The black hole of knowledge

[thisguykills]

When a problem is debated between intelligent individuals, one can inferr that such a problem has no current logical solution. But if those deemed intelligent cannot come to this realization, are those who debate over such trivial subjects, in fact, unintelligent? This would mean clashing opinions, viewpoints, and solutions are all incorrect and all who debate, or argue are unintelligent.

 

[Monrox]

Yeah, but we do it for the fun, not to reach a solution. Real scientists rarely debate on the job. If something can't be disproven, it is true. But when they're drinking together they fight over who is the most influential genius of all times, which in itself is irrelevant.

 

[efwebs]

You can have multiple "good" theories and then you can have bad theories. Narrowing the discussion down to at least the "good" theories is better than settling on bad ones.

 

[tshin810]

Yeah, but we do it for the fun, not to reach a solution. Real scientists rarely debate on the job. If something can't be disproven, it is true. But when they're drinking together they fight over who is the most influential genius of all times, which in itself is irrelevant.

You remind me Rodney McKay(Stargate Atlantis) and Sheldon(Big Bang Theory). I wonder who's going to win in fight

 

[thisguykills]

Yeah, but we do it for the fun, not to reach a solution. Real scientists rarely debate on the job. If something can't be disproven, it is true. But when they're drinking together they fight over who is the most influential genius of all times, which in itself is irrelevant.

If you ask any political or religious activists if they debate for the fun, you may not receive very many pleasant answers.

EDIT: What I have failed to mention in my original post is that I this statement is only true when such intelligent individuals are experts in both fields in discussion.

 

[craigslistguy]

Theories are just that...

Just because u can come up with off the wall "theories" doesnt mean your smart/intelligent.

Give me Wisdom over intelligence anyday..and I will show you a Debate that wont last long..on any subject..

 

[Monrox]

No no you probably mean 'hypotheses'. A theory is something that describes how stuff works when all that's affecting it is known. A hypothesis is an assumption in the lines of 'if something would be so and so, then the following would work in a so and so way'. That's way it is better to say I have a hypothesis and not I have a theory. Like the theory of having a good credit and the hypothesis of how google treats dupe content.

And thisguykills is right to correct me of course, it's not just fun. Sometimes it is the desire to dominate on an instinctive / carnal level. Why else would all political and religious discussions eventually turn into a screaming, abusive circus. If either side had at least one solid, real, neutral argument, there would be no discussion. Just like nobody debates whether the term "apple" describes a seed vehicle or a pregnat rhino.

 

[craigslistguy]

No no you probably mean 'hypotheses'. A theory is something that describes how stuff works when all that's affecting it is known. A hypothesis is an assumption in the lines of 'if something would be so and so, then the following would work in a so and so way'. That's way it is better to say I have a hypothesis and not I have a theory. Like the theory of having a good credit and the hypothesis of how google treats dupe content.

And thisguykills is right to correct me of course, it's not just fun. Sometimes it is the desire to dominate on an instinctive / carnal level. Why else would all political and religious discussions eventually turn into a screaming, abusive circus. If either side had at least one solid, real, neutral argument, there would be no discussion. Just like nobody debates whether the term "apple" describes a seed vehicle or a pregnat rhino.

Then i guess the Scientists who talk about the "God particle Theory" they must be wrong and mean hypothesis?

Its just semantics...

 

[kreiff]

I feel like intelligent individuals often argue about problems that have no resolution, not due to lack of intelligence, but due to the emotions invested in the given problem.

Even intelligent individuals are not logical 100% of the time...

 

[0_inspiration]

I'm afraid you need to read up on your dialectic materialism OP

The truth can only exist within the two extremes, therefore arguaments are the surest way to truth.

To assume there is but one truth is to deny the undeniable subjectivism of existance (and in doing so you ignore all the philosophical progress of the last centuary)

 

[0_inspiration]

It goes without saying that by replying you only prove my point

 

[Monrox]

Do you have any real world example of a truth within 2 extremes? I don't get what you mean.

 

[DesignEx]

If there is no apparent logical solution, that is the purpose of having the discussion in the first place. Perhaps you'll never reach a solution, but sometimes you might, at the very least you can hope for a broader scope of understanding of the subject.

 

[0_inspiration]

An example of what Im talking about is the average outsiders view of Blackhat SEO (unscrupilous scum who will stop at nothing to rip them off) and the view we have of ourselves (inteligent individuals who are exploiting the same holes in the system that everyone else is), the truth of course lies somewhere inbetween
(but any definition anyone could ever provide is going to essentially be wrong )

 

[0_inspiration]

There's also the rather distressing evidence researches unvieled in 2005 that seems to show that when we have particularly strong feelings on a matter our brain actually refuses to process the opposing view! which sort of implies that if you do have strong beliefs in any matter, you're probably wrong