Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[Politesse]

My posting those links was tongue-in-cheek meant to make light of your demanding sources of information that is commonly known by scientists and historians.

It would have landed better had those sources agreed with your point.

 

[Politesse]

That said, all in all, I'm actually pretty satisfied with the results of my intervention. Instead of just citing "facts" without context, Unknown Soldier has now been obliged to:

1. Cite some relevant sources (albeit mostly wikipedia and some opinion pieces), that we can now discuss the merit of.
2. By post #36, he admitted error even if not fault, and even calculated his degree of error quantitatively.
3. In the same post, he noted the important difference between an absolute value and an estimate for the first time, a distinction painfully missing from the original posting.
4. He seems to suddenly understand what error bars mean, too, and is now, at least in some posts talking about his provided figures as falling within a reasonable range, rather than whether or not they are "facts".

Overall, the current state of Unknown Soldier's thesis is drastically improved from the unedited draft he first posted. Were he to post it again, say on another forum, it would almost certainly have significant revisions. Sometimes arguing with someone you imagine to be some bitter enemy, your own position is actually improved and refined. So, hope may not be lost for the Socratic method, however acrimonious it may be in practice at times. With any luck, his next rant against will religion will at least have some better research behind it.

Yes, I'm pretentious, and yes, perhaps a bit rude. But I'm also right. I'll leave you to guess which I consider to be more important.

We all owe you a sincere debt of gratitude for taking the time to straighten us out. Your influnce on thread is deeply profound.

On behalf of all of us, thank you.

Any time, Steve-O.

 

[Politesse]

No. I would just copy and paste it.

And thats where I fundamentally oppose the nonsense you're spouting. The fact that you know enough about science to write:

If errors are exposed, then they should be corrected.

But are utterly unable or unwilling to change your mind about your own mistakes when presented with contradictory evidence is downright damnable for someone trying to present themselves as a advocate for rational thought.

 

[Politesse]

What you're saying here is a lie of omission: You are omitting my saying that the difference in estimates of the age of the cosmos you can find posted on the internet are very small and hence trivial.

Uh, no. That's why I said that you had admitted error, not fault. You know you were wrong, but think it is justified or excusable to be a little bit wrong and deceptive for the sake of promoting your ideology. You have admitted error (to the tune of being wrong about the age of the cosmos by at least ~1% of its total existence), but not fault (you do not have the humility to simply admit that it was wrong to post inaccurate information in a thread title "Some important facts for the religious and everybody else").

 

[bilby]

we have no reason to suggest that consciousness is impossible without a "physical brain"

Other than a total lack of any evidence, and the absence of any reason to even hypothesise that it might be.

I'm not exactly on the hill tops proclaiming this is otherwise. A specific claim (well a "fact") was made that a physical brain (undefined) is required for consciousness (undefined). I don't believe that this is a known fact. We know that on Earth, consciousness exists via physical brains. Is it the only way? That'd fall down to what is being defined as a "brain".

We have no reason to suggest that there aren't plesiosaurs living under the Europan ice, but in the absence of any reason why we might suspect such a thing, or any evidence that it might be true, our experience and knowledge that strongly hints at the unlikelihood of such a thing should be sufficient for us to reject it.

"It's not impossible" is the most pathetic assertion ever. It's far from a sufficient claim as to make belief in something non-ridiculous.

It is one thing to say we are not aware of consciousness without a brain, it is another to say it is a fact that it can't exist.

No, it's really not.

The Moon cannot be made of cheese.

If the Moon were made of cheese, with a few hundred meters of regolith overlying it, we probably wouldn't know it; But the idea that it might be is ludicrous, because we know what cheese is, and how it forms, and those processes are incompatible with what we know about the Moon, and how it formed.

To suggest that consciousness might exist without a brain is no less absurd than to suggest that the Moon might be made of cheese (without a cow).

It's a bloody stupid claim, and no sane person would entertain it for a nanosecond on the available evidence. Sure, it's not impossible. But as I said, "not impossible" is an utterly pathetic assertion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That looks very intolerant to me.

It's very intolerant to characterize other people's viewpoints that way.

If somebody broad-brushes a list of facts... that looks like a protest against science to me...

... I can certainly understand why you would ask for less criticism of your religion.

I didn't say one word about less criticism of anyone's religion. I expressed some wishful thinking that there could be less cause-fighting, more scholarship-based criticisms. That doesn't in any way obviate that they can be rigorous, even vicious criticisms.

The criticism of religion in this forum is very tough. Any plea for change is in effect pleading for critiques that are "kindler, gentler." Besides, if you're really looking for "scholarship-based criticisms" of religion, then it's seems fishy to me that you would engage in cursing to push your own agenda. It's that an example of your scholarly way to argue?

I'll tell you again, just so I can watch you 'correct' me about it again: I'm not religious. I am a nonreligious atheist.

I don't believe you. It looks to me like you're defending a religion. "If it hisses like a snake, then it's a snake." I've encountered a lot of people in forums who deny being religious yet who defend religion tooth-and-nail. I didn't believe them either when they denied being religious.

Criticism of some kinds of religion-criticizing is not necessarily religion-motivated. Is that something you can wrap your brain around?

I suppose, but in your case it looks like your demeanor, especially the anger and invective, is influenced by religious faith.

Your self-congratulatory posts about "devastating critiques" and about people "fleeing" from you are delusional horseshit.

When I was a kid I used to talk to people I was upset with like that. I grew out of it. People, religious people in particular, are known to act like you act when they know they're losing an argument. Again, if it hisses like a snake...

And mostly I'd like to know which kind of intolerance are you whining about on my part? Intolerance of another sort of believer? Or intolerance of underhanded tactics on your part?

I already posted your intolerant and childish invective.

Can you discern the difference there and the significance of it? The kind in your quotes of me is the latter one.

It's really ridiculous; you scream about intolerance only to curse at people who disagree with you. "If the kettle calls the pot black..."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No. I would just copy and paste it.

And thats where I fundamentally oppose the nonsense you're spouting. The fact that you know enough about science to write:

If errors are exposed, then they should be corrected.

But are utterly unable or unwilling to change your mind about your own mistakes when presented with contradictory evidence is downright damnable for someone trying to present themselves as a advocate for rational thought.

Either engage the point I made in the OP, or I will move on: If you know what's going on, then you know better than to believe what religion claims. Is this statement right or wrong?

 

[steve_bank]

That said, all in all, I'm actually pretty satisfied with the results of my intervention. Instead of just citing "facts" without context, Unknown Soldier has now been obliged to:

1. Cite some relevant sources (albeit mostly wikipedia and some opinion pieces), that we can now discuss the merit of.
2. By post #36, he admitted error even if not fault, and even calculated his degree of error quantitatively.
3. In the same post, he noted the important difference between an absolute value and an estimate for the first time, a distinction painfully missing from the original posting.
4. He seems to suddenly understand what error bars mean, too, and is now, at least in some posts talking about his provided figures as falling within a reasonable range, rather than whether or not they are "facts".

Overall, the current state of Unknown Soldier's thesis is drastically improved from the unedited draft he first posted. Were he to post it again, say on another forum, it would almost certainly have significant revisions. Sometimes arguing with someone you imagine to be some bitter enemy, your own position is actually improved and refined. So, hope may not be lost for the Socratic method, however acrimonious it may be in practice at times. With any luck, his next rant against will religion will at least have some better research behind it.

Yes, I'm pretentious, and yes, perhaps a bit rude. But I'm also right. I'll leave you to guess which I consider to be more important.

We all owe you a sincere debt of gratitude for taking the time to straighten us out. Your influnce on thread is deeply profound.

On behalf of all of us, thank you.

Any time, Steve-O.

Ahhh I see! This must be the Christian Jesus turning the other cheek when struck.

An awesome display of intellectual superiority. That plus around $3.75 will get you a grande drip Starbucks coffee.

Religion and mythology are manufactured occupations existeing only in the mind. I preferred occupying myself in real challenges with consequences for failure.

I read a book Breaking The Mayan Code. Apparently is was a major effort to decipher Mayan that had a worldwide following. An academic had a stranglehold on the work destroying careers of competitors. There were informal clubs on it around the world.

The breakthrough came by a Russian as I recall after the academic died. Point being anything outside the sciences hard and soft and areais as the saying goes, academic debate.

The study of religion, philosophy, and mythology has value to a point. It is a perspective on human behavior.

To me anyone who flips a light switch and does not understand the electrical engineering and physics behind electric power is just plain ignorant. Such a person is at he mercy of those who do know science and is reduced to fabricated mythology and beliefs to explain reality

agn Christian, Gnostic Chistians, Mormon Christians, Native American beliefs, and all the rest are all variations on a theme. Creating a warm fuzzy reality and bulwark against reality as it is. A security blanket if you will.

Science has no place in any of it. Try and counter belief with science and many will hang on to it like a puppy hanging on to a shoe. Pull and the puppy growls. Pull harder and he bites.

Given your time on the forum do yiu really need to be provided with examples of conflict between fact and religion? To those of us who have been on the forum for a while the OP was clear enough, no examples needed.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do think there is a place for the academic discussion of religious belief and behavior within the human experience. The interesting part of such discussions is not examining the validity of clearly discredited and unsupportable, fantastic, religious claims, but the cause/effect vector within our species. Specifically, to what degree are those religious behaviors a cause or an effect? That's a scientific question, not a liturgical mystery so let's look at religious behavior and try to understand it through the lens of science, not schools of "divinity."

What exactly makes people think we literally have parents that lived in a magic garden some thousands of years ago from which we all came? What makes a person think the planet is really a flat disc or that there was a magic flood where animals rode around on a magic boat to save humanity? What makes a person think they are really a ghost that will meet more ghosts when they die? That's a fascinating topic. How does it come to be that people celebrate "Easter" without knowing the origins of the word and its traditions, and when so informed, maintain that it's all part of a magic plan perpetuated by an invisible person living in the sky, and do so as adults, not five-year-olds clinging to tales of Santa?

That's the interesting part of religious discussion, not discussing whether a person really came back to life and flew away into the sky like Superman, among other tales.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

we have no reason to suggest that consciousness is impossible without a "physical brain"

Other than a total lack of any evidence, and the absence of any reason to even hypothesise that it might be.

I'm not exactly on the hill tops proclaiming this is otherwise. A specific claim (well a "fact") was made that a physical brain (undefined) is required for consciousness (undefined). I don't believe that this is a known fact. We know that on Earth, consciousness exists via physical brains. Is it the only way? That'd fall down to what is being defined as a "brain".

We have no reason to suggest that there aren't plesiosaurs living under the Europan ice, but in the absence of any reason why we might suspect such a thing, or any evidence that it might be true, our experience and knowledge that strongly hints at the unlikelihood of such a thing should be sufficient for us to reject it.

"It's not impossible" is the most pathetic assertion ever. It's far from a sufficient claim as to make belief in something non-ridiculous.

It is one thing to say we are not aware of consciousness without a brain, it is another to say it is a fact that it can't exist.

No, it's really not.

The Moon cannot be made of cheese.

If the Moon were made of cheese, with a few hundred meters of regolith overlying it, we probably wouldn't know it; But the idea that it might be is ludicrous, because we know what cheese is, and how it forms, and those processes are incompatible with what we know about the Moon, and how it formed.

To suggest that consciousness might exist without a brain is no less absurd than to suggest that the Moon might be made of cheese (without a cow).

Define "brain" and "consciousness", then we'll talk.

 

[abaddon]

I do think there is a place for the academic discussion of religious belief and behavior within the human experience. The interesting part of such discussions is not examining the validity of clearly discredited and unsupportable, fantastic, religious claims, but the cause/effect vector within our species. Specifically, to what degree are those religious behaviors a cause or an effect? That's a scientific question, not a liturgical mystery so let's look at religious behavior and try to understand it through the lens of science, not schools of "divinity."

What exactly makes people think we literally have parents that lived in a magic garden some thousands of years ago from which we all came? What makes a person think the planet is really a flat disc or that there was a magic flood where animals rode around on a magic boat to save humanity? What makes a person think they are really a ghost that will meet more ghosts when they die? That's a fascinating topic. How does it come to be that people celebrate "Easter" without knowing the origins of the word and its traditions, and when so informed, maintain that it's all part of a magic plan perpetuated by an invisible person living in the sky, and do so as adults, not five-year-olds clinging to tales of Santa?

That's the interesting part of religious discussion, not discussing whether a person really came back to life and flew away into the sky like Superman, among other tales.

Yes. Trying to get the why.

I would add, it can be interesting to consider the variety of interpretations too. Your questions are directed to fundies among the religious, those ones who take the myths literally. The questions assume myths are efforts at science - "explaining reality" seems to be a fixation for some people, especially if the goal they're most familiar with is controlling the world so gizmos can be made out of it.

I read a Joseph Campbell book decades ago. I was looking for insights into how the myths developed to suit human's psychological needs for "transcendence". I don't remember all details because, again, it's been decades. But I can sympathize this much -- there is something depressing about life if "this is all there is". Working, bills-paying, family shit, growing old, dying. If the myths represent a human yearning for more, then psychology is relevant too -- and biology and physics not so much. The answer to "this is all there is" doesn't necessarily involve supernatural realms. There's psychological transcendence too - finding space beyond the bills-paying and similar mundane, banal concerns.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I do think there is a place for the academic discussion of religious belief and behavior within the human experience. The interesting part of such discussions is not examining the validity of clearly discredited and unsupportable, fantastic, religious claims, but the cause/effect vector within our species. Specifically, to what degree are those religious behaviors a cause or an effect? That's a scientific question, not a liturgical mystery so let's look at religious behavior and try to understand it through the lens of science, not schools of "divinity."

What exactly makes people think we literally have parents that lived in a magic garden some thousands of years ago from which we all came? What makes a person think the planet is really a flat disc or that there was a magic flood where animals rode around on a magic boat to save humanity? What makes a person think they are really a ghost that will meet more ghosts when they die? That's a fascinating topic. How does it come to be that people celebrate "Easter" without knowing the origins of the word and its traditions, and when so informed, maintain that it's all part of a magic plan perpetuated by an invisible person living in the sky, and do so as adults, not five-year-olds clinging to tales of Santa?

That's the interesting part of religious discussion, not discussing whether a person really came back to life and flew away into the sky like Superman, among other tales.

Actually, there has been a scholarly discussion of religious belief for centuries. Freud, for example, tried to interpret religion as a child's relation to that child's father. More recent works like Garcia's Alpha God examine religious belief, specifically the theism of Abrahamic religions, as a relation of subordinate males and females to an "alpha God" which is a metaphor for alpha males like silverback gorillas. We bow to God like young male gorillas bow to the alpha silverback.

In any case, it appears to me that the call for more scholarly approaches to religion in this forum is actually a call to back off on tough scrutiny of religion. Religion cannot survive stringent criticism, and that's why those who openly critique religion that way so often meet with hostility and anger from those who wish to believe the ideas you cite above.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Actually, there has been a scholarly discussion of religious belief for centuries. Freud, for example, tried to interpret religion as a child's relation to that child's father. More recent works like Garcia's Alpha God examine religious belief, specifically the theism of Abrahamic religions, as a relation of subordinate males and females to an "alpha God" which is a metaphor for alpha males like silverback gorillas. We bow to God like young male gorillas bow to the alpha silverback.

In any case, it appears to me that the call for more scholarly approaches to religion in this forum is actually a call to back off on tough scrutiny of religion. Religion cannot survive stringent criticism, and that's why those who openly critique religion that way so often meet with hostility and anger from those who wish to believe the ideas you cite above.

In all honesty we can have a "scholarly" discussion about how Santa's reindeer are able to fly. Scholarly approaches to fantastic religious claims must include scientific observation and the scientific method. Otherwise it's a discussion of childhood, anecdotal fairytalism, however honest.

Are Freud's ideas scientific? The "science" is knowing exactly how one person laughs at fantastic, unscientific claims while another person literally embraces unscientific, religious orthodoxy without question. What exactly causes those two opposite responses to exactly the same stimuli? That's science. The forensic evidence behind any religious tall tale is obviously important. Yet despite such evidence many persons reject scientific and historical fact for personal preference. How does that happen? Again, that's science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes. Trying to get the why.

I would add, it can be interesting to consider the variety of interpretations too. Your questions are directed to fundies among the religious, those ones who take the myths literally. The questions assume myths are efforts at science - "explaining reality" seems to be a fixation for some people, especially if the goal they're most familiar with is controlling the world so gizmos can be made out of it.

I read a Joseph Campbell book decades ago. I was looking for insights into how the myths developed to suit human's psychological needs for "transcendence". I don't remember all details because, again, it's been decades. But I can sympathize this much -- there is something depressing about life if "this is all there is". Working, bills-paying, family shit, growing old, dying. If the myths represent a human yearning for more, then psychology is relevant too -- and biology and physics not so much. The answer to "this is all there is" doesn't necessarily involve supernatural realms. There's psychological transcendence too - finding space beyond the bills-paying and similar mundane, banal concerns.

And I don't disagree with anything you've said. The scientific question, maybe, is what makes a fundy a fundy? Is their preference for fundyism a cause or an effect? Is their something in their biological makeup that is preventing them from accepting scientific truth that goes beyond psychology? I have a sister, for example that caught covid and had to be hospitalized. She was unvaccinated. But she received monoclonal antibody treatment in the hospital and recovered. But vaccination is still bad. ????? That's fascinating behavior that begs for scientific explanation.

 

[steve_bank]

On scholarly debate I would disagree. Historical debates were mde by Chrtians about Chrtuianity. I doubt there was a fundmantal debate on the histrical truth of the bible.

As to facts vs religion one only has to look at Galileo and Bruno.

Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Giordano Bruno (/dʒɔːrˈdɑːnoʊ ˈbruːnoʊ/; Italian: [dʒorˈdaːno ˈbruːno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; born Filippo Bruno, January or February 1548 – 17 February 1600) was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, cosmological theorist, and Hermetic occultist.[4] He is known for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were distant suns surrounded by their own planets, and he raised the possibility that these planets might foster life of their own, a cosmological position known as cosmic pluralism. He also insisted that the universe is infinite and could have no "center".

Starting in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church,[5] nor was his teaching of the transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although most historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his cosmological views but rather a response to his religious and afterlife views.[6][7][8][9][10] However some historians[11] do contend that the main reason for Bruno's death was indeed his cosmological views. Bruno's case is still considered a landmark in the history of free thought and the emerging sciences.[12][13]

There are Christians today who think humans and dinosaurs coexist.

Exhibits

Animatronic dinosaurs and people, real fossils, holograms, and more bring the history of the Bible to life at the Creation Museum.

creationmuseum.org

he Flood​

During the year of the Flood, the ocean waters picked up plants and animals on the land and buried them in sequences of mud and sand layers where they became fossils. The Flood left behind layer upon layer of rocks and fossils in the present, spread right across continents.

Garden of Eden​

Explore the idyllic Garden of Eden alongside Adam and Eve. You’ll see Adam naming the animals, the creation of Eve, the tree of life, and the serpent cunningly coiled in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Learn How Fossils Form​

Often scientists say it takes millions of years to form a fossil, but that’s simply not true. If the conditions are right, you can get a fossil in a very short time!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In all honesty we can have a "scholarly" discussion about how Santa's reindeer are able to fly.

Yes, we can have an intelligent discussion of The Physics of Santa and His Reindeer. And guess what? Santa delivering presents to all the Christian children of the world using only flying reindeer is for practical purposes impossible. We can rule out Santa that way, but God and Jesus seem to have defenders who won't give up so easily.

Scholarly approaches to fantastic religious claims must include scientific observation and the scientific method.

You'll find that in the OP.

Otherwise it's a discussion of childhood, anecdotal fairytalism, however honest.

It is possible to have an intelligent conversation about mythology and its attendant psychology which is also included in the OP.

Are Freud's ideas scientific?

Depending on which ideas of his are being questioned, I don't believe many of them pass scientific muster. Nevertheless, I think much of Freud's work regarding religion did contribute significantly to the scholarly discussion of religious psychology.

The "science" is knowing exactly how one person laughs at fantastic, unscientific claims while another person literally embraces unscientific, religious orthodoxy without question.

Some religious people have been known to become very emotional if their beliefs are found to be wrong or harmful. Such emotions include anger, grief, and hostility. Denial is also a very common response to open doubt about religion.

What exactly causes those two opposite responses to exactly the same stimuli? That's science. The forensic evidence behind any religious tall tale is obviously important.

Some scientists have identified a supposed "God gene." If such a gene exists, then it would explain religious belief and doubt. Religious believers have the gene, and unbelievers lack it.

Yet despite such evidence many persons reject scientific and historical fact for personal preference. How does that happen? Again, that's science.

For many people it is very important to them that their religious beliefs be true because the truth of those beliefs confers hope to them. That's probably why some here rejected the scientific and historical facts listed in the OP resisting all reason to accept them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For many people it is very important to them that their religious beliefs be true because the truth of those beliefs confers hope to them. That's probably why some here rejected the scientific and historical facts listed in the OP resisting all reason to accept them.

And here's me who thinks those religious claims are comical. Yet my life is filled with success, hope and promise. How exactly does that happen? I just think there's something more operating than the standard apologetics. I was raised to believe those claims were rock solid truths yet I outgrew them and see them the same way I see Santa or Easter Bunny belief. How is it that some of us are so fearful and superstitious and the next person is not?

Maybe the way to find out what is different is to talk to the agnostics. How is the agnostic person operating? How does that person come to decide that agnosticism is legitimate? And of course, quantify, quantify, quantify.

 

[steve_bank]

I think agnostic has as much definition as atheist , theist, or Christian. It all depends on who you ask.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

For many people it is very important to them that their religious beliefs be true because the truth of those beliefs confers hope to them. That's probably why some here rejected the scientific and historical facts listed in the OP resisting all reason to accept them.

And here's me who thinks those religious claims are comical.

I don't know if I would describe religious claims as comical. I normally don't find torture and genocide to be funny, but I do know what you mean.

Yet my life is filled with success, hope and promise. How exactly does that happen?

Luck plays a big part in everybody's life.

I just think there's something more operating than the standard apologetics. I was raised to believe those claims were rock solid truths yet I outgrew them and see them the same way I see Santa or Easter Bunny belief. How is it that some of us are so fearful and superstitious and the next person is not?

Did I mention the "God gene" to you? There may be a genetic basis to religiosity, and for those of us without that God gene, we have no religious inclinations.

Maybe the way to find out what is different is to talk to the agnostics. How is the agnostic person operating? How does that person come to decide that agnosticism is legitimate? And of course, quantify, quantify, quantify.

I understand agnosticism in the context of theism as the position that a person can believe in God or not yet not know there is a God. In other words theism and atheism have to do with belief or unbelief in God(s), but agnosticism has to do with knowledge rather than belief. So a theist can be an agnostic believing in God without knowledge of God, and an atheist can also be an agnostic doubting God but not knowing there is no God.

 

[bilby]

For many people it is very important to them that their religious beliefs be true because the truth of those beliefs confers hope to them. That's probably why some here rejected the scientific and historical facts listed in the OP resisting all reason to accept them.

And here's me who thinks those religious claims are comical. Yet my life is filled with success, hope and promise. How exactly does that happen? I just think there's something more operating than the standard apologetics. I was raised to believe those claims were rock solid truths yet I outgrew them and see them the same way I see Santa or Easter Bunny belief. How is it that some of us are so fearful and superstitious and the next person is not?

Maybe the way to find out what is different is to talk to the agnostics. How is the agnostic person operating? How does that person come to decide that agnosticism is legitimate? And of course, quantify, quantify, quantify.

Agnosticism isn't somewhere on the spectrum between theism and atheism; It's a separate orthogonal axis. Theism-Atheism says what you believe; Gnosticism-Agnosticism says how sure you are.

Asking people whose defining feature is that they don't know, strikes me as completely futile.