angles are different and so one has more area than the other.

The gambler would have won.

Other than that, yes the author has a point and scientists have known this for a very long time, which is why they use a funny little branch of mathematics called statistics.

Oddly enough, the word statistics doesn't appear in the Bible.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 18 May 2012 4:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
knowingly accept the nonsense over the sense.
I don't,
I'm conservative.
Posted by individual, Friday, 18 May 2012 7:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've seldom seen such blithe reductionism as this: "Our brains combine the inputs from our senses to form our views about society, sex, life, the universe, economics, politics, friendship, justice and everything else.", or the rest of the article.

Our senses are nothing without the synthesising brain, which makes sense and nonsense of them all. And the brain's findings are made sense of by the mind--except there is no mind (perhaps). The whole notion of objectifying reality is a nonsense if you think about it. How after all can we be both part and apart from reality? In a position to interrogate it, subject-object? It's an illusion. Or we are truly other; other from the reality that spawned us. I therefore opt for the first option, for I cannot believe that our empiricism can be so eccentric. I don't allude to the tables in the diagram; the inconsistency there is just a matter of perspective, and of course the brain must race ahead of piecemeal apprehensions, or else our anatomical reflexes would be pointless; we'd be trying to avoid the collision long after the event. A batsman doesn't plan his shot after the bowler's delivery; he anticipates.
The brain does a marvellous job of constructing an accurate perception of quotidian reality from the senses, and we shouldn't mock its errors since incoming data is contingent and chaotic, and the objective is to keep us alive, or our stumps in tact, not to afford us a "thoughtful" perspective.
Our thoughtfulness is the delusion, is nothing but an ideological preoccupation--a meditation on our collective meditations.
The point is not to check our beliefs, but to abandon them. Our beliefs/opinions are all derivative and were never based on accurate perception, are not objective. How can we be objective about a game of cricket? We can only be objective "within" the rules of the game. Our opinions are like that. The errata construed from the senses is nothing to the pig-ignorance of ideology.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 18 May 2012 8:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, thanks for your comments. You state confidently (but without proof) that the tabletops are of different shape. They are exactly the same. Perhaps the following helps to convince yourself: cut out a parallelogram that precisely covers one of the tabletops, then cover the other table top with your cut-out. If that doesn’t work for you then you can print the picture and cut out the 2 tabletops and put the two cut-outs on top of each other.
Posted by Mitch@T4R, Saturday, 19 May 2012 5:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy