Maggie’s "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

An evolutionary advantage is one that makes it easier for a certain variation in the population to survive and successfully breed, thereby passing on the mutation to offspring. Eventually, if the environment doesn't change, the population as a whole will inherit the advantage. That's natural selection in a nutshell.
</div></div>

That's a significant point. Natural selection and evolution only care about your ability to spread your genes. A mutation that gives you an advantage AFTER you've already bred (for instance a natural resistance to developing arthritis or pancreatic cancer) aren't going to make any difference in how many offspring you produce (on average, compared to the next guy) and so we are never going to 'evolve' to overcome these diseases.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Most species can't handle rapid changes in their environment which is probably why 99% of all species that we know of that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct. </div></div>

Gotta admire those cockroaches......

Moving back toward the original thread, it would seem difficult to evolve much, if your greatest skill was blowing yourself up

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Ding ding we have a winner...
Most fear science..mostly because they don't understand it or aren't willing to comprehend it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PistolPete - you are highly misinformed and you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is, nor a law. They are different.

A Scientific Theory is a model that explains empirical data and can be used to make testable predictions. Most of science is based around scientific theories but you wouldn't doubt Germ Theory or Atomic Theory, would you? They're just theories too.

A Scientific Law is just an observed result that is always true. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Motion, etc - these are observed results that are always true - never observed to be different. Laws just explain the observation but a Theory is used to describe why it happens. This is why there is a Theory of Evolution and a Big Bang Theory, not laws. It's not a hierarchy - theories don't get "promoted" to laws.

And your comment about carbon dating is only true when scientists do poor carbon dating, which can be caught in peer review. To say there's doubts about it requires you to ignore the mountain of evidence that supports radiometric dating techniques.

I highly suggest you ask scientists about scientific questions instead of political pundits and pastors - they tend to know squat about science. </div></div>

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

One of the hallmarks of a "good" theory is that it leads to hypotheses that can be tested and prove the theory wrong. One of the strongest curses among physicists is to proclaim another's theory "not even wrong." Much of what is passed-off as science these days is nothing more than organized speculation.

Rick

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

"Much of science"? I beg to differ. If that were true then the success modern science has had in the last two hundred years would have to be chalked up to luck, right? The scientific community is VERY good at saying "we don't know" when there is substantial doubt about a subject. More importantly, there are entire speculative branches such as Theoretical Physics, but by definition they are admitting to working at the edge of knowledge and understanding. String Theory is a good example of this and is awash with speculation, but the vast majority of scientists in that field will admit that they are speculating when it comes to being able to test the theory. The few that claim otherwise are criticized by the community. Of course, to say String Theory is just organized speculation ignores the deeply precise mathematical models used to explore the theory.

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

The most interesting aspect of your response is that the phrase "much of science" does not appear in my post.

Rick

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

"Much of what is passed-off as science these days"

My mistake, but could you blame me?

Of course, in hindsight I wonder if you're talking about pseudo-science such as "The Secret", Astrology and Intelligent Design?

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

You're getting warm. I think you were in a certain "groove" owing to rest of the thread before I jumped in. I have an engineering degree and have enough respect for good science that I cringe at every new "study" or "model" that tries to bolster it's credibility by claiming it is real science.

Much of what the evolutionists do is organized speculation. In their defense, though, they can't really design experiments to test hypotheses like a physicist can. They are more like a detective at a crime scene, who has to piece available clues together as best he can.

Rick

P.S. I got the "not even wrong" phrase from a book on string theory.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

I wouldn't say much of what a biologist does is speculation. There is plenty to be tested, measured and observed where conclusions can be accurately drawn and prediction made and tested. Indeed, researching the fossil record is much like crime scene investigation, but again when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same thing, it's reasonable to say you're looking at the truth.

It should be noted that the vast majority of challenges to Evolution come from religious opposition, not scientific opposition. And the form of the attacks often reveals a lack of knowledge about the subject in the first place. This should be evident to anyone who's read Answers in Genesis or been to the Creation Museum.

The irony of all of this is that religious opposition to Evolution seems rooted in the idea that it's bad for humans or that it runs counter to religious beliefs. Neither the Big Bang nor Evolution say anything about the creation of the Universe or Life; they're merely effective models at explaining the results of what we observe.

 

[rwleonard]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

I would be really nit-picking to disagree with any of that.

Rick

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Neither the Big Bang nor Evolution say anything about the creation of the Universe or Life; they're merely effective models at explaining the results of what we observe.
</div></div>

And all entirely within the capability of a creator believed to have made it all in the first place! The more we learn, the more brilliant our creator seems. How is that apostasy?

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Just not in six days

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just not in six days

</div></div>

And you have scientific proof of that right?

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Approximately 13.7 Billion years

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

So you are defining a biblical day based off a Gregorian calendar or you maybe have some other information?

Have you ever heard of "hyperbole"?

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Hey, if people want to say the Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in six days (ie the Genesis account), I would say the burden of proof is on those people. To me it just sounds like "moving the goal posts."

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, if people want to say the Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in six days (ie the Genesis account), I would say the burden of proof is on those people. To me it just sounds like "moving the goal posts."
</div></div>

Actually the burden of "proof" doesn't lie with those that have faith. That's the difference. If it was based on "fact" it wouldn't be "faith" it would be "science".

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

True, but there's a not-insignificant group of people in America who're claiming it is fact instead of just admitting that it's classical mythology. Just ask Ken Ham

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, if people want to say the Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in six days (ie the Genesis account), I would say the burden of proof is on those people. To me it just sounds like "moving the goal posts."
</div></div>

Actually the burden of "proof" doesn't lie with those that have faith. That's the difference. If it was based on "fact" it wouldn't be "faith" it would be "science".</div></div>

It does if you want to debate it with anyone outside your religion.

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Actually there is no debate. Science, opinion or question cannot persuade the faithful. For every incredible scientific theory or fact, it only strengthens the resolve of the faithful.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, if people want to say the Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in six days (ie the Genesis account), I would say the burden of proof is on those people. To me it just sounds like "moving the goal posts."
</div></div>

Actually the burden of "proof" doesn't lie with those that have faith. That's the difference. If it was based on "fact" it wouldn't be "faith" it would be "science". </div></div>

Actually, they have their "scientific" proof...
they use the bible as the basois of all truth and can count back to the beginning....just sayin

 

[Queequeg]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

And yet they won't cut your head off for saying this stuff! Perhaps there is a little added incentive for insensitivity and derision toward the more fundamantal Christian sects because, in spite of voluminous popular disdain for their steadfast naivete, they are far more charitable, tolerant and infinitley less murderous than the other fundamentalists they are so slovenly compared to!

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually there is no debate. Science, opinion or question cannot persuade the faithful. For every incredible scientific theory or fact, it only strengthens the resolve of the faithful. </div></div>

My point was, if you wish to persuade anyone outside your religion (whatever that may be) that you are correct, the perspective of your faith doesn't apply. You must speak in terms compatible to that which your audience places it's faith in, be it the scientific method, another religion, whatever.

This, of course, applies to everyone so I do agree that if someone has no faith in the scientific method then it is pointless to use information derived from it to persuade them.

 

[Lindy]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

The scientific method involves the testing of falsifiable propositions we call hypotheses. If we have tested experimentally a hypothesis, and have not <span style="font-style: italic">yet</span> been able to demonstrate that it is false, we may refer to that proposition as a "theory".

"Faith" is something that is only necessary for a proposition for which there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

The realms of the scientific method and faith are therefore separate and disjoint.

 

[shankster..]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scientific method involves the testing of falsifiable propositions we call hypotheses. If we have tested experimentally a hypothesis, and have not <span style="font-style: italic">yet</span> been able to demonstrate that it is false, we may refer to that proposition as a "theory".

"Faith" is something that is only necessary for a proposition for which there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

The realms of the scientific method and faith are therefore separate and disjoint.
</div></div>

Bingo. Good post Lindy (as usual)

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Faith" is something that is only necessary for a proposition for which there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

The realms of the scientific method and faith are therefore separate and disjoint.
</div></div>

They are separate because one is science and the other is philosophy, however that doesn't stop many of the faithful from using faith to make scientific claims.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually there is no debate. Science, opinion or question cannot persuade the faithful. For every incredible scientific theory or fact, it only strengthens the resolve of the faithful. </div></div>

My point was, if you wish to persuade anyone outside your religion (whatever that may be) that you are correct, the perspective of your faith doesn't apply. You must speak in terms compatible to that which your audience places it's faith in, be it the scientific method, another religion, whatever.

This, of course, applies to everyone so I do agree that if someone has no faith in the scientific method then it is pointless to use information derived from it to persuade them.

</div></div>

Assuming the scientific method takes "faith" to understand. As opposed to say evidence backing whatever assertions are made with it.

I think anyone who approaches the scientific method with some type of faith in mind to understand it has thoroughly missed the entire point of it

 

[Mike]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

They are separate because one is science and the other is philosophy, however that doesn't stop many of the faithful from using faith to make scientific claims.</div></div>

Indeed however wrong is wrong. Just because a person makes a statement or performs an act in the name of their faith does not mean their statements or actions are a reflection of the foundation or facts about said faith, or that their particular beliefs are a reflection of the true tenants of that faith.

But as we are getting precariously close to a discussion on religion, I am going to refrain from any further dialogue on this matter.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually there is no debate. Science, opinion or question cannot persuade the faithful. For every incredible scientific theory or fact, it only strengthens the resolve of the faithful. </div></div>

My point was, if you wish to persuade anyone outside your religion (whatever that may be) that you are correct, the perspective of your faith doesn't apply. You must speak in terms compatible to that which your audience places it's faith in, be it the scientific method, another religion, whatever.

This, of course, applies to everyone so I do agree that if someone has no faith in the scientific method then it is pointless to use information derived from it to persuade them.

</div></div>

Assuming the scientific method takes "faith" to understand. As opposed to say evidence backing whatever assertions are made with it.

I think anyone who approaches the scientific method with some type of faith in mind to understand it has thoroughly missed the entire point of it

</div></div>

But in the end you must have faith that the scientific method is one that is capable of deriving correct conclusions, for no evidence produced by it can be used to certify it. Or faith in your rational ability to deduce that it will. Or faith in whatever alternate method certifies that the scientific method works. Somewhere, at some point, faith is necessary to break out of a chicken and the egg argument.

The scientific method is my faith because I believe that it works. It is my faith in the method that allows me to believe the conclusions drawn from it. I would accept that it requests and requires considerably less a leap of faith than other religions might but the requirement is still there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But as we are getting precariously close to a discussion on religion, I am going to refrain from any further dialogue on this matter.
</div></div>

Aye, that.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

I guess it really depends on how you define "faith" in the first place. For many it's synonymous with "trust" and in that context I agree and have "faith" in the scientific method. However, this is primarily because it provides tangible, non-subjective results blind of ideology. In other words, sometimes it tells us what we don't want to hear, and that's a very, very good thing.

 

[Lindy]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But in the end you must have faith that the scientific method is one that is capable of deriving correct conclusions, for no evidence produced by it can be used to certify it.</div></div>

We are getting close to a discussion of epistemology here - but I don't quite agree with that statement.

I think it might be useful at this point to make a distinction between a faith, i.e., a religious faith, and a belief.

The scientific method never produces "correct conclusions". It can only present hypotheses which have not yet been proven false.

An example of this is what Newton thought about gravity was a hypothesis whose limitations were revealed by Einstein's theory of special relativity, which revealed that Newton's Three Laws of Motion were only <span style="font-style: italic">approximately</span> correct.

Yet, the fact that Newtons Laws of Motions were proven to be incorrect, or, actually, only visably correct within certain parameters, did not destroy our sense that the scientific method was useful.

In science, nothing is ever final. The realm of science is the testable, i.e., falsifiable, hypothesis.

We don't need faith or belief about that. The realm of faith is that for which there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

That's why I noted previously that the scientific method - including the body of hypotheses so far tested - and the realm of faith are disjoint, in the mathematical sense that they do not overlap.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Er..."should not overlap"

 

[Lindy]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

If you show me an example of a hypothesis which is not falsifiable, I will show you something which is not within the realm of the scientific method.

An example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis is "We have identified all of the chemical elements."

Another example is the statement "all men are mortal".

You can assert that, you can have faith in it - but there is no way to prove that it is incorrect, if only for the simple reason that all men have no lived yet.

That is not, therefore, a scientific statement.

That is why I say the realms are disjoint.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

Okay, I see what you mean. The reason I said "should not overlap" is because it's common to see the faithful making scientific claims not based on actual science, but based on faith (ie the Bible). Science and Philosophy should be separate for the reasons you listed, most obvious being one is empirical and the other is purely subjective.

At the same time, what you appear to be pointing out is that there is no absolute certainty in Science, which any scientist will readily admit. While anything is possible, is it probable? There eventually comes a point where a statement can be determined to be the most probable explanation. For example, we have so much evidence that life evolves via natural selection. But it's possible we could be entirely wrong in this thinking because there may be sub-atomic fairies pushing and pulling atoms and making things appear this way, controlled by a three headed giant existing in some hidden dimension (or any other number of theoretical possibilities) - this is possible, but based on everything we know and have studied, is this really more probable?

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The scientific method involves the testing of falsifiable propositions we call hypotheses. If we have tested experimentally a hypothesis, and have not <span style="font-style: italic">yet</span> been able to demonstrate that it is false, we may refer to that proposition as a "theory".

"Faith" is something that is only necessary for a proposition for which there is no falsifiable hypothesis.

The realms of the scientific method and faith are therefore separate and disjoint.
</div></div>

If you read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" from cover to cover (a daunting task), you might reassess your view. Kant who takes reason, the basis of the scientific method, about as far a possible, eventually concludes that reason, in and of ,cannot provide all the answers we seek and that eventually one must take a step forward in something akin to "faith". At least in his view they are not entirely seperate and disjoint. One, faith, is in fact, the logical outcome of the other, reason.
I believe Einstein suggested the same.

For those religously inclinde (I am not one of those), the Apostle Paul who largely contributed to the expansion of the fledgeling christian faith warns in no uncertain terms about the perils of reason (the flesh) without the faith in the guiidance of (the holy) spirit. This is is offered strictly in historical context, and not intended to promote any particular view.


"And yet they won't cut your head off for saying this stuff! Perhaps there is a little added incentive for insensitivity and derision toward the more fundamantal Christian sects because, in spite of voluminous popular disdain for their steadfast naivete, they are far more charitable, tolerant and infinitley less murderous than the other fundamentalists they are so slovenly compared to!" QQ's quote


Only because they have been held in check by more reasonable minds. I spent a number of years in Lynchburg, Virginia, home to Jerry Falwell and his minions. Believe me, had they some how gained the power they desired it wouldnt be much more tolerable than the fundamentalist islamics. Women had to wear hats and were suggested to wear veils; skirts to the ankles. They should be silent and pay complete and absolute deference to the man who is the head and absolute authority in the family. No dancing. Many movies prohibited, including "TheLast Temptation of Christ". Anything even remotely resembling our treasured "motivational picture thread" would have been verbotum. I remember one sunday when Jerry wasnt satisfied with the offering, he locked the doors and wouldntpermit anyone to leave til he got what he wanted. This, QQ is not ancient history, but rather what went on in the 1980's and flourished until a few like Jimmy Swaggert, and Jim Baker screwed up, and fortunatly cost them their bid for power. So dont delude yourself, EXTREMEISM IS EXTREMISM, and while "power tends to corrupt", "absolute power corrupts absoultly". Thats why we have the seperation of church and state, and even own government, a systym of checks and balances, to prevent too much power from resting in one set of hands.

 

[Lindy]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...reason, in and of [I presume you meant to include "itself"],cannot provide all the answers we seek and that eventually one must take a step forward in something akin to "faith".</div></div>

I don't disagree with that. I was simply pointing out that science and faith do not overlap.

As for faith, "Everybody should believe in something -- I believe I'll have another drink." -- W. C. Fields.

I'm not looking for answers. I'm looking for interesting questions.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

"This hypothesis is false" is a conclusion, thus the syntax regarding correct conclusions.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yet, the fact that ... did not destroy our sense that the scientific method was useful.
</div></div>

This is the faith of which I was referring. Not faith in any particular results but faith in the usefulness of the method. Perhaps you do not agree, but it seems as though we are bickering over semantics.

 

[Lindy]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...it seems as though we are bickering over semantics.</div></div>

Of course we are! It's lots of fun, and makes us think!

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Science and Philosophy should be separate for the reasons you listed, most obvious being one is empirical and the other is purely subjective.

</div></div>

Please learn to distinguish between "religon", and "philosophy". As a graduate of the University of Virginia Philosophy department, I can assure they are not one and the same. Philosophy, from Philos, and Sophia, literally means, "frondship with, or,the pursuit of, wisdom". While there are courses in "the philosophy of religon" they are not the same. Western academic philosophy (which assuredly has its shortcomings) is based almost entirely on empiricism and the scientific method. Read Kant, or Descartes. Even Buddhism is not based on faith...read it and weep. the Buddah taught things like "right thinking", "right living", none of which was based on faith. Faith is more a construct of western religon, beginning with the Hebrew people (although there were many goddess worshiping cults prior to the Hebrew dominations). UmmmmmmmmGoddesses, now we're talking

 

[Ratbert]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...it seems as though we are bickering over semantics.</div></div>

Of course we are! It's lots of fun, and makes us think!
</div></div>

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' final proof of the non-existence of God:

"'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.'

'Ah,' says Man, 'but the babblefish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It PROVES you exist, therefore you don't. QED'

'Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that' says God, who promptly disappears in a puff of logic."


In our version we're fighting to prove that the scientific method requires faith, and the final result of doing so would be to make the discussion retroactively a religious one and get us all banned. However as long the results are inconclusive the discussion may grow.


ETA: Perhaps, more accurately, it could be described as 'Schrodinger's thread.'

 

[Dogtown]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please learn to distinguish between "religon", and "philosophy".</div></div>

My mistake. I was just trying to sum it up as a subjective thought process.

On that note..."Iiiiiiiiiimmanuel Kant was a real pissant, Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel."

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[






In our version we're fighting to prove that the scientific method requires faith, and the final result of doing so would be to make the discussion retroactively a religious one and get us all banned.


</div></div>

Not ncessarily. What becomes necessary, is to accept and endorse, the idea of "paradox" or that two apparantly opposing and contradictory lines of thought can be equally true and valid. Once that limitation is surpassed pparadox becomes only another tool in the kit

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goldie</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[






In our version we're fighting to prove that the scientific method requires faith, and the final result of doing so would be to make the discussion retroactively a religious one and get us all banned.


</div></div>

Not ncessarily. What becomes necessary, is to accept and endorse, the idea of "paradox" or that two apparantly opposing and contradictory lines of thought can be equally true and valid. Once that limitation is surpassed pparadox becomes only another tool in the kit </div></div>

Schroedingers thread is now dead.

 

[Maggot]

Re: "YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......

RIP