Truth vs. Paradigm

[WanderingLands]

Paradigms are all ever present in religion, politics, philosophy, aesthetics, and science, and often divide people into smaller camps. A paradigm is a set of beliefs that are structured, first in the perception of individuals who hold or create these beliefs, and try to defend them against and/or proselytize others. Whenever a belief or an entire paradigm is questioned by another individual or group, the people holding the paradigm lash out at them as they feel threatened by "outside forces".

Why is this different from, and antithetical to, Truth? The longing for Truth by the many has consisted of being open to other opinions and viewpoints on certain things, which involves an ever changing and an ever destroying of paradigms to get to Truth. Truth takes the dedication of learning how to actually trust oneself; to question things, as well as sense whether things may seem right or not.

So the difference between a person of a Paradigm and a person who simply seeks for Truth, is that a seeker of Truth seeks Truth, while the keeper of a Paradigm stays within their structured beliefs.

[thedoc]

Whenever a belief or an entire paradigm is questioned by another individual or group, the people holding the paradigm lash out at them as they feel threatened by "outside forces".

Not everyone, some of us will at least listen. However the manner of others expressing their opinions can be a bit 'putting off' and may preclude a fair hearing of those ideas. I have often had civil conversations with people who had different beliefs and have agreed to disagree without any hostility. But then there are times when someone will forcefully try to press their beliefs on me and I reject them out-of-hand without a fair hearing.

[WanderingLands]

Not everyone, some of us will at least listen. However the manner of others expressing their opinions can be a bit 'putting off' and may preclude a fair hearing of those ideas. I have often had civil conversations with people who had different beliefs and have agreed to disagree without any hostility. But then there are times when someone will forcefully try to press their beliefs on me and I reject them out-of-hand without a fair hearing.

I do actually agree that there are open minded people, coming from my experiences (ie. some of my family and my friends understand some ofmy information). A lot of times, though, there are certain issues that can be too sensitive to open minded people; even those who do look for Truth (like myself). It's the herd part human nature, but even human nature has some form of questioning and "individuality".

[thedoc]

Not everyone, some of us will at least listen. However the manner of others expressing their opinions can be a bit 'putting off' and may preclude a fair hearing of those ideas. I have often had civil conversations with people who had different beliefs and have agreed to disagree without any hostility. But then there are times when someone will forcefully try to press their beliefs on me and I reject them out-of-hand without a fair hearing.

I do actually agree that there are open minded people, coming from my experiences (ie. some of my family and my friends understand some of my information). A lot of times, though, there are certain issues that can be too sensitive to open minded people; even those who do look for Truth (like myself). It's the herd part human nature, but even human nature has some form of questioning and "individuality".

I grew up with parents who thought that humiliation was a proper parenting tool. I have always been curious and questioning, but it got so bad that almost anything I said was greeted with ridicule. I still question and am curious about a lot of things, but I'm much more careful about which live person I broach a subject with, there is much more freedom on a forum, where I can ask anything I want and do not have to face the person answering me, I can even ignore some of them if I choose. I do have a wide range of knowledge on some obscure areas, and my daughter often describes my knowledge as TMI or 'Useless Information', and I must admit she is usually right.

[WanderingLands]

I grew up with parents who thought that humiliation was a proper parenting tool. I have always been curious and questioning, but it got so bad that almost anything I said was greeted with ridicule. I still question and am curious about a lot of things, but I'm much more careful about which live person I broach a subject with, there is much more freedom on a forum, where I can ask anything I want and do not have to face the person answering me, I can even ignore some of them if I choose. I do have a wide range of knowledge on some obscure areas, and my daughter often describes my knowledge as TMI or 'Useless Information', and I must admit she is usually right.

I had those experience myself of being ridiculed - mostly in the classroom where kids would laugh at me for calling out the teachers on the stuff taught in school.

[thedoc]

I had those experience myself of being ridiculed - mostly in the classroom where kids would laugh at me for calling out the teachers on the stuff taught in school.

I was lucky in that I could correct the Geometry teacher and not have a problem especially after I corrected on of the 'proofs' in the book, I also got an 'A' for the year. However when an English teacher failed a student's paper on getting a Pilot's License because he was only 14 years old and couldn't possibly know anything about it, I learned to keep my mouth shut. BTW the student had already gotten his Pilot's License and knew the process, and was writing about something he knew.

[Blaggard]

Not everyone, some of us will at least listen. However the manner of others expressing their opinions can be a bit 'putting off' and may preclude a fair hearing of those ideas. I have often had civil conversations with people who had different beliefs and have agreed to disagree without any hostility. But then there are times when someone will forcefully try to press their beliefs on me and I reject them out-of-hand without a fair hearing.

I do actually agree that there are open minded people, coming from my experiences (ie. some of my family and my friends understand some of my information). A lot of times, though, there are certain issues that can be too sensitive to open minded people; even those who do look for Truth (like myself). It's the herd part human nature, but even human nature has some form of questioning and "individuality".

I grew up with parents who thought that humiliation was a proper parenting tool. I have always been curious and questioning, but it got so bad that almost anything I said was greeted with ridicule. I still question and am curious about a lot of things, but I'm much more careful about which live person I broach a subject with, there is much more freedom on a forum, where I can ask anything I want and do not have to face the person answering me, I can even ignore some of them if I choose. I do have a wide range of knowledge on some obscure areas, and my daughter often describes my knowledge as TMI or 'Useless Information', and I must admit she is usually right.

Isn't that normal, I mean my parents also used the smack technique but punishment isn't meant to be fun. The law uses at least one of those methods too.

Or do you just mean they had a go at your for expressing an opinion, that isn't normal. Your parents were dicks if that is the case.

A good teacher should respond favourably to correction, one teacher I corrected refused to have me in his class the next year and I had to sign up with a different tutor.

[thedoc]

A good teacher should respond favourably to correction, one teacher I corrected refused to have me in his class the next year and I had to sign up with a different tutor.

My Geometry teacher was OK and I may have been his prize student, I started a notebook of everything we learned and could recite the rules by memory. He was also a big guy just over 6 feet and athletic, but he had a mild form of Epilepsy and all the other kids were scared silly of him.

My correction of the proof in the book started when I was putting my proof on the board and had gone over the number of steps in the book. He asked me how many steps there were and when I told him he asked if anyone else had a shorter proof. Someone did and he asked them to put their proof on the board. When he asked for questions I pointed out the error in the proof, he studied it a bit, crossed out the proof in the book and asked me to put mine on the board. That really felt good.

FYI, I was a teacher for 7 years and I know most of the errors that a teacher can make. The worst one is to not admit that you don't know everything, I've met a lot of teachers like that either directly or indirectly.

[quotidian]

The original meaning of 'scepticism' was closer to 'discarding paradigms' than it is now, as it has become to all intents another paradigm. But the original sceptics and cynics were very much more like Indian sadhus - they were renunciates who dwelt outside the bounds of society (Diogenes Laertius dwelt in an abandoned water-tank in the town dump.)

So Pyrrho of Elis' idea of scepticism was 'suspension of judgement about things that are not evident'. There has been recent scholarship suggesting that he travelled to Gandhara (now Afghanistan/Pakistan) and sat with Buddhist philosophers, who taught him this technique of 'suspension of judgement'. His philosophy was carried on by other notables, particularly Sextus Empiricus.

But scepticism quickly degenerated into sophistry, i.e. 'nothing can be known for certain', to put it crudely. I think it is associated, as I said, with a particular way of life which is hardly possible in today's world.

[WanderingLands]

The original meaning of 'scepticism' was closer to 'discarding paradigms' than it is now, as it has become to all intents another paradigm. But the original sceptics and cynics were very much more like Indian sadhus - they were renunciates who dwelt outside the bounds of society (Diogenes Laertius dwelt in an abandoned water-tank in the town dump.)

So Pyrrho of Elis' idea of scepticism was 'suspension of judgement about things that are not evident'. There has been recent scholarship suggesting that he travelled to Gandhara (now Afghanistan/Pakistan) and sat with Buddhist philosophers, who taught him this technique of 'suspension of judgement'. His philosophy was carried on by other notables, particularly Sextus Empiricus.

But scepticism quickly degenerated into sophistry, i.e. 'nothing can be known for certain', to put it crudely. I think it is associated, as I said, with a particular way of life which is hardly possible in today's world.

Definitely agree that modern "skepticism" is pretty much uncertainty, and is unfortunately dominated within academia and society overall, and is also used for suppressing dissent for questioning their means and ends as they (as in society in general) promote the ideologies of immorality, falsehood, and government propaganda as part of keeping people in control. It is definitely a label that many people on the internet use to apologize (as in defend) for the establishment (such as RationalWiki, Skeptoid, etc.).

[Ginkgo]

Paradigms are all ever present in religion, politics, philosophy, aesthetics, and science, and often divide people into smaller camps. A paradigm is a set of beliefs that are structured, first in the perception of individuals who hold or create these beliefs, and try to defend them against and/or proselytize others. Whenever a belief or an entire paradigm is questioned by another individual or group, the people holding the paradigm lash out at them as they feel threatened by "outside forces".

Why is this different from, and antithetical to, Truth? The longing for Truth by the many has consisted of being open to other opinions and viewpoints on certain things, which involves an ever changing and an ever destroying of paradigms to get to Truth. Truth takes the dedication of learning how to actually trust oneself; to question things, as well as sense whether things may seem right or not.

So the difference between a person of a Paradigm and a person who simply seeks for Truth, is that a seeker of Truth seeks Truth, while the keeper of a Paradigm stays within their structured beliefs.

Popper versus Kuhn addresses many of the issues you have raised. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't have an article on this topic.

[WanderingLands]

Popper versus Kuhn addresses many of the issues you have raised. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't have an article on this topic.

I never read those two philosophers before and I am trying to find my own conclusions. However, may you give me some link for me to see it?

[Ginkgo]

Popper versus Kuhn addresses many of the issues you have raised. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't have an article on this topic.

I never read those two philosophers before and I am trying to find my own conclusions. However, may you give me some link for me to see it?

I'll try and find a good one and get back to you.

[WanderingLands]

I'll try and find a good one and get back to you.

Alright then, thank you.

[thedoc]

You are reflecting upon the differences between reason and ideology, a point of much confusion across the forum landscape. Forums are almost always about ideology, and not reason, whatever the participants may claim.

It is not just about forums, but is about individuals that clutch on to a belief system.

Unfortunately many of the people I have encountered have been 'People of Paradigm' as opposed to 'People seeking the truth'. When confronted, most of these people will make something up to support their paradigm rather than seek the truth. I have simply learned not to argue with people like this.