Does quoting another person, that is saying the same thing as you, make you correct? Or is that just an assumption that if more people say un-founded things they become founded(or truthful) simply because lots of people say them. What if it is a person that did something great, like oh I don't know...wrote in the Bible? If that assumption is true, then when the entire world said the world was flat, they were all correct, because lots of very smart people said it was flat?
Quoting an authority in the field in which you are commenting certainly will add weight to what you say. However, it is up to the reader to judge the credibility of the person you are citing.
If you cite the Bible, this will not make your statements more believable to me personally, because, in my opinion, the Bible can be used for or against any argument under the sun. It is all a matter of selecting one citation versus another.
Every branch of science works within a paradigm. Most research is done within the constrictions of that paradigm. It takes a revolutionary such as Copernicus or Einstein to force a paradigm shift. Scientific statements can only be judged within the paradigm in which they were voiced.
Again Well Stated, you must be smart For those of us that aren't quite as smart, a Paradigm shift could also be worded as a course correction, correct?
I'm using the word as used by Thomas Kuhn in his terrific book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". A paradigm is more than a course that directs thought, it's the very foundation and scaffolding on which scientific theories are hung. For example, Newton, with his laws, created a paradigm. Scientific theories that were expressed within the terms of that paradigm and proven within it have a certain scientific validity. We still use Newton's laws in mechanics, for example, and within that context they are "true". However, Einstein came in with his concept of Relativity. This blew apart Newton's view of the universe. We don't need to bring relativity into the picture when dealing with classical mechanics, however it provides explanations for other phenomena that could not be explained by Newtonian thought patterns. To move from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian paradigm requires a massive expansion of the way in which we conceive things. We've adapted to this, however another new paradigm is probably lurking in wait for us...
I believe it can be the case that when many people say the same thing that it becomes a 'truth'.
And I've quoted you to back up my argument
You believe what can be the truth? Nevermind, I think I understand what your saying...
Without proof to the contrary, the popular vote decides the "truth"
I was just being silly, by emphasising your point, by relying on your quote.
However, I don't think there needs to be a 'contrary' or opposing view. It's like a religious chant, you get enough people repeating it, it becomes their mantra, their reality, their world.
But it certainly helps when a person is confronted with a view point opposite of their own to have other likeminded quotes ready to back them up.
This question makes no sense. Collusion is never a proof of correctness.
And yet, people of all denominations use "It says so in the Bible" as irrefutable proof. Any logical, rational thought, or new idea, is deemed instantaneously as proven wrong because "it says so in the Bible". It isn't as if they were quoting proof from the Bible disputing the new idea, they are simply quoting the people in the Bibles unfounded belief from 2000 years ago. Since the writers of the Bible believed it 2000 years ago, the people today believe that makes it irrefutable. This collusion is being put out there as if it were irrefutable proof. That is the point I was trying to make.
Hi Bovine, it works in politics, "bandwagon effect" or marketing a new product, Bovine what is the connection of majority thoughts to correctness?
I think every word we use is all made up in efforts to have us think we know what we are talking about. I don't think anyone knows what is going on or what belief is right all with the idea that our own belief is right. I think we are all insane in the fact that we all push our belief as the right belief or look for anothers belief to be dependent on. I don't think anyone's belief is an absolute belief for everyone.
I sooo agree with you. There is no correct answer for every situation. Each situation will have a different correct answer. What is absolutely right to me may only be kinda right for you. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just makes us a different flavor.
Only if I'm the person you quote. (sorry, I couldn't resist. )
Quoting is more like edification from a recognized expert in that field .
Then that expert can also be wrong like you stated about the earth being flat.There are times many can be wrong and one person is correct.
Then truth can take time for someone to understand as they may not be ready to do so.
So true Mohit. We do not know that we do not know. One would hope to know that much.
Does quoting another person, that said something BEFORE you, make THEM correct? Or does it just mean you agree with what they said; therefore, adding weight to their original quote (or weight to your point - if the "quoter" is considered an expert or in high regard)? I think being correct is almost always subject to modification at a later time. Thanks for waking up my brain this morning, Mikel!
I think you've answered your own question here. The views of the majority are often followed, but that doesn't make their words or their decisions the correct ones.
The deeper question is one that you didn't ask: how do we judge right from wrong. That question is the basis of discovering fact and truth. According to the philosophers of today, right is what we believe is best for each of us as individuals. The more individuals or organizations that agree with you, the better. After all, majority agreement would prove your belief correct, right. Of course, from your question, we know this to be false.
So how do we know what's right? That is the question underlying yours, and one that is much harder to answer.
Yes, and that is becasue Right action changes within every action. The individual circumstances to every situation dictate the correct course of action. What is right, good and true in one situation will or may not be good, right and true in the next.
You've hit the nail on the head here Mikel. Right and wrong are axiomatic. They are dependent on the context, domain, or rules of the system in question. They are sometimes called "systemic". When right and wrong cannot be applied to a problem because there is no pre-existing domain or rule, then we can only make a decision based on what is rational and irrational.
No, new words are created all the time. Do you think all thoughts are someone else's thoughts?
or you can form a new word out of a word usually when there is new discovery of something or an item, like when we will discover bullet travel where I would like to go to your place and I will jut shut off, I will call it atom travel, LOL
So any Paradigm shift, like Einstein's theory of relativity were already stated somewhere before? Someone else said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" before Freud and he was just quoting them?
well many people think the same . who owns the initial thought?
lol, That was hardly an answer to the question. Many people think the same on some things, not all things. I think the individual owns the initial thought until they allow another to own it. Do you not think any thoughts are new?
There is always a first, the rest may agree after the first, but that really isn't the same thing is it...
lol, so you still think new thoughts exist.
They are rare, which is why we treasure them so much.
Do new thoughts exist?
I find it really interesting to go back in time. For example, scholars at the library of ancient Alexandria made the following discoveries:
Aristarchus was the first person to state that the earth revolves around the sun, a full 1800 years before Copernicus;
Eratosthenes proved that the earth was spherical and calculated its circumference with amazing accuracy, 1700 years before Columbus sailed on his epic voyage
Hipparchus established the first atlas of the stars and calculated the length of the solar year accurately to within 6.5 minutes
Herophylus identified the brain as the controlling organ of the body
Fast-forwarding a little, I did my PhD in the long gone era of the 1970s. I was looking at a particular aspect of autoimmunity (when the body makes an immune response against itself). I spent a wonderful few days in the stackroom of my university library. Looking at the writings of the founders of immunology, Ehrlich and Metchnikoff in the late 19th to early 20th century, I found hints in their writings that autoimmunity could happen, although the concept of autoimmunity was developed only in the 1960s.
This is what the paradigm stuff about which I've been burbling is all about. Until a revolution in ideas occurs, the world is simply not ready for some ideas, but it does not mean that they have never been voiced up to that point. I remember listening at conferences to someone proposing a viewpoint in the 1970s which made him reviled by all fellow immunologists. It is possible that he was simply ahead of his time. Can't comment further on the validity or otherwise because I've lost touch with the field.
God, this makes me sound ancient! LOL!
I'm in awe - an intelligent discussion. I am completely overwhelmed!
Stay for another ten minutes. That will change. It always does.
"WE ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS
HAVING A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE
WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS
HAVING A HUMAN EXPERIENCE"
A quote I love.
If you quote yourself enough times, does that make you infallible ...?
Jenny "I have yet to be offered convincing proof of my own existence"
Jenny come here I'll pinch you, if you exist... (and quoting yourself just means you stutter...lol)
by Mikel G Roberts 12 years ago
Does quoting another person, that is saying the same thing as you, make you correct?What if it is a person that did something great, like oh I don't know...wrote in the Bible?
by The Demon Writer 11 years ago
Can you, without quoting or referencing the Bible give me solid arguments as to the existence of GodDon't even mention the Bible! It is totally irrelevant and is not a credible source. It was not written by God, but men. So, without aid of your Bible, prove to me that God exists!
by Horvath György 9 years ago
The theory of evolution is in an immense danger to be discarded by everyone, whether doing science or not. What is the next paradigm to solve the mystery of the origin of man?http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
by flpalermo 7 years ago
When quoting from the Bible to clarify a point, or to prove a point, why is it considered DUPLICATING someone else's work? All writers that use the Bible MUST quote from the Bible, to make and prove their point!I MUST quote from the Bible in EVERY paper, so do other writers that may write on...
by Sundeep Kataria 7 years ago
They say "God is Merciful". Is it easy to believe?Especially when you look around and see crimes, calamities, hunger, diseases. There is unbearable pain.Does anyone have a real answer please?
by Lyndon Henry 6 weeks ago
Is it permitted or prohibited to quote briefly from another HubPages article in an appropriate context my own article? This would be done of course with attribution, including the URL. The reason is that I've happened to find a quite relevant and well-phrased quote that would be useful in my own...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|