Slashdot Log In
Why Myths Persist
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Sep 05, 2007 06:59 AM
from the say-it-first-and-say-it-loud dept.
from the say-it-first-and-say-it-loud dept.
lottameez recommends an article in the Washington Post about recent research into the persistence of myths. In short: once a myth has been put out there (e.g., "Saddam Hussein plotted the 9/11 attacks"), denying it can paradoxically reinforce its staying power. Ignoring it doesn't work either — a claim that is unchallenged gains the ring of truth. Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Saddam didn't plan 9/11" becomes "Saddam planned 9/11." From the article: "The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths... The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious 'rules of thumb' that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency."
Related Stories
[+]
Mythbusters to Test Cockroach Radiation Myth 573 comments
redwoodtree writes "An article on the site for the Tri-City Herald sums it up perfectly: 'Contrary to popular belief, not a significant amount of research goes into cockroach radiation.' To test the old saw about 'the cockroaches being the only survivors of a nuclear war' Discovery Channel's Mythbusters are going out to Hanford Site, where plutonium was manufactured for the first nuclear bomb. It's the single most polluted nuclear waste site in the U.S. The Mythbusters are going to take cockroaches and other insects and apply successively higher doses of radiation in a controlled setting."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe this explains why religion persists in the face of logic, it was here before science.
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us.
Faith is not about logic and why it will endure along with logic.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you can call it that if it makes you feel better, but the rest of us just call that "wishful thinking".
I have little doubt your faith makes you feel good inside, but then again, so does a hit to a heroin addict.
Of course, assuming TFA is valid, my denying the entire notion of your "faith" will probably re-enforce it. So you're welcome. Enjoy it in good health.
Yaz.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So even if something like Heaven (for instance) doesn't exist, it doesn't matter because A.) if Heaven exists, you're set, B.) if Heaven doesn't exist, you'll be dead by the time you learn the truth so who cares, and C.) you will have lived your life free of worry and doubt in regards to death, which is to your benefit during life.
If you're saying what I think you're saying here, you're talking about Pascal's Wager [wikipedia.org], which in essence states that the consequence of believing in god and being proven wrong at death is smaller than believing god doesn't exist, and being proven wrong at death (and thus spending eternity in hell).
This, to me, is not only fundamentally flawed, but it is the cornerstone on which religious bigotry is based. For one, who's god should one believe in? Presumably the god of the one who is positing the wager. But, to me, the larger issue is this: If there is a god, and you've spent your life trying to enrich humanity and all those around you without any respect to any god, and god doesn't want to let you into heaven... then god is evil. If there is NO god, and you've spent your life worshiping him, and giving people money who represent him, and there IS NO eternal life... you have wasted the only precious resource you have, which is your time on earth.
I, like many others on slashdot, believe that when you die, your body goes into the ground and you rot. There is no continued existence after death, when your brain shuts off for the last time, you are dead, and it's the end of the line. I can think of no greater tragedy than to waste the limited time we have here together on earth by worshiping god.
Life is precious. Religion robs us of the preciousness of this commodity by telling us that there's more of it over the next hill. Wake up, folks. The next hill is a cliff.
~Wx
Parent
Marcus Aurelius FTW (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is more what the GPP was getting at... However, if not, it is still a good, apt quote in my opinion.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it depends on how you view things. Some people wouldn't say that a life lived the way their God wants them to is wasted. Meaning it's not just about worship and giving money or whatever, but the doing-good-to-others, being selfless and an upstanding citizen, etc and the other ideals usually present in the Bible but then not always obeyed by those who promote them. If it were followed properly I imagine it wouldn't be a wasted life at all, it would be a satisfying one that enriched the lives around it as well.
Right, but my point was only that all these things you say are good, and could be done with out the god part of the equation. As another of your sibling posts says, religion is not all bad. I will agree with this, but the parts of religion that aren't bad - charity, love for your fellow man, etc - aren't the religious parts.
All I'm saying is that living what I consider a "good religious live", i.e. one in which you seek to make humanity better than when you came into the world, could be done without the religious aspect; and if that's the case, then spending your time worshiping god, even in addition to doing these things, doesn't negate the fact that it's still irrelevant to the end goal of bettering humanity.
Still, I think Jesus had a lot of good ideas, if he existed. Feed the poor, assist the sick, love your neighbor, treat other people how you wish they'd treat you, don't be quick to judge, don't overlook your own inequities - all these things are excellent. Which is why if he were a philosopher, I'd be all about his teachings. Unfortunately, someone had to go and make a religion out of them instead, and not only that, one in which half the followers skip over all the philosophical goodness and go straight to the fire-and-brimstone eternal-life-only-for-believers bits. Nothing turns people off to christ like christians.
~Wx
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and news flash:
#1 there's no 'distasteful' moderation,
#2 not everyone agrees with you (matter of fact, some people regard mainstream religion as highly offensive and insulting),
#3 just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're 'wrong'.
You have faith in "God". The parent poster has faith in what he/she can scientifically determine. Neither is wrong nor right. I apologize if you're uncomfortable with that much gray, but that's life.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Opiate of the Masses (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown [wikipedia.org] The Jonestown suicide/massacre would seem to be a counterexample to that.
There are also countless examples through-out history of people that have died or killed themselves for their religion
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
Nor can we disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, or the Underpants Gnomes.
The thing is, we don't really need to disprove the existence of something if there isn't any evidence to indicate that it exists in the first place.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're claiming that it's easier to believe that:
1) something (God) exists and has no creator
2) God has the ability to create the universe
3) God used that ability to create the universe
As opposed to:
1) something (the Universe) exists and has no creator
Please correct me if I have somehow misrepresented your position.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the latter is true, then yes.
Would you rather live in a world that's flat, or a world that's round? A flat world would probably have some interesting properties. It would be easier to draw a map, for one thing. It'd also be easier to define where God goes in this world -- in the sky, of course.
But the world isn't flat. It's round. So if I really wanted to, I could live in a delusion of a flat world -- there's even a "flat earth society" that was started as a joke, but now has a loyal following. But it would be a delusion.
Now, as it is, people keep shifting the definition of God and religion so that a God could always exist, so I can't conclusively say that you're wrong, and that there is no God. However, I do find it kind of silly that you continue to believe in one.
Oh, false dichotomy, by the way. You can have a world of meaning and purpose without religion. You can make up your own meaning and purpose, if you like, one that's not based on a fantasy.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all faith is created equal. My faith that I will fall back to earth is, I daresay, more rational than that of somebody who believes he or she will fly away. That's because the latter is not only unsupported by, but contradicted by, our understanding of the natural world.
So I can split faith into four categories:
1. faith in things supported by our observations
2. faith in things for which there is no evidence but could
conceivably be observed
3. faith in things that by definition can never be observed
4. faith in things for which contradict our observations
Categories 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, harmless but useless.
Category 4 is harmful.
Personally, I stick to category 1 and am a devout athiest.
Many mainstream religions and a large number of individuals
stick to categories 2 and 3. Except, perhaps, as far as
the historical record is concerned (paranormal events caused
by the intervention of metaphysical beings). It is easy enough
to agree to disagree on these matters.
The problem, of course, is category 4.
Parent
Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you people are so intent on being snide that you don't even read the post you're responding to. (It makes you look like a real dumb ass.) I hope someone with some common sense mods you down, even if they agree with you're slashdot-populist message. Straw manning someone to ridicule them is unnecessary.
Parent
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
"Belief in a power greater then ourselves is not about logic. It is about faith. Religion is a man made construction around Faith in something greater and a poor one at that.
Science and Faith can co-exist. I believe in God and how that Faith helps shape and guide my life. I also believe in Science, in it's ability to help describe the world around me from the smallest quark to the farthest sun. Science only reaffirms my Faith in this way, each time "We" (mankind) say this is the barrier, this is the absolute; Science through discovery pushes past that barrier. In fact I propose that there are leaps of Faith in Scientific discovery that only later logic will describe. For me those leaps are our moments of touching the God that is inside us."
First: The poster never said "Faith is a belief beyond proof" - that's your assertion. And, you're wrong, it's a belief of something in the absence of proof, or despite evidence of the contrary. There is an important distinction there. Having faith is something "greater" has no meaning in the absence of some roadmap of how that "something greater" will guide your life. All of the ideological constructs informing his/her Faith in (any) "God" is driven by the man-made religious dogma he/she ascribes to. The "Faith" that "helps shape and guide" the OP life is based on those religious constructs - he/she is making choices and shaping their life based on the dogma. So, the OP's "Faith" is essentially a man-made construct.
Second: There is a big difference between religious faith and the "leaps of faith" taken by science. The "leaps of faith" in science are ideas that are tested and accepted (or discarded) over time through the scientific process. Essentially, the antithesis of religious faith.
Parent
what is faith? (Score:5, Informative)
The idea that faith is a belief beyond proof is a relatively recent one (in historical terms), and a reaction to the encroachment of reason and science into realms that were previously those of the church. Redefining faith to be a righteous, unwavering belief in the face of rational arguments to the contrary was a defensive reaction on the part of the church, and a fairly effective one, it seems.
Faith, in its original meaning, is loyalty, confidence, trust. "In good faith" means something done with loyalty to a cause or agreement. One has faith in one's spouse, faith in one's king, and faith in one's god, meaning you stick with them through thick and thin. Loyalty to your god was exactly the meaning of the 1st commandment - "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Testing one's faith was the same as testing one's loyalty; losing faith meant throwing one's lot in with Baal, or Osiris, or another god who might offer you a better deal, and one could certainly do this without any loss of belief in gods or even in God. One could even forsake God or all gods, without loss of belief - the test of Job was not whether he would lose belief (it's hard to lose belief when suffering from the wrath of God), but whether he would lose loyalty.
In the primitive world, belief in some god was not necessarily irrational; there was an awful lot of stuff that begged for an explanation, and precious little hard knowledge that afforded an explanation. Believing in gods as the ultimate cosmic actors was an entirely different matter than offering one's loyalty to one or another of them.
But in the modern world, the pernicious idea that faith is a belief beyond reason (and that this is somehow a good thing), is dangerously irrational and entirely without merit. Belief must be consistent with reason, or else it is insanity. It is possible to rationally believe in gods (one simply has to define god appropriately), but incredibly most of the "faithful" prefer the insanity option.
Parent
Re:No You Dim Witted Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Newton's laws are hardly an article of faith: they're directly observable, and with a little tweaking to account for space and time variables that were too small to affect Newton's calculations, they fit into a consistent system with reproduceable results.
Feel free to write God into the gaps if you wish. Somehow I doubt this god particularly cares if we supplicate to him in our schools or see nipples on our TV screens.
Parent
Astounding! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh.
Damn.
did you see Microsoft win that vote yesterday? (Score:3, Insightful)
Saddam (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Saddam (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time america was 90% sure Iraq had WMD... But I doubt that was the real reason, because the real reason would be politically incorrect.
My theory.
1. End Sansions (AKA Oil) There were sansions on Iraq hurting the Iraqies and American interest in oil as well. By kicking the leaders out we can end the sansions.
2. Force terrorist to think locally. Why spend resources try to atack unarmed civilians on the other side of the earth when there is a bunch of armed ones right next door.
3. American Influence. Dealing with americans even occupiers makes people realize they are not as evil as they once thought, They may not like the occupiers but many of the civilians learn that americans are not as blood thirsty as they origionally beleaved.
4. Iraq is the most religious tolerant country in the area. Giving the best chance for reform.
Those are my theorys on the real reasons but most americans will be angry from them because it is more of the ends justify the means mantanility. Needless to say I don't think it worked as well as planned. Not accounting for the secratarian violance.
Parent
Re:Saddam (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Saddam (Score:5, Informative)
"Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks"
[quoting a speech by GW Bush:] "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th"
Someone here is full of shit. My money's on you.
Parent
Re:Saddam (Score:5, Informative)
George W. Bush
2002
"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002) - BushOnIraq.gov
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates." - Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - BushOnIraq.com
2003
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." - President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." - President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003) - Whitehouse.gov
Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qae
Parent
Like the famous "Gore won Florida"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What it comes down to is this, people are more inclined to believe stories which correspond to what they already believe to be true, even if the evidence against such a belief is overwhelming. It is all about change and accepting mistakes. There are too many people resistant to change and resistant to admitting mistakes.
Avoiding negations (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of saying "Saddam Hussein was not involved in 9/11.", you should instead say something like "It was al-qaida, who didn't particularly like Saddam Hussein, that were responsible for 9/11."
Re:Avoiding negations (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
A rather appropriate XKCD... (Score:5, Funny)
Negation (Score:5, Interesting)
Negation (in natural language) is a tricky business, even if we forget about the psychological part for a minute. Just to give one example:
Presuppositions [wikipedia.org] - I have seen her again. and I haven't seen her again again. both presuppose that I saw her (before) so large parts of what I say persist under negation.
In addition, results from psycho-linguistic research suggest that negation involves some sort of double processing, that is we transform a negative statement in an equivalent positive one before we further process it. That in all this the negated statement stay activated and is thus reinforced is more than plausible.
The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful (Score:5, Informative)
That's the point! They didn't have to say it. They only had to keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence, or in close proximity, to make the association become real for many people. Shit like, "But come back to 9/11 again, and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability; the fact that he may, at some point, try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States." (Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/8/2002), did the job just fine.
Or this one, same interview: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Pretty cute, huh? "I'm not here to make a SPECIFIC allegation", just a general one.
So, yes. The Bush administration did set out to imply that Hussein was involved with 9/11, but more importantly, to create the illusion that we could seek justice/revenge for 9/11 by attacking Iraq.
Parent
Re:It's one of those persistent myths (Score:4, Interesting)
Rumsfeld related Iraq and 9/11 days after it happened when he suggested we should attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan. As far as public statements, they never explicitly said Saddam caused 9/11, they only mentioned the two things constantly within the same sentence. Dick Cheney went so far as to actually imply a causal relationship, saying Mohammad Atta had met with senior Iraqi officials in Prague just months prior to 9/11. And he even started by saying "I'm not saying that Saddam was involved in plotting 9/11 for certain, but..." What's this article about? How even negating a myth can cause it to be reinforced? Well how about just not saying it's specifically true, just here's a bunch of statements that suggest so?
Strange how if they never said it, so many people believed it. Of course the whole point was to create the connection in people's minds, but to do it in such a way that they couldn't technically be accused of lying.
P.S. I don't care that Clinton used some of the same justifications for his make-Congress-happy-take-attention-from-my-proble
The truth is, Hussein had an obligation to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs. He did possess them before, and by the terms of the ceasefire for Desert Storm, he had to prove to weapons inspectors that they had been neutralized. He failed to do this. For more than a decade. That alone was proper justification for the invasion.
Don't use the weapon inspectors as justification for the invasion when the weapon inspectors' opinion was ignored. The statements made by the admin, particularly Rumsfeld when he said that not only did Iraq have weapons as a certainty, we also "know where they are". No, they didn't. And according to the inspectors, Saddam's weapons program was disabled.
The idea that we attacked Iraq for complicity in 9/11 didn't show up until well after the war had begun, after US troops failed to discover any significant caches of NCB arms. Those that opposed the administration found it to be an effective strawman.
Oh, right, it was a strawman invention of Bush's opponents. And those clever bastards somehow forced Dick Cheney to keep repeating it!
No, the "Iraq is part of the war on terror -- remember 9/11" justification is what the administration started to push harder after the "Iraq has WMDs!" justification fell through. It was part of it all along, it was just second fiddle to the WMD claims which were what were truly effective in gaining support from the populace.
Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong on this. If anyone can dig up a pre-war speech that accused Hussein of plotting 9/11, I'd love to be corrected.
Enjoy [mtholyoke.edu]. Try searching for "specific allegation" to get to the part where he can't exactly say Iraq caused 9/11, he just has "credible" intelligence that might imply it.
Parent
The first half (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that unless you have an account you can't click the links on the page to go back to the first page, but you can click next (from the first) and you can get to either page externally. Don't ask me why.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
Also known as... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really myth we're talking about here (Score:4, Interesting)
The phenomenon being studied is more about how to associate two unrelated pieces of information so that people will begin to think they are connected, or how to plant a lie so that people will eventually believe it to be true. This is nothing new: everyone from politicians to writers to artists to horny teenagers have been doing this forever. The current studies are showing more of the details of how it happens.
Dr. Thompson recognized and clearly defined this phenomenon: make your opponent deny that he rapes barnyard animals and you're home free. "I am not a pigfucker", no matter how true a statement, will not get you elected.
Our credulity is not surprising... (Score:5, Funny)
...given the fact that we only use ten percent of our brains. :)
Eradication by ridicule (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, religion persists because of "common sense," which this article seems to help demonstrate. The problem is that commonly passes as "sense" is not very logically sound. Common sense is not a great tool for discovering the truth.
This is why the scientific method is so invaluable
Too bad most people are scientifically illiterate.
Parent
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:4, Funny)
There are many decent arguments both for and against the veracity of religion
Please list your arguments for religion. I'll start for you:
1 The Bible says so!
Parent
Re:Biggest myths of all have been around for ages. (Score:5, Interesting)
2) I really, really wish it was true.
Is there any other argument for religion left behind? Wait, I forgot, there is that grilled cheese sandwich with Virgin Mary in it. Great.
OK, I've been trolled. I can't believe I am about to do this on Slashdot.
Not everyone who professes to be religious believes in a white robed deity sitting on a cloud chucking thunderbolts. To a logical person, the concept of an anthropomorphic divinity is laughable - if you attribute truly "godlike" qualities to the divine (i.e. God is infinite), things like gender really become kinda silly. (However, I will grant that it certainly makes it easier to conceptualize and discuss - a fiction that people use to make lives easier, much like physicists can use algebra based equations (F = ma) rather than the calculus based ones which are more correct).
The problem is, what the hell language do you use to describe such a thing? You can call it "energy", or the "Force", but that gets you lumped in with the crystal wavers that are often more flaky than your traditional religious types. So you say God, knowing full well that 99% of the people who hear you don't have a clue what you really mean.
So I ask you - does someone who believes in an infinite, unifying principle beyond our current understanding sound to you like a cultist or a scientist?
Don't be so quick to dismiss those who profess to be religious. Damn near all of the greatest scientific minds of the last thousand years fall into that category.
Parent
Re:Some unexpected examples.... (Score:5, Funny)
Kind of hard to lose that one, don't you think?
Parent
Re:Some unexpected examples.... (Score:5, Informative)
Spanish-American War, and then the resulting Phillipine insurrection, which we both won. All on our own.
D-day? Battle of Midway, June 1942? 'Battle' of the Atlantic 1941-1943?
Battle of the Ardennes, December 1944. 101st Airborne held out for ~1 week against a numerically and technologically super ior German force before being relieved by Patton's 3rd Army. And no, the USAF(technically at the time the Army Air Corps) was not involved because there was bad weather during that week. (A big part of the reason the Germans launched the offensive then was the forceast called for bad weather). Also held out in Wake Island, Luzon and Corrigedor(sp?) for a while. Yes, the garrisons eventually surrendered, just like every large force of every combatant that has been cut off from supplies did for the last 200 years. If you have a counterexample, I would like to see it.
The US had beaten the North Vietnamese on the battlefield in every single major engagement when they were deployed. Even after the bulk of US ground forces left and all that was left was advisors and air support. The '72 NVA offensive failed. It was only after the US stopped funding the puppet South Vietnamese regime in '75 that they collapsed.
If you don't agree with my assements I would like to what other countries have been so much 'better' than the US.
Parent
Re:Some unexpected examples.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Following your much appreciated defense of U.S. military capability*, I have to point out an important lesson that is relavent today: We may have won every battle of Vietnam, but we still lost the war. Because in a guerilla war, winning battles in the field is not as important. Being able to crush the enemy when they dare to stand and fight is meaningless when the survivors, the smart ones, will just fade in the face of the attack and blend back into the population. The same holds true in Iraq, which is why invading Falluja was both a cakewalk and a fool's errand. Our forces far outmatch the insurgents, and that hardly matters for victory. It's very frustrating for those who want military solutions for everything, who think the problem with Vietnam is that we didn't spend enough blood and treasure, but it's a lesson we'll have to learn.
* I liked the part where the OP said the U.S. only attacks when it has overwhelming force. Duh, because that's a good strategy for winning! The primary strength of our armed forces is logistics, the ability to move our forces to where they are needed, and to keep them supplied, and to take ground piece by piece by dropping shit-tons of firepower on it. It's how the North won the Civil War against superior Southern generals, it's how we kept the march across France going, and it's what our last Secretary of Defense decided to throw out the window because he thought he knew better.
Parent