It's very interesting how people don't get mad when you tell them that birds don't exist or that cars aren't real.

However, they very often get mad when you ask them to prove that the Earth is a spinning ball, viruses exist and nuclear weapons exist (the atom has been split), etc.

Birds clearly exist. You can watch birds, feed them, you can even maybe own one.

Cars obviously exist as you can own one and drive it.

However, how would you prove that the Earth is a spinning ball, the atom has been split, and viruses exist?

Usually people try to with endless appeals to authority/popularity, shifting the burden of proof, or other fallacies.

- "Well, here is a picture of Earth taken by NASA - clearly it is a spinning ball". Even though these images have been admitted by the artists who created them to be CGI composites, often cloud patterns are reused, small countries seem to be larger than continents, etc.

- "Well, the United States used nuclear weapons in Japan on the 6th and 9th of August 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore the atom has been split. It is impossible that they just dropped large bombs, they had to have dropped atomic bombs because the news said so."

- "Well two people who live together got sick at the same time, so viruses exist, even though one has never been isolated".

And the more questions you ask them, their subconscious recognizes that all they have is appeals to authority, aka blind faith.

This is when most people experience cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously. This discomfort often motivates individuals to change their beliefs or behaviors to achieve consistency and reduce the unease.

And as Mark Twain said "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled".

What percentage of the population has the mental strength to admit that they've been fooled? In my experience, the number is very low.

Most people just reply with "Well, why would they lie?" (appeal to motive) or "Well, you aren't an expert, so you don't know what you're talking about" (appeal to authority).

- In other words, "If you are unsure that God exists, go to a Seminary school or a Church and the Priests will tell you all about him".

At least the subconscious of these people works very well. They recognize that all they have is blind faith, which makes them mad as you proceed to ask them questions they don't know the answer to, but they just don't have the mental fortitude to go one step further and examine the evidence objectively.

Subconsciously they know the evidence could lead them somewhere they aren't willing to go.

I know it is not common but there are still people that do science, experiments and do not trust authority but just test what works and what doesn't. If you then know business models, marketing and a bit of phycology you can predict what is true or not just watching how they push it on people through the media. Viruses? I don't know but ClO2 works fine against whatever is that stuff. Nuclear bombs... Well nuclear emissions are there. Never tried to reach a nuclear explosion but it's quite simple to verify the cascade action of decay due to neutron emissions. I did the experiment at 16.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

https://archive.org/details/8d-0de-2

I couldn't maintain a belief in "nukes" after reading this.

The physics behind nukes is correct. The engineering difficulties are huge. We do not know if they have been overcome. There are many things we in theory could do but then we cannot for now

Yes, and also Bruce Maguire has the best deep dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oGXzXz6yQ

Nuclear fission with the radioactivity and decay products is indeed pretty easily verifiable. In my opinion definitely a real phenomenon.

But that does not prove that nuclear bombs exist or are even viable.

By the way, now that I think of this. Many years ago I looked into this topic out of personal interest.

It seems that when nuclear material warms up, it absorbs less neutrons, thus stabilizing the reaction at a certain temperature.

(Also explains reactor meltdowns not resulting in an explosion like a nuclear bomb, but instead some kind of blob of "elephant's foot")

But I am not an expert :)