I am new and I have an agenda.

[The Fly]

I just want to question what we call knowledge and the knowledge itself. I am not claiming to know any more than the rest of you. That's the point, I don't know any more than you (in fact I likely know less). But Socrates illustrates that a lack of knowledge to not equate a lack of ability to question all those with knowledge.

Questioning what we call knowledge and what is knowledge is pointless in the modern era. You end up either thinking nothing or everything is knowledge (assuming you're only questioning it because you don't understand the scientific method). Socrates lived in a time period where the difference in knowledge between people wasn't nearly a large as it is today. You can question those with knowledge, but don't expect to understand the answer you receive without spending some time researching to answer the question yourself. We have the internet, use it.

I am talking about specific knowledge. Don't stop reading please, before you whip out a response. I am talking about ANY specific enough knowledge. I am simply wanting to question what we call knowledge and the knowledge itself. Let me give you an example: How do we know that climate change is more directly effected by modern human activity as opposed to planetary events occurring with or without humans?

See how that is not just a yes or no question? It asks any of us to explain how exactly we know something to be true. That is a simpler example then what'd I hope to get into in the near future, but I think the example shows how some interesting conversations can be had by asking those kind of questions.

Im not here to talk about strictly philosophy, such as epistemology and such. I am open to philosophical topics, but not strictly so.

Also, I disagree with your dichotomy of questioning what we call knowledge (even though that wasn't what I was getting at). I don't think it leads to only all or nothing is knowledge. By assuming that I didn't understand the scientific method, I think you made some false pre-judgments here, just saying.

[The Fly]

I find your response to my failed introduction a little reactionary and irrational.

Trolls are attracted to this forum like moths to flame. Do the math.

Fair enough.

Anyway I can do to convince you I am not a troll?

I will show you a picture of a cat, if you like them.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Now now everyone. Who are we to question whether the newcomer is smarter and far more insightful than everyone else?  It seems to me we've been assured we're fundamentally flawed in out groupthink and the newcomer is well above us mentally. If we just bow down and humbly admit our flaws perhaps the newcomer will remove them for us.
It's been a long time since I've sat through an AA meeting.  :-k

[The Fly]

I have tried to explain that I am not smarter than anyone here. But I would like to try to play the role of a gadfly so that I can acquire more knowledge and help this community understand their own knowledge better.

Drunken Shoe, I think I get what your are saying about the gadfly. I realize now that I did kind of misinterpret it after I read through that part of the dialogue again. What I was thinking was that Socrates called himself the gadfly because he was a pain in the ass to the state, but where the confusion came in for me was when I inferred that the reason that Socrates thought he was a pain in the ass was because he asked so many damn questions about things they thought were already basic and conventional knowledge.

I would like to be the gadfly for this forum. Hopefully, you will find my posts intelligent and full of critical thinking. My goal is to get everyone to think about their own views and biases they may hold (and that includes me). Please know I am not trying to inflame and I hope not to be annoying. If at any point it gets to be too much, don't hesitate to let me know.

I understand why you all read it the way you did, but what I meant by this is that if I am the guy who questions everything, to the point of almost annoyance, it could help all of us better understand our own knowledge. I had connected Socrates' line "the only thing I know is that I know nothing" to the gadfly incorrectly, I believe.

Drunken is right that I did misunderstand the meaning of the gadfly and that is the fundamental reason for the lapse in communication.

Regardless of how bad I suck, I still wanna be the annoying guy that questions a ton.

Now, is there anyway to change my name, lol?

[Plu]

Quickest way to get your name changed is probably sending a message to Wolf.

[FrankDK]

>  My intention is to try and shut down group-think tendencies by challenging conventional views found in this community.

Have you been reading this forum long?  If so, you must know that there are very few, if any, conventional views that hold sway here.  Virtually every idea is challenged.  The majority of people on the forum are atheists, but that's a result of the nature of the forum.  Other than that, the beliefs are wildly divergent.

Welcome.

Frank

[Mister Agenda]

Agenda? Hey!

Welcome, TheGadfly.

You are aware that the Socratic method is the most annoying form of discourse known to man, right? Real people don't respond well to being asked questions when its obvious the person asking already has an answer in mind.

[Brian37]

To the OP if you knew what Dawkins thought of Platonic thought, you'd know many of us are totally aware of it's flaws. Not a good idea to bring a subject up with others if you don't already know their answers. It's as stupid as playing chess with an expert in strategy without knowing anything about strategy.

FYI, we see this slick tactic all the time from apologists.

[Brian37]

The worst mistake people make in coming to an atheist website is assuming we've never run into it before.

[Deidre32]

Welcome Gadfly!

In one sentence, what is your agenda? It's currently unclear to me as to what your agenda is other than wishing to engage in intelligent dialogue. Which in that case, we all (well most) have that as our agenda.

I'm wary of people who compare thenselves to the "great minds" of the past. Just be you. You can't make everyone happy. Just be you and have good intentions. You are unique as we all are, and if your posts are respectful of others, you too will gain respect.

Enjoy the forum. :)

[Shiranu]

Don't worry, our hemlock supplies have been running low lately.

[aitm]

Don't worry, our hemlock supplies have been running low lately.

*makes note* contact hemlock supplier in Fresno.....

[TrueStory]

Quite an intro.  Just participate instead of pontificating and you'll be fine.

[Icarus]

I picked an atheist forum because I figured it'd be my best bet for rational thinkers.

I suspect that you assume my agenda is somehow a religious one. Let me state, again, my agenda:

 My intention is to try and shut down group-think tendencies by challenging conventional views found in this community.

While this community is an atheist community, its not ONLY that is it? This community surely has a unique culture that can lead to some fun and intelligent conversations :)

I am guessing the reason that most of you are assuming that my intentions are somehow religious based is because most people that come in without directly labeling themselves are in fact religious and  I don't blame you for that. I'd just challenge you to try and re-read my post without that experiential bias.

Did you read my response?

"Since the only conventional view found in the atheist community is a lack of belief in god/s, it should be difficult to challenge that view. Welcome, I hope you won't be disappointed if your experiment doesn't work."

The key part is the first section. I challenge you to find a conventional view atheists have that isn't a lack of belief in god/s.

[Icarus]

I just want to question what we call knowledge and the knowledge itself. I am not claiming to know any more than the rest of you. That's the point, I don't know any more than you (in fact I likely know less). But Socrates illustrates that a lack of knowledge to not equate a lack of ability to question all those with knowledge.

Questioning what we call knowledge and what is knowledge is pointless in the modern era. You end up either thinking nothing or everything is knowledge (assuming you're only questioning it because you don't understand the scientific method). Socrates lived in a time period where the difference in knowledge between people wasn't nearly a large as it is today. You can question those with knowledge, but don't expect to understand the answer you receive without spending some time researching to answer the question yourself. We have the internet, use it.

I am talking about specific knowledge. Don't stop reading please, before you whip out a response. I am talking about ANY specific enough knowledge. I am simply wanting to question what we call knowledge and the knowledge itself. Let me give you an example: How do we know that climate change is more directly effected by modern human activity as opposed to planetary events occurring with or without humans?

See how that is not just a yes or no question? It asks any of us to explain how exactly we know something to be true. That is a simpler example then what'd I hope to get into in the near future, but I think the example shows how some interesting conversations can be had by asking those kind of questions.

Im not here to talk about strictly philosophy, such as epistemology and such. I am open to philosophical topics, but not strictly so.

Also, I disagree with your dichotomy of questioning what we call knowledge (even though that wasn't what I was getting at). I don't think it leads to only all or nothing is knowledge. By assuming that I didn't understand the scientific method, I think you made some false pre-judgments here, just saying.

Read my post again, understand how your post makes no sense in context to what I wrote, write a reply that makes sense.