| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Why do so many people prefer inconsistent belief instead of consistent reasoning?
If classes are real, as realists like cladists and particle physicists believe, then definitions are real, which ultimately leads to paradoxical contradiction (as Bertrand Russell demonstrated), thus meaning that reality is paradoxically contradictory.
However, if reality indeed is paradoxically contradictory, as realists like cladists and particle physicists thus believe, then time can’t be relative to speed in space, because it would mean that “now” equals “then”, and thus that “time” instead equals “space”. It would thus mean that reality is frozen instead of moving, as also already the ancient Greek Parmenides suggested, and that change instead only would occur inside of our heads.
Luckily, we have already confirmed empirically that time indeed is relative to speed in space, meaning that we have already falsified this belief. Fact is instead that reality is moving, and thus that realists like cladists and particle physicists are wrong.
The question is then: why does this fact have such a hard time to be accepted? Why do so many people think that it is better to be inconsistent, ie, to believe in an impossibility? Why do so many people prefer inconsistent belief instead of consistent reasoning? Are they afraid of the relativity?
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
Source: https://menvall.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/why-do-so-many-people-prefer-inconsistent-belief-instead-of-consistent-reasoning/
