Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
Pate, excellent post.
So we're all in agreement.
Regarding trenched beliefs, I was merely reinforcing the obvious: some entrenched beliefs (aka deeply held beliefs) are good ones. Like the one that the earth is round or the one that the Japanese (not the Egyptians) bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941.
The reason I return time and again to this thread and post is a compound reason: (1) I am a climber, only this avartar isn't, (2) I like supertopo.com, even Werner, (3) I work as a developer in a "psr-related" area or field (e.g., under the inspiration of guys like Carl Sagan who once upon a time suggested it's time we got started thinking about one or two new institutions reflective of and responsive to modern age understanding, (4) in deference to game theory, etc., it is always good to know what the other side (or sides) is thinking.
So I hope that clarifies a bit why I attend here. Love your posts, man.
-psr: philosophy, science, religion
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 04:07pm PT
|
Pate- that phrase, "confederacy of dunces", that's a good one, is that yours? I'll have to google it, see how original or popular it is. I'll repeat it a few times to work it into my working vocabulary. Love it. Along with "inertia of ignorance."
EDIT Turns out, not so original, actually a novel title, but hey, thanks for enriching my vocabulary.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
The same test can be applied to belief systems.
Many of us hope that belief systems change our behaviors so that fewer horrible things are done. Before accepting a new belief system one can ask whether it will "work." Whether it will still work even after people have done to it, all the things people do.
And if a person is accepting a belief system for what they personally hope to get out of it, they too can ask if it will "work."
Jstan, I hope other participants appreciate the tenor of your posts, as I do. At times, I don't agree with your conclusions....but I doubt many, here, would question your sincerity.
It's difficult, when discussion turns to name calling and bottle throwing, not presuming one must throw a few, also, to participate. I've rarely seen you attempting to demonize or spray others with glass. You deserve great credit keeping conversation at an abstract.... academic.....and cordial level.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
|
I think that GBrown, and others, badly misrepresent science when they make an argument that what science does is like what a "spiritualist" does... they are not the same thing.
However, there is a great appeal to going with what you feel, what you experience, without analyzing those experiences or feelings... just going with it, as if the personal authority somehow elevates it, in it's superficial likeness, to what it is presumed that scientists do...
It is a part of an American Tradition, anti-intellectualism, which is quite healthy in the country today, as pointed out in a piece in the NYTimes today...
Egghead Alert at Confirmation Hearings
Quoted from the article:
“All the people who get onto the Supreme Court are people of high intelligence,” Berman, now the president of the Duberstein Group lobbying firm in Washington, told me. “They really know more about the law and cases than anyone else in the room, and people on the dais are judging them.” Often the nominees are “trying to prove themselves. Often it comes across as you saying you’re better than we are.”
Any hint of an I’m-better-than-you sentiment, especially if that sense of superiority is based on intellect or fancy speech or having attended an Ivy League school, can go over very badly in America today, where “elite” has gone from being a word of admirationto one of insult. A tendency toward anti-intellectualism isn’t new in our country, of course; in his 1962 classic, “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” Richard Hofstadter wrote of our culture’s longtime devaluation of the head in favor of the heart and a historic tendency to prefer people and phenomena — educational approaches, types of religious experience — motivated by passion or gut rather than intellect or reason. “Intellect is pitted against feeling, on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion,” he wrote. “It is pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for mere cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical. It is pitted against practicality, since theory is held to be opposed to practice, and the ‘purely’ theoretical mind is so much disesteemed. It is pitted against democracy, since intellect is felt to be a form of distinction that defies egalitarianism.”
Hofstadter added, “Intellect has been dissevered from its coordinate place among the human virtues and assigned the position of a special kind of vice.”
The so called "theory" of science which is so often misrepresented as "not real" or certainly "not a practical reality" is popularly treated as "just so much talk." Often not to be taken seriously. Of course, the actual definition is a bit more complex and more rigorous, see, e.g.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art [music theory]
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action [her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn] b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory [in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all]
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena [the wave theory of light]
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject [theory of equations]
synonyms see hypothesis
As a "scientific theory" there is an expectation that the theory predicts the outcome of an experiment or an observation quantitatively and that the basis of the prediction is rigorous regarding the logic used to deduce the prediction. Newton's apple falling to the earth and the moon circling in orbit are governed by the same theory, that gravity is universal and responsible for both of these phenomena, and demonstrated in a rigorous way leading to testable outcomes.
I don't know what a spiritual theory is, nor a spiritual experiment. Spiritual "observations" are feelings, often subjective, and stridently not quantitative. Put in such a setting the theories utterly fail to predict the outcome of experiment.
As mentioned in the above NYTimes article, there is much more stock put into those "feelings" than into the intellectual process of analysis. No doubt that people trust their feelings, it is a major accomplishment in the training of a scientist to learn not to trust them.
Feynman pointed out the pitfalls of "cargo cult science" a variety of human activity which appropriates the trappings of the scientific process, but is not science. You can read what he had to say here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
It is a characteristic Feynman thought, with lots of cautions, and even for physics... but the major idea is harder to actually do than it sounds:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 09:00pm PT
|
Feynman is often put forward, as Ed has done because he was both unbelievably good and at the same time, human. Normally we consider those two traits to be exclusionary. A wonderful story published after his passing, possibly in "Surely You Are Joking, Mr. Feynman?"
Students often work in groups posing each other problems to solve. In one group at Princeton. a group of which Feynman was a member, the following problem came up and everyone was apparently stumped.
Pinwheel sprinkler heads spin in one direction when you are watering the lawn. Do they spin in the opposite direction if you put it under water and pull water into the nozzles? The next morning custodial staff found one of the physics building labs flooded. The perpetrator was never apprehended. But there was much suspicion.
A couple of trash barrels and a hose were all that was needed for the experiment. Put the sprinkler head in one barrel full of water ten feet above another trash can to which the hose ran. The perpetrator obviously was short
one trash can.
The experimenter presumably learned a lesson of value to his later work at Los Alamos.
Don't do an experiment before you are ready.
At Los Alamos, the problem would have been rather more severe than it was at Princeton..
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 09:10pm PT
|
Gobee, you started your own creationists thread just to copy and past bible
passages on.
So, STICK to THAT thread to put your bible stuff on.
In case you still have not noticed, people here think and discuss issues.
You have proved over and over that you are NOT capable of doing so.
What is your point with the relentless bible crap, do you really believe
someone here is going to be converted to bible bliss like you are?
Six thousand year old earth, my ass.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 09:33pm PT
|
When we have a problem the first step is logically to analyze the problem and so determine what factors are causing the problem to exist. Go-B is failing to use logic.
He "believes" everyone thinks just like himself and everyone "believes" exactly what he "believes". So it is he feels scripture will shepherd us, finally, into the light; given only that we be exposed to it.
A weakness to which unquestioning "belief", inevitably, falls victim.
We, unfortunately, are here to witness the failure.
|
|
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 09:47pm PT
|
Why do so many people believe in God? (Serious Question?);
Because, Psalm 103:12, as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.
Well if God said as far as the north is from the south, they turn into each other! ( logic?)
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Boulder Creek CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 10:04pm PT
|
Sean Cochrane just posted this on Facebook: 'life is a waterfall, we're one in the river and one again after the fall'
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
|
Yes
You're all aboard sailing the ship without a rudder in the sea of nescience .....
The material world is real but temporary.
Even a dog can understand that.
|
|
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 10:51pm PT
|
I thought it was up a creek without a paddle?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 11:19pm PT
|
I don't have a "my version" but creation is definitely not like your version.
I got here just like you ..... :-)
|
|
go-B
climber
In God We Trust
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2010 - 11:42pm PT
|
But Jesus is good enuff!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 01:38am PT
|
You're just upside down and you can't stop it now ....
Urdhva-mulam
and ... Catastrophism
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 02:23am PT
|
The materialists cannot understand spiritual subject matter.
It is not for them .....
Beyond the senses, beyond the mind, and beyond the intelligence, the soul is there.
Thus .... those who are on the mental plane, they will remain materialists.
They will not understand anything spiritual ........
|
|
GBrown
Trad climber
Los Angeles, California
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 03:33am PT
|
Whether or not go-B tends to post scripture in place of his own words, his post of "Rules from God for 2010" show me that he extracts valuable things and reflects them in his life. That makes me smile and think, "go-B you're cool."
Ed -- I coined the term "spiritual scientists" to encompass individuals in pursuit of knowledge of non-physical existence, functions, abilities, etc., which includes questions about "ultimates." Why should that be objectionable? Are you under the impression that the moment an intelligent and analytical person turns in this direction that they are incapable of applying intelligence, analysis and test to the "spiritual/non-physical" field? If you absolutely believe that there is no such a field, that might explain your reaction. It's late so I can't take the time to back up in this thread to see if I can figure out what I may have missed that would answer this question for me, so I'd appreciate your letting me know about that. Thanks.
(I don't really know what "spiritualists" do other than have seances (spelling?), read your palms or connect you to the dearly departed for a buck.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 11:41am PT
|
Yes "spiritual scientists"
I said this for years, and the materialists keep taking the word scientist as theirs exclusively.
This is just plain rascaldom ....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 11:49am PT
|
it's not objectionable, but it is not science, or anything like science...
first and foremost, it is not reproducible, in fact, the singular nature of the experiences is almost a necessary attribute of a "spiritual experience." So often people bring up examples of knowing something before it happens, then it happens, and they conclude that they foresaw the experience.
unfortunately there is no way of knowing precisely if this isn't just some random coincidence, the actual "foresight" is seldom precisely stated and recorded, there is only a memory, secondly, we don't know how many times we have unsubstantiated "foresight," we see something that doesn't happen... thus we cannot determine the rate of random coincidence.
However, most people professing a deeper meaning to these experiences will reject any analysis of them. Not only that, but the inability to reproduce them becomes a feature... similarly, miracles are singular phenomena not reproducible by the very nature of their occurrence, they are individual acts by some higher authority...
Reproducing subjective "states of mind" is possible and documented, the consequence of using various types of drugs, the entering of a meditative state, etc... but we have physiological understanding of these states, and do not interpret, on a scientific level, any deeper significance to these states, they are the reaction of the "mechanical" brain to the stimulus, and the experience is a result of this reaction.
We hear, time and again, that the spiritual/mystical/religious experience is "personal," which I agree with, but I also think that this relegates these experiences to the individuals thoughts, not to some physical reality... these thoughts need not be realizable, the thoughts themselves are real. Just because you can think something doesn't make that thing real, nor does it imply that there must be some expanded reality in which the thing could be real...
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 12:43pm PT
|
"Wise Men Still Seek Him . . ."
Let's see, of the founding Fathers of Modern Science, how many sought out GOD?
Copernicus, Tycho Brahe/Johann Kepler, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, the list can go on and on . . .
Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John [Paperback] Isaac Newton (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Observations-Upon-Prophecies-Daniel-Apocalypse/dp/1449599699/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3E6WC5ZCI13FO&colid=2GL3DFQ4AXH2G
Yes, one of the most famous Founding Fathers of Modern Science, Sir Isaac Newton, who by an early age had already done so much: 3 Laws of Motion, Invention of Calculas, his Universal Law of Gravity, Optics and Light, significant development of the Modern Scientific Method, the Reflective Telescope, the list goes on and on . . .
He was a true believer in GOD and Jesus Christ. Sought out Bible Code, sought out the Trinity, sought out the prophecy of the Future and came to the realization and his best estimate for the end of our dispensation of time would be 2060 AD.
Yes, Wise Men Still Seek after GOD.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 12:47pm PT
|
Let's see, of the founding Fathers of Modern Science, how many sought out GOD? Copernicus, Tycho Brahe/Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, the list can go on and on . . .
Klimmer's got about as much sense in this area as he's got in the area of electrical power, electronics. Sad. Truly he shouldn't be allowed around kids in any teaching capacity where high standards in education and erudition are respected.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!