How do we create a willing ear?

[Estrid]

We don't need the Christian story to see the selfishness of man and those who continually seek gain at the expense of others, be it theft or adultery up to the systems of nations and financial institutions.

What does it take to be able to see the good?

 

[timothyu]

What does it take to be able to see the good?

A willingness to address the needs of others and not seek gain at their expense. This should lead to repentance of the natural self seeking ways of man.

 

[Estrid]

A willingness to address the needs of others and not seek gain at their expense. This should lead to repentance of the natural self seeking ways of man.

This an East is east, west is west thing.
We'd never agree.

 

[timothyu]

We'd never agree.

And that is allowed. Freedom of thought and expression.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The basic premises of the OP is that before achieving results, we need to create a willingness to listen. Now, I can give many examples about how not to do it. For example -- and despite all the cheers in the comment section, I think that Aron Ra did an incredible poor job against Kent Hovind in the debate below:

Aron Ra was way too condescending and was talking way over the heads of the average Hovind fan. I am convinced that after watching this debate the average Hovind fan has even more digged his heels in the ground and entrenched in his positions.

It ought not to be that way. But we need to ask ourselves how to turn this.

Yes, you can't change someone's mind unless they are persuaded by your argument. IOW they must change their mind themselves. You're more likely to antagonize them than persuade them by being condescending and telling them directly that they're wrong. It also helps if they can see that you understand their point of view.

Science is at a disadvantage in its principles that explanations are always provisional and it doesn't deal in proof or absolute certainty. To someone brought up in the certainty of their beliefs, this can seem like a weakness rather than a strength.

 

[Estrid]

One thing that will have the opposite effect than intended is
citing woo woo sources like " Ron Wyatt" to educated ears or
ftm, anyone with some common sense.

 

[driewerf]

Simple. People can become experts at anything they wish. If we restore that idea, then we can dispense with the talking heads. (Not the band of course.)

Can they? Really?
Look, let us look at my case. I have a master degree in chemistry. Which is "just" a master degree. There are plenty of people who have more advanced degrees. So in my very area of education there are plenty of people that are much more expert.
But let us assume that I want to become an expert. I have a decent job with a decent salary, so I can live from one job and don't have to combine different jobs. That's already a head start compared to a lot of people.
A day counts 24 hours. Say 6 hours of sleep, that's 18 hours left. 8 hours working plus a daily commute of 2 hours (back and forth) so my jobs requires 10 hours a day. That's 8 hours left for house chores, eating, personal hygiene, sex, talking to my wife and family, working out, writing silly stuff on discussion boards, attending funerals, gardening, grocery shopping etc. If you cram that, there is not a lot of time left over for studying.
And that is building upon a solid foundation of chemistry knowledge already present. If you want to become an expert in a subject that is totally new, it's even much harder.
And becoming an expert in let us say climate change will exclude to become an expert in vaccination, nutritional science, paleontology etc. So you will still have to rely on experts.
So we are back at square one: how do we make people realize that they don't know best in everything (and fat chances are, they even don't know the best in anything) and that experts are just that, people who know better than most (including you and me)?

edit: which doesn't mean that people should not try to improve themselves. I believe in life long education and improvement. And thanks to the internet there are plenty of sites that offer textbooks of all levels -- from beginners to advanced college level textbook -- there are plenty of educational channels on Youtube etc. It's just much harder than you made it look.

 

[timothyu]

Unfortunately it seems today that the so called experts seem to be bought in order to assist those controlling the narrative.

 

[SkyWriting]

Can they? Really?
Look, let us look at my case. I have a master degree in chemistry. Which is "just" a master degree. There are plenty of people who have more advanced degrees. So in my very area of education there are plenty of people that are much more expert.
But let us assume that I want to become an expert. I have a decent job with a decent salary, so I can live from one job and don't have to combine different jobs. That's already a head start compared to a lot of people.
A day counts 24 hours. Say 6 hours of sleep, that's 18 hours left. 8 hours working plus a daily commute of 2 hours (back and forth) so my jobs requires 10 hours a day. That's 8 hours left for house chores, eating, personal hygiene, sex, talking to my wife and family, working out, writing silly stuff on discussion boards, attending funerals, gardening, grocery shopping etc. If you cram that, there is not a lot of time left over for becoming an expert.
And that is building upon a solid foundation of chemistry knowledge already present. If you want to become an expert in a subject that is totally new, it's even much harder.
And becoming an expert in let us say climate change will exclude to become an expert in vaccination, nutritional science, paleontology etc. So you will still have to rely on experts.
So we are back at square one: how do we make people realize that they don't know best in everything (and fat chances are, they even don't know the best in anything) and that experts are just that, people who know better than most (including you and me)?

edit: which doesn't mean that people should not try to improve themselves. I believe in life long education and improvement. And thanks to the internet there are plenty of sites that offer textbooks of all levels -- from beginners to advanced college level textbook -- there are plenty of educational channels on Youtube etc. It's just much harder than you made it look.

It's possible to become an expert on any issue. Depending on the topic this could take 10 hours or 2000 hours. Listening to books during your commute would give you 10 hours a week. Listening while you sleep could give you 42 more hours. Add in topical discussion boards for another 6 hours a day.
With a dry erase marker you can make notes on the bathroom mirror for another hour or two a day studying.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Unfortunately it seems today that the so called experts seem to be bought in order to assist those controlling the narrative.

That's just your paranoia talking. When we look at the few voices supporting tobacco or dismissing climate change, we see many of them are openly bankrolled by tobacco and fossil fuels. It is quite a leap to assume that the remaining 99% of experts are also somehow paid off by nefarious actors. That idea leads directly to lizard people.

 

[timothyu]

we see many of them are openly bankrolled by tobacco and fossil fuels.

The same applies to the health industry

 

[Estrid]

The same applies to the health industry

Really. Example?

And you have a higher more reliable authority in mind?

 

[tas8831]

I have college training in research.

Not scientific, that much is obvious.

This forum is not on my list of resources.

Nor is anything scientific, it seems.

I never take credit for the work of others.

Sure you don't.
Or do you?

 

[tas8831]

It is so and a fact.

People can become experts in any issue they choose to.

So it is all just choice, and not aptitude, or anything else.
Got it....

 

[SkyWriting]

So it is all just choice, and not aptitude, or anything else.
Got it....

Aptitude indicates what will be easiest. But if you can work through the tedium of the work, you can master anything that interests you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not scientific, that much is obvious.
Nor is anything scientific, it seems.

Sure you don't.
Or do you?

I don't. If you'd like my sources on anything, just ask.

 

[tas8831]

I don't. If you'd like my sources on anything, just ask.

Sources are supposed to be provided when copy-pasting, not asked for. Don't feel bad - you are but 1 of TWELVE Christians I have caught plagiarizing on this forum. I've not yet caught 1 non-creationist doing it. Almost like a trend or something.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sources are supposed to be provided when copy-pasting, not asked for. Don't feel bad - you are but 1 of TWELVE Christians I have caught plagiarizing on this forum. I've not yet caught 1 non-creationist doing it. Almost like a trend or something.

If you look into copy rules you'll discover that excepts are considered fair use. If this were not the case then Google or any search engine could not provide any listings or information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

 

[SkyWriting]

Not scientific, that much is obvious.

Your analysis is slacking.

 

[Bradskii]

If you look into copy rules you'll discover that excepts are considered fair use. If this were not the case then Google or any search engine could not provide any listings or information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

We're talking forum etiquette here not scientific or literary legalities. If someone cuts and pastes something then they need to put it in quotes, name their source and link to it. Then firstly we'll know without any doubt that it's not their words and secondly we can check if it's been used in context.