>>> I like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look how small and insignificant we are.' It's like we're drawn to the idea that our existence is just a tiny blip on the universe's radar.I think this perspective is a bit one-dimensional. It seems almost nihilistic.
>> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true.
vs
>> how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe
For starters, look at the various differences in how you're reframed the question, which gives some additional insight into the nature of the problem.
But getting back to the original comment, we have two claims:
> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers.
The "a" saves the day here (yielding my "Technically true" comment), but this implies that the speaker happens to have some objective insight into the need for people to be "comforted" by simplified stories (surely true in some way, and to some degree), but as I said, it is non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative - this style of thinking can easily cause someone to believe that they understand what is going on, when they actually don't - what is actually going on is much more complicated than the enjoyable memes we share with each other on the internet.
The second one (to which your normative (self-perpetuating) reaction is "I'm not even gonna touch that one"):
> Except it has the benefit of being obviously true.
Where do you even start with this? What claim is even being made? "Religion" "is not true"? And that this visualization "is true"? For each claim, what are the particulars? If you were asked to implement these functions, what would you have in your implementation? And: would it be an accurate representation of the reality it implies it is evaluating correctly (in a non-misinformative, non-reductive way)?
And then there's the "obviously" true. Heuristics is what both religious and non-religious people lean on constantly to implement "is true". When someone says "science is true/false" or "religion is true/false", do you think they're running a comprehensive, fine-grained, bug-free analysis of all the attributes and characteristics of each, in subseconds?
"In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased."
I'd maybe also link an article on epistemology, but I'm like....whats the point? (In turn, demonstrating the pervasiveness of my point? lol)
PS:
> though I concede I was a little snarkier than I could have been
Hubris like this is like syrup on top of an already delicious ice cream sundae. There are few things I enjoy more than watching humans making errors, and then watching them patting themselves on the back for it. No wonder you people can't even consider thinking of trying to get yourselves out of the mess you've gotten yourselves into, so thick is the delusion and how high the self-regard.
>> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true.
vs
>> how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe
For starters, look at the various differences in how you're reframed the question, which gives some additional insight into the nature of the problem.
But getting back to the original comment, we have two claims:
> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers.
The "a" saves the day here (yielding my "Technically true" comment), but this implies that the speaker happens to have some objective insight into the need for people to be "comforted" by simplified stories (surely true in some way, and to some degree), but as I said, it is non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative - this style of thinking can easily cause someone to believe that they understand what is going on, when they actually don't - what is actually going on is much more complicated than the enjoyable memes we share with each other on the internet.
The second one (to which your normative (self-perpetuating) reaction is "I'm not even gonna touch that one"):
> Except it has the benefit of being obviously true.
Where do you even start with this? What claim is even being made? "Religion" "is not true"? And that this visualization "is true"? For each claim, what are the particulars? If you were asked to implement these functions, what would you have in your implementation? And: would it be an accurate representation of the reality it implies it is evaluating correctly (in a non-misinformative, non-reductive way)?
And then there's the "obviously" true. Heuristics is what both religious and non-religious people lean on constantly to implement "is true". When someone says "science is true/false" or "religion is true/false", do you think they're running a comprehensive, fine-grained, bug-free analysis of all the attributes and characteristics of each, in subseconds?
Or, might it perhaps be something more like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
"In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased."
I'd maybe also link an article on epistemology, but I'm like....whats the point? (In turn, demonstrating the pervasiveness of my point? lol)
PS:
> though I concede I was a little snarkier than I could have been
Hubris like this is like syrup on top of an already delicious ice cream sundae. There are few things I enjoy more than watching humans making errors, and then watching them patting themselves on the back for it. No wonder you people can't even consider thinking of trying to get yourselves out of the mess you've gotten yourselves into, so thick is the delusion and how high the self-regard.