We are Lost in Thought

Because I never discuss my education on public forums does not suggest I'm a high school drop out, or have no higher education. I think degrees are irrelevant, there are Doctrates who have done nothin of value with their knowledge - there is more to be said about a person listing accomplishments, and none of us can do that without risking our privacy.

Further, that's an inappropriate.

I find it quite offensive that Nina thinks a masters is required to have any kind of an opinion that holds. Originally Posted by Camille

I do not think a masters is required when posting something, but i do think that its arrogant to think you know what happens 1000 years from now,
and i clearly see it as arrogant to chastice a whole area of thought (be it religion or science) people work for hard enough. I would never dare to do that. Be it with religion or science . I mean its such a broad field anyway. Plus if you state science is dogma its simply wrong. That said, no one needs a master to proof that.
When i make wrong turns in discussions i have at least the decency to admit i am wrong. And others make better points.
I do see that my postings do come across as arrogant, and yes - John Bull is right - I could have reread and reformulated some stuff i have written to bring the content across as less chasticing. That is true.

And no - the problem is not the language barrier. You are right, Camille.
Its just that certain statements make me aggressive because of their arrogance. ANd i do not respond well to arrogance.
So my bad. As i said i can at least admit i am wrong. ANd i admit i do come across as harsh and chasticing. That is true. But it has also its reasons . That does not serve as apology, but it makes it comprehensible so to speak.

Different views and articulations are there to make people realize their shortcomings. And i realize mine. Diplomacy is not my strong side and i will have to develop that side as well. This is true.

Sorry Lauren. I wasn't suggesting that you don't have further/higher education...merely that regardless (of whether it relates to the topic in hand or not) I think you are both well read and entitled to an opinion.

C x

Because I never discuss my education on public forums does not suggest I'm a high school drop out, or have no higher education. I think degrees are irrelevant, there are Doctrates who have done nothin of value with their knowledge - there is more to be said about a person listing accomplishments, and none of us can do that without risking our privacy.

Further, that's an inappropriate. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

No one ever said that.
But if you talk about topics that insult people that have degrees than its the same arrogance than when someone else states only people who studied have the right to voice an opinion.
Do you understand what i am getting at?
Its rather you that chastices intelligentsia and that comes across as arrogant.

Which does not entitle me to be harsh and insulting to you, that said. Some stuff i have written as answer to you was not well thought of. I admit that.

In historical context it will always be looked on as an amazing turning point in the human journey. However, I do believe that in the year 3000 it could very possibly be irrelevant in the medical community. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Penicillin may be irrelevant in 3000 years, but that only means that something else has taken its place ... something science has found that is better, more effective.

I agree that it's apples and oranges - you can't eliminate either one, they both serve a very important and very different function and removing one cripples us. But this thread does compare the relevance of each and the article claims all contemplative thought outside the bounds of science is false, that reason can only be achieved through science.

On that I agree with a caveat. Philosophical thought (religious or not) is influential, has a function, and a place in society. But unlike science they are not empirically provable. So while I can prove that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius, I cannot prove that Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King, or Aquinas' proof of God, or Descartes classic "I think therefore I am" are true ... or false.

On that I agree with a caveat. Philosophical thought (religious or not) is influential, has a function, and a place in society. But unlike science they are not empirically provable. So while I can prove that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius, I cannot prove that Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King, or Aquinas' proof of God, or Descartes classic "I think therefore I am" are true ... or false. Originally Posted by discreetgent

The most important thing for philosophy is that you always have to consider a reference frame within which a certain pjhilosophical take has its meaning. There are so many philosophies or different strains of thought out there who have similarities , are opposites or even contradictionary. Even if you can`t proove a philosophy as wrong or right (paradigmas can`t be proofen as wrong ever) you can state their limitations by providing reference frames. Plato`s frame of thoughts are not unlimited in their value. The spectrum withing which his contemplations and mindsets are valued are limited. Therefor you can contemplate his values nowadays too, but with limitations.

Same on penicillin. YOu can contemplate the value of penicillin nowadays too, but with limitations. So i think - within stated reference - no values are timeless. And western philosophies are limited to our culture. In Asia Plato has not the same meaning as it does within our culture, But PENICILLIN does have the same meaning and effect.
There for i state that philosophy and religious experiences have their limits. The are limited by time and cultural embedding.

I But this thread does compare the relevance of each and the article claims all contemplative thought outside the bounds of science is false, that reason can only be achieved through science.

. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

no the article doesn`t claim what you state it does:-).

Sorry Lauren. I wasn't suggesting that you don't have further/higher education...merely that regardless (of whether it relates to the topic in hand or not) I think you are both well read and entitled to an opinion.

C x Originally Posted by Camille

Lol, I know you didn't. No worries, I know you better then that my friend.

Penicillin may be irrelevant in 3000 years, but that only means that something else has taken its place ... something science has found that is better, more effective. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Indeed! New information will always make way for something better - without scientific progress we cannot continue to improve our state of living, nor learn ways to sustain without damaging the planet. I'm all for progress.

. Philosophical thought (religious or not) is influential, has a function, and a place in society. But unlike science they are not empirically provable. So while I can prove that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius, I cannot prove that Plato's ideal of the Philosopher King, or Aquinas' proof of God, or Descartes classic "I think therefore I am" are true ... or false.. Originally Posted by discreetgent

So we agree

Just because the question cannot be answered, does not change the importance of us continuing to struggle with those questions.

Ever read "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?" he broaches that through the symbolism of his fictional work in a brilliant way, through a religion of Empathy called Mercerism (hopefully someone on the board has read it and knows what I'm talking about).

I think there are times when science sometimes skirts the ethical questions of its work, and needs to be reigned in by the contemplative thinkers, that ask the bigger unanswerable questions (who are often scientists as well).

There have been experiments in the past done on people in the interest of studying human behavior that I think are outrageously inappropriate. There are things being developed for the mentally ill, that I think are frankly irresponsible, and ignore the experience of the patient. There are also things being done in the the interest of learning the history of the universe that I think are tweaking strings that humanity has no business playing with.

Not that the knowledge is unwelcome, but the vehicle by which science wants to find these answers sometimes crosses into unethical grounds - and it is contemplative thought, it's perpetual struggle, that will help us find that middle ground.

Basically it's the same thing we have when we talk about Freedom of Speech - go too far in either direction, and madness takes hold of the reigns. Science and Religion on their own are neither good nor evil, they have the potential to be agents of both, we mold that destiny with our hands. You cannot blame religion or science for anything - you can only blame the individuals who took actions.

Facts are all well and good but without emotional awareness, a sense of the actual *meaning* of our actions, what we have are hollow, formal intellectual definitions.

There have been experiments in the past done on people in the interst of studying human behavior that I think are outrageously inappropriate. There are things being developed for the mentally ill, that I think are frankly irresponsible, and ignore the experience of the patient. There are also things being done in the the interest of learning the history of the universe that I think are tweaking strings that humanity has no business playing with.
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

You`re still mixing apples with oranges. Scientific approaches are not the same like ethics. You are pointing out ethics within sciences (e.g. is it ok to clone sheeps or not? ). Or is it ok to make human experiments that have been done in Concentration camps with jews? That does still not make the point invalid that you are simply wrong by stating that science is a dogma. I wonder when you will ever admit that?? (lol)

The same you stated can be pointed out for religions. To quote you: "There have been done things withing religious missions to convert people, that i think are frankly irresponsible, and ignore the experience of anyone that does not hold the same dogmatic POV. There are things being done in the interest of illuminating people that i think are tweaking strings humanity has no business playing with"

What the article portrays so well is the combination of science with religious contemplation before ethics (within science) and fundamentalism (within religion) come into play. Its a well portrayed consens between two approaches which - in its extreme are usually very opposite to each other.

Lauren is getting chastised for saying idiotic, strike that silly things such as this...

Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, . Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

just because it is her opinion does not exclude it from being utterly ridicules. If things like this are left unchallenged the world becomes that much dumber.

That is the difference between science and religion. Science is put to the test, religion you can believe and say anything you want. Lauren is confusing the two. It will benifit her knowledge base to understand this concept. She may be embarrassed by the fact of her lack of understanding but for her to carry on revelant conversations on the subject matter she will need to understand the concept of what science actually is before further discussions. It's like understanding addition and subtraction before discussing division with a person. Until she understands the basic concept the discussion has to be refocused on her lack of understanding.....

As pointed out, a thousand years from now people will look back at our sciences as primitive, . Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Only the parts that have been disproven and even then with an understanding of limited knowledge that the past afforded.

and they will still be discuss the works of philosophers, prophets, poets and artists with gravity - what they bring us is ageless. . Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

I'm not for sure how you know this but just assuming that you can see in the future...what ''philosophers, prophets, poets and artists'' bring us are fairy tales. Science by then will be able to show why one is gullible/partial to such things fancys.

May I suggest you read or reread what Bebe posted, it hopefully will give you a better understanding as to the nature of science. You are either playing devil's advocate or your understanding will (hopefully) be greatly enhanced on the subject because of this thread.

I found this article interesting in light of your comments, and thought I would share:

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: anyone who claims that science is dogmatic is completely and totally ignorant.

First, what does dogma mean? Most definitions specifically state it’s a religious belief, but the ones that don’t say something to the effect of, “a belief that is held to be unquestionably true”, and they often throw in some language about lack of evidence for the belief.

Now, what is science? This definition is among the best I’ve ever seen: “Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.” Throw in a reference to methodological naturalism and it’s perfect.

Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, nondogmatic. Right off the bat the claims of dogmatism are false.

One of the central tenets of science is that nothing is ever truly proven. Every scientific theory can be overthrown if evidence is provided to invalidate it. Examples of this happening are too numerous to count, the classic one is Einstein’s General Relativity overthrowing Newton’s Law of Gravitation, but there are plenty more.

Science is based only on evidence and logical interpretation of that evidence. Hypotheses are posited, tested, make predictions, those are tested, and if the hypothesis passes the scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be accepted. At least until some new evidence challenges it, when the process begins again. It is not dogma.

Many scientists frequently point out that if someone came up with evidence that challenged an existing theory (such as Evolution or the Standard Model) and came up with a suitable theory to explain it, they’d be a hero. They’d be showered in awards and praise, and go down as one of The Greats. That’s exactly what Einstein and Darwin did, and they’re remembered as two of the greatest in their fields. How can science be called dogmatic when its greatest rewards are given to people who challenge the accepted theories?

The same claims of dogmatism are often applied to atheism as well. They are, at least for me, equally untrue. Atheism is (for most people) about the lack of evidence for any kind of deity. If someone showed me irrefutable proof that god (any god) actually exists, then I’d “believe” in it, the same way I “believe” in science. However, my confidence that this won’t happen is such that I feel perfectly secure claiming that god (any god) does not exist. Many people find this contradictory, saying that agnosticism is the only logical stance on the issue. To that I can only reply with a Richard Dawkins quote, “I’m agnostic about God the same way I’m agnostic about fairies.” God or gods should be held to the same standards as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and every other statement about the world: namely, show me the evidence, and I’ll believe it.

Neither science nor atheism is dogmatic, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong, and most likely don’t truly understand science or atheism. Which is too bad, because knowledge is infinitely more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, no matter how comforting it may be.
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/09/...-dogmatic.html Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Penicillin may be irrelevant in 3000 years, but that only means that something else has taken its place ... something science has found that is better, more effective.



. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I've found nothing more effective!

[FONT=Calibri][SIZE=4]

That is the difference between science and religion. Science is put to the test, religion you can believe and say anything you want. Lauren is confusing the two. It will benifit her knowledge base to understand this concept. She may be embarrassed by the fact of her lack of understanding but for her to carry on revelant conversations on the subject matter she will need to understand the concept of what science actually is before further discussions. It's like understanding addition and subtraction before discussing division with a person. Until she understands the basic concept the discussion has to be refocused on her lack of understanding.....
Originally Posted by WTF

i agree. that was my point. i just could not bring it across as diplomatic as you did. I have to follow your posts to learn to be a true diplomate when i read things that make my toenails curl :-) instead of just lashing out on someone like i did (lol) (joke)

Indeed! New information will always make way for something better - without scientific progress we cannot continue to improve our state of living, nor learn ways to sustain without damaging the planet. I'm all for progress.
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

so you agree that science is no dogma? Because something that progresses cannot be dogmatic? So we are finally on the same page?

.what ''philosophers, prophets, poets and artists'' bring us are fairy tales. Science by then will be able to show why one is gullible/partial to such things fancys.[/SIZE] Originally Posted by WTF

I agree with everything else you stated, but - respectfully - disagree with putting philosophers in the same bucket as prophets, poets and artists. Philosophy IS a science and follows patterns of logic. And reference frames that can be discussed and evaluated and - like in any other science - compared to each other and switched with new paradigmas.

May i say that every other science has philosophy (which means some of the strains of philosophy) as background. That is what is taught in historical philosophy. Views on how to use scientific research in medicine and the outcome on humans have also a philosophical background. Which means to state that for example the removal of the female uterus during non-cancerous stages of operation was a fashion that was dependent on the fact that science was "anti-female and patriarchal" and that a woman that does not bring babies anymore does not need a uterus anymore, and the uterus (in early psychoanalytisis the part of a female responsible for all her mental illnesses and hystrionics aka HYSTERA = Uterus). Further studies have evaluated that the Uterus is very important as sexual organ and that women who let it be removed even if not necessary loose a lot of physical ability to for example enjoy sex. The way scientific outcome is used is based on philosophies about the human being and the human conditions. That makes us come back to the ethics of science. Its just one part of it.

Everything else is just dogmatic. Interesting that in mormon religion for example always males are "prophets" and speak in tongues?? How come god never decides to spea thru a female? And who decides who is a prophet? What if i come along and say god has talked to me? AM i a prophet then too? Just sayin`