Assuming Tom Cruse has ADD ( I think its obvious and he just about admitied he had it in reader digest) and he really believes that scientology is reality Question: what in the world would it take to get him to climb of the mountian of stupid he is atop and face the truth about himself?

Humility.

Which comes with emotional maturity.
Nova

Assuming Tom Cruse has ADD ( I think its obvious and he just about admitied he had it in reader digest) and he really believes that scientology is reality Question: what in the world would it take to get him to climb of the mountian of stupid he is atop and face the truth about himself?there's not much that can be done... except for having him go through some kind of extreme experience...

it'd probably take just as much to change his view to be like yours, as it would take to change your views to be like his...

I agree with all that has been said but I think I picked on tom cruse a bit to much so let me generalize this discussion. how much evidence must exist to make it sufficiently plain that a set of beliefs, or ideology is wrong or based on falsity rather than truth?





What do yall think?

I agree with all that has been said but I think I picked on tom cruse a bit to much so let me generalize this discussion. how much evidence must exist to make it sufficiently plain that a set of beliefs, or ideology is wrong or based on falsity rather than truth?





What do yall think?

Hello Chronomancer. That is a good question indeed.
I was just watching an interview with Robin Williams tonight on the TV ancient way of entertainment. I admire his energy, charisma, sense of humor, creativity, and acting. He really can put a tear in your eye when he has serious movies...
I think Robin Williams is so successful because he is one with himself, and all the masks he uses are real...I think he could be considered to be bipolar, but if he is not, I would be really surprised...LOL

Back to your question, I think us here and a lot of other people live as real a life as we can live...The world in general lives an illusion, or a lie, as far as I understand it...But that is how the economy has been able to subsist, on a lie...That is entirely my own personal opinion, and perhaps I and my perceptions are wrong...But perhaps one of these days I will be right...

Hey, if you like asking questions like the one you posted, please visit Philosophy Spirit (http://s14.invisionfree.com/Philosophy_Spirit/), it is a board that discusses philosophy, christianity, buddhism, praayer, meditation and also has a lighter side. The Board is relatively new but has a lot of potential...:cool:

Deciphering between Truth and BS

Chronomancer said:
how much evidence must exist to make it sufficiently plain that a set of beliefs, or ideology is wrong or based on falsity rather than truth?

Again, I'm going to state what I always state.
There is no right or wrong.
It is based on the individual's perception of what they believe to be 'truth' or 'ethical'..and if they choose to run with the collective 'set' of everyone else's set of right or wrong, that is their option.

Different societies, in different cultures, worldwide, have their own set of rules, for truth, as defined by them.

As far as how I, personally decipher truth, I research heavily. And I don't take the face value of only one book, one internet site, or the OPINION of one person, because it is their opinion, even if they are world renowned...it is still their opinion..and I can form my own as well as they can.
What I do after I research..is this:
I ask myself..How useful is this information?
Is this information giving me the answer to my specific question?
I weed out all the crapola that doesn't pertain to my specific question. You'll find out that you will 'scratch' out so much information...because people tend to add so much fillers...in books, on internet sites...
And you will be left with either what you seek...or you will be left with crapola.
That is how I decipher between truth and false...and it works not only with information...but with facts and bullsh** at well <wink>.

and
What is the definition of Ethics?
My definition of ethics was not defined in any classroom- not in any Psychology nor Criminology based one.

My definition of Ethics or 'Truth' is based on three Biggies:

1) You absolutely have no authority in manipulating or controlling another living being
B) You absolutely have no authority in being applying cruelty to another living being
3) You absolutely have no authority in taking the life of another living being

These rules of ethics and truth are what guide me.
Feel free to apply them if you feel comfortable in using them also

Peace out,
Nova

Nova,

That was very well put.

As far as whether or not Tom Cruise has ADHD, I really haven't a clue.

I'm not sure what would be an example(s) of impairments in major life activities for him.

Belonging to a cult like, rip off organization and saying ******* things on tv, wouldn't qualify, however, there may very well be legit examples.

I believe I heard him saying something about being diagnosed with Dyslexia once before, however, I'm not certain.

As far as **** from shinola goes, I try and use rational thinking and common sense along with sound reality testing, to work thru whatever it is I'm concerned with.

When it comes to my primary area of expertise, I read and study constantly; recognizing that research isn't static.

By the same token, if there is something that has been substantiated by longitudinal research (as both valid & reliable ) so many times that it is accepted all over the world as an "accepted standard of practice," then I'm going to acknowledge that as having happened.

The only place where I have concerns about the impact of individual perception is in the clinical realm of mental health problems.;especially where psychosis is involved.

Thanks for the posts and the thread.

mctavish23 (Robert)

P.S.

I've posted this before, but I think it 's worth repeating; research isn't personal.

It's either a well done study with valid and reliable data or it's not.

P.S.

I've posted this before, but I think it 's worth repeating; research isn't personal.

It's either a well done study with valid and reliable data or it's not.

I know what you're saying, McT, but we are on the same 'wavelength'.
I believe people tend to take research as personal because it either affects them, personally, or it affects someone they love, and they don't take the time to research what is going on...no pun intended with that last line. (0:
Nova

Thanks for the reply.

I agree with what you're saying.

Primarily, I was speaking from my professional perspective.

I may not agree with some body of research, however, that doesn't mean that I can dismiss those data as invalid; when in fact, just the opposite is true.

When and if something changes, then I professionally will go with the flow.

Thanks again

mctavish23 (Robert)