Is Science defined as Truth-seeking?

[OldWiseGuy]

If the laws of hydrology applied, perhaps you could explain where all that water came from and where it went. According to the laws of hydrology, of course.

Sure. It came from the seas, and returned to the seas.

 

[Strathos]

By definition D-K is a syndrome of "a person of low ability". I believe that is a reflection on intelligence.

What I do for a living is irrelevant. What I do is important.

Not really, it could be low ability in anything. Einstein probably had low ability in cross country skiing, but if he thought he was a lot better at it than he actually was, that would be an example of the DK effect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really, it could be low ability in anything. Einstein probably had low ability in cross country skiing, but if he thought he was a lot better at it than he actually was, that would be an example of the DK effect.

The definition specifies a person of low ability, not a person with limited ability in any certain skill or discipline.

The irony is that, judging by the condition of the world compared to what it ought to be in the 'care' of people, most of humanity suffers from DK. Most believe they are "doing just fine", and "have everything under control", until everything starts falling apart. Then they realize that they aren't as smart as they believed themselves to be.

The petty application of this theory is a waste of what might have been a good study in addressing our most pressing problems.

 

[Strathos]

The definition specifies a "person" of low ability, not a person with limited ability in any certain skill or discipline.

I figured that was implied though. Because it's really about thinking you're much better at a certain thing than you are.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I figured that was implied though. Because it's really about thinking you're much better at a certain thing than you are.

Tell that to Subduction Zone. He was about to tell me that I was going to overstate my abilities regarding my occupation, thus demonstrating his own DK effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By definition D-K is a syndrome of "a person of low ability". I believe that is a reflection on intelligence.

What I do for a living is irrelevant. What I do is important.

Nope:

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]"

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

You demonstrated a gross over confidence in your ability to understand hydrology.

And the reason that I asked you what you did for a living was to give you an example of someone coming up to you that demonstrated Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell that to Subduction Zone. He was about to tell me that I was going to overstate my abilities regarding my occupation, thus demonstrating his own DK effect.

Wow! Where did you get that from? Your bias is not only allowing you not to understand why the Bible cannot be read literally, it is causing you to make false claims about others.

 

[Kylie]

Sure. It came from the seas, and returned to the seas.

So the seas were emptied?

The flood was everywhere EXCEPT the seas? What prevented the water from flowing back into the seas?

And the dove returned carrying an olive branch. How did the olive tree survive being covered by ocean water?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.

This makes my point, not yours. DK deals with people who are generally incompetent, not incompetent in only certain areas.

And the reason that I asked you what you did for a living was to give you an example of someone coming up to you that demonstrated Dunning-Kruger.

I smelled a trap, and another insult. You should have stated your purpose in the first place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow! Where did you get that from? Your bias is not only allowing you not to understand why the Bible cannot be read literally, it is causing you to make false claims about others.

See above post.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So the seas were emptied?

The flood was everywhere EXCEPT the seas? What prevented the water from flowing back into the seas?

And the dove returned carrying an olive branch. How did the olive tree survive being covered by ocean water?

Sea beds rose (upwelled) flooding the land.

It was a restored olive tree. God has used the ruin/restoration cycle many times before, as is seen in the geologic record.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your bias is not only allowing you not to understand why the Bible cannot be read literally...

The flood narrative is presented as an actual event, not allegory. This is universally agreed by bible scholars. Details are sketchy so assumptions have to be made to flesh out the story. Of course there are spiritual lessons to be drawn from the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This makes my point, not yours. DK deals with people who are generally incompetent, not incompetent in only certain areas.

Where did you get that from? I have never seen that it was a case of people being generally incompetent. Is that in the article that I linked for you?

I smelled a trap, and another insult. You should have stated your purpose in the first place.

Wow, two errors and paranoia in the first sentence. There have been no insults. You take corrections as insults, that makes it harder to learn. There was no trap. And why would you think that there was a trap? You have been so wrong that no trap has been necessary. I have been trying to get you to understand some simple concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See above post.

How does that help you?


Until you acknowledge your errors you can never learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood narrative is presented as an actual event, not allegory. This is universally agreed by bible scholars. Details are sketchy so assumptions have to be made to flesh out the story. Of course there are spiritual lessons to be drawn from the story.

No it is not. You have to be kidding me. Only ignorant Bible scholars make such an error. Here is a clue, apologist sites are not run by "bible scholars". Apologist sites tend to lie to support their beliefs, I have nothing but contempt for almost all of them.

Actual scholars recognize the fact that the story was almost certainly written after the Babylonian exile and was a rewrite of the story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. By the way, that may have been based upon a real flood. There was a large flood in the area the did leave evidence of its existence. But it was just a local flood:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Myths often have their beginnings in real world events.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where did you get that from? I have never seen that it was a case of people being generally incompetent. Is that in the article that I linked for you?

Yes, it's in there as well as other sites describing DK.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it is not. You have to be kidding me. Only ignorant Bible scholars make such an error. Here is a clue, apologist sites are not run by "bible scholars". Apologist sites tend to lie to support their beliefs, I have nothing but contempt for almost all of them.

Actual scholars recognize the fact that the story was almost certainly written after the Babylonian exile and was a rewrite of the story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. By the way, that may have been based upon a real flood. There was a large flood in the area the did leave evidence of its existence. But it was just a local flood:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Myths often have their beginnings in real world events.

Sadly many such scholars have drunk the secular cool-aid of disbelief. In so doing they have lost the opportunity to faithfully represent God's word.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where did you get that from? I have never seen that it was a case of people being generally incompetent. Is that in the article that I linked for you?



Wow, two errors and paranoia in the first sentence. There have been no insults. You take corrections as insults, that makes it harder to learn. There was no trap. And why would you think that there was a trap? You have been so wrong that no trap has been necessary. I have been trying to get you to understand some simple concepts.

Color me careful, not paranoid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it's in there as well as other sites describing DK.

You could have tried to use a quote that is somewhat in context to support your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sadly many such scholars have drunk the secular cool-aid of disbelief. In so doing they have lost the opportunity to faithfully represent God's word.

Sorry, but you have that backwards. The Kool-Aid drinkers are those that try to claim that the Bible is something that it does not even claim for itself. You do realize that if you want to claim that the Bible is "God's word" that puts a heavy burden of proof upon those making that claim. You would not accept that the Koran or the Vedas are "God's word" without extreme evidence, why should anyone believe you about your holy book?