Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104
  1. #61
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,682
    Arrogance implies self-assurance, does it not? That one has the answers to the questions being asked? Have we not spent a day or so agreeing that answers are temporary at best? That being the case, what justification is there for arrogance?

  2. #62
    BookWyrm Archren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,391
    Just responding to the bit aways back about defining science.

    We all know about "The Scientific Method." That'd be nice if it worked all the time or was followed all the time, but of course it isn't.

    The most important thing that distinguishes science from other forms of "truth seeking" is the codification of questioning. For every statement or hypothesis or data you can and should question it. Question assumptions, data, experimental procedures, etc. It's what you're supposed to do.

    Most people here (and in that Truth v Conviction thread) say that their main problem with the other forms of truth seeking is that you aren't allowed to question the various tenets. Well, that's what sets science apart.

    Is it pefect? Heck, no! Humans are humans and hate to be questioned. Personalities & politics interfere. But to a large extent, it works. Likewise, many religous thinkers also question everything and give great value to understanding. Just with science it's a more formal & necessary process.

    I guess it's very much like classical philosophy, but with math and arguments that can actually be resolved.

  3. #63
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Archren
    The most important thing that distinguishes science from other forms of "truth seeking" is the codification of questioning.
    I imagine Augustine, Buddha, and Thomas Aquinas would submit their theses as codified questioning. I'm fairly certain that makes a good translation for "Imprimatur." Just depends upon POV.

  4. #64
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    I agree that they most likely believed that their approach was systematic, but the premises then become the issues. Where do you begin? You have to agree upon something, the basics, the starting point, in order to go anywhere.

    The scientific method can be applied to any discipline. I go back to Wittgenstein - if you accept one thing as certain, we can grant you all the rest.

  5. #65
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,682
    Yes, it can but doing so does not guarantee that truth results. At best, it provides a means of someday determining where we went wrong.

    Inherent in your position is the assumption that current science is a valid description of the world, of the way the world operates, and - in some instances - why it must operate that way. That constitues a belief system, a faith.

    The scientific method is based on cause and effect. However, more than half the population of our world accepts a description of this world, of how it operates, and - in some instances - why it operates that way that is not based on cause and effect. Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions do not need cause and effect to explain these things. The virtual particles of quantuum mechanics defy cause and effect so before we dismiss the non-monotheistic religions, perhaps they knew somethng we should have known but didn't figure out till the last half of the 20th century. Perhaps their recognition of the interconnectedness of everything and everybody was psychic.

    Faith is a necessary commodity in this world. It helps us navigate the impossible forests of our ignorance. It's a user's manual for survival. It ought not to be disdained but understood. In all its manifestations.

  6. #66
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    I'm agreeing with you, Hereford. Why do I sense that you think I'm not?

    All of our thoughts require faith. Everything we do requires faith. We believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. It doesn't have to. We could be a mote in the eye of a sleeping beast whose time reference is nothing like ours, and it is about to awaken. There are no laws. We assume them. We assume consistency just because it has always been that way. But we don't know enough to be certain, so we need faith. The extent and the focus of it is much the issue.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Wassner
    All of our thoughts require faith. Everything we do requires faith. We believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. It doesn't have to.
    I wouldn't really call believng the sun will rise an act of faith.
    Barring some extremely remote cosmic catastrophe, I'd calll it a given.

    The universe is very predictable on a day to day basis.

    The sun continues converting Hydrogen to heavier elements.

    Earth and the other planets rotate around the sun. Their respective moons rotate the planets.

    It's fairly clockwork, you can set your watch by it, which we do.

  8. #68
    Loveable Rogue Moderator juzzza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs

    The universe is very predictable on a day to day basis.
    he he he, now there's a classic quote! Is it really? Care to explain it to me...

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by juzzza
    he he he, now there's a classic quote! Is it really? Care to explain it to me...
    Essentially the reason nothing much changes in the universe around us is because we don't live long enough to notice the changes.
    It does change, but over a bloody long time.

    If we lived for a 1000 years it would be to the cosmos, what the blink of eye would be to a thousand years old person, if not less.

    We are pretty insignificant on the cosmic map and clock.

    Feel better?

  10. #70
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    It's still faith. It's not certain, and just because it happened that way yesterday, does not guaranty that it will happen that way tomorrow. The dinosaurs are gone, right?

  11. #71
    Masculinity and Names
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    18
    only some of 'em!

    Crocodowndidles are still about... as are some prehistoric fish and anthropods.

    and (apparently) that little robin in yourr garden..... well his Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandaddy (add a few) was a T Rex

  12. #72
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs
    I wouldn't really call believng the sun will rise an act of faith.
    Barring some extremely remote cosmic catastrophe, I'd calll it a given.
    Seems we have entered once again into the murky world of semantics. Apparently, faith cannot be based on givens and givens do not contribute to faith. What does it take to believe that "some extremely remote catastrophe" will not occur tonight thereby preventing the sun rising tomorrow? The popping into and out of existence by a virtual particle is an extremely remote catastrophe in terms of probability yet they apparently do. Because the odds are extremely high against an event - say a tsunami in Southeast Asia - does not bar the event from happening. So, I think it fair to say that qualifying your 'givens' indicates doubt which means the givens must have a semblance of faith attached to them in order to be a given.

  13. #73
    BoA Manager
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    561
    but would you like to live for 100 years? time has no relevance to anyone because no1 has lived long enough to experience time itself. do you get what i mean? the older you are the wiser because you have witnessed more, obviously you would begin to understand life and humnity more and learn from their mistakes. thats why the immortal are so wise because they understand time and the concept and escence of time itself.

    ~ Tari

  14. #74
    GemQuest Moderator Gary Wassner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    new york, ny usa
    Posts
    4,633
    Tell me, though, how old you have to be to gain a perspective on eterntity?

  15. #75
    Just Another Philistine Hereford Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Charter Member, Restore Pluto Initiative
    Posts
    4,682
    Old enough to get a driver's license and then attempt to negotiate the streets of Phoenix or New York City?
    Old enough to ride for the first time in a Stryker combat vehicle through the streets of Mosul hoping that nothing happens today?
    Old enough to watch an entire game on Monday Night Football?
    Old enough to live through the time from the invitation to the goodnight kiss of a first date?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •