How science "changes it's mind"

[Delphiki]

I saw this photo being used in a presentation by Julia Galef called "How to Change Your Mind", and I wondered if I could illustrate something to the more stubborn minded.

Most of us, critical thinkers and otherwise, most likely first saw this image of two raccoons on a slope and for the first moment, thought that what you saw above the racoons was the sky. Then, maybe a second or two later, a red flag went off when you saw what appeared to be a floating rock. Once you were able to understand that the rock was, in fact, not levitating, but rather partially submerged in the reflective water, you began to notice many more minor clues that indicated you were looking at water. Going back, you can now notice the ripples of water in the reflections of the clouds and the slight gradient between land and water at the shoreline. You are also able to ultimately determine that the raccoons are facing uphill, not down.

What's important to realize is that the image didn't change. Our presupposition is that when we see a blue background dominating the upper area of a photo or painting, that is would be sky. Once we discover a key indicator, we begin to research further. The more details we discover, the more certain we become of the truth.

When science changes it's understanding, this is what's happening on a larger scale. With the more evidence that is gathered and observed, the more accurate a theory becomes. Part of the success of science depends on a desire to be mistaken as well as the desire to know things.

The knowledge you've accumulated by looking at the image above built a theory, in a way. Scientific theory is merely an explanation of known information, accumulated though evidence, observation, and testing.

Just about everyone of you, upon seeing this photo, progressed rapidly through the scientific method.

Those with strong religious convictions to the contrary would be represented as those who insist the blue in the photo is not a reflection in the water and that the rock is actually levitating... or perhaps a more fitting analogy would be that they simply choose to pretend the rock isn't even in the picture. "Rock? What rock? You still haven't shown me that rock! The water is a satanic lie! We are clearly looking at sky because sky is blue and water is clear."

 

[poolerboy0077]

I saw this photo being used in a presentation by Julia Galef called "How to Change Your Mind", and I wondered if I could illustrate something to the more stubborn minded.

Most of us, critical thinkers and otherwise, most likely first saw this image of two raccoons on a slope and for the first moment, thought that what you saw above the racoons was the sky. Then, maybe a second or two later, a red flag went off when you saw what appeared to be a floating rock. Once you were able to understand that the rock was, in fact, not levitating, but rather partially submerged in the reflective water, you began to notice many more minor clues that indicated you were looking at water. Going back, you can now notice the ripples of water in the reflections of the clouds and the slight gradient between land and water at the shoreline. You are also able to ultimately determine that the raccoons are facing uphill, not down.

What's important to realize is that the image didn't change. Our presupposition is that when we see a blue background dominating the upper area of a photo or painting, that is would be sky. Once we discover a key indicator, we begin to research further. The more details we discover, the more certain we become of the truth.

When science changes it's understanding, this is what's happening on a larger scale. With the more evidence that is gathered and observed, the more accurate a theory becomes. Part of the success of science depends on a desire to be mistaken as well as the desire to know things.

The knowledge you've accumulated by looking at the image above built a theory, in a way. Scientific theory is merely an explanation of known information, accumulated though evidence, observation, and testing.

Just about everyone of you, upon seeing this photo, progressed rapidly through the scientific method.

Those with strong religious convictions to the contrary would be represented as those who insist the blue in the photo is not a reflection in the water and that the rock is actually levitating... or perhaps a more fitting analogy would be that they simply choose to pretend the rock isn't even in the picture. "Rock? What rock? You still haven't shown me that rock! The water is a satanic lie! We are clearly looking at sky because sky is blue and water is clear."

Good thread. No doubt this insight will go over most people's heads in this forum.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, it is perfectly clear to me that that is the sky, the racoons are heading down hill and the rock has been thrown from the other side of the crest by an irate fundamentalist.. ..... ..... You're just not thinking outside the box!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just about everyone of you, upon seeing this photo, progressed rapidly through the scientific method.

Those with strong religious convictions to the contrary would be represented as those who insist the blue in the photo is not a reflection in the water and that the rock is actually levitating...

Interesting little piece of propaganda here.

You make it sound like "just about everyone" arrived at their conclusion by utilizing the scientific method -- a process that took time and reasoning.

Yet those with "strong religious convictions to the contrary" are portrayed as dismissing it for reasons not stated.

Let's bring this more into reality, shall we?

Those who conclude that the rock is sticking up out of the water, with two racoons going uphill, are probably competing with six or seven other theories, based on their respective subsets of evidence.

While those who say the rock is levitating, do so because they believe the written testimony of someone who was actually there, and created the scene.

I like to use the demonstration of two squares side-by-side, with rays radiating outward from one of the squares.

I'll then ask an audience which square is the larger one, and almost without even thinking, they say the two are the same size.

I then like to point out that I purposely drew one box larger than the other; and that they were conditioned to respond à la Pavlov.

The Pluto issue was just like that.

When it was first posted here, every single person that I dealt with automatically accepted Pluto's demotion -- (except for one) -- without even knowing that its demotion is being contested to this very day.

And they did that just because their "prophets" arrived at a consensus of opinion -- even though it was done by a rigged vote behind locked doors.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Interesting little piece of propaganda here.

You make it sound like "just about everyone" arrived at their conclusion by utilizing the scientific method -- a process that took time and reasoning.

Yet those with "strong religious convictions to the contrary" are portrayed as dismissing it for reasons not stated.

Let's bring this more into reality, shall we?

Those who conclude that the rock is sticking up out of the water, with two racoons going uphill, are probably competing with six or seven other theories, based on their respective subsets of evidence.

While those who say the rock is levitating, do so because they believe the written testimony of someone who was actually there, and created the scene.

I like to use the demonstration of two squares side-by-side, with rays radiating outward from one of the squares.

I'll then ask an audience which square is the larger one, and almost without even thinking, they say the two are the same size.

I then like to point out that I purposely drew one box larger than the other; and that they were conditioned to respond à la Pavlov.

The Pluto issue was just like that.

When it was first posted here, every single person that I dealt with automatically accepted Pluto's demotion -- (except for one) -- without even knowing that its demotion is being contested to this very day.

And they did that just because their "prophets" arrived at a consensus of opinion -- even though it was done by a rigged vote behind locked doors.

You need some new material.

 

[USincognito]

Interesting little piece of propaganda here.

Why do people even give this guy the time of day? See what happens folks? This is a very interesting thread on perception and changing ones views based on new information. Instead of a thoughtful comment that contributed to the conversation, we get this ^^^^^ garbage.

 

[Kylie]

I saw this photo being used in a presentation by Julia Galef called "How to Change Your Mind", and I wondered if I could illustrate something to the more stubborn minded.

Most of us, critical thinkers and otherwise, most likely first saw this image of two raccoons on a slope and for the first moment, thought that what you saw above the racoons was the sky. Then, maybe a second or two later, a red flag went off when you saw what appeared to be a floating rock. Once you were able to understand that the rock was, in fact, not levitating, but rather partially submerged in the reflective water, you began to notice many more minor clues that indicated you were looking at water. Going back, you can now notice the ripples of water in the reflections of the clouds and the slight gradient between land and water at the shoreline. You are also able to ultimately determine that the raccoons are facing uphill, not down.

What's important to realize is that the image didn't change. Our presupposition is that when we see a blue background dominating the upper area of a photo or painting, that is would be sky. Once we discover a key indicator, we begin to research further. The more details we discover, the more certain we become of the truth.

When science changes it's understanding, this is what's happening on a larger scale. With the more evidence that is gathered and observed, the more accurate a theory becomes. Part of the success of science depends on a desire to be mistaken as well as the desire to know things.

The knowledge you've accumulated by looking at the image above built a theory, in a way. Scientific theory is merely an explanation of known information, accumulated though evidence, observation, and testing.

Just about everyone of you, upon seeing this photo, progressed rapidly through the scientific method.

Those with strong religious convictions to the contrary would be represented as those who insist the blue in the photo is not a reflection in the water and that the rock is actually levitating... or perhaps a more fitting analogy would be that they simply choose to pretend the rock isn't even in the picture. "Rock? What rock? You still haven't shown me that rock! The water is a satanic lie! We are clearly looking at sky because sky is blue and water is clear."

Quoted for awesomeness.

 

[Delphiki]

You need some new material.

I think he's just beginning to overheat because science made sense to him for a fraction of a second.

"Seven theories!.. propaganda... Pluto... Thalidomide... danger to manifold!"

 

[Kylie]

Interesting little piece of propaganda here.

You make it sound like "just about everyone" arrived at their conclusion by utilizing the scientific method -- a process that took time and reasoning.

Yet those with "strong religious convictions to the contrary" are portrayed as dismissing it for reasons not stated.

Let's bring this more into reality, shall we?

Those who conclude that the rock is sticking up out of the water, with two racoons going uphill, are probably competing with six or seven other theories, based on their respective subsets of evidence.

While those who say the rock is levitating, do so because they believe the written testimony of someone who was actually there, and created the scene.

I like to use the demonstration of two squares side-by-side, with rays radiating outward from one of the squares.

I'll then ask an audience which square is the larger one, and almost without even thinking, they say the two are the same size.

I then like to point out that I purposely drew one box larger than the other; and that they were conditioned to respond à la Pavlov.

The Pluto issue was just like that.

When it was first posted here, every single person that I dealt with automatically accepted Pluto's demotion -- (except for one) -- without even knowing that its demotion is being contested to this very day.

And they did that just because their "prophets" arrived at a consensus of opinion -- even though it was done by a rigged vote behind locked doors.

Funny how, with your box thing, it can be measured and shown scientifically that the boxes are different sizes.

But in your example, the people who claim that the boxes are different sizes only do so because they have been conditioned to say they are the same size (no doubt, having seen many similar illusions on Facebook, they jump to the fairly reasonable conclusion that this is just another one and don't wish to be caught out). But they are responding without actually looking at the evidence. They are responding instead from conditioning, and from having been indoctrinated to believe that any illustration of that kind is an illusion.

Isn't that, however, more like the religious people? The ones who refuse to look at evidence and instead insist that what they have been repeatedly told is true is true once again? If they claim that the boxes are the same size and refuse to measure them to see for themselves, are they more like scientists who go and study the real world, measure it and subject it to testing? Or are they more like you, who discards evidence without understanding it, and instantly claiming that any line of reasoning that disagrees with them is wrong, no matter what?

To me, it seems like the same-sizers are like religious people. They do not investigate. They rely on indoctrination.

 

[pyramid33]

"hail the scientist". lol

"we're special".


So boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm actually a scientist and do not agree with rejecting God.

 

[Elendur]

"hail the scientist". lol

"we're special".


So boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm actually a scientist and do not agree with rejecting God.

Area?

 

[Strathos]

I don't see anything about rejecting God in the OP.

 

[Delphiki]

"hail the scientist". lol

"we're special".


So boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm actually a scientist and do not agree with rejecting God.

You're going to have to explain how your comment related to the topic.

 

[bhsmte]

Area?

I can't wait to hear this one!

 

[USincognito]

I'm actually a scientist and do not agree with rejecting God.

You're not a scientist.