I'd like you to tell me what your sun is made up of and how you know this.
I don't personally have a Sun. What about you? I have a pretty good idea of what powers the Sun though.
Yeah, I asked you about it and haven't had your answer.
How about you?
I have a (my own) theory about how it all works. It may not be fact but it's my thought process by my ability to see what's going on around us, like we all have but many choose to stop there.
I'd like to know where your deep-seated distrust comes from. I mean.. at some points in our lives, well at most points in our lives actually we have to learn something or other. Now how do most of us learn? We go on courses. We read books. We use the internet. Etc etc. In other words we obtain new information from other people. We have to place our trust in people to tell us stuff. 99.9% of people don't seem to have a hard time doing that.
When I was young I was taught to think but I didn't have tome to think of everything and certainly not the time to question the theoreticals of a lot of Earth stuff. I accepted them for that time being.
I've been taught many things. I've been taught to think of problem solving and it's where my ability to invent stuff was nurtured out of me.
You on the other hand seem to have a massive belief that whenever people tell you something they are lying.
No. I do question a lot of stuff by people who do not come across as just garnering my trust for free.
Why? What would they stand to gain by lying?
That depends on what they're lying about.
What does a salesperson have to gain by lying to you about buying a product for a lot more than you can get it somewhere else?
If I want to know why the sky is blue or why the Sun shines, why the stars are just points of light in the sky or why volcanoes erupt then I will go and read a book about it. I can pick up up 100 different books written by 100 different people and they will all give me the same information.
Why? Because people have researched the answer and provided that information.
Yep, you can look in books.
When a story has been worked and reworked many times, you will have ... If it is popular, people will be clamouring for another just like it.So, what are people researching?
Are they picking a book of fiction from the non fiction shelf or a book of non fiction from the fiction shelf. Or are they choosing a book that mixes both into one story and many stories like it by different authors?
How do you clarify a story without proof?
Then Sceptimatic comes along and decides he doesn't accept any of that and that we are all being 'indoctrinated'?
I don't...or try not to.... accept anything that doesn't ring true. If it turns out to be true, then fair enough, I will accept it as that.
What I'm arguing against has no proof of facts. They are theoretical stories that refuse to show physical truth's.
So he goes and invents his own answers.
Yep. It's called thinking outside of the box to try and solve a potential infinite puzzle by trying to find the simplest pieces that can create a foundation for a better picture to the potential truth whilst also taking out the pieces of that jigsaw that were pieced in to places that seemed to fit but on closer inspection were wholly inadequate for a continuous part of a picture.
What does 'indoctrinated' mean to you?
Being told to follow a curriculum and being examined on following that, unconditionally.
We were all coaxed/bullied into following that set of rules.
Those who didn't were pushed aside and punished or ridiculed, whether it was refusal to be indoctrinated or inability to understand what the curriculum portrayed to them.
You're taking it to heart because you don't like the word...but you know what I'm saying, is the truth.
Basically it seems anyone who tells anyone anything other than what you believe seems to come under the heading of 'indoctrination' to you.
Absolutely not. You are feeling a little bitter towards me because your mind is that you've been almost scorned by my thought process for which you believe I'm trying to get you to follow.
You are under no pressure to do anything you don't want to do, unless someone holds a gun or stick ot emotional distress upon you for which you feel compelled to follow under a fear of consequence.
We don't live long enough to find out everything for ourselves from first principles so at times we have to rely on others to tell us don't we.
I agree, absolutely.
You're simply tying everything in with me simply refusing to accept anything.
This is your issue, not mine.
You ridicule the fundamental points of science such as gravity which has been very well documented over the centuries, shove it all aside and produce your weird stories about 'pressure' for which you can produce absolutely no evidence at all and then you go on about how you are 'in awe' of scientists.
Scientist(s) is the word that we all are, if we are capable of trying to understand what is around us and what we are part of.
Real scientists will deal with real things and try and make assumptions on them based on experience over time of what it is they deal with, to come to a conclusion.
Then you have the theoretical scientists that are dealing with potentials, which mean, they may be real but cannot be verified until physically put into practice.
And then we have pseudo science. I can be labelled into this category just as much as anyone.
I can also be labelled into the tin foil hat nut job, idiotic backward category by people who have set notions.
It depends who accepts stuff without physical proof. It also depends on who unconditionally believes stuff without physical proof.
Sorry mate... doesn't compute!
I don't expect it to given the fact we think entirely differently on what it is we may be dealing with.
You can't be in awe of something with one hand and then dismiss it all as silly nonsense with the other.
I don't dismiss something I'm in awe of. I will accept it for what it is or portrays.