Chris & Steve are two childhood friends who lost touch after High School but reunited 30-something years later and discovered they both had a deep interest in the same (arguably not so) deep sh*t. So, they decided to start a podcast to talk about it! Steve is a lawyer and Chris works in insurance, but when they're not doing their day jobs they like to tackle topics such as UFOs / UAPs, Ancient Mysteries, Alternative History, Societal Trends, and whatever else seems interesting and cool.
Solo Chris - Considering versus Believing (or "We're Just Talking Here...")
•Chris and Steve•Season 1•Episode 5
Audio Player
00:00
00:00 | 17:58
Ready to challenge your own beliefs and biases? What if we told you that being open to unconventional ideas could transform the way you view the universe? In this episode Chris is all about showing you the power of open-mindedness.
Prepare to question everything. This episode invites you to approach novel theories with a blend of curiosity and skepticism, as Chris discusses the role of evidence in bridging the gap between consideration and belief. How the rejection of a theory can sometimes lead to the birth of a groundbreaking one. Remember, every idea, no matter how unconventional, could be a piece in the puzzle of understanding our mysterious universe.
So, prepare to have your mind blown as we embark on this intellectual adventure.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
Looks like ya. Considering something is not the same as believing something or buying into something. I think somewhere along the way those two have gotten entangled with each other to the point when, when discussing these types of issues, anything where there is a segment of the population who has a belief outside of the traditional mainstream, somewhere outside of the mainstream opinion on that matter, how long the civilization has been around? Uaps, ghosts, poltergeists, life after death, all of these questions. When you start to talk about them, sometimes people want to shut the conversation down, dismiss it. They won't even give you an inch, as if them listening and considering and pondering, even imagining for a moment. Hey, what if this were true? What if this particular theory that you're presenting, that I'm not wholeheartedly in on, I'm not buying 100%, but you know what? It's interesting, it sounds interesting. Let's talk it out, let's ask what if? Let's take it in. Let's weigh the merits, the pros, the cons.
Speaker 1:
You know the history of science. We all know this is full of rejected theories that later turned out to be true. Copernicus being, you know, the most obvious, you know when he revealed, postulated that you know, the sun didn't revolve around the earth, it was the other way around. And you know, being threatened and jailed and possibly executed. Hey, eventually we all kind of take that for granted. Well, some of us germ theory being another scientific notion that at first the idea that doctors should wash their hands before doing any kind of invasive surgery, well, that was considered ridiculous. What do you think? Well, I don't know Little beings on there that are going to jump from the doctor's hand to the to one of their patients. A lot of us are probably washing our hands and using hand sanitizer more after the last few years. So that's another something that the, that the mainstream, the quote unquote mainstream of science declared turned out not to be true.
Speaker 1:
The asteroid 65 million years ago. The only time they ever talk about asteroids in relation to the earth. One of the only times is when they make a point of saying 65 million years ago, we're pretty sure an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs, but there was a long period of time when that theory was hotly contested, practically ruined the careers of the, the original. The original scientists who presented this theory Eventually turned out to be proven via finding the creator, but hotly contested, later admitted yeah, we had it wrong. Whoops. And lastly, I think, really the most egregious one and most connected to this topic.
Speaker 1:
When I was in school we were always taught that life on earth Scientifically, the scientists had more or less figured it out, life on earth was very rare. The universe was mostly dead space, not any other planets out there. We were pretty certain we were alone, and everyone sort of Well, not sort of everyone really took comfort in that. Over the last bunch of years that position has been backed up a lot, so much so that now they say well, not only is there the potential for life Out there, it's probably present in some way, shape or form in pretty much every solar system. And then when you, you know, add up how many solar systems there are in our galaxy, how many galaxies there are, at At that point the idea that we are the only life in this universe, how did we ever think that that made any sense? But sure, whatever. But now we know that's not true. But it's out there, it's way out there, it's too far out there to ever get here. But that goalpost, that Distance, keeps shrinking little by little. Life is admitted out in the universe a little bit closer. It's not super close. Yet they still use words like theorized and maybe impossible, that there was ever life in this solar system. But they're being more and more forceful, strong, straightforward and saying hey, this many light years away, we're pretty sure there's life, and you know. Obviously they can't get here easily, so don't worry about it. But notice where that line started, where it's moved and where it's moving to. It's moved a lot just in the last few years, which is which is crazy.
Speaker 1:
Why do some people instinctively reject any new theory without any consideration? I mean consideration of an idea, of a notion, of a theory. The consideration of it costs nothing, cost absolutely nothing. No one is being asked to Lock in to an opinion, to a verdict. No one is getting you on the record Hopefully they're not. But to be able to consider a oddball theory, even if initially the theory sounds really oddball, but it doesn't cost anything and the gain is potentially huge, sometimes, just as, like I said, a thought exercise, an intellectual exercise, thinking through something like that Exercises your brain in a way that other types of logical, rational thinking Maybe don't. So if you go down that speculative path, sometimes it it provokes inspiration.
Speaker 1:
The real point of all this, of what I'm saying here, is we're just talking here, it's just talk, relax. I think it's. It's impossible possible to Really get to the bottom of some of these mysteries around us when certain avenues of speculation, just speculation, but certain avenues of speculation are forbidden. Certain avenues of speculation are perfectly okay. Speculation by itself, disconnected from any, you know, promise of support or action, costs nothing and should be done. It's not that difficult to realize. We do ourselves a disservice when we don't, when we don't yet at least consider something, consider it before rejecting it.
Speaker 1:
Too often I see the so-called self-proclaimed debunkers. They may say skeptics, but debunkers they just. Their first instinct is let me shoot holes in it, let me find a weak point, let me find some data point that I can offer up evidence contrary to and thus invalidate the entire. Whatever the theory is, whatever it is, whether it's a UAP sighting or whatever is presented, but that's not debunking it. I see that on Twitter a lot somebody will post something. I have zero opinion on most of the UAP UFO videos I see on Twitter.
Speaker 1:
I am cognizant of the fact that it is way. It is way too easy for someone who is just moderately technical to produce a really good looking fake. And people with real skills and computing power AI specifically have the ability to create just very realistic effects. We've been seeing them in great CGI movies for years and years. So no video that I see posted on any outlet Can I ever 100% say yes, that's true, I can say it's interesting, but it looks kind of fake. I prefer to say huh, interesting, maybe there's some problems with it, Maybe there aren't, but there's not enough there to say it's real, not without all the metadata.
Speaker 1:
But again, there's no need to. We don't need to immediately go to the verdict when someone proposes a new theory or an old theory. A lot of the things we talk about they're not new theories. They've been around forever. It's just historically. Historically, these topics have not been taken seriously by the media, and the media influences how the public reacts. So the public doesn't generally take them seriously and I think that's a mistake.
Speaker 1:
Again, costs nothing to consider an idea. There could be great things that come from it. And we're just talking. That's what I think I'm going to call this segment going forward. We're just talking here, relax, we're just talking here. We don't, we're not locking you in.
Speaker 1:
So when somebody proposes a new idea, why is it almost always met with immediate resistance? Wouldn't it be more fun to entertain the idea, even if just for a moment. Let your mind wander into the realm of what if? The joy of I don't know intellectual curiosity. But it's about discovery and possibilities. It's about taking the information, weighing the words and making your own call, using our own discernment on the information. We seem to be doing that less and less, if we ever really did it at all, I don't know. A little open-mindedness could have saved science a lot of time. It could have brought progress earlier.
Speaker 1:
So what makes us instinctively reject any kind of new theory? Is it fear? Are we afraid that if the existing paradigm is brought down, that it puts us on less solid footing for our own personal philosophy, whatever that is? Is it just the need for the comfort of familiar knowledge, the way some people like to stay where it's comfortable, don't ever like to be in unfamiliar territory? Is it just because humans can be egotistical and really don't want to admit that we might be wrong?
Speaker 1:
Even if that wrong notion was the result of not having all the information at the time and as new information is gleaned, new theories are considered, it doesn't seem to work that way. It seems that once an existing paradigm is put into place in the scientific community. Broadly speaking, I'm sure there are exceptions, there are always exceptions. But once it's placed there it's really hard to unseat. You almost have to wait for the proponents of those entrenched theories to get old and die. I think it was said by someone that that's how progress in science happens is those who get old and die. So this closed-mindedness, it not only delays progress but it makes the misinformation worse, because if you accept or reject some sort of notion without any kind of consideration, contemplation, debate, it's a breeding ground for misunderstanding.
Speaker 1:
Let's delve into this idea of considering something. It's an intellectual workout. It's where we chase. Curiosity goes hand in hand with questioning and skepticism, both of which are vital. You must be skeptical, you must question, but considering goes hand in hand with questioning and skepticism. It's like the very core of science. The cost of considering something is nothing nil, yet its potential gains are monumental, huge.
Speaker 1:
Then we have the tussle between believing and considering In the grand theater of ideas. To believe some is to conform, but to consider is to explore. But the power of open-mindedness in advancing knowledge, we can't underestimate that. Plate to tonics, that's another one, the idea that land masses, the plates under the earth shifted, causing earthquakes and continental drift. That was ridiculous. Now it's like the main theory of geology, quantum mechanics, which is really big right now, that opened new territory and that had been hotly debated, contested.
Speaker 1:
So how should we approach new theories or hypotheses? How should we? We can't just buy them and face value, but we shouldn't just reject them outright. Can we evaluate them critically? Understanding that evidence is the magical bridge that's going to take us from you know. The evidence is going to take us from considering to belief.
Speaker 1:
Eyewitness testimony is not concrete evidence in and of itself, but it is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is not proof of anything, but it is evidence. It's a type of evidence. Yes, sometimes that type of evidence can be unreliable. Sometimes it's unreliable. Sometimes people don't quite remember what they saw and convey it properly and memories change and all that it's okay to question.
Speaker 1:
I mean it's necessary to question a new theory. It is possible to evaluate a theory, a proposition, a hypothesis, evaluated critically, asked the questions not in an adversarial manner, but in a curious manner, a way that weigh it and maybe ultimately reject it. It's the pathway to new ideas and I think, no matter how many times we see it happen, we forget it on the next lesson. So that's my appeal, you know approach unfamiliar ideas, new theories, the weird things that Steve and I love to talk about on this podcast. Approach them with an open mind. You can be armed with curiosity and skepticism at the same time. But there's no cost. There's no cost to consideration. Consideration is not believing, or to put it another way, we're just talking here.
