I Do Not Worship Odin or Apollon (+ Other Comments under an AiG Video)

You WON’T Believe What This Trans Lawmaker Just Said
Answers in Genesis | 2.XII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqy_2wYRPbY

7:34 "going after idols, to their own harm"

What verse in Jeremias?

As I believe most of the things about Oedipus and Orestes really happened, basically as told, I believe Apollo of Delphi was a manifestation of Satan. Or of Abaddon, if that's a different demon.

And boy, did Laios, Oidipous, Agamemnon, Orestes, harm themselves and also loved ones by going after that idol.

The five cases of Apollon in Greek add up to 2666 in Greek gematria. The five cases of Apollyon to 4666 (an extra Y in each of the five cases, 5 * 400 = 2000). It seems to be a Hebrew convention to ignore the thousands, like when the Jews had the year 5777 recently (too short after creation, MT chronology, plus shortened "intertestamental" chronology), in 2007, they referred to it as 777, without needing to mention the five thousand, apparently, from what I gathered.

Unlike the Delphic Apollo, Apollo the healer seems to have been a man, and those swearing by him seem to self-idolise in the end times.

9:24 I'm not sure that voting rights belong to the equal worth before God.

Chesterton said that government means kicking someone in the ass. Voting means having a say in who is being kicked in the ass, how, and for what reasons.

But once the law is passed, women in decent families with decent values need to vote because of the ones who aren't there.

21:13 ... a Pre-Flood population, Ma'am!

The preservation of 1/3 of their genome (though usually much less than that is collected in a single individual) with specific exclusion of Y chromosomes and mitochondria corresponds to the bottleneck of the Ark.

Like one of the daughters in law had a Neanderthal dad. His Y-chromosome didn't get passed on, since it was a daughter. Her mother not Neanderthal = she didn't pass Neanderthal mitochondria on either, but those of her mum, instead.

21:58 Carbon dates 39 800 to 53 600 YA = dates up to the Flood.

Real date of the Flood. 2957 BC.
Carbon date of the Flood. 39 000 BP / 37 000 BC.

22:30 Are any marine life being fossilised now?

Well, if so, some could have been fossilised pre-Flood too.

Neanderthals may have enjoyed collecting tchotchkes—just like us
BY ANDREW PAUL POSTED ON NOV 20, 2024
https://www.popsci.com/science/neanderthal-collecting/

Were Neanderthals the First Collectors? First Evidence Recovered in Level 4 of the Prado Vargas Cave, Cornejo, Burgos and Spain
Quaternary 2024, 7(4), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/quat7040049
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-550X/7/4/49

Why the pagan gods were evil
St. Paul Center | 5 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paqL85inmEI

You forgot some examples(1, 2, 3), apart from being somewhat unjust perhaps to the God of Aristotle (A).

(A) As I know from scholastic studies, the unmoved mover was in Aristotle considered as moving the universe to motion by the love he inspired.

St. Paul confirms that the philosophers had come to know of God, and probably speaks of Aristotle's God verses his gods and idolatry in Romans 1:18—23.

(1) Our Lord Himself commented on speeches that pagans hold before their gods as a form of nervous stuttering. Matthew 6:7 is mistranslated in some Protestant Bibles, notably Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible and King James, but when the Greek speaks of "stutterspeaking" and St. Jerome's Latin of "wordiness" it focusses together at holding speeches because you are nervous.

Like Edmund before the White Witch in a certain novel many of us love.

Or, like the last words of Velleius Paterculus, written in AD 30, probably around when Jesus said this.

(2) It seems a place in Jeremias speaks of people running after idols to their own harm, and well, Apollo is the prime example that comes to mind, plus Theseus believing Poseidon was his father.

Laios and Oedipus, Agamemnon and Orestes paid a very high price for invoking Apollo's "knowledge" through the oracle. The Sibyl of Cumae is described in terms that my assistant professor in Latin, Anders Piltz, OP Tert., described as what exorcists have had to observe with Voodoo priestesses.

In other words, Acts 16:16 is an appropriate reference.

(3) As I'm a Swede and probably partly descend from Odin, that poor misguided man managed to convince my other ancestors up there that he was god.

Not a good thing for them to believe ... sacrificing nine men every nine years is not a good thing at all.

avenger 402

@avenger4027

"Odin" was not a man. He was known by another name in another culture - Angra Mainyu (the aspect of Vayu-Vata - the Goths took his worship from the Scythians and made him the chief god of their pantheon, even above Indra-daeva/Thor, who was supposed to be the embodiment of civilization and order), the destructive spirit. Odin inspired furor in battle - known as "berserk" - that saw people fight furiously without knowing friend from foe, the guilty from the innocent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@avenger4027 OK, where is the documentation for this?

It isn't there.

I do have documentation for Odin coming as a man to Sweden (though the geographic location might be a misunderstanding for Swabia).

1) Indirect, Tacitus says the Swabians foremost worship Mercury (Mercury / Hermes being the Greco-Roman equivalent of Odin).
2) Paul the Deacon recounts and dismisses a story that Vinniles meeting another tribe had the battle decided by Godan, he bases his dismissal on Mercury being another man who lived in Greece thousand years earlier and being the identity of Godan, and on God, not men, deciding battles. But what if he was seen in "human form" (because he was human) and was used as an umpire, instead of bloodshed?
3) Most direct. Snorre and Saxo agree that Odin came to the Swedes and deluded them to worship him. This would have happened some time in BC times.

Is "Loss of Office for Heresy" Novatianism? No. Sedeprivationism probably is, though

Could This Happen at the Next Conclave?
Brian Holdsworth | 17 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNY4qMnbEJg

6:02 My problem with the "Council" is not that they were politicking. Or fighting. St. Nicholas punching Arius would absolutely not make Nicaea I invalid.

My problem is:

• it's legality, if any to start, was broken
• wrong side won.

Not just episcopates that were already rife with Evolution belief, bad enough, sufficient to ask if they were really Catholic, and as far as my closer look is concerned, to conclude they weren't, if they had Catholic Church authority it was because someone in Rome was supplying the authority or more precisely jurisdiction which ontologically they could not carry in their persons.

But one of these episcopates, victorious in the supposed Council, that of the Netherlands, had 12 men castrated for homosexuality over simply getting them to prison, and in the case of Henk Heithuis illegally, to cover up for his accusations he had been abused.

In other words, the papacy you are following is not that of Pope St. Damasus. You are more like a follower of Ursinus. Or, for the papacy of Innocent II, like a follower of Anacletus II.

You mentioned abiding by Church law and making things up. There was a faction that absolutely didn't let Church law stop their agenda. They prevailed in "Vatican II" by breaking the legality of the council, supposing "John XXIII" even was Pope. They prevailed against actual council texts and Church laws by twisting and bullying, as the prevalence of hand communion for decades has shown. A story you might know a thing or two about.

7:33 You are comparing incomparables.

Stating a Pope is not a Pope because he is a sinner is wrong, it's a heresy like Novatianism, Donatism, Lollardism, possibly Hussitism. By the way, one reason I'm conclavist and not just sedevacantist is that sedevacantists blocking an emergency conclave often hold to Materialiter non Formaliter, which I see as a revival in a slightly new form. "We cannot judge his faith" (we could by taking his word for it, i e for believing "God is not a Demiurge with an Omnipotent Magic Wand" and things), "but we can say that by lack of charity" (i e a mortal sin) "he is not intending to give the Church the direction of the Catholic faith"

OK, what is greater? To say he is a heretic, or to say he is a Catholic who with diabolic hypocrisy intends to get every Catholic except himself into heresy and damnation?

"and therefore he is not formally the Pope"

In other words, they say that through a mortal sin (the only thing they think they can judge, pretending heresy is above their paygrade) he has lost (at least temporarily) the use of his office. I think even temporal loss of office for mortal sin was already condemned about Lollards and (possibly) Hussites. I think this happened already in Constance.

However, the proposal I am making is, he's a heretic. The "Popes" who had Cantalamessa as chaplain and who believed Evolution and Heliocentrism up to this day, are heretics. A bishop can exercise episcopal authority up to when he's judged for heresy, because the Pope is supplying the lacking authority for the interval. A Pope who has no Pope over himself cannot. Loss or non-accession to office for heresy is not just not condemned, but both Vatican I and St. Francis of Sales explicitly taught this, not ex cathedra, but when answering questions. So, to correct myself, Vatican I did not teach it in the canons, but certainly the Council fathers did think this when in a pause the question came up. Dimond brothers may be bad at reading a decision from Trent that contradicts them, like "aut voto ejus" (or the desire of it, i e of Baptism), but they are not bad historians or liars, as far as I can make out.

If Paul III was a sinner when he convoked Trent doesn't matter at all. That he reformed his life is a probable good fruit of the Council.

As to the political situation, you have not shown that Trent was engaging in cabales resulting in opponents to the canons being silenced well before they were voted (like Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced more than once). You have not shown that the Council assembling at Trento nel Alto Adige (or Trent in Südtirol) behaved like a crowd of football supporters against each other or against a team among them. There was no change of culture to simple mob brutality in the procedings of that certainly valid and trustworthy council.

Karl Heven

@karlheven8328

Pius XII already was heliocentric and open to evolution as a hypthesis even in Humani Generis. Same could probably be said of Pope Pius XI and Leo XIII even though they did not make declarations on that as far as I know

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@karlheven8328 Leo XIII was very certainly not open to Evolutionary origins of Adam, and we have no direct indication Pius XI was.

Leo XIII probably was not even Heliocentric, he was fine with Catholics being Heliocentric if they thought he was, but he probably avoided taking side, just in case it were heretical.

So did very probably St. Pius X and Benedict XV.

No Pope actually taught Heliocentrism in a Catechism, up to §283 of CCC. Or in an Encyclical. It's obviously "an open secret" that Providentissimus Deus is talking about Heliocentrism and recommending taking Joshua 10:13 as phenomenological language. But it's still so secret that Pope Leo XIII never officially stated it. I'm not even sure you could find it in the memoires of Merry del Val about him.

This connotation was most conspicuously lacking in the actual text of Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus. With some contracts, it's "read the fine print" but with some Encyclicals it's "simply read the print" (or the online text, as in my case).

7:43 Selling of Indulgences?

Did not happen. Indulgences were given for alms. This sometimes took on the spirit of sales transactions. Tetzel may have made a joke about it, which some took too seriously. Also, this was changed by the Council of Trent.

Political corruption within the Church? You mean like preferring Spain and Ireland over England under a schismatic monarch that persecuted clergy? That's what the English civilisation has been taught to view as corruption on a political level. Perhaps you should question parts of your upbringing.

Oh, by the way, if someone at Church said so, that's one of the bad fruits of Vatican II.

8:00 No, the reason the Protestant Reformation happened is:

• powerful people had for over a century believed in Realpolitik and in the Church taking hands off politics, and Protestantism seemed more accomodating;
• printing press was far less democratic than the internet, so, someone could explain, whatever he wanted, and sometimes the one trying to respond had no printing press, for instance in Sweden, the Carthusians introduced the first press, the first book printed in Swedish was on the Rosary, but then Gustav Wasa confiscated the press and gave it to the Reformers.

The Protestant Reformations happened for reasons similar to the Communist Revolutions. Some people are powerhungry. Some powerhungry people can monopolise the discourse (like I see some are trying to bring my viewer stats down). And powerhungry people who monopolise the discourse can afford to lie. And to do so so successfully that action on social levels ensues.

Appalachian Paisano

@AppalachianPaisano

Uno reverse card yourself lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@AppalachianPaisano I'm not a very avid player of Uno.

Would you explain what this means?

12:15 I hope you aren't pushing some parallel between Azteks and Israelites.

And neither the Azteks nor the Incas fell to large Spanish armies. Both fell to small expedition forces, and in the case of the Azteks, Tenochtitlan was actually more taken by people who had been ruled by Azteks and saw the Spaniards as God-sent or gods-sent relief, than by the Spanish themselves. That's part of why the taking of Tenochtitlan was so bloody.

No, the Conquest of Méjico doesn't mark the Catholic Church as corrupt. At that point in history.

12:15 bis As to Vatican I, I agree there was some rowdiness involved at the last session. But it was not provided by the Fathers victorious at the Council.

And as you mention suspensions, perhaps, if "John XXIII" had been Pope, his best option if "Vatican II" had been a council would have been to suspend it over the frankly quarrels, so the issue could be discussed again at a later point with more calm.

Trent was not swayed by those quarrels. The Galileo judgement in 1633 was not swayed by Galileo's personal indelicacy or even insult (though hidden from the public) against his former friend and now Pope. You see, Urban VIII was not part of the judges, and his relative, another Cardinal Barberini, while on the trial, did not sign the condemnation.

13:09 I think Pope Michael II agrees with you encouragement.

Not just the specifics on where it applies.

Qua or Quia, Just One Letter ...

Conservative Church Monikers Honestly Explained
Ready to Harvest | 15 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD2Rr8kw5No

some 3:25 subscribe to the confessions because 3:27 they agree with the Bible while others 3:29 subscribe to the confessions insofar 3:32 as they agree with the Bible

As an ex-Lutheran, I find this funny.

I heard about this controversy dating back to the 17th. C only after I actually converted to Catholicism.

If you subscribe to the Confession because it agrees with the Bible, how is that not ecclesial infallibility?

If you subscribe to the Confession insofar as it agrees with the Bible, how is the Bible totally perspicuous?

Metal Auditor

@Metal_Auditor

Confessionalism isn’t ecclesiastical infallibility because scriptures are still the basis and judge of the confession. A confession is just a church saying, “here is a summary of the important teachings of scripture as we understand them.” It’s the same with any extra-biblical theology text. If I read a theology book and say, “I believe this is an accurate interpretation of scripture,” I am affirming the book but not suggesting that its author is an infallible ecclesiastical authority.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Metal_Auditor You know what?

I don't think you ever were a Lutheran and knew "because it agrees with Scripture" from the inside.

You make it clear that you are just personally ascribing to x, y and z insofar as they agree with Scripture and until you find out otherwise. Or as long as you don't find out otherwise.

But that is a position that doesn't really make the case for Biblical clarity.

Many, I think most, 17th C. Lutherans thought the Bible crystal clear, and that it clearly upheld the Formulas of Lutheran Confession, to a T, and condemned both Catholicism and Calvinism. Both denied transsubstantiation and affirmed Real Presence of the Body of Christ Itself, not just Its spiritual effects or the "Church is the body of Christ" ...

I also think the Bible is crystal clear in affirming the Real Presence, but very far from denying Transsubstantiation, and actually also affirms the Sacrifice of the Mass. That makes the Infallible Magisterium of Trent possible. Unless you set out to ignore how the Church has so far interpreted the Bible, it generally is very clear.

[The video also featured several types of Traditionalist Catholic, so I added]

9:30 Conclavist here.

There have been valid Popes after 1958, beginning again with the emergency conclave of 1990, electing Pope Michael I.

I'm under Pope Michael II.

Be-Ware of Kallistos, Sometimes Wrong

Why Was the Filioque Added to the Nicene Creed?
Imperial Legacy | 11 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asI6TAAJQtk

Context, video quote:

"the Filioque was formerly 3:24 adopted at the Third Council of Toledo 3:26 in 589 AD, a pivotal event in Spanish 3:29 ecclesiastical history this Council not 3:32 only ratified the phrase but also marked 3:34 the Visigothic monarchy's conversion to 3:36 Catholicism"

My initial comment

3:26 No.

I have looked up the acts in Latin.

At the Third Council, the Nicene Creed was recited as an obvious preliminary, as already pre-existing, and it involved the Filioque.

At another lower key expression, the Creed against Priscillianists, one can say the Filioque was formally adopted, because the Council was adopting that specific Creed. And it was at the FIRST Council of Toledo.

Dialogue

Benedictus*

@ablarod948

You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. What you say here is simply not true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@ablarod948 or Benedictus, I very much am entitled to objective facts, which I have to the best of my ability verified.

YOU are not entitled to YOUR own facts, and neither was Kallistos Ware.

As I recall the book, he never bothered to tell us in what canon of that council it is supposed to have formally ratified the addition.

I have looked up the acts, I think the site was "documentatio catholica" or some such thing, and I know Latin well enough to skim through the beginnings of the canons to see what they are about, even if it would fatigue me to read it through.

There is no canon about adding the filioque. However, in the opening ceremony of a council, it is normal to recite the Nicene Creed, they did, and it was WITH the filioque.

I also happen to know that the FIRST Council of Toledo made a polemic creed against Priscillianism. It is very possible that they would have condemned Palamas as Priscillianist, because of "uncreated energies".

Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, vel virtutis alicuius quae Deus esse credatur.
y fuera de Ella no creemos en la divinidad de ninguna otra naturaleza, ni del ángel, ni del espíritu, ni de ningún poder que se crea ser Dios.

I translated:

Beyond this we believe no nature to be divine, whether angels whether spirits, whether of some virtue that would be believed to be God.

Virtus could be the correct Latin for energeia.

Now, before this we had the explanation of the Trinity, and the passage on the Holy Spirit goes as follows:

Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens.
que el Espíritu es el Paráclito, el cual ni es el Padre ni es el Hijo, sino que procede del Padre y del Hijo

I translated:

There is also the Holy Ghost, who himself is neither Father nor Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.

The site where I found the acts of the First Council of Toledo (well before the Visigoths) is "filosofia [dot] org" and you extend it with "/cod/c0397t01.htm"**

I don't know whether Kallistos Ware had read an extract on this decision, but mistaken it for the third, and a decision, at the first, it was, formally indeed taken under the heading:

Incipiunt regulae fidei catholicae contra omnes haereses et quam maxime contra Priscillianos, quam episcopi Terraconenses, Kartaginenses, Lusitani et Baetici fecerunt, et cum praecepto papae urbis Leonis ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et supra scribta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano

Comienzan los artículos de la fe católica contra todas las herejías, y sobre todo contra los Priscilianos, que fueron redactados por los obispos Cartaginenses, Tarraconenses, Lusitanos y Béticos, y enviados con el precepto del papa romano León, a Balconio obispo de Galicia. Son también los mismos que redactaron los veinte cánones anteriores en el concilio Toledano

I translated it as:

Begin the rules of the catholic faith against all heresies and especially against Priscillianism that the bishops of [the Hispanies] Tarraconense, Cartaginense, Baetica and Lusitania made and sent, by order of the Pope of the City Leo to bishop Balconius of Galicia.

You can argue, if you want, that Filioque was added inadvertently to the Nicene Creed from the Toledan Rules of the Catholic Faith. Or you can argue that the Filioque was taken away in the Greek by the time of the Fourth Council, but preserved in Spain. You cannot argue that Toledo III took a formal decision to add it, since that is just not true.

Notes.

* Empty channel:

** Concilio de Toledo I
https://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm

Gavin Ashenden reflects on the reopening of Notre Dame, I Add Two Comments

Gavin Ashenden reflects on the reopening of Notre Dame
Catholic Unscripted | 9.XII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pLtourIlU

5:47 In 1920, Institut catholique de Paris, a Jesuit writes an article in I think Dictionnaire de théologie catholique.

Some credit a Calvinist with inventing the Framework Theory in 1924, but Father Mangenot SJ came very close, so close as to make it basically 4 years before the Calvinist.

In the article, he does look back on previous theories. They had been, YEC, Day-Age, Gap Theory, and Catholics had with imprimatur or imprimi potest defended each of them as late as 1896, a time at which Framework theory was unknown (at least except for people condemned or in one case a man self censoring to avoid condemnation). It's clear Framework theory is not the Catholic tradition, and it's clear it originated in Paris.

1920 minus 1896, that's 24 years. 1920 + 24 = 1944. A time at which sexual abuse was already ongoing.

Sometimes sodomy cries out for God's vengeance. But sometimes it is (see Romans 1) God's vengeance for idolatry. I would say, a man not crediting God with creating Adam individually and without biological ancestry, is implying things about God that just don't belong in Him, a cruelty far worse than a teacher abusing Henk Heithuis (from 1950, the year of Humani Generis, one widely made acception of which was not "teach the controversy" but "believing Evolutionary origins of Adam is definitely OK" which is not what Pius XII stated).

2019 (Notre Dame Fire) - 1950 (Humani Generis) = 69 years.

9:37 "atheist president"?

Macron, ce que l'on sait de son rapport à la religion
Anna Cabana 12/02/2018 à 12:00, Mis à jour le 30/01/2023 à 00:02 (le JDD)
https://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/macron-ce-que-lon-sait-de-son-rapport-a-la-religion-3571493

Contrairement à son prédécesseur, Emmanuel Macron est très intéressé par les questions religieuses. Ni athée, ni vraiment pratiquant, le président de la République est "un objet spirituel non identifié".

From an image caption:

Emmanuel Macron n'est plus sûr de croire en un Dieu mais croit en la transcendance.

Sharing on Mary (with some comments)

How I met Your Mother; The Truth About Mary #catholicconvert #protestant
Embracing Tradition | 15 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN74wpAyl-4

I

context:

and any kind of 11:18 praying to a saint or praying to 11:21 somebody who we perceive to be dead 11:24 would be considered 11:25 necromancy but that is just a horrible 11:28 misunderstanding of what Marian 11:31 devotion what praying to the Saints is 11:34 it's a horrible 11:36 misunderstanding and praying is not 11:40 necromancy, we're not asking them to 11:42 communicate with us we are asking for 11:45 them to intercede with God on our behalf 11:48 because they are already in His presence

11:41 It's also a horrible misunderstanding of the sin of necromancy.

II

18:30 In honour of Our Lady of Guadalupe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO1xFFVnISA

The Protestants saying She "is demonic" are a miniature of Jews saying Christ converting the Gentiles from Baal, Osiris, Zeus, Odin (or Thor or Frey, depending on preference), and prior to Islam, some from the worship of Marduk as well "is demonic" ...

"Aurora del Nuevo Sol,"

How different from the Aztek "old Sun" ...

III

Five OT women who point to Mary.

King David's mother.

O Lord, for I am thy servant: I am thy servant, and the son of thy handmaid. Thou hast broken my bonds:
in Latin:
O Domine, quia ego servus tuus; ego servus tuus, et filius ancillae tuae. Dirupisti vincula mea

Psalms 115:16.

Somewhat "ecce ancilla Domini" I'd say.

But even more. Another translation lets king David say "I serve you just as my mother did" (meaning she had already died by this time, for "did").

If David sometimes sinned, but quickly repented and nearly all of his life served the Lord, the same is true of his unnamed mother.

If the Son of David, Son of Abraham NEVER sinned .... the same is true of Mary.

Four more.

Blessed:
Ruth for marrying the much older Obed (Joseph was a widower and old)
Abigail for holding back King David from killing an Israelite (we should think ... all generations ... of not provoking Christ, but just in case we do, have confidence in Her)

Blessed among women:
Jael for killing Sisera
Judith for killing Holophernes.

And these two clearly prove that Mary is indeed the woman of Genesis 3:15. Because the only Sisera or Holophernes She was destroying in any way, was Satan. This again means She was sinless.

Embracing Tradition

@EmbracingTradition100

Thank you for sharing! 😊

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@EmbracingTradition100 my pleasure!

DYOR = Do Your Own Research (Some Guys are Afraid of Written Debate)

It can be noted that I had thought from the description of a learning curve that Kruger and Dunning were cognitive psychologists, it seems their paper from 1999 (for which only the abstract is available to me, and which abstract is closer to the pop culture idea of "Dunning Kruger effect" than descriptions of the content in the below video) is classed in "social psychology" a very different kettle of fish and one that is closer to the Soviets and to the psychiatric arts of bullying that cognitive psychology. I mean, the latter is the discipline I'd have predicted from the mention of "learning curve" ...

But the "learning curve" has other implications than someone knowing better than the experts suffering the Dunning Kruger effect. Not all experts are of twenty years experience. Not all amateurs in the DYOR tribe are at the beginning of a learning curve.

'Do your own research' and the Dunning-Kruger Effect
potholer54 | 9 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t54I6NKtr4k

"what we know as the Dunning Kruger 2:05 effect is not to be confused with Kruger 2:08 and Dunning's paper as I explained in 2:10 the video description there was no 2:12 mention of the Dunning Kruger effect in 2:14 the Kruger and Dunning study that term 2:17 was coined and popularized long 2:19 afterwards to describe the 2:21 overconfidence of people who gain a 2:23 small amount of knowledge and think they 2:24 now know better than the experts"

O K ... is there any paper by any expert (outside psychiatry) that deals with this overconfidence?

Or is it just a meme among the Left?

Atypical Chad

@Atypical_Chad

In the time it took you to comment, you could've googled "dunning Krueger effect study" and have gotten an answer.

Note

This is not an empty channel, but on the other hand, his videos are short clips from video games.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Atypical_Chad I suppose you did.

1) What study did you find?
2) Was it by someone who wasn't a psychiatrist?

Note

Above comment was censored.

At least it disappeared.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

How are you struggling with a term used in pop culture and why do you feel the need to attribute it to a side?

Ed T.

@edt.5118

Hglundahl. Woops, there it is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Thanks for noting it's a pop culture term.

Sounds very different from serious expertise about how people work (for instance by cognitive psychologists).

8:46 When was the last time you were sceptical about Heliocentrism and Evolution?

And, as simple a question as how we know the Earth is round.

Magellan wasn't a scientist. He was a traveller. Far more reliable people. The observations of Magellan add up to Earth having a curvature that goes full circle in the East-West direction.

And Irving is probably less of a science sceptic than a history sceptic.

9:37 It may be less than 1 % of what the experienced researcher knows in terms of facts.

It will be way more than 1 % or than 10 % and may approach 100 % of the general outline of the subject.

Do you know why?

Because that's the exact part that's presented first. The experienced researcher of 20 years usually has a very similar view of the general outline (unless his field has been revolutionised) as he did when he started. Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Given that Göbekli Tepe was found more like 40 years ago, this is even true of archaeology" No idea what you're saying here.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime Reread.

Your lack of reading skills is not my problem.

10:58 I do have a system for checking with others, correcting mistakes and so on.

The debate.

That's the exact same system Socrates had.

Ben Podborski

@benpodborski5972

Sure… but suppose you’re debating someone whom is a terrible debater, and correct? They “lose” the debate, and later evidence exonerates them.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You can't be serious. If someone makes a bogus claim in a debate it might take hours of research to determine the errors or even lies. Debate favors the scammer.

Note

Both are empty channels. Ben Podgorski seems to be a young Canadian teacher and mountaineer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime In written debate, the hours are available.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@benpodborski5972 In written debates on blogs, the later evidence can be added in comments, unless they are turned off. Mine aren't.

If you want to resume a debate with me, I usually accept the challenge and add the later evidence, and my comment on it, either in an extension of the extant post, or in a new post.

Zift Ylrhavic Resfear

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear

If you're talking about two people debating in comments or private message over days, then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources. If you're talking about a live debate in front of an audience, then there are techniques so effective at winning a debate despite being wrong that we've named them, like the gish gallop.

Marco

@Marco-it2mr

Debates are often popularity contests.

Of note, there is a reason why one calls it the SOCRATIC debate, and not just the debate. Debate is a wide term, whereas the Socratic debate has clear delineations of a teacher discussing with their students. There's also the dialectic debate, which you frequently will find in scientific meetings.

Unfortunately, the majority of debates are just people telling others what they believe.

Note

Both are empty channels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Marco-it2mr "a teacher discussing with their students"

Not in Socrates ... he took students to see his debates with people NOT his students.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear "then it can work if at least one of them knows how to check sources."

Thanks, I've been doing that for 20 years. More.

16:23 I have a feeling someone directed this to my feed to gaslight me about DYOR ...

Because I just did prove there are four corners on the globe. No, not between the globe and surrounding space. Between continents and the Pacific Ocean, basically. The Maldives, for instance are NORTH of a line from Cape Horn to Hobart, those being the very obvious SW and SE corners. And the line being very clean. Definitely concave, absolutely NO land anywhere along the twelfths of the distance in coordinates. The West and East lines are less clean and the North line convex, but still. It's not a fifth corner.

Try to fact check me on details, well, no. Giving me a video in the feed with a calculated effect of either lowering my self esteem or showing the esteem others hold me in, that yes.

"If Potholer was saying vloggers 18:29 that do your own research aren't to be 18:30 trusted that includes 18:33 himself yes it does that's why I don't 18:37 do my own 18:38 research"

Except, apparently, on the subject of DYOR.

Because, as you started out admitting, Kruger and Dunning didn't do it for you.

[tried to add]

Let me give you a clue.

A scientist upholding an Evolutionist viewpoint may or may not be more expert than his vlogger (or in my case blogger) DYOR critic on the matter at hand.

But he is definitely NOT more expert on the topic of DYOR.

19:47 First of all, you misrepresent the school I had back in the seventies.

I was told, Science can be trusted, because Science can be challenged. No, not just by any other Scientist with the proper training. By people of the DYOR clan.

Second, you misrepresent the connection between Science and Technology.

The most connected you pretend might be between radiometric dating and finding oil. The thing is, there was some time since finding coal was done by checking for Carboniferous. There is coal not classified as Carboniferous.

Petrol ...

"Also, petroleum geologists are mainly interested in rocks from the Mesozoic and Paleozoic Eras. This is because almost all of the oil and gas found so far is contained within these rocks."

Oil on my shoes: The Absolute Geologic Time Scale
https://www.geomore.com/geologic-time-scale/

Sounds like the majority of this is from the Flood.

And 60 to 600 million years would be easy to get in radio[metric] dates (not carbon) from Flood deposits in simple good luck with dating methods.

In other words, the radiometric dates are NOT very relevant for finding the oil.

For other items, you are dealing with things that are pretty easily refuted if wrong, simply because technology will backfire. Astrophysics, Palaeosciences, Predictions in Futurology, usually won't. I'm just now trying to find out how many islands have been abandoned in the Maldives and especially why ...