RE: Is saying "...so I know how science works." likely to convince people?
April 15, 2020 at 10:43 pm
Boy, you're going to get it in the neck for this one. Prepare for attack! Incoming!
Well, I'd rather say there are two ways of approaching problems. One is rational and logical. (And I'm not sure those two are the same, but leave that aside for the moment.) The other maybe is emotional. But these both exist in every individual. As much as some people may claim to be rational, it's not possible or desirable to be only rational.
I think I don't get what you're saying here.
Normally I think of science as trying (or pretending) to be a view that isn't individual. Science is the opposite of only one person existing. It is, as Nagel put it, the "view from nowhere" -- the attempt to find the truth independent of anyone's perspective.
But I may not be understanding you here.
Certainly it would be egotistical to assume that one knows everything. We are finite and limited. Recently I read one philosopher's view that the really big questions are unanswerable by humans in the same way that his cat can't understand what that clattering at his typewriter is all about. We evolved for survival and not truth, and we just can't expect to do much better. (Which is not a reason to stop trying.)
Here you are waxing poetic and I'm not sure of your meaning.
If you're saying that science can't do everything, and there's more to life than scientific knowledge, I agree with you. And if we attempt to discard or downplay the non-scientific parts of life, then we will be unbalanced.
Whether that makes science the "destroyer" would kind of depend on how we used it. The key is surely to balance the benefits of science with the rest of life.....?
Quote:2 forms of human thinkers. One is rational and logical. For we live as one human, one self.
And every one of us is just one.
Well, I'd rather say there are two ways of approaching problems. One is rational and logical. (And I'm not sure those two are the same, but leave that aside for the moment.) The other maybe is emotional. But these both exist in every individual. As much as some people may claim to be rational, it's not possible or desirable to be only rational.
Quote: If you just say imagine no one else existed and only one human did....as the precept and concept ONE, which historically is the basis of all science belief today, then you would not be doing science.
I think I don't get what you're saying here.
Normally I think of science as trying (or pretending) to be a view that isn't individual. Science is the opposite of only one person existing. It is, as Nagel put it, the "view from nowhere" -- the attempt to find the truth independent of anyone's perspective.
But I may not be understanding you here.
Quote:The egotist however, as a group coercive condition against one says I know everything. Yet you only own one life that lives for about 100 years. Sperm and an ovary is where we personally come from. For the 2 Creators of our life are our parents.
And that status is not science it is observation.
Certainly it would be egotistical to assume that one knows everything. We are finite and limited. Recently I read one philosopher's view that the really big questions are unanswerable by humans in the same way that his cat can't understand what that clattering at his typewriter is all about. We evolved for survival and not truth, and we just can't expect to do much better. (Which is not a reason to stop trying.)
Quote:Many conditions are self owned before science and science just ought to stop being the only one condition that they gave life......its destruction and attack and sacrifice.
Which takes us to the concepts of God in science, being numbers and mass, and machines taken out of the physical matter of the stone with science saying my machine is the Creator.
Once a long time ago science used to say God was the creator. And today with an irradiated destroyed machine mind AI....they now say that the Creator is their machine.
Science, THE DESTROYER.
Here you are waxing poetic and I'm not sure of your meaning.
If you're saying that science can't do everything, and there's more to life than scientific knowledge, I agree with you. And if we attempt to discard or downplay the non-scientific parts of life, then we will be unbalanced.
Whether that makes science the "destroyer" would kind of depend on how we used it. The key is surely to balance the benefits of science with the rest of life.....?
