Published on 12, July, 2020
LOL, it was literally this the first time I tried dating.
Not in dating but this happens all the time : ( I try to have these logical conversations with reason and science behind them and their response is something like: 'But science doesn't know everything' or 'There are things that have no proof' or 'It might be proven in the future'... Makes me speechless. I honestly can't convince others if the fundamental basics are meaningless to them.
Cosmo said:I honestly can't convince others if the fundamental basics are meaningless to them.
Why do you need to convince them of anything?
It is much better to find common ground than to try to correct or educate them if you want to have a conversation that feels natural. Doing what you are doing makes you seem like a know-it-all or trying to force your beliefs (science here) onto them.
It helps to accept that the vast majority of people don't live by the same pillars of knowledge as yourself and it really does not help to try to convert them.
Learn to enjoy the difference, accept that they may have a bit of an odd relationship with reality by your standards but that it makes them happy.
A book that may help in having such conversations is:
How to Talk to Anyone About Anything - Improve Your Social Skills, Master Small Talk, Connect Effortlessly, and Make Real Friends - W. Williams, James (2021)ISBN 195303635X
Because their beliefs are hurtful? Like they believe that science has actually proved that homosexuality is bad in some ways, or that some mothers after birth have tendencies of killing their child because of postpartum depression (and they told me about this with so much confidence too), I don't think this really makes me a know it all lol.
It's ok if they like to look at the world in an unscientific way for themselves (even though I'd prefer if they didn't) but they end up affecting others too sometimes and they don't even try to think twice about their beliefs because nothing can change them if they don't care about scientific fundamentals.
I don't wanna be mean or disrespectful but lain, sometimes you've given me good advice, but you've sometimes also assumed too much and went full lecture/'I know so much more let me teach you my knowledge' mode lol.
Iain said:Knowing doesn't make it better simply though the knowledge - how to apply changes with this knowledge is what makes the difference.
That is what I meant really, this is an unnecessary distinguishing.
Iain said:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is absolutely correct but this is not something I'm unaware of. If I were in an argument with someone believing in horoscopes for example, them saying that:' Well there might be no proof for it but it doesn't mean it's not true since the evidence might be impossible to find or atleast are not found yet', this is a dead end conversation, whatever I say is meaningles now. This is faith/belief, unrelated to evidence. I might then say: 'Well if you like this belief and believing in horoscopes then go for it, but this is still unscientific and the absence of evidence not meaning is absence is true, but also, in science, something isn't true until there's evidence.'
Cosmo said:take us autistics. Imagine when we didn't know autism, judging ourselves and others, beating ourselves up, ugh why can't I just stop getting tired so fast?...but once we knew, everything is so much better for everyone
I found that knowing I was autistic only explained the mechanisms at work - I spent more than 50 years without this knowledge and had to dig really deep to find ways to cope and create energy when I was exhausted as failure wasn't an option - I had dependents to be responsible for.
Knowing doesn't make it better simply though the knowledge - how to apply changes with this knowledge is what makes the difference.
Cosmo said:I try to avoid most of the time since I've seen that they've never really gotten anywhere before. These are mostly things like horoscopes, ghosts, the different things they believe in that are mostly named 'energy' or are in their belief, related to quantum theory or dimensions...things like that.
I'm assuming you are not very old here - one thing that a longer life brings with it is the experience that al the "facts" and "scientific knowledge" that makes the bedrock of our world when we are younger is subject to constant change - whether through refinement or new discoveries.
Arthur C Clarke proposed 3 laws to deal with this situation:
1 - When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.2 - The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.3 - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws )
The 3rd law is relevant here - don't dismiss it because you don't believe it and remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Keep that scientific curiosity open and it makes the world a much more interesting place.