Obvious Leo wrote:You underestimate me, SOB. I can prove every word of it.
No Leo, I don't underestimate you, actually I have more respect for you as a human than I do many here, even though you do cuss, and/or lose your cool, every once in a while. You seem to be pretty even keeled. The sign of a more informed mind, as to the subject of humanities.
It's just that I know exactly the realm where this sort of, so called, knowledge exists. It's all in THEORY, it's ALL HYPOTHETICAL, thus it's NOT KNOWLEDGE AT ALL! NOT REALLY! It only exists in the fanciful minds of those that care to dream of possible solutions to VERY big problems, well beyond humankind's current scope. They take what they BELIEVE they see, or 'more importantly' what others have CLAIMED to see, that they've read in a book, having absolutely no way of judging the actual facts empirically. Then comes the extrapolation, of a billion possible permutations, depending on the bit of, so called, knowledge they choose to include as possible, to THEIR particular way of thinking. Yes I know the human animal well, reaching for the stars to somehow qualify itself, because of it's selfish tendencies, due to it's fear of death, first and foremost, then peer pressure, competition, due largely to testosterone, sexual competition misplaced, as the animal can't really separate things that are so intrinsically base, animalistic, automatic in this current form of human, we are far to emotional at this stage of development, to really understand those things so far removed from our microcosm. But we are very BIG dreamers, on that one can count.
So at this stage of the human game such large understandings are "hit and miss," based upon the ACTUAL knowledge/ignorance ratio, whether known or not."
THIS IS NOT AIMED AT YOU, IT'S AIMED AT HUMANS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY YOU AND I AS WELL AS ALL THE REST, HAPPEN TO BE APART OF. I've formulated this understanding long before I ever knew you existed! So take no offence!
You would have to lay all your evidence down for me to scrutinize, and I mean all, so I could provide argument along the way, before I would concede on this matter.
Psychology has shown me that often times, men especially, that have low self esteem (emotion), physical defects, etc, through their competition (emotion), choose the hardest things to grasp, reading it in others books of course, use mastery of those words/concepts of others works, so as to dazzle others with their intellectual prowess, sure they may understand exactly the words they've read to the T, but that does not necessarily ensure that the truth factor of those words/concepts is real, just that it's an elaborate web of reasonable logic based upon those millions of read constituents, BELIEVED to be knowledge. If only one bit of knowledge believed to be fact is out of place, the entire structure of logical thought crumbles to the ground. 100% OF ALL THE THOUGHTS (PREMISES) HAS TO SURVIVE "EMPIRICALLY" OR ELSE THE (CONCLUSION) IS 'POSSIBLY' JUST SO MUCH HOT AIR. The argument has to be 100% valid and the premises 100% true for the conclusion to be 100% true. Cutting edge science just doesn't have that in it's arsenal, in all 'actuality' it's 'probably' more conjecture, than anything else, unless it's accidentally a hit, of course.
Once we can dispense with emotion, we'll have a much better chance of coming to real conclusions.