Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Of course I realize it - that was my point. I don't find it particularly 'interesting' to see people react consistently with their previous posts.
To me, this is like finding it interesting that the beverage of choice for a oenophile convention dinner is wine. It fits hand in glove.
Then you might have asked yourself why people discuss topics at all, on anonymous forums especially...interesting? Or read/watch journalists if there's no chance we'll learn anything that might make us reconsider our views. We just like to hear ourselves talk, and find others of like mind to reinforce our already held views, with no possibility of changing our POV - sad? My views at 20, 40 and (almost) 60 have certainly changed/evolved on many issues...and I hope I never come to believe I have all the worlds answers.
I agree with this. Maybe it is the ex-scientist in me, but I'm always looking for new info to challenge my current beliefs and ideas. That is what drew me to this forum. I'm interested in finding the gaps/errors in my thinking or my plans. The older I get the more I realize I don't know or misunderstood.
You are reading far too much into the words I posted. First, I'm not trying to make a Federal Case out of this - I just thought it was perplexing that anyone would find it 'interesting' that the comments in this thread would be aligned with those posters previous comments. As I explained, I would expect that - so why is it 'interesting' in this case? So I commented on my perplexity, that is all.
It has nothing to do with why we discuss this at all - I see no connection to that from my comments. This show was another spin on a common topic, so it gets discussed anew. Just like so many recurring topics here. Again, no surprise to me.
I'm not sure where you are going with not changing anyone's mind/evolving? I've had my mind changed by discussions on this and other forums, and I think a few others have as well. I expect it to relatively uncommon though. In general, we have come to whatever views we have on a subject based on our past learning and experience. We have thought it over, and it will take some new evidence and convincing to change. Imagine waking up each morning and wanting new proof that the Sun rises in the East. Life would be difficult if we didn't trust our learned information. But we still should question it when presented with new info, and when there is reasonable doubt, we should seek out new info.
I find it fascinating that this documentary was started over 20 years ago, and it made it all the way through to today and saw to being distributed. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that someone intentionally started and kept working on for 20 years before showing it to the public. ...
I did not watch the show either.... but from what people are saying... there might not be that many 'facts' included...
I can't say I'm familiar with Moyer's work (I know the name/show of course), I just don't follow him, but I'm getting a pretty good sense from the comments here. And that leads me to ask:
How many families did they start following 20 years ago? Generally, a journalist is going to pick out the most interesting stories (no one reports the number of planes that safely landed today), and in a show like this, I'd bet they pick out the ones that fit with a certain story line they are trying to sell. So I wonder if there were many more families (I assume they would, to assure they had something 20 years later), and did any do well, but were not presented because that didn't fit their story? Just wondering. Maybe that was covered in the program?
Kind of the reverse of 'survivorship bias'?
-ERD50