Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 01:07pm PT
|
what does Magee say that makes him distinct?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 01:20pm PT
|
"those claiming science is a religion have to at least admit that as a religion, it is open about its own beliefs and dogma... and openly critical about the techniques and interpretations of the dogma. I don't think any other religion shares this characteristic, which begs the question regarding the categorization of science as religion." -Hartouni
Ed, an excellent way to put it.
...
What's more, lol, those pro-religious science critics who claim "science is a religion too" must then - if they're honest - admit... by their own (tautological?) doing, lol... that they are themselves thusly... religious critics.
Perhaps "bigots" too?
...
re: creation, the many and various "creation models"
re: "Science is my religion" (Huygens)
We’re learning more about the last common ancestor of life, but still argue about its ultimate origin.
Meet Luca...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html?_r=1&mtrref=t.co
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 02:13pm PT
|
The point that has been made by me - and it seems by others - is not that science is a religion, but that many people degrade science by practicing their science mindset as a religion, or from a religious and faith oriented mindset.
Those who have inspired me to pursue my particular area of expertise that incorporates science, depends on science as foundation for practice, and that is most effective when using a scientific mindset have been humble about their science and what they know and what they don't know and been clear about the realm of science and what lies outside the realm of science.
Be careful of having too much faith in your science.
Also, don't believe everything you think!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 02:57pm PT
|
from Fruity's link,
Dr. Sutherland and others have no quarrel with Luca’s being traced back to deep sea vents. But that does not mean life originated there, they say. Life could have originated anywhere and later been confined to a deep sea environment because of some catastrophic event like the Late Heavy Bombardment, which occurred 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago. This was a rain of meteorites that crashed into Earth with such force that the oceans were boiled off into an incandescent mist.
Life is so complex it seems to need many millions of years to evolve. Yet evidence for the earliest life dates to 3.8 billion years ago, as if it emerged almost the minute the bombardment ceased.
(4)These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
(5)and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the erth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
(6)But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Genesis 2:
in genesis 1 god also tells us; Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and then fowl...(prolly which turned into dinosaurs).
see the bible has all the scientific answers, for my little brain anyway;)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 04:23pm PT
|
Kant's revolution was to systematically demonstrate that ALL of that "reality" "exists" only because the "I think" (not the Cartesian version!) "synthesizes" it. Kant's point is that what mind IS must necessarily be forever beyond our grasp (sorry, scientists). By the time you are "evaluating it," the REAL "it" has already done its work and handed you its "appearances," including the "appearances" of "it" itself.
Mad Bolter, that is an excellent summery of Kant, IMO. I was lashed to Whitehead in grad school and never really got Kant that dialed, or least not REALLY dialed since he revised things a tad as he went along and as you said, his writing is so dense and convoluted and awkwardly translated (I don't read German) that when you mentioned one only needed a semester to sort it all out I laughed out loud. Kant is a decade long study, I believe, if you want to know the material well enough to understand his reasoning, and how he arrived at his principal insights.
One of the largest misconceptions I see here is the notion that since technology has evolved so exponentially since Kant's day, that his work needs revising to still be viable. This, I believe, issues from the belief that modern data usurps Kant, who was not actually addressing data, per se, but the empirical process itself. And while the data will change, the process will not.
My point all along underscores Kant's claim per the limitations of empiricism, and the das Ding an sich (the thing-in-itself) does not even apply to "it," or mind, which when posited as a thing, is no longer "it." The Zen way of saying the same drift is that mind is "ungraspable." You can get a micrometer around the appearances and stuff of mind, but not mind itself because we cannot escape it to measure same.
But try and see what water you can draw with that to a physicalist crowd who never wrangled with Kant. Can hardly blame them. As mentioned, Goethe feared insanity after only ten pages of Critiqued of Pure Reason.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 05:47pm PT
|
Meh.
~HFCS
There are those that know a thing...
And, there are those that know about a thing...
Little science knows "truth: reality."
Big science is dedicated to being aware, observant, unattached, humble about what is known and can be known, and understanding that the data and the models for deriving understanding/meaning from the data will never be perfect and will never unveil the TRUTH - that the map is not the terrain itself and the map will never be perfect. Big science is being OK with the idea that all of your observation, research, and study will give you only a better approximations of a very delimited aspect of reality.
Big science is being OK with not knowing and delighting in the process of discovery. Big science is relishing the mysteries and unkowns that remain and being excited to discover that something that you had believed to be true is a poor approximation and without reservation adopt newer and more precise data and more comprehensive modeling to see and to understand the world more closely.
A mythic model for science and the phenomenal world is Kali - primeval force of the universe, ultimate reality, power of pure creation - dancing upon the chest of Shiva to waken him from dreaming into conscious awareness. Kali is considered the destroyer of illusion, ignorance and ego.
I love science. I want it uncut, unadulterated - a straight dose. I want it true to itself, not popularized, cut into sound bites, or generalized beyond the authentic dimension of actual findings. I want it to shatter me, my beliefs, my ego, to force me to see the world anew, and overwhelm me - I want Kali to dance on me until I am bruised all over, but awake with delight and wonder!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 06:25pm PT
|
You can get a micrometer around the appearances and stuff of mind, but not mind itself because we cannot escape it to measure same.
"Cannot escape it to measure same." Spot on!
But try and see what water you can draw with that to a physicalist crowd who never wrangled with Kant. Can hardly blame them. As mentioned, Goethe feared insanity after only ten pages of Critiqued of Pure Reason.
Also spot on.
I've had the occasional student who got inspired enough to tell me that they were going to take the the Critique over the summer. I gently but firmly told them to not bother, that they would only damage their psyches with no upside.
I feel very fortunate to have studied under some amazingly schooled and perceptive people, such as Jill Buroker, the late Hubert Schwyzer, and the late Anthony Bruckner. I can also highly recommend anything by Henry Allison.
It's so easy to take an unsympathetic position on Kant simply because he's so hard to "dig through." But I like Jill's summation to her undergrads: "If you think Kant was wrong about something, it's because you are confused. Kant didn't get everything right, but you'll spend years of sympathetic study to finally encounter the very few genuine holes in his argumentation, and those are subtle and not damning to his theory."
And you are so right that Kant's theory remains unthreatened by modern developments in physics and technology.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 06:25pm PT
|
^^^i jus proved to ya scientist agree on how god created the sushi buffet! yet i bet a cheesburger you continue to eat at taco bell.
edit; Wow Fuity the Fleeder keeps fleeding
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 06:26pm PT
|
By the way, guys. I'm not bashing on science in the slightest. I just don't believe that it's doing metaphysics. It's giving us wonderful frameworks for engineering projects and telling us loads about how the "appearances" appear to us at any given moment. It's the best empirical approach we've got.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 06:31pm PT
|
^^^surely. there must be a benchmark! but it's not like physics is etched in stone. and even if it were..
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
|
I want Kali to dance on me until I am bruised all over, but awake with delight and wonder!
you should come to Cali ;)
Kali is considered the destroyer of illusion, ignorance and ego.
Cali is a proprietor of all those.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2016 - 07:14pm PT
|
Good one, Blue.
This is the juice!
Phenotypic variation in xenobiotic metabolism and adverse environmental response: focus on sulfur-dependent detoxification pathways.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8711748
Combined deficiency of xanthine oxidase and sulphite oxidase: a defect of molybdenum metabolism or transport?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/117254
Cleavage of folates during ethanol metabolism. Role of acetaldehyde/xanthine oxidase-generated superoxide.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2537625
A distinct vagal anti-inflammatory pathway modulates intestinal muscularis resident macrophages independent of the spleen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23929694
This is what I'm into right now. It is dramatically expanding my understanding and appreciation of the the interaction between body systems - the incredibly intricate and beautiful dynamics of biochemistry, the polarized interplay between the various conflicting needs betweeen body systems and even intacellularly. The yin and yang here there and everywhere - the binary nature of biological systems - oxidation/reduction, polarization/depolarization, afferentation/efferentation, parasympathetic/sympathetic, anabolic/catabolic...
It's stretching, challenging, bruising, and delighting me!
It's ever more fun as I pursue the neurology and biochemistry that makes us tick. After 35 years of study, when contemplating the interconnectedness of the nervous and biochemical systems throughout the body with it occurring simultaneously like John Anderton from Minority Report moving the screens about for each system and its pathways with threads from each page to connected/related pointpoints on other pages. It's so beautiful and elegant and wondrous!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2016 - 07:00pm PT
|
^^^i wish i could hang out with you more :)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2016 - 10:21am PT
|
^^^ that's a rerun.
so you don't think anyone, anywhere ever, has had an experience with god?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2016 - 11:45am PT
|
The lessons of star trek. Probably a good approach to engage Trump supporters would be to ask them if the Donald would make a good replacement for Capt. Kirk.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!