I agree completely about susannahk2000's post about religious groups trying to convert by simply education. And I agree with the TIVO. We have a satelite receiver that does the same thing. And now I can set up the shows I do like to record and watch when I have time. I watch a lot less crap now because of that.
But we keep going around this subject of travel. Yes, I agree seeing things in person is much much better than watching a show on it. You dont quite get the perspective on TV that you can in real life. In an ideal world we could travel and see all this stuff. But People work, people can't afford it. We dont live in an ideal world. And there are parts of the world I want to avoid at the moment. Flying overseas is EXPENSIVE. Taking time off to see local sights costs money in travel, and lost wages.
People can't just travel when they want to. So I'm content to live in my narrow life, watching the odd documentary on the places I will never see.
An educated decision simply means that somebody is aware of particular evidence prior to making the decision. Being aware of evidence does not equate to making a particular decision. There are probably plenty of people who HAVE made an educated decision to smoke. They know that smoking causes health problems and can cause early death. You assume that anyone who KNOWS smoking can cause health problems wont do it. But what of people who don't see themselves as living long enough to be affected by these problems? If somebody lives a very dangerous life that is likely to get them killed by 40 but they do it anyway because they'd rather have a short, exciting life than a long, boring one, then they HAVE made an educated decision to smoke. They know that their life of stock car racing or whatever could get them killed young, so a risk that could get them killed in late middle age is well worth it.
Throughout this thread I've noted the idea that anybody sees compelling evidence WILL come to a particular decision so failure to do so is proof of not weighing the evidence. This just isn't so. "Educated decision" simply means being aware of certain arguments. It does not mean that only one possible decision should be made by everybody who sincerely weighs those arguments.
I am a strong believer in Evolutionary Theory. I have weighed the evidence and come down firmly on the side of evolution. And yet other people have weighed this same evidence and come down on the side of Creationism. After lengthy arguments with them, I can hardly accuse them of making an uneducated decision because many are pretty well versed in Evoltionary Theory, all the better to poke holes in it. It's just that they use Christian faith as a tool for weighing evidence and I don't. This is how we weigh the same evidence and come to different- but both educated- conclusions.
She's stated REPEATEDLY what she thinks the benefits are- family fun. Do you not believe that this is what the family does for fun? Or do you not believe that "family fun" should be allowed to count as a benefit?
"Personal experience" is a perfectly legitimate reason to disagree with a finding. After all, "personal experience" is the main reason why I disregard grimalkskin's studies. If a study can show that most people have a certain outcome, but I personally had a very different outcome, why should my personal experience NOT count?
Example: suppose somebody comes from a family blessed with genes that allow smoking into old age? This person could read all the studies about lung cancer/emphysema but look around them at their healthy, elderly, smoking relatives and conclude that it was a reasonable risk FOR THEM.
Pages
That's what is hard for me to wrap my brain around.
PumpkinAngel
Oh man....I LOVE Florence.
PumpkinAngel
But we keep going around this subject of travel. Yes, I agree seeing things in person is much much better than watching a show on it. You dont quite get the perspective on TV that you can in real life. In an ideal world we could travel and see all this stuff. But People work, people can't afford it. We dont live in an ideal world. And there are parts of the world I want to avoid at the moment. Flying overseas is EXPENSIVE. Taking time off to see local sights costs money in travel, and lost wages.
People can't just travel when they want to. So I'm content to live in my narrow life, watching the odd documentary on the places I will never see.
Was that really necessary?
PumpkinAngel
Throughout this thread I've noted the idea that anybody sees compelling evidence WILL come to a particular decision so failure to do so is proof of not weighing the evidence. This just isn't so. "Educated decision" simply means being aware of certain arguments. It does not mean that only one possible decision should be made by everybody who sincerely weighs those arguments.
I am a strong believer in Evolutionary Theory. I have weighed the evidence and come down firmly on the side of evolution. And yet other people have weighed this same evidence and come down on the side of Creationism. After lengthy arguments with them, I can hardly accuse them of making an uneducated decision because many are pretty well versed in Evoltionary Theory, all the better to poke holes in it. It's just that they use Christian faith as a tool for weighing evidence and I don't. This is how we weigh the same evidence and come to different- but both educated- conclusions.
<<We haven't given up anything.>>
Well bully for you.
PumpkinAngel
So it does matter?
PumpkinAngel
Example: suppose somebody comes from a family blessed with genes that allow smoking into old age? This person could read all the studies about lung cancer/emphysema but look around them at their healthy, elderly, smoking relatives and conclude that it was a reasonable risk FOR THEM.
Good point.
PumpkinAngel
Pages