Atheism view of religious usage. Do they get angst when its mentioned?

[Hydra009]

*Unluckily for me and the rest of my siblings as well as millions of others, our parents didn't buy into that line of thought, but we mostly turned out okay despite that.

FIFY.

[Baruch]

In writing my original reply on my cell phone, I forgot to address this question. No, I'm not a parent. But simply being a parent does not make one a good source of parenting advice either. If one does not learn from their experience, experience does not become wisdom. Try driving in Houston sometime, and you'll see my point. People with decades of driving experience changing lanes at the very last second to make a turn, driving well over 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, driving mere inches from the car in front of them, showing absolutely no concern for the safety of themselves or anyone else. They're just as dangerous on the road, if not moreso, than new drivers.

Well, this is part of the folk wisdom, that if what I am doing hasn't killed me yet, there is no reason to stop.  This is why people drink, smoke, do drugs ...

And sorry, experience doesn't produce wisdom ... but there is no wisdom without it.  If I raised a hundred children, over a hundred years, then I would have some authoritative experience ... or just have 100 messed up children ;-(  As it is, nobody gets to parent that much ... that limits our regrets.

[Baruch]

You're just going to throw out decades of research because you turned out okay? Are you aware of the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence?

Much research by academics ... can be like marriage advice from the Pope.  Sorry, an academic career ... doesn't impress me much ... but then nothing much does.

[Unbeliever]

You're just going to throw out decades of research because you turned out okay? Are you aware of the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence?

Yeah, I think "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.

[aitm]

You're just going to throw out decades of research because you turned out okay? Are you aware of the weaknesses of anecdotal evidence?

No, I am using personal actual history, bona-fide observation, existing criminal history of people brought up the Dr. Spock suggested way, along with years of active involvement with youth sports as a coach and sponsor. In simpler words, I lived it point blank, right in the face up front, front row. I did not get my information from a article written by psycho-babblists who wrote it whilst their kids were still teething and spending time-out in the corner for bonking the other kid over the head with a steel tonka truck because they weren't taught manners. Real life, real results, sorry, I bow to that every time.

[Blackleaf]

No, I am using personal actual history, bona-fide observation, existing criminal history of people brought up the Dr. Spock suggested way, along with years of active involvement with youth sports as a coach and sponsor. In simpler words, I lived it point blank, right in the face up front, front row. I did not get my information from a article written by psycho-babblists who wrote it whilst their kids were still teething and spending time-out in the corner for bonking the other kid over the head with a steel tonka truck because they weren't taught manners. Real life, real results, sorry, I bow to that every time.

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. And reducing a field of science to "psycho-babble" too? You're starting to sound like the hard-core Conservative Christians.

[aitm]

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of anecdotal evidence. And reducing a field of science to "psycho-babble" too? You're starting to sound like the hard-core Conservative Christians.

yeah...

"hey, I got a study here says do this and that will happen."

"that's interesting, every experience in my life says exactly the opposite".

"well this is science and you need to believe it"

"no"

"well yer just stupid to believe everything that you have experienced in life over this study here"

[Blackleaf]

yeah...

"hey, I got a study here says do this and that will happen."

"that's interesting, every experience in my life says exactly the opposite".

"well this is science and you need to believe it"

"no"

"well yer just stupid to believe everything that you have experienced in life over this study here"

Ever met anyone who claimed to be a bad driver? No? Well, if everyone's personal experience is that they are all good drivers, bad drivers must not exist. Fuck research. And while we're at it, every generation is worse than the last in every way because every single generation complains about the generations that come after theirs.

[aitm]

Don't hyper-ventilate yerself....I have personal experience with vaccinations as well. Vaccinations...good. See, ya know observation is pretty much the foundation of scientific discovery.

When someone tells you they have a lifetime of experience in "x" and that that experience counters study "y"...there is no winning argument. To think that you can say, "well, these people...." has more weight than personal first hand experience? You lost before you started. You will never be able you to present a "study" against established behavior witnessed first hand. Even IF the witnessed experience is flawed, you cannot win the argument. Human psychology tells us that even the remote"es" challenge to a perceived fact is useless in the face of the person who so believes said "fact".

Never challenge a persons "facts" faith or beliefs... you cannot win. Present your "evidence" and let it lay. Period. A person who is interested will look at it and consider it...and perhaps adapt. A person who is steadfast in their opinion...will not change.

For god sake son, you're on an atheist website..you think we give a shit about other peoples opinions?

[Hydra009]

Don't hyper-ventilate yerself....I have personal experience with vaccinations as well. Vaccinations...good.

That's a correct conclusion, but arrived at by unsound logic.  I worry about what conclusions you would reach had you had a different personal experience.

See, ya know observation is pretty much the foundation of scientific discovery.

Personal experience =/= scientific observation.

The first is evidence "collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony" (which incidentally, is related to the "personal experience" apologetics argument)

The second refers to collecting data (preferably, using specialized instruments) and importantly, comparing them with other observations and if possible, replicating this observational phase in the future.

Knowing the difference between these two concepts is the difference between being immediately convinced or remaining tentatively skeptical that cold fusion is real when a single researcher claims a successful test.

[Baruch]

yeah...

"hey, I got a study here says do this and that will happen."

"that's interesting, every experience in my life says exactly the opposite".

"well this is science and you need to believe it"

"no"

"well yer just stupid to believe everything that you have experienced in life over this study here"

Some people replace the Pope with other authority ... usually academic.  They don't realize what scammers academics are.  If you want honesty and intelligence, don't include people in your equation.  Yes, the university's research is so convincing, particularly in political science ;-)

For most people, vaccinations are positive.  But not all people are chemically the same .. some people react badly to them.  Hence the conundrum over public policy.

[Baruch]

Ever met anyone who claimed to be a bad driver? No? Well, if everyone's personal experience is that they are all good drivers, bad drivers must not exist. Fuck research. And while we're at it, every generation is worse than the last in every way because every single generation complains about the generations that come after theirs.

No, actually all drivers are bad drivers.  There are ones that are dead already, and those who will be dead eventually.  Are you ageist?  But that isn't the experience he is talking about, we aren't talking about folk story myths.  BTW ... if the public is wrong about everything, then stop voting already.  Just put PhDs into the ultimate academic junta.

[Cavebear]

Don't hyper-ventilate yerself....I have personal experience with vaccinations as well. Vaccinations...good. See, ya know observation is pretty much the foundation of scientific discovery.

When someone tells you they have a lifetime of experience in "x" and that that experience counters study "y"...there is no winning argument. To think that you can say, "well, these people...." has more weight than personal first hand experience? You lost before you started. You will never be able you to present a "study" against established behavior witnessed first hand. Even IF the witnessed experience is flawed, you cannot win the argument. Human psychology tells us that even the remote"es" challenge to a perceived fact is useless in the face of the person who so believes said "fact".

Never challenge a persons "facts" faith or beliefs... you cannot win. Present your "evidence" and let it lay. Period. A person who is interested will look at it and consider it...and perhaps adapt. A person who is steadfast in their opinion...will not change.

For god sake son, you're on an atheist website..you think we give a shit about other peoples opinions?

You never know when some fact will convince a person who depends on anecdotal evidence to change them to change their mind.  People who are anecdotally-based are suggestible to begin with.  Like, politician X" who they admire says so.  Or something factual ENOUGH to matter like "99" of vaccinated kids don't get disease Z and 30% of unvaccinated ones do, or "oh gosh we would never be that stupid to not vaccinate our kids".

[Baruch]

You never know when some fact will convince a person who depends on anecdotal evidence to change them to change their mind.  People who are anecdotally-based are suggestible to begin with.  Like, politician X" who they admire says so.  Or something factual ENOUGH to matter like "99" of vaccinated kids don't get disease Z and 30% of unvaccinated ones do, or "oh gosh we would never be that stupid to not vaccinate our kids".

Personal experience isn't an anecdote, if you are the one who experienced it.  If another experienced it, and you never did ... that is an anecdote.  If you both experienced it, and came to the same conclusion, that is mini-science.  But that isn't the issue, the issue is about worshipping PhDs.

Public policy on vaccinations are hard.  Suppose you know that 1% will react badly.  Suppose you have a public policy that says, vaccinate everyone no matter what.  Then we are sacrificing 1% of the population for the greater good.  Or do we give those people, if they can be determined in advance, another alternative?  What if that alternative means that there is a slightly greater chance of contagion, compared to simply sacrificing 1% of the population?  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Unless you are statist and hate freedom, even responsible freedom.

[Cavebear]

Personal experience isn't an anecdote, if you are the one who experienced it.  If another experienced it, and you never did ... that is an anecdote.  If you both experienced it, and came to the same conclusion, that is mini-science.  But that isn't the issue, the issue is about worshipping PhDs.

Public policy on vaccinations are hard.  Suppose you know that 1% will react badly.  Suppose you have a public policy that says, vaccinate everyone no matter what.  Then we are sacrificing 1% of the population for the greater good.  Or do we give those people, if they can be determined in advance, another alternative?  What if that alternative means that there is a slightly greater chance of contagion, compared to simply sacrificing 1% of the population?  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Unless you are statist and hate freedom, even responsible freedom.

Oops, yes.  I should have specified that some people accept anecdotal experiences AS personal experience of people they trust.  They tend (to me) to be one and the same practically, but you are quite correct in definition.