Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?

2008-09-16T02:15:35Z

JonoP: Undo revision 517610 by DRamon (Talk)We are not folled by you "DR"

Suggestion for some theories on why people doubt:
'''Past (personal) experiences.''' If something did not work for some reason in the past, people tend to believe that it may not work in the future. For example, baby elephants are secured with chains, while adult elephants are secured with mere ropes. Also, the use of glass to keep a fish from eating another that works even when removed.
'''Observation of others.''' For example, if you view someone attempting and failing to walk on water, you may tend to believe that walking on water does not work, period. I suspect that Peter viewed Jesus walking on water, tried it, started to succeed, then remembered past observations and experiences which overwhelmed him, and fell in. '''Pessimism/cynicism''' For example, some people succeed at sales, others do not. The difference is eventual doubt or optimism as to whether a sale will be made. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Feed your faith, and your doubts will starve to death. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:In reply to Userafw, it was illogical for Peter to reject the fact that he was walking, and instead place greater significance to his prior inability to walk.

:I'm told that some blind people who, due to an operation, obtain their sight may actually have difficult believing they can see. Again, this is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::You ask why do people doubt (or deny) the existence and power of God? Could it be that they have been taken over by evil, by the devil, to disbelieve in God while being influenced to deny the existence of their possessor as well? (In case this sounds extreme, I'd recommend M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', a book that demonstrates the existence of evil). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the recommendation, which I'll buy and read. Logic certainly doesn't explain the doubt, so evil/devil is a plausible explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble with this essay. It seems to be saying that all doubt is bad. Surely that's not true, or we'd all be incredibly gullible people. Doubt and skepticism can be very beneficial. You yourself expressed a great deal of doubt about Lenski's experiments, which is certainly not a bad thing. Assuming God is omnipotent, he can do basically anything. Does it really stand to reason that we should believe anything, just because it's possible? If I told you God raised my Aunt Mildred from the dead 3 days after she died, would you believe me? I would certainly doubt such a claim. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::What I got out of the essay is that doubt in oneself and his abilities is bad. Obviously doubt in itself is not a bad thing. Without doubt in liberal teachings and claims, this site would not exist. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, I admit that part makes sense, though it is also important for one to know one's limits. I seriously doubt I could swim to, say, a not too distant island because I am not a great swimmer. Casting these doubts aside and trying anyway could easily lead to my demise. Certainly when attempting any sort of physical or other feat, one should keep a positive mindset. I think most people agree on that. But this essay goes further, centering on the resurrection of Christ. There are reasons to accept this and reasons to doubt it, but the idea that "God can do it so it's silly to think he might not have" is hardly a satisfying one. If God can do anything, should we accept all claims of everything he purportedly did? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The obvious point of the essay is to criticize ''illogical'' doubt that defies rational explanation. I give several examples of this to illustrate the point. When Peter is already walking on water, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can do that. When an athlete is ahead in a contest, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can win and then degrade his performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::That much makes sense, to an extent, though if I saw someone walking on water, I would be tempted to think it was a trick of some sort, at least at first. I'm sure we've all seen enough "magic" shows to know there are myriad ways to make things appear not as they are. The point about the resurrection, which seems to be the crux of this essay, is a different matter altogether. It might be illogical for the disciples who witnessed direct evidence of the resurrection to doubt it, but for those of us who haven't (which is everyone today) such doubt does not seem so out of place. If the only argument is "it could have happened" then there's more convincing to be done.
::::::::Furthermore, at least some doubt is beneficial even in the athletic contests you mentioned. Not doubt one ''can'' win, but at least some doubt that one ''will'' win. A classic example of someone with no doubt of his victory is the hare in the tortoise and the hare parable. While it is merely a story, it is a good example of what can happen when someone is so certain of an outcome that they take it for granted. McCain is ahead in the polls now, but he should have at least ''some'' doubt of his eventual victory. If he had none at all there would be no reason to spend millions more campaigning, and if he were to stop now, he'd almost certainly lose. Having some doubt is different from having a defeatist attitude. Basically everyone agrees that the latter is detrimental. Though this has little to do with the resurrection of Christ. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 19:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your comment starts from a faulty premise: it was not an observer who doubted that Peter could walk on water, but Peter himself doubted it ''while he was already walking on water''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Sorry, I misread that. Nevertheless, that is an atypical example of doubt, as it involves a miracle making what is normally impossible suddenly possible (a little doubt is hardly surprising in any case; "I can't believe I'm walking on water!" would seem to be a normal response). I can basically see the connection between that and an athlete being ahead and suddenly taking a defeatist attitude and then losing. But the jump to the resurrection doesn't seem to fit in to this pattern. It's a very different type of doubt, and we agree that not all doubt is bad. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Doubt is not a desire for more information"==

The essay is an interesting one, but I have to question this particular assertion. Doubt can often be the driver of a search for more information. A key premise of the scientific method is the application of doubt to a prevailing theory, which in turn leads to new hypotheses, research, experimentation, and then often, a new theory that replaces or improves on the old. Doubt can also lead one to a spiritual revelation - the classic case one would promote on Conservapedia being when a non-Christian is exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and rather than just disregarding the prior beliefs, begins an exploration and study of Christianity leading to conversion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: The essay discusses a "type of" doubt. The scientific method you describe is not really an affirmative doubt, or force of doubting, but simply an open mind seeking more information. The doubt described in the essay is not an open mind seeking the truth; it is a force blocking out the truth in an illogical manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

==Suggested answers?==

Since the article is posed as a question, it would surely be appropriate to include a section (either in the article or perhaps the talk page) where readers can suggest ''why'' humans doubt? One suggested answer might be, for example, that it comes from a sense of self-preservation, as in, "If I chase that deer at full tilt towards that cliff, might I not myself follow the animal over the edge?" There are plenty of useful uses of doubt. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: Irrelevant to this entry, which focuses on ''irrational'' doubt, like Peter doubting he could walk on water as he walked on water.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Blindness==
Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again (as you stated above). Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. [[User:JonoP|JonoP]] 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:Removed unsubstansive comments. Andy, we dont fall for claims of expertise here. You obviously have never read any Dr. Oliver Sacks and are obviously clueless about how the brain works. You have provided no links to back up your claims. Please make a substansive comment or go elsewhere. P.S - PNAS was RIGHT! You were WRONG! Thanks and Godspeed! Sincerely, Ace McWicked

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-16T02:14:37Z

JonoP: rmv unsustansive comments

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&curid=73292&diff=517424&oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is "declining to comment" an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: This is confusing. Is "I agree with your thesis" or "your methods are 100% correct" a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a "Talk Page". Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?

2008-09-16T02:06:35Z

JonoP: /* Blindness */ reply

Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?

2008-09-16T02:00:09Z

JonoP: gave own section - On Blindness

Suggestion for some theories on why people doubt:
'''Past (personal) experiences.''' If something did not work for some reason in the past, people tend to believe that it may not work in the future. For example, baby elephants are secured with chains, while adult elephants are secured with mere ropes. Also, the use of glass to keep a fish from eating another that works even when removed.
'''Observation of others.''' For example, if you view someone attempting and failing to walk on water, you may tend to believe that walking on water does not work, period. I suspect that Peter viewed Jesus walking on water, tried it, started to succeed, then remembered past observations and experiences which overwhelmed him, and fell in. '''Pessimism/cynicism''' For example, some people succeed at sales, others do not. The difference is eventual doubt or optimism as to whether a sale will be made. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Feed your faith, and your doubts will starve to death. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:In reply to Userafw, it was illogical for Peter to reject the fact that he was walking, and instead place greater significance to his prior inability to walk.

:I'm told that some blind people who, due to an operation, obtain their sight may actually have difficult believing they can see. Again, this is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::You ask why do people doubt (or deny) the existence and power of God? Could it be that they have been taken over by evil, by the devil, to disbelieve in God while being influenced to deny the existence of their possessor as well? (In case this sounds extreme, I'd recommend M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', a book that demonstrates the existence of evil). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the recommendation, which I'll buy and read. Logic certainly doesn't explain the doubt, so evil/devil is a plausible explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble with this essay. It seems to be saying that all doubt is bad. Surely that's not true, or we'd all be incredibly gullible people. Doubt and skepticism can be very beneficial. You yourself expressed a great deal of doubt about Lenski's experiments, which is certainly not a bad thing. Assuming God is omnipotent, he can do basically anything. Does it really stand to reason that we should believe anything, just because it's possible? If I told you God raised my Aunt Mildred from the dead 3 days after she died, would you believe me? I would certainly doubt such a claim. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::What I got out of the essay is that doubt in oneself and his abilities is bad. Obviously doubt in itself is not a bad thing. Without doubt in liberal teachings and claims, this site would not exist. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, I admit that part makes sense, though it is also important for one to know one's limits. I seriously doubt I could swim to, say, a not too distant island because I am not a great swimmer. Casting these doubts aside and trying anyway could easily lead to my demise. Certainly when attempting any sort of physical or other feat, one should keep a positive mindset. I think most people agree on that. But this essay goes further, centering on the resurrection of Christ. There are reasons to accept this and reasons to doubt it, but the idea that "God can do it so it's silly to think he might not have" is hardly a satisfying one. If God can do anything, should we accept all claims of everything he purportedly did? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The obvious point of the essay is to criticize ''illogical'' doubt that defies rational explanation. I give several examples of this to illustrate the point. When Peter is already walking on water, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can do that. When an athlete is ahead in a contest, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can win and then degrade his performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::That much makes sense, to an extent, though if I saw someone walking on water, I would be tempted to think it was a trick of some sort, at least at first. I'm sure we've all seen enough "magic" shows to know there are myriad ways to make things appear not as they are. The point about the resurrection, which seems to be the crux of this essay, is a different matter altogether. It might be illogical for the disciples who witnessed direct evidence of the resurrection to doubt it, but for those of us who haven't (which is everyone today) such doubt does not seem so out of place. If the only argument is "it could have happened" then there's more convincing to be done.
::::::::Furthermore, at least some doubt is beneficial even in the athletic contests you mentioned. Not doubt one ''can'' win, but at least some doubt that one ''will'' win. A classic example of someone with no doubt of his victory is the hare in the tortoise and the hare parable. While it is merely a story, it is a good example of what can happen when someone is so certain of an outcome that they take it for granted. McCain is ahead in the polls now, but he should have at least ''some'' doubt of his eventual victory. If he had none at all there would be no reason to spend millions more campaigning, and if he were to stop now, he'd almost certainly lose. Having some doubt is different from having a defeatist attitude. Basically everyone agrees that the latter is detrimental. Though this has little to do with the resurrection of Christ. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 19:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your comment starts from a faulty premise: it was not an observer who doubted that Peter could walk on water, but Peter himself doubted it ''while he was already walking on water''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Sorry, I misread that. Nevertheless, that is an atypical example of doubt, as it involves a miracle making what is normally impossible suddenly possible (a little doubt is hardly surprising in any case; "I can't believe I'm walking on water!" would seem to be a normal response). I can basically see the connection between that and an athlete being ahead and suddenly taking a defeatist attitude and then losing. But the jump to the resurrection doesn't seem to fit in to this pattern. It's a very different type of doubt, and we agree that not all doubt is bad. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Doubt is not a desire for more information"==

The essay is an interesting one, but I have to question this particular assertion. Doubt can often be the driver of a search for more information. A key premise of the scientific method is the application of doubt to a prevailing theory, which in turn leads to new hypotheses, research, experimentation, and then often, a new theory that replaces or improves on the old. Doubt can also lead one to a spiritual revelation - the classic case one would promote on Conservapedia being when a non-Christian is exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and rather than just disregarding the prior beliefs, begins an exploration and study of Christianity leading to conversion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: The essay discusses a "type of" doubt. The scientific method you describe is not really an affirmative doubt, or force of doubting, but simply an open mind seeking more information. The doubt described in the essay is not an open mind seeking the truth; it is a force blocking out the truth in an illogical manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

==Suggested answers?==

Since the article is posed as a question, it would surely be appropriate to include a section (either in the article or perhaps the talk page) where readers can suggest ''why'' humans doubt? One suggested answer might be, for example, that it comes from a sense of self-preservation, as in, "If I chase that deer at full tilt towards that cliff, might I not myself follow the animal over the edge?" There are plenty of useful uses of doubt. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Blindness==
Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again (as you stated above). Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. [[User:JonoP|JonoP]] 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do People Doubt?

2008-09-16T01:29:32Z

JonoP: to aschlafly, on blindness

Suggestion for some theories on why people doubt:
'''Past (personal) experiences.''' If something did not work for some reason in the past, people tend to believe that it may not work in the future. For example, baby elephants are secured with chains, while adult elephants are secured with mere ropes. Also, the use of glass to keep a fish from eating another that works even when removed.
'''Observation of others.''' For example, if you view someone attempting and failing to walk on water, you may tend to believe that walking on water does not work, period. I suspect that Peter viewed Jesus walking on water, tried it, started to succeed, then remembered past observations and experiences which overwhelmed him, and fell in. '''Pessimism/cynicism''' For example, some people succeed at sales, others do not. The difference is eventual doubt or optimism as to whether a sale will be made. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:32, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:Feed your faith, and your doubts will starve to death. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:In reply to Userafw, it was illogical for Peter to reject the fact that he was walking, and instead place greater significance to his prior inability to walk.

:I'm told that some blind people who, due to an operation, obtain their sight may actually have difficult believing they can see. Again, this is illogical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, people who regain their sight after a period of blindness do not "doubt" they can see again. Its because the brain, after losing sight, uses other methods to navigate the world (hearing being the big one) and when sight is regained people have relearn to navigate with sight again as the brains forgets how. Just to clarify. [[User:JonoP|JonoP]] 21:29, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::You ask why do people doubt (or deny) the existence and power of God? Could it be that they have been taken over by evil, by the devil, to disbelieve in God while being influenced to deny the existence of their possessor as well? (In case this sounds extreme, I'd recommend M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', a book that demonstrates the existence of evil). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:51, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Thanks for the recommendation, which I'll buy and read. Logic certainly doesn't explain the doubt, so evil/devil is a plausible explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble with this essay. It seems to be saying that all doubt is bad. Surely that's not true, or we'd all be incredibly gullible people. Doubt and skepticism can be very beneficial. You yourself expressed a great deal of doubt about Lenski's experiments, which is certainly not a bad thing. Assuming God is omnipotent, he can do basically anything. Does it really stand to reason that we should believe anything, just because it's possible? If I told you God raised my Aunt Mildred from the dead 3 days after she died, would you believe me? I would certainly doubt such a claim. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::What I got out of the essay is that doubt in oneself and his abilities is bad. Obviously doubt in itself is not a bad thing. Without doubt in liberal teachings and claims, this site would not exist. [[User:LautRN|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:LautRN|Discussion]] 18:20, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, I admit that part makes sense, though it is also important for one to know one's limits. I seriously doubt I could swim to, say, a not too distant island because I am not a great swimmer. Casting these doubts aside and trying anyway could easily lead to my demise. Certainly when attempting any sort of physical or other feat, one should keep a positive mindset. I think most people agree on that. But this essay goes further, centering on the resurrection of Christ. There are reasons to accept this and reasons to doubt it, but the idea that "God can do it so it's silly to think he might not have" is hardly a satisfying one. If God can do anything, should we accept all claims of everything he purportedly did? [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 18:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: The obvious point of the essay is to criticize ''illogical'' doubt that defies rational explanation. I give several examples of this to illustrate the point. When Peter is already walking on water, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can do that. When an athlete is ahead in a contest, there is no logical basis for him to doubt that he can win and then degrade his performance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::That much makes sense, to an extent, though if I saw someone walking on water, I would be tempted to think it was a trick of some sort, at least at first. I'm sure we've all seen enough "magic" shows to know there are myriad ways to make things appear not as they are. The point about the resurrection, which seems to be the crux of this essay, is a different matter altogether. It might be illogical for the disciples who witnessed direct evidence of the resurrection to doubt it, but for those of us who haven't (which is everyone today) such doubt does not seem so out of place. If the only argument is "it could have happened" then there's more convincing to be done.
::::::::Furthermore, at least some doubt is beneficial even in the athletic contests you mentioned. Not doubt one ''can'' win, but at least some doubt that one ''will'' win. A classic example of someone with no doubt of his victory is the hare in the tortoise and the hare parable. While it is merely a story, it is a good example of what can happen when someone is so certain of an outcome that they take it for granted. McCain is ahead in the polls now, but he should have at least ''some'' doubt of his eventual victory. If he had none at all there would be no reason to spend millions more campaigning, and if he were to stop now, he'd almost certainly lose. Having some doubt is different from having a defeatist attitude. Basically everyone agrees that the latter is detrimental. Though this has little to do with the resurrection of Christ. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 19:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Your comment starts from a faulty premise: it was not an observer who doubted that Peter could walk on water, but Peter himself doubted it ''while he was already walking on water''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Sorry, I misread that. Nevertheless, that is an atypical example of doubt, as it involves a miracle making what is normally impossible suddenly possible (a little doubt is hardly surprising in any case; "I can't believe I'm walking on water!" would seem to be a normal response). I can basically see the connection between that and an athlete being ahead and suddenly taking a defeatist attitude and then losing. But the jump to the resurrection doesn't seem to fit in to this pattern. It's a very different type of doubt, and we agree that not all doubt is bad. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 09:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Doubt is not a desire for more information"==

The essay is an interesting one, but I have to question this particular assertion. Doubt can often be the driver of a search for more information. A key premise of the scientific method is the application of doubt to a prevailing theory, which in turn leads to new hypotheses, research, experimentation, and then often, a new theory that replaces or improves on the old. Doubt can also lead one to a spiritual revelation - the classic case one would promote on Conservapedia being when a non-Christian is exposed to the teachings of Christianity, and rather than just disregarding the prior beliefs, begins an exploration and study of Christianity leading to conversion. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: The essay discusses a "type of" doubt. The scientific method you describe is not really an affirmative doubt, or force of doubting, but simply an open mind seeking more information. The doubt described in the essay is not an open mind seeking the truth; it is a force blocking out the truth in an illogical manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)