Hydroplate Theory

[silverslith]

As I stated you can get an estimate from the Ideal gas law.

 

Why the ideal gas law differs from real gases is because the molecules or atoms have weak bonding behavior between them. This I would think means that gases behave more and more like real ones as temperature increases.

 

It may help you to realise that supercritical fluids are largely gases pressurised to simular densities as their liquid phases. It certainly does not mean that they can become more dense than their liquid phases would be at simular pressure, in fact they will be less dense. And water compresses very little.

 

This theory and the pseudoscience explanations around it are designed to be used as a tool by creationist clergymen to save them from admitting they have been misinforming their congregations about the world being created 5000 years ago. The gobbledegook that you are quoting southtown may be sufficient to impress many poorly educated churchgoers but it will not wash with anyone remotely connected to the scientific method and reason. Any one of many objections myself or others have mentioned is enough to completely demolish it and believe me there are millions more. eg/ go google the 60million AD meteorite research. then try explaining how your theory explains unique isomeric ratio and abundance of certain elements in a very thin layer of clay in the strata worldwide. The fingerprint of one meteorite.

[Southtown]

You're wrong. The equation *does* include internal energy. The internal energy of the atoms or molecules of the gas is in the form of kinetic energy, which then is related to temperature. Any change in internal energy then changes temperature. This is mentioned clearly in your first link.

 

...Don't just copy links. Please try to understand what's in your links.

It says that an ideal gas represents internal temperature with kinetic energy. The Wiki is more discriptive:

"

An ideal gas or perfect gas is a hypothetical gas consisting of identical particles of zero volume, with no intermolecular forces. Additionally, the constituent atoms or molecules undergo perfectly elastic collisions with the walls of the container. Real gases do not exhibit these exact properties, although the approximation is often good enough to describe real gases.

The approximation breaks down at high pressures and low temperatures

, where the intermolecular forces play a greater role in determining the properties of the gas.

" --

Ideal gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

emphasis added

No, what makes a substance supercritical is not the absence of a boiling point. Boiling point is the temperature at which a liquid can change its state into that of a gas.

I was referring to silverslith's 'gaseous rock' comment. And my point was only that pressure would keep it from being vapor. The boiling point increases with pressure, but only up to the critical point. Above this pressure, some of the molecules begin to collapse back into a liquid phase with additional thermal energy being manifested as gaseous activity by the other molecules. The substance simply isn't capable of exhibiting vapor pressure beyond a certain point.

[maikeru]

It says that an ideal gas represents internal temperature with kinetic energy. The Wiki is more discriptive:

"

An ideal gas or perfect gas is a hypothetical gas consisting of identical particles of zero volume, with no intermolecular forces. Additionally, the constituent atoms or molecules undergo perfectly elastic collisions with the walls of the container. Real gases do not exhibit these exact properties, although the approximation is often good enough to describe real gases.

The approximation breaks down at high pressures and low temperatures

, where the intermolecular forces play a greater role in determining the properties of the gas.

" --

Ideal gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

emphasis added

 

I didn't say this is a 100% representation of reality, but that the equation does not "ignore" internal energy as you mentioned. As I mentioned, temperature is related to and a measure of kinetic energy, which is representative of internal energy. Temperature is included in the equation, therefore, internal energy as kinetic energy is thus *not ignored* and one can determine the relationship between internal energy and the other factors.

 

At high pressures and low temperatures, the particles act more like those in a liquid or solid, because intermolecular forces can attract the particles to each other more than kinetic energy can drive them apart on average. We're dealing with SCW, which will be at high temperatures and high pressures, according to calculations and theory. Not high pressure and low temperatures, so your emphasis about high pressures and low temperatures really has no point, IMO. Increasingly relevant with either pressure or heat. Not increasingly irrelevant.

 

We're not modeling SCW which is at low temperatures. Even at 2 miles deep, the earth is boiling hot. Not freezing. Brown's model calls for increasing pressure, which then (in real life) increases temperature.

 

I was referring to silverslith's 'gaseous rock' comment. And my point was only that pressure would keep it from being vapor. The boiling point increases with pressure, but only up to the critical point. Above this pressure, some of the molecules begin to collapse back into a liquid phase with additional thermal energy being manifested as gaseous activity by the other molecules. The substance simply isn't capable of exhibiting vapor pressure beyond a certain point.

 

It's more like superheated almost liquid gas, as Silverslith mentions. Ah, hell, I'm tired of trying to teach basic chemistry. You wouldn't know it, but I had two paragraphs written here and explaining more things.

 

I don't think you're seeing what the rest of us see. You would need a background in physics, geology, and chemistry. Turtle said he wasn't going to bother teaching a geology course, and I'm not going to bother teaching a chemistry course here. I already took it and suffered.

 

This comes off as pretty pseudoscience, but pseudoscience nevertheless. Hydroplate Theory is garbage.

[Southtown]

I didn't say this is a 100% representation of reality, but that the equation does not "ignore" internal energy as you mentioned. As I mentioned, temperature is related to and a measure of kinetic energy, which is representative of internal energy. Temperature is included in the equation, therefore, internal energy as kinetic energy is thus *not ignored* and one can determine the relationship between internal energy and the other factors.

I meant more specifically that the ideal gas ignores the energy from the self-ionization of water at that temperature and pressure.

 

Fluids at high pressures and temperatures (p.2, pp.2)

 

We're not modeling SCW which is at low temperatures. Even at 2 miles deep, the earth is boiling hot. Not freezing. Brown's model calls for increasing pressure, which then (in real life) increases temperature.

I apologize. In my haste to cover sedimentation, I skipped over the mantle and the core. Brown's scenario is a cold core before the rupture. The temperature of the water is said to have been increasing gradually through tidal pumping, and the melting of the core is said to be caused by the release. The starting pressure of 4270 bars corresponds to a density of 2.0 g/ml^-1 according the third graph in my LSBU link.

 

It's more like superheated almost liquid gas, as Silverslith mentions. Ah, hell, I'm tired of trying to teach basic chemistry. You wouldn't know it, but I had two paragraphs written here and explaining more things.

 

I don't think you're seeing what the rest of us see. You would need a background in physics, geology, and chemistry. Turtle said he wasn't going to bother teaching a geology course, and I'm not going to bother teaching a chemistry course here. I already took it and suffered.

I know enough to say that silverslith's math isn't adequately representative. Why are you explaining SCF to me? Is there a point you wish to make?

 

This comes off as pretty pseudoscience, but pseudoscience nevertheless. Hydroplate Theory is garbage.

It's a hypothetical scenario. Science is the method whereby we evaluate hypotheses. How it comes off should be a consequence of physics not interpretation.

 

Why the ideal gas law differs from real gases is because the molecules or atoms have weak bonding behavior between them. This I would think means that gases behave more and more like real ones as temperature increases.

As certain clusters of molecules are forced into the liquid phase, intermolecular forces become more relevant.

 

Internal Energy - Microscopic Energy - hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

 

It may help you to realise that supercritical fluids are largely gases pressurised to simular densities as their liquid phases. It certainly does not mean that they can become more dense than their liquid phases would be at simular pressure, in fact they will be less dense. And water compresses very little.

You state that 1) the less dense water could not be contained by the granite and that 2) the water could not exert enough pressure to erupt from the granite (posts 45 and 48, respectively.)

 

Your 12940K of thermal energy will be partially used in the ionization of the water and manifest as a subsequent increase of intermolecular vapor pressure unaccounted for by the ideal gas law. And even if your math were comprehensive, your points are contradictory.

[Turtle]

...Vegetation and animals rode upward into water lenses because the weight of suspended sediments increased the buoyancy of the water within it. Once in a lense, large objects tended to stay there because the weight of the upper layer counteracted the buoyancy of the lense beneath. However, animal carcasses that were very buoyant (or still alive) could possibly push up into and through some layers until the increasingly strickened flow of water became to weak to aid the carcass' buoyancy in overcoming the next sedimentary layer. Vegetation was not so capable of traversing the strata because it would intertwine with other vegetation soon upon entering a water lense. Moreover, the formation of a vegetation mat exaggerated the bottlenecking effect of its own lense by hindering upward flow

 

"If we lie about what science claims, we can refute the lie and put another lie in it's place and hope our followers are ignorant enough to believe it!"

Fossil Foolishness

 

:) :eek:

[Southtown]

Are you implying something about my paragraph, Turtle?

[Turtle]

Are you implying something about my paragraph, Turtle?

 

Absolutely not; your paragraph is well writ. My pointy pen is aimed at ol' Walty.

[Southtown]

Haha :D Thx

[maikeru]

I meant more specifically that the ideal gas ignores the energy from the self-ionization of water at that temperature and pressure.

 

Fluids at high pressures and temperatures (p.2, pp.2)

 

Forgive me, but I can't read pdfs on my current machine. I messed up Code2000 in WinME on this crap pile, and now my computer crashes when I open up pdfs. It has been a real loss, because it also means I can't read science papers unless they're in html form.

 

Explain how the autoionization/autodissociation of water into hydronium and hydroxide ions and its energy plays a role in SCW and what that has to do with the Ideal Gas Law. Keep in mind that autoionization is an extremely fast chemical process and those ions don't always remain ions.

 

I apologize. In my haste to cover sedimentation, I skipped over the mantle and the core. Brown's scenario is a cold core before the rupture. The temperature of the water is said to have been increasing gradually through tidal pumping, and the melting of the core is said to be caused by the release. The starting pressure of 4270 bars corresponds to a density of 2.0 g/ml^-1 according the third graph in my LSBU link.

 

I think you made a slight mistake: 2.0g/ml^-1 isn't a measure of density. g/ml or g/cm³ is a measure of density. 4270 bars = 427,000,000 Pa, according to my calculations (1 bar = 100,000 Pa). At that pressure and a density of 2.0 g/ml, according to your third chart, water's at 800 Kelvin = 526.85 Celsius. The earth is boiling hot at 2 miles down. This is far beyond water boiling point at 100 C. That ain't no cold core.

 

I know enough to say that silverslith's math isn't adequately representative. Why are you explaining SCF to me? Is there a point you wish to make?

 

Please examine your own. Because you keep speaking about and thinking about SCFs in the wrong terms. As you said:

 

Above this pressure, some of the molecules begin to collapse back into a liquid phase with additional thermal energy being manifested as gaseous activity by the other molecules.

 

The molecules don't collapse back into normal liquid or gas phases. You cannot think of them solely in those terms. This is not what is happening. Not only that, we are not dealing with cold SCW as I mentioned before. The calculations and real model demand high temperature, high pressure SCW. And as mentioned, Ideal Gas Law does break down at low temperatures. We're not dealing with low temperatures as I have said repeatedly. HIGH TEMPERATURES, HIGH PRESSURES. Ideal Gas Law seems to apply here for an approximation or at least a rough idea.

 

It's a hypothetical scenario. Science is the method whereby we evaluate hypotheses. How it comes off should be a consequence of physics not interpretation.

 

Hypothetical yes, but even for a hypothetical scenario, it fares rather poorly. IMO, I think your definition of science is simplistic and reductionist. It misses just about everything that makes science an important and useful tool.

 

Read spoiler for my view on science versus yours if you want:

 

 

Science is a method by which we observe phenomena and examine hypotheses in a testable, verifiable, consistent, and reproducible manner, then draw conclusions based on the empircal evidence. You may think this is a verbose description of the scientific method, but I would disagree. These four qualities of testability, verifiability, consistency, and reproducibility lie at the heart of the scientific method, for they try to ensure empirical, objective knowledge of reality. It is not just another means to evaluate hypotheses. It allows us to do so in a critically controlled and measured manner. All scientific data must be interpreted, but it's a matter of careful, logical, and rational interpretation. This is what allows science to make predictions and explanations based on the evidence. It all comes down to interpretation of testable, verifiable reality, and hopefully our interpretation of reality matches up with the real thing.

 

 

Science doesn't test things like the existence of tooth fairies, but it can test how often the tooth fairy comes to visit your kid and every other kid in a study. You can draw your own conclusions there.

 

As certain clusters of molecules are forced into the liquid phase, intermolecular forces become more relevant.

 

Internal Energy - Microscopic Energy - hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

 

So what happened to all the kinetic energy? Just magically vanished? :D

 

 

You state that 1) the less dense water could not be contained by the granite and that 2) the water could not exert enough pressure to erupt from the granite (posts 45 and 48, respectively.)

 

Your 12940K of thermal energy will be partially used in the ionization of the water and manifest as a subsequent increase of intermolecular vapor pressure unaccounted for by the ideal gas law. And even if your math were comprehensive, your points are contradictory.

 

No, his points make sense if you understand what a SCF is and can do. They don't make sense if you rely only on thinking of a SCF in divided and unrealistic gas and liquid phases. This is where you're missing the key ingredient of the whole thing.

 

A supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its thermodynamic critical point. It has the unique ability to diffuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid.

 

Diffuse through solids like a gas, dissolve materials like a liquid. Autoionization increases the ability of the SCW to further dissolve and destroy the rock (by creating hydronium and hydroxide ions, strong acids and bases respectively), driving into its crystals, reacting with its minerals and elements, and heating up the rock while losing the water's heat and pressure and reactivity too. So, the water might not make it out, having not had enough heat and pressure, as Silverslith mentions. :cup:

[InternationalSpaceAgency]

How people attack new ideas of human thought!

 

To think Galleo was nearly burned at the stake for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun.

 

Hmm?

 

Peer review and debate is one thing, and censorship and dogma are all together another thing.

 

Everyone has an opinion, but few have the facts!

 

:shrug:

[silverslith]

I was not kidding when I said this theory could be legitimately discussed as a psychologic disorder.:shrug:

 

Defense Constellations

 

A defense constellation is our set of preferred defenses that "have become integral to our individual styles of coping."

 

 

Primitive Defenses

 

Researchers like Melanie Klein, and Margaret Mahler, who worked with infants, are responsible for recognizing many of these primitive defenses. These primitive defenses tend to involve distortions between the self and the outer world. Because they evolved before we had a clear ego or super ego, primary (primitive) defenses operate in a global, undifferentiated manner, influencing a person's entire sensorium, and fusing cognitive, affective and behavioral functioning.

Omnipotent Control

 

Omnipotent control is the feeling that when we are present, we can control anything. This is an aspect of our primary egocentrism. For an infant, the world and the self are one. Therefore, there is a sense that one can influence "the world" (really, ourselves) through thought, by merely being there. Since this is such an early defense, there is no moral component to it - so there are no moral restrictions to this sense of power.

Dissociation

Dissociation is a global disconnection with reality. Therefore, it is not really like the other defenses, in that it's not a normal defense that is merely being overused, nor is it even a defense that all of us evencan potentially use. Dissociation is a reaction to a traumatic event that basically allows us to not "be there" during the event. This leads to the complete obliteration of the event from consciousness.

Fantasy

A more mature form of primitive withdrawal, fantasy can be unconsciously motivated as a means to break with reality. Daydreaming is the most common and healthy manifestation of fantasy.

Benefits: Fantasy that occurs during times of anxiety and stress can be adaptive.

Drawbacks: Overuse of fantasy is part of the antisocial personality.

Isolation Isolation is the separation of affect from cognition. It differs from dissociation in that event continues on in memory, it is just devoid of how you felt about it.

 

Isolation is considered to be the most primitive of the intellectual defenses and the basic unit of higher defenses such as intellectualization, rationalization and moralization. These defenses follow, and they all have in common the relegation to unconsciousness of the personal, gut level implications of any situation

Compartmentalization

Compartmentalization is a quasi-dissociative process wherein we permit two conflicting cognitions to exist without conscious confusion. It's an adult version of splitting. It's a lot like isolation, only it focuses on cognitions, not emotions. This concept is at the heart of hypocrisy, religious dogma and George Orwell's "Double Think" from his book 1984. Upon confrontation, the compartmentalizing person will rationalize the contradiction away. Of course, the ultimate example is Bill Clinton's claim that oral sex was not really "sex".

Psychoanalysis - Ego Defenses

 

A person with cognitive dissonance cannot see that (s)he is living the unreality. They don't know their thinking is warped.

In the late fifties, Leon Festinger formulated cognitive dissonance theory, which helps to predict changes in a person's belief system. Roughly stated, Festinger held that whenever an individual holds two inconsistent beliefs they will be in a state of anxiety which acts as a constant source of motivation to alter one the beliefs and dissolve the inconsistency. The stronger the investment you have in an idea the stronger the impulse to explain away the belief or evidence that threatens it.

 

Suppose, for example, I am deeply invested in the belief that I am a generous individual and then I find myself refusing to help a mendicant begging for a meal. On the face of it, it would seem that I had evidence that I was not the altruistic individual that I took myself to be, and so I would be in an inner state of conflict. Festinger's theory, however, would predict that the strong attachment to my self-image as a generous guy would motivate me to begin sanding away the experience that testified otherwise. And so I commence convincing myself that the beggar who approached me was a charlatan and that he would only use the money for drink and blah blah blah, so that in the end, I will think that it was actually noble of me to refuse to offer assistance.

:The Blog | Gordon Marino: Cognitive Dissonance Theory and the War in Iraq | The Huffington Post

cognitive dissonance

In general: psychological theory of human behavior. The theory suggests that conflicts between behavior and beliefs create a sense of discomfort, or cognitive dissonance, that the individual subconsciously attempts to eliminate by modifying his or her beliefs. For example, a man who believes in nonviolence may strike someone in anger. The theory states that the man will either modify his beliefs about nonviolence to justify the violent behavior or will believe his action to be something other than violence. He may convince himself that he was acting out of instinct or self-protection rather than a desire to inflict harm, or that the provocation was so extreme that even a nonviolent person like himself would have no choice but to respond. Individuals often seek reassurance from external sources that their behavior is not in conflict with their beliefs. Nazi war criminals defended their actions to themselves and others by claiming they were "only following orders" and were not responsible for behavior that was in conflict with social mores.

:cognitive dissonance: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

 

 

Cognitive Dissonance

 

Description

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

 

Dissonance increases with:

 

The importance of the subject to us.

How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.

Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

 

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

 

Change our behavior.

Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.

Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

 

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

 

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

 

Dissonance increases with the importance and impact of the decision, along with the difficulty of reversing it. Discomfort about making the wrong choice of car is bigger than when choosing a lamp.

 

Note: Self-Perception Theory gives an alternative view.

 

Research

Festinger first developed this theory in the 1950s to explain how members of a cult who were persuaded by their leader, a certain Mrs Keech, that the earth was going to be destroyed on 21st December and that they alone were going to be rescued by aliens, actually increased their commitment to the cult when this did not happen (Festinger himself had infiltrated the cult, and would have been very surprised to meet little green men). The dissonance of the thought of being so stupid was so great that instead they revised their beliefs to meet with obvious facts: that the aliens had, through their concern for the cult, saved the world instead.

:Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

wikipedia:

Cognitive dissonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

 

Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1956 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy; that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.[1]

[edit] Empirical research into cognitive dissonance

Several experimental methods were used as evidence for cognitive dissonance. These were:

 

Induced compliance studies, where people are asked to act in ways contrary to their attitudes (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; Harmon-Jones, Brehm, Greenberg, Simon, & Nelson, 1996);

Postdecisional studies, where opinions of rejected alternatives after a decision are studied (Brehm, 1956; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2002);

Studies of how people seek out information that is consonant rather than dissonant with their own views, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance (Frey, 1986)

Studies of how people respond to information that is inconsistent with their firmly-held beliefs, attitudes, or commitments (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956; Batson, 1975; Burris, Harmon-Jones, Tarpley, 1997).

 

[edit] Induced compliance studies

 

[edit] Origins and one of the first experiments testing the theory

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns and, another one, putting spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, refilling it with spools, and so on. Participants rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave. This is an example of an induced compliance study.

 

However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the participant was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.

 

When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks later, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 group and control group. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. Experimenters theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring". When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior. Behavior internalization is only one way to explain the subject's ratings of the task. The research has been extended in later years. It is now believed that there is a conflict between the belief that "I am not a liar, but I lied". Therefore, the truth is brought closer to the lie, so to speak, and the rating of the task goes up.

 

The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by changing their attitude. This process allows the subject to genuinely believe that the tasks were enjoyable.

 

Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to lie without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by convincing themselves of the falsehood, rather than telling a bald lie.

 

This study has been criticized, on the grounds that being paid twenty dollars may have aroused the suspicion of some participants. In subsequent experiments, two common alternative methods of "inducing dissonance were used". In one, experimenters used counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people were paid varying amounts of money (e.g., one or ten dollars) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own. The other method was to ask subjects to rate a number of different objects according to their desirability. The subject is then offered a choice between two objects s/he had rated equally, with the knowledge that choosing any one of the two would mean "missing out" on the possible positive features of the unchosen object, thus inducing dissonance.

 

 

[edit] Postdecisional dissonance studies

Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms — to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".

 

 

[edit] Basic theory

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).

 

The introduction of a new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.

 

This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

 

 

[edit] Conflicting cognitions: an example

Without evaluating various blenders, Luke purchases a blender. Luke's decision is consonant for the preferred qualities of his blender and the disadvantages of the rejected blenders. However, it is dissonant with the defects of his new blender and preferred qualities of the rejects.

 

Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly, or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine lacking, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by the dissonance related to the blender, at which point he starts to second-guess his choice (buyer's remorse).

 

Known defects: Luke's previously-unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, or "placeholder". Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant increase in the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance.

 

Under either scenario, Luke experiences full-blown cognitive dissonance when dissonance outweighs consonance.

 

Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible, and Luke is cognitively dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one which is less dissonance-inducing, as consonance should always trump dissonance. It is also possible that Luke will simply reject the negative reviews and his own bad experiences with the blender and convince himself that his blender is actually the best.

[InternationalSpaceAgency]

Wow~! More is not better!

 

I choose quality over quantity!

 

Hmm, interesting info though, but better in Social Sciences section I might think?

 

Hmm...

 

:shrug:

 

:Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

wikipedia:

[silverslith]

Hmm, interesting info though, but better in Social Sciences section I might think?

 

Hmm...

 

:shrug:

 

I agree.

[Turtle]

Ummm...hydroplate theory...

 

There is nothing in it so far offered that I have seen that furthers geologic understanding, and everything in it is meant to support a Biblical story copied from an earlier Summarian legend. I draw that conclusion after reading it with an open mind and considering the context and the source(s).

 

We have discussed whether the original topic belonged in Strange Claims, but oughtn't it honestly go in Theology?

[InternationalSpaceAgency]

There has been some rumbling in the Christian Science community over the years about this, and that it may be the cause of the great flood of the Earth in the bible.

 

I do not fully agree with all this information, but i have looked into this over the years out of curiosity. As a scientist and philosopher, I have learned to keep an open mind on things, because if you totally reject anything, you will always be wrong in the end. New ideas may not always be toatlly right, but sometimes lead to new ideas, knowledge, and sometimes get it right.

 

A closed mind is a bad thing, a cautious open mind is the best way for science and human knowledge to grow and develop.

 

Which are you?

 

 

Ummm...hydroplate theory...

 

There is nothing in it so far offered that I have seen that furthers geologic understanding, and everything in it is meant to support a Biblical story copied from an earlier Summarian legend. I draw that conclusion after reading it with an open mind and considering the context and the source(s).

 

We have discussed whether the original topic belonged in Strange Claims, but oughtn't it honestly go in Theology?

[silverslith]

There has been some rumbling in the Christian Science community over the years about this, and that it may be the cause of the great flood of the Earth in the bible.

 

I do not fully agree with all this information, but i have looked into this over the years out of curiosity. As a scientist and philosopher, I have learned to keep an open mind on things, because if you totally reject anything, you will always be wrong in the end. New ideas may not always be toatlly right, but sometimes lead to new ideas, knowledge, and sometimes get it right.

 

A closed mind is a bad thing, a cautious open mind is the best way for science and human knowledge to grow and develop.

 

Which are you?

 

Unfortunately a closed mind to the evidence from physics, chemistry, geology and all other disciplines only indicates a disturbed mind, not any poissible advance to knowledge.

The fundamental principle of science is fallibility and I have serious concerns when people hold belief above that.

[maikeru]

Ummm...hydroplate theory...

 

There is nothing in it so far offered that I have seen that furthers geologic understanding, and everything in it is meant to support a Biblical story copied from an earlier Summarian legend. I draw that conclusion after reading it with an open mind and considering the context and the source(s).

 

I think it has a bad habit of trying to impose the observer's views on reality rather than trying to allow reality to inform the observer. But I think Hydroplate Theory is not meant to "further" geologic understanding so much as it acts as another minor part of the Creationist effort to remake and reform a "new science" based on the Bible. Don't like evolution? Teach Intelligent Design. Don't like that nasty 4.5-5 billion-years-old Earth? Replace it with a 6,000-year-old brand-spanking-new one. Don't like that tectonics stuff? Hydroplate it.

 

Don't like those random mutations and their part in evolution? Outlaw 'em.

 

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

It's the cool thing to do.

 

We have discussed whether the original topic belonged in Strange Claims, but oughtn't it honestly go in Theology?

 

:hyper: