The yellow rat snake that may enjoy some human contact.

[DOBERMAN]

Look mikoh. I'm not here to get into a pissing match with you. I have offered some insight and opinions as to why either side of the coin, whether it be science or philosophy, both have merit in topics of this nature. I haven't taken a side. It looks like you have though, and are expecting me to do the same. My intuition is that you would rather banter than explore.
And as far as being pseudo-intellectual, I have already beaten you to the punch. If you look at my prior posts, I included myself into that statement.
You suffer from "confirmation bias". You will only recognize and appreciate evidence that supports your position. All other ideas to the contrary will be ignored. It's like a virus mikoh and it limits your ability to learn. In fact it is a plague run amok on most internet forums including this one.

From Wikipedia
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by DOBERMAN

Look mikoh. I'm not here to get into a pissing match with you. I have offered some insight and opinions as to why either side of the coin, whether it be science or philosophy, both have merit in topics of this nature. I haven't taken a side. It looks like you have though, and are expecting me to do the same. My intuition is that you would rather banter than explore.
And as far as being pseudo-intellectual, I have already beaten you to the punch. If you look at my prior posts, I included myself into that statement.
You suffer from "confirmation bias". You will only recognize and appreciate evidence that supports your position. All other ideas to the contrary will be ignored. It's like a virus mikoh and it limits your ability to learn. In fact it is a plague run amok on most internet forums including this one.

From Wikipedia
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

Actually I haven't taken a side. I am just saying I will believe that snakes have affection/emotions towards human beings once it is proven. Until then I am not for or against the notion.

So in that case you are wrong. I do not have confirmation bias.

It's like a virus mikoh and it limits your ability to learn. In fact it is a plague run amok on most internet forums including this one.

Lol you can speak for yourself.



You suffer from mental masturbation
From Google:

Mental Masturbation
Web definitions
Engaging in intellectually stimulating conversation with little or no practical purpose

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by DOBERMAN

Look mikoh. I'm not here to get into a pissing match with you. I have offered some insight and opinions as to why either side of the coin, whether it be science or philosophy, both have merit in topics of this nature. I haven't taken a side. It looks like you have though, and are expecting me to do the same. My intuition is that you would rather banter than explore.
And as far as being pseudo-intellectual, I have already beaten you to the punch. If you look at my prior posts, I included myself into that statement.
You suffer from "confirmation bias". You will only recognize and appreciate evidence that supports your position. All other ideas to the contrary will be ignored. It's like a virus mikoh and it limits your ability to learn. In fact it is a plague run amok on most internet forums including this one.

From Wikipedia
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

As soon as I read "From Wikipedia" I knew your argument is garbage. Why may you ask? Because Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE at ANYTIME. It's not a real source for information.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

As soon as I read "From Wikipedia" I knew your argument is garbage. Why may you ask? Because Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE at ANYTIME. It's not a real source for information.

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

I suggest you read the FAQ on Wikipedia before you go bashing it....

Wikipedia:FAQ/Overview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities would NOT allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

That's nice...

Maybe it's changed, but last I heard that universities wouldn't allow it as a credible source when you hand in a paper. If this is no longer true, prove it to me.

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Ourobouros

Well universities also tell you to use multiple sources and not put all your eggs in one basket. But appealing to authority does nothing to downplay Wikipedia's accuracy. Just because it's not one of the officially "trusted" resources does not render it useless. In fact, many articles include citations from sources that universities would approve. Wikipedia simply condenses many various sources cited into one place and saves time.

Now, I trust you've read through the entire FAQ prior to asking me to prove an irrelevant point? Because the negative connotations linked to Wikipedia's reliability isn't stopping you from taking 5 minutes to Google search other sources on the discussion to check others' information before you say they're wrong.

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

[Ourobouros]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Actually, I've got plenty to read through. I've made an entire thread upon this whole thread's topic. Go look for it. I'm still sorting through the material I gathered when I started that, mostly because I have been lazy and haven't put a lot of time into it.

I won't argue about Wiki anymore because it's pointless.

Go look for it? And waste more of my time? Lol I'm happy it's over