Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 10:28:53 PM |
|
|
RyanT wrote:
Science originally emerged as a branch of philosophy, by the way, so
steps two and three arn't clear cut.
And religion is a big part of philosophy, so the steps between one
and
two arn't clear cut either.
Yeah, philosophy is great ain't it? Muddies up everything as soon as
you think there's a clear answer.
I didn't mean to imply they were digital steps in real life, it's a
gradual process, one leading into the next like you say.
Society and even individuals can be at different stages with regard to
different areas of study.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
24 Apr 2005 12:29:27 PM |
|
|
Well being a supporter of science, I used to think that the world had a
natural "progression" in which we were heading toward. But one day
someone pointed out to me the fact that time doesn't progress linearly.
(Maybe it was quoted from Kant, I forget.)
The illusion of progression is generated by regular intervals of events
that are circular. If you think about it, the way in which we percieve
time passes -- such as the passing of the day or changing of the
seasons, has nothing to do with 24 hours or 365 days, because it's
really just a quantification of the circular motion of the Earth.
So our attempts to quantify time and the significance of events
happening on Earth are really just approximated abstractions of the
real thing. The Earth doesn't "understand" what an "hour" means, but
we quantified the rotation of it in that way for our own ease of use.
Boy, I glad I got my head out of Plato for that one, because if I
followed his line of thinking there's no way I would've been able to
accept this.
So time and history doesn't really progress anywhere, nor is there any
real sort of inherent need for direction. A procession is just an
illusion generated by regular, reoccuring events, and this can be
distorted in many different ways, the most prominent of which is music.
Ryan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
25 Apr 2005 12:25:33 AM |
|
|
Well, I'd say that we know more about the universe on the 5-millionth
cycle of the earth around the sun, than we did at the 1-millionth. And
we'll know more at the 10th-millionth. I don't think this is an
illusion, nor does it ever get distorted. The number of cycles really
truly does increase systematically, without distortion. And as it does
so, we do more experiments, and can only learn more, every cycle being
better than the previous one (unless they burn all the libraries, and
massacre most of the people, but that ain't gonna happen)
So I disagree that there's any illusion or distortion about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
25 Apr 2005 03:38:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Well, I'd say that we know more about the universe on the 5-millionth
cycle of the earth around the sun, than we did at the 1-millionth.
And
we'll know more at the 10th-millionth. I don't think this is an
illusion, nor does it ever get distorted. The number of cycles
really
truly does increase systematically, without distortion. And as it
does
so, we do more experiments, and can only learn more, every cycle
being
better than the previous one (unless they burn all the libraries, and
massacre most of the people, but that ain't gonna happen)
That works as long as human civilization doesn't get destroyed or
suffer severe setbacks.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
25 Apr 2005 11:22:50 PM |
|
|
I wasn't implying that the world was an illusion or anything, but
merely dispelling the fact that some people think that the concept of
"time" is something absolute, as if there was a universal clock keeping
track of everything. Not so.
The way in which we quantify time, ranging from our alarm clocks,
calendar years, and historical dates are all arbitrary quantifications.
The danger is that lots of people don't realize this, and they start
seeing the world as progressing in a strictly linear fashion.
The most prominent example is when people cite charts and graphs of a
certain trend curve, and merely "extend" the graph, assuming that given
trends will continue. You get this from conservative reactionaries a
lot, but many self-proclaimed "progressives" are guilty of this as
well, with probably the concept of technological "singularity" being
the most prominent example. The fact that given trends "seem" to be
getting somewhere in which we can predict is the illusion.
Well if you've looked at enough charts, it turns out that most of them
never do, and external factors always change the way things work out.
That's why Darwin said that the most "successful" species in the world
are always those who know how to adapt to new environments, and this
includes humans, who are arguably the most intelligent only because of
their adaptability.
Ryan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
26 Apr 2005 11:07:21 AM |
|
|
RyanT wrote:
I wasn't implying that the world was an illusion or anything, but
merely dispelling the fact that some people think that the concept of
"time" is something absolute, as if there was a universal clock keeping
track of everything. Not so.
The way in which we quantify time, ranging from our alarm clocks,
calendar years, and historical dates are all arbitrary quantifications.
True.
The danger is that lots of people don't realize this, and they start
seeing the world as progressing in a strictly linear fashion.
They don't 'start'. They are born with that concept hard wired
into our reasoning.
The most prominent example is when people cite charts and graphs of a
certain trend curve, and merely "extend" the graph, assuming that given
trends will continue. You get this from conservative reactionaries a
lot, but many self-proclaimed "progressives" are guilty of this as
well, with probably the concept of technological "singularity" being
the most prominent example. The fact that given trends "seem" to be
getting somewhere in which we can predict is the illusion.
It is not totally an illusion. Our sense of cause-and-effect is
closely related to our inate sense of time, and has served us
well in our evolution. But chart makers often lie and we often
trust them.
Well if you've looked at enough charts, it turns out that most of them
never do, and external factors always change the way things work out.
That's why Darwin said that the most "successful" species in the world
are always those who know how to adapt to new environments, and this
includes humans, who are arguably the most intelligent only because of
their adaptability.
Adaptability is appropriate in more ways than simply genetic
adaptability. It also encompasses our ability to very accurately
predict the future state of our environment.
--
"For at least another hundred years we must pretend
to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul
and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our
gods for a little longer still. "
--John Maynard Keynes
.
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
26 Apr 2005 12:26:39 PM |
|
|
Grand chess masters tend not to "think ahead" so much as they adapt to
certain "environments" of the game. Even in a fairly constrained game
such as chess, we see at those who come on top are the ones who're able
to access their current situation and go along with it.
I'd say that people who are more successful in real life share similar
outlooks. They know how to improvise and solve problems as they go,
rather than sticking to a predetermined "this is the way things ought
to work" kind of mindset. They're flexible and know how to adapt to
the times, whether its application is in acadamia, the arts, or the
free market.
Maybe some natural phenomena can be explained through science, but in
my experience it's a huge danger to apply these things to human nature
and social phenomenons. We can make short-term predictions (as Rove
proved he could manipulate the Christian base into voting for them) but
once you start looking ahead the conditions begin to change and these
predictions become less and less useful.
Ryan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
26 Apr 2005 12:48:49 PM |
|
|
RyanT wrote:
Grand chess masters tend not to "think ahead" so much as they adapt to
certain "environments" of the game. Even in a fairly constrained game
such as chess, we see at those who come on top are the ones who're able
to access their current situation and go along with it.
I'd say that people who are more successful in real life share similar
outlooks. They know how to improvise and solve problems as they go,
rather than sticking to a predetermined "this is the way things ought
to work" kind of mindset. They're flexible and know how to adapt to
the times, whether its application is in acadamia, the arts, or the
free market.
Maybe some natural phenomena can be explained through science, but in
my experience it's a huge danger to apply these things to human nature
and social phenomenons. We can make short-term predictions (as Rove
proved he could manipulate the Christian base into voting for them) but
once you start looking ahead the conditions begin to change and these
predictions become less and less useful.
We seem to be saying the same thing with only some ambiguity as
to how far into the future such predictions are reliable.
--
"For at least another hundred years we must pretend
to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul
and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our
gods for a little longer still. "
--John Maynard Keynes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TwitteringOne" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 06:38:41 PM |
|
|
Wrong.
Application of science requires moral ethics,
whether via religion or formal philosphy
To enable a healthy mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 08:41:08 PM |
|
|
I don't think ethics have much to do with science. Science is about
ovservation and inductive and deductive reasoning and getting the same
results under similar circumstances. Philosophy and religon lead into
ethics. People don't fit well into science because we we don't always
act the same under the same situation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 06:43:29 PM |
|
|
TwitteringOne wrote:
Wrong.
Application of science requires moral ethics,
whether via religion or formal philosphy
To enable a healthy mind.
Hey! I agree with Twit.
--
"I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom
accept even the simplest and most obvious truth
if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining
to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread,
into the fabric of their lives." -
-- Tolstoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "TwitteringOne" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 06:53:37 PM |
|
|
Hey ~ !
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 07:37:20 PM |
|
|
TwitteringOne wrote:
Wrong.
Application of science requires moral ethics,
whether via religion or formal philosphy
To enable a healthy mind.
In much of society, ethics is at step 1. This doesn't mean it can't or
shouldn't advance.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
