Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does everyone here think that in 500 years our science will still be telling the "truth" then, and that mass of people then, who know more with better instruments, will still hold the, this one day, old line (I didn't know time travel or crystal balls were true)? After all, a short time ago science was floating other theories of origins and masses believed them, evolution is a recent development in thought and I would image not the last. This is starting to sound more religious with heads in the sand. I thought scientists believed in theories and infinite possibilities-I guess its the same ol' dogmatic con game.
Science is self-correcting. Religions aren't, so the same old misinformation is presented as Truth for all time.
And to think I put this data forum in my friends section. 150 years is not a long time, either is 500 years. Only a dim brain would think science has finally arrived at the true and in effect hold science back. There are some things known and there is a lot that isn't-mater of fact I would hazard a guess that most of what can be known isn't, and "meaning" is not given to us by the cosmos, but derived from thought, so meaning changes and varies with and between disciplines (the reason we have disciplines is to get a broader view of reality to view blind spots that exist in all disciplines), cultures, and historically; there are some things easily arrived at and there are some things that are not. It is an easy thing to claim one can believe what one holds dear and then shift its possible deconstruction to others and then hold on to one's dogma (the idea that religion in non-self correcting is such a stupid statement lacking any understanding of the theological process, and reveals such an utter lack of understanding about how all these social systems are constructed-functional, communication, knowledge theories, signification, representations, etc-all scientific theories, and all continually undergoing change, as science, one ought to be embarrassed by such an un-scientific thought, or does one think science is only Darwin or the ol' earth around the sun controvercy?). What a great line-I do not have to prove anything, you are burdened with it; afraid to investigate your own assertions in a critical way? Its easy to slap others around; but investigate what you believe in a critical way-few can do this, and few do. Some scientific mentality that is-no wonder this modern culture is grinding to a halt. That is very un-rigorous in one's thought. The thought of a discipline should move by being opposed to a contradiction and science should welcome that and have an open mind-it should even create them if none are available (its called autopoieces). Theories need to change and despite all this dogma defense I read, fortunately it will, but even in science, the new will have to fight the old to gain ground, because the old will have invested ego capital (obviously here), career capital, etc, in the old, that is no longer theory but now dogmas.
To prove that god doesn't exit is a knowledge construction problem. Since the god can not be proved either way-existence is its own proof and this for god is lacking with absolute certainty, a construction has to be made that has a premise and then a rational structure to support it has to be developed, the whole thing has to be coherent with each movement in the structure complementing the whole thing and anticipating the next movement. I could personally do this, and prove there is no god-the quality of my structure would be the question, not the conclusion as that is the purpose of the construction-the absolute conclusion is not available to us; assaults on my person are the last bastion of someone who is about to lose. These movements from the premise are derived beliefs and the process is the same across disciplines-how can anything of knowledge be constructed otherwise? Brains are involved in all human activity (duh). The original request for the thread, is a request that a proof-a structure, be presented, and I assume a rational one; obviously, no one here can construct such a structure as one never sees one, but then why bother, everyone here seems to already assume they have all absolute knowledge. Evidently a proof here is to blame religion for its evil behavior.
As to my humble person that seems so well known and assumed to be from the holler-I have a masters from a secular university in Social Theory-CMSU, my undergraduate is from the old Montana school of Mines, with a cross discipline of engineering and geology (yes, not from a creationist foundation), and I have certificates from the Hobart welding school, and have attended 3 distinct seperate denominational seminaries, and have a certificate in autobody repair-and I am not a fundamentalist Baptist. Next time someone wants to predicate my being please refer to this.
As to where I post and what I say is my business or is the peanut gallery now setting rules for others-very scientific, just limit what one says so the rest of us can slap each other on the back with our inbred thought while limiting another's speech, but that is what one expects from closed minds.
Well when a group that claimed the earth was flat now claim different things, the burden on proof lays on them, not the ones who proved that the earth was not flat.
Allen antrim, I really am interested in what you have to say. I am not kidding or being sarcastic in any way. I am really having trouble understanding what you are saying though in your last post.
If you could simply clarify and break it down, point by point, I'd be happy to address them. Thanks!
And to think I put this data forum in my friends section. 150 years is not a long time, either is 500 years. Only a dim brain would think science has finally arrived at the true and in effect hold science back.
If you will notice, I said, "Science is self-correcting". So your ungrammatical insults toward those who, as you stated, use their "dim brain[s]" rather than live by the mythology of the prescientific past are totally without foundation.
If we are your "friends", we don't need enemies.
A long time ago in a world far far away, society was basically composed of the religious and political-perhaps a combination of the two-probably varied. Science, education, family, the military, economic and all these other structures were inside these two. Fortunately for us, these other systems began to break away from religion and politics at some point in time for various reasons and independently began to structure themselves. How does science distinguish itself from politics? How does the economic system distinguish itself from the religious? Our society is now composed of all these different systems. Each is distinguished because each is different and have their own methods to view the "reality" around them, this gives modernity a view of "reality" that is varied and broad. Science can not view god, that is a theological operation, politics can not do economic operations, that is economics. Family is not military theory, that lays within military science. These systems further break up inside, so you have Larkian (?) (spelling) and darwin structures in science as well as hegelian and kantian structures in philosophy, etc. All of these use their own operations to view reality-and attempt to dominate the dialog. Since science can not "see" everything (a world of only science is not possible, just as a religious only society is not, or at least be modern), science has blind spots as it is confined to its own operations. The other systems multiply the world and increase one's (the social) view of it as it can now be observed from these multiple perspectives.
These systems are communication systems and human beings form them from communications. Try talking about origin of species with a taliban who is shooting at you-the communication of science does not mesh with military communication (killing another soldier is a communication in the military system, but it has other communication possibilities in other systems-ethics, gun manufacturing, economics, morality, religious, science-many possibilities of constructions). These are abstract systems and the actual stuff are artifacts, so to speak. There are couplings of these though-military science and such, but they remain distinct.
All these systems are structured by rules and coding of the communications to ensure that the particular system is reproduced and continues and is not re-confused with others-boundary maintenance. This is a philosophy thread, but obviously it is not, so it is mislabeled. Everyone just dumps their prejudices here-that is fine and makes for laughter but I hope no one seriously takes stuff here to construct their existence alone. But to be philosophy it would have to follow the rigor and coding that philosophy has developed and then, of course, philosophy would not be available here-too long as everything here must be overly simplified (when one says fables, one has to exclude myth and saga, but philosophically, at some point, all would have to be defined and applied, and of course within textual and historical contexts). One knows when one is not in the right system by the way it sounds, with experience and a little age.
At a funeral for a man's wife that I know, standing by the dead woman, he asked me what the meaning of this event was. Forrest Gump would say she was dead. The common guy accepts this. But death in itself has no meaning but itself-that is all nature provides. A thinking person is immediately confronted by several questions, why? Because death provides no meaning. Meaning is developed by thought, which, I feel, unfortunately, but that is the way of it, comes from the society around us. In some societies the father initiates the daughter into sex-most here are grossed out by that-but it is the way there, not here, but they would say we are wrong. Who is right? Remember, you get your assumptions from the culture you are in.
When ancient man walked out side his hut and looked up what did he see? The sun rose, went over him, and set. From his perspective-no telescopes, satellites, no science, what did he see (it is lame to accuse him of being stupid-in the same situation we all would be stupid)? The earth was flat and the sun went around him. Why don't we accept that now? You answer that. When you walk out what do you see-same thing, but instruments, theories, math, I don't know what all, builds up a structure that you accept is true. When a man walks out 500 years from now what will he see? Probably the same but there are likely to be differences in the meaning of it all across time-new methods, meanings, etc. I have never seen with my own eyes that the world is a globe (or oval globe, I guess), I have never stood at the needed points in space to see for myself a three dimensional view of the earth nor watched the orbit around the sun. I have to accept that, that is the current finding-structures were constructed that convince me it is so, but I do not have absolute knowledge that it is so (plus experience I have had with dealing with the earth's curvature). The structures constructed that this is all so are convincing and the structures that were constructed saying it was flat are not, but I have no absolute personal knowledge of it.
When ancient man built a hierarchy of thought based in religion and politics of what he saw when he looked up what happened-a culture built with god at the top and the king and then the rest-a whole culture built on that "ideology." The investment here was the entire structure of western life at the time-a paradigm shift here toppled this social structure and de-centered man, we laugh at them now as fools, but we will be laughed at in the future as fools-for what, would you suppose? Hard to say with out knowing what will be know when what will be known to those in the future is invisible to us now. To upset this was to upset it all, that is why change is so hard.
When one storms into the world and says that babies should be raised a certain way (doc Spock), writes many books, gives lectures, and then finds out one was wrong, one has a choice to make-admit it; but look at the effort (capital) invested by the man into his theory, or continue resisting change as the world moves by (maybe get sued). Spock said he was wrong, so did Einstein when he read Niels Borr (I forgot the topic). Einstein wrong? Wow, any one could be then. A lot of people will not admit error as a lot is invested in our own thoughts and meanings and many others do not share them. So we are at risk, continually, for being "proved" wrong. Guns usually stop opposition (marxian method), but that is punishable here. To get one's "ideology" dominate requires a majority, force of law, bigger voice, better theories, etc. That is the panic we see in our culture today in our battle over all these ideas-the mind is at stake in all of them and, therefore, your self esteem (among other things), nature does not interpret itself, we are on our own.
The cosmos is full of reason (a premise), the periodic table is a rational structure of the elements that make up all matter, it is rational because one could determine the elements before they were discovered by the structural compatibility of the mind and the table of elements, so one merely had to find them as one already knew they existed. Mind could reasonably apply its view of the cosmos, the periodic table, to the cosmos, therefore the cosmos is reason. Is this structure believable, where are the holes in it, what else could be added to it or how would you carry the structure further?
If one believes in god, one should attempt a structure that there is not one. If one thinks there is no god one should attempt a structure that there is one-one should deconstruct one's thoughts-this is hard to do as we exist in mind on these premises of ours (see all the above). If a feminist deconstructs feminism she might find she does not want to be one. Most of us deconstruct (not professionally of course) everything but our own thought-we are bias but it safe guards our fortress of solitude, but then we are untested by our equal.
Ask specific questions as I don't know you or what you know-this is not like coffee at McDonald's.
Friends was a joke-sarcasm-man, where is the humor?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
