Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

A lot of humans live lives "convinced of a thing", and they simply don't countenance any contrary information.  They watch whatever news channel caters to their belief set.  The surround themselves with people of like mind who nod their heads at whatever is said.  They live in a comfortable bubble, and it IS comfortable.

This is why confirmation bias is so prevalent.  It's hard work to challenge one's own beliefs.  And most of us dislike being wrong.

That's odd to me, being shown to be wrong to me means I learned something different, new, better, whatever.

stupid is as stoopid does

I would opine that believing in something that is silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours would qualify as being "stupid".

I believe in you, Cincy... but don't get too excited as I believe in Bigfoot, too.

I guess we all exercise our brains differently.  As many here know I love a well presented conspiracy... im a sucker for them... I'll spend hours, sometimes, poking around within the structure of one and make more stuff up and include that in the telling.  At the end of the day, when it's polished and ready for presentation- I toss it away or store it away, depending on how sound it is... sound, of course, being relative measure within a construct of BS to begin with...

The flat earth folks are hilarious.  I think it's drawn some truly loony people who actually believe it or at least have convinced themselves at some level there is some sort of truth in it, but that isn't how it started out (the more recent version of this thing, anyway)... it started out making fun of people who invest heavily in things they can't personally verify- such as climate change...

We're supposed to accept mmcc as absolute fact beyond reproach else be arrested and mistreated as a climate denier... but who among us has collected the data and analyzed it? Who has compiled their own findings? 

That ^ doesnt makenit untrue, by the way... its just a poke at it just like the flat earthers and their ice wall is. 

And that presents the question at the pillars of this discussion and question prompting it:  who or what do you grant authority to that has dominion over your opinion?

I would opine that believing in something that is silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours would qualify as being "stupid".

This is incorrect.  

Here:  when someone goes from being convinced of a god to unconvinced, they didn't become smarter.  Imagine one of those drawings where it's one thing and another thing.....when you see the image you didn't initially see, is it because your IQ grew 10 points?  Of course not.

I'm interested in WHY people believe things more than that they believe things.  I often have heard "Well, I just believe that.", end of discussion.  OK, fine with me.  No reason to discuss, but I do wonder whatever caused them to cement that belief.

We all believe things we can't really prove, some are just opinions, like "My favorite color is blue."  

I've known some very very smart people who were evangelical Christians.  I known plenty who were agnostic or atheists.  As I said before, it's not realistic to assemble a bunch of "really smart people" and get their opinions on things and presume they are correct.

Why are some folks conservates, and other liberals?

This is incorrect. 

Here:  when someone goes from being convinced of a god to unconvinced, they didn't become smarter.  Imagine one of those drawings where it's one thing and another thing.....when you see the image you didn't initially see, is it because your IQ grew 10 points?  Of course not.

In my OPINION, believing in a thing that is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours" qualifies as being stupid.

Not just based on linearity, although that's important. I think that the actual battery energy density is not going to progress fast enough, even including the idea of solid state batteries. Batteries for BEVs today frequently weigh upwards of 1000 lbs. IMHO the infrastructure needed for battery swaps would make things infeasible until you get that down to an order of magnitude less weight or so, and the engineering of making a car frame that can accommodate battery swaps requires the same improvement.

In most industries, you hear researchers talking about the future of their technology. I'm not hearing researchers even speculating about what gets us an order of magnitude advance in energy density. Which makes me think that it's much farther out than a decade.

There are bigger reasons I don't think it'll happen, not least because I've talked to a lot of BEV owners and not a single one has expressed a desire for battery swaps. In fact, turning basic external belief about the industry on its head, one of the biggest lifestyle changes to going BEV isn't dealing with range anxiety... It's the relief at basically never even having to think about "filling up". If you charge at home, every morning your car is ready to go and it might only be a handful of times per year that you drive far enough in one day that you exhaust what you have in the morning. One of the guys I know with a BEV was talking about the annoyance driving his wife's car (ICEV) because for the first time in months he had to actually pay attention to the fuel level.

IMHO it's a solution in search of a problem.
The biggest issue that I had with the EV thing--and it's a pattern with you--is not just the guess or pulling something out of your ass. We all do that. It was the seeming level of commitment and confidence you had in a guess you pulled out of your ass.

And this goes to the first post I wrote in this thread. There's no shame in saying "I don't know" or "I have no opinion on that". There's also no shame in saying "I'm just speculating here, but I think a lot of the slowness with BEV adoption would be solved if we could figure out battery swaps." Then we would have had a nice cordial conversation about the market evolution, the assumptions needed for your speculation to be true, etc. Instead of you saying "well it's going to happen" and starting a debate where I'm throwing facts at you and you're responding with "nah, I just believe it's the future."

Perhaps it's just your communication style, but you typically do the opposite. You present your opinion is the one and only truth, and then dig into your trench when challenged. And that's usually a bad thing when your opinion is a guess or something you pulled out of your ass.

We're all speculating, though.
I think what you've said about the EV battery future is akin to normal evolution taking place.  While mine is perhaps the random mutations that influence evolution as well (they don't all do so, most are irrelevant, but the fact that they influence things is certain).  It's also a low-stakes debate, as time will tell and there are no ramifications for either of us being wrong.
If I'm wrong about every single prediction I post on this board...so what?  
And besides, maybe the most convenient future will win out, while the other (wrong?) idea doesn't pan out, despite being the "better" way (like the QWERT keyboard winning out over much more efficient layouts).  Again, shrug.
.
On the 'stating my opinions as fact,' that's just a wording issue that many of you here seem to be bothered by.  But it's simply cutting out the part where I say "IMO" or something to that effect.....you already know it's my opinion, because I'm the one giving it.
It's a 'speech' efficiency thing.  I'm simply not being redundant.  I don't know why it irks everyone so much.  You all could do it and everything would be fine and basically the same.  This isn't a research paper, there's no real need for hemming and hawing.  Meh.