User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 156

  1. #121
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Do we want our children to be taught astrology, alchemy and creationism or do we want them to have an education?
    I'd rather them to have a well rounded education where they learned both the most likely current theories and explainations, but were also taught to keep their minds open to possibilities which had not been fully explored previously as well, as there may be information inherant that has been glazed over by the unobservant.

    How many medicines are we now discovering that've been used medically for thousands of years, but were skipped over by 'modern medicine' because they were ASSUMED to be fairy tales? Many of the chemical compounds used in medicine today were originally used before anyway, people just didn't understand why, and so their treatments were just ignored as superstition, when in fact they often had a strong basis in fact.

    I'd want my children raised learning to seek out alternative concepts and theories, and to think of EVERYTHING critically, and tear everything apart equally with their mind, to learn all they can and base their decisions on an open minded approach, and the realization that science is just a tool to explain that which we don't understand, and that there's alot of things that science can't currently explain but doesn't mean it's any less real.

    I want my kids, if I ever have any, to seek the truth and understand their world, not just accept things blindly.

    Being taught only a single view of the world, and being told it is FACT, when there is always the possibility it may be in error in part, or in whole, is one I don't agree with at all.

    I do, however, want stress placed upon the MOST LIKELY situation, with the information currently available. But I don't want a 90% probability to be viewed as 100%. That last 10% always bites yeu in the butt when yeu don't expect it.

  2. #122
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    I'd rather them to have a well rounded education where they learned both the most likely current theories and explainations, but were also taught to keep their minds open to possibilities which had not been fully explored previously as well, as there may be information inherant that has been glazed over by the unobservant.

    How many medicines are we now discovering that've been used medically for thousands of years, but were skipped over by 'modern medicine' because they were ASSUMED to be fairy tales? Many of the chemical compounds used in medicine today were originally used before anyway, people just didn't understand why, and so their treatments were just ignored as superstition, when in fact they often had a strong basis in fact.

    I'd want my children raised learning to seek out alternative concepts and theories, and to think of EVERYTHING critically, and tear everything apart equally with their mind, to learn all they can and base their decisions on an open minded approach, and the realization that science is just a tool to explain that which we don't understand, and that there's alot of things that science can't currently explain but doesn't mean it's any less real.

    I want my kids, if I ever have any, to seek the truth and understand their world, not just accept things blindly.

    Being taught only a single view of the world, and being told it is FACT, when there is always the possibility it may be in error in part, or in whole, is one I don't agree with at all.

    I do, however, want stress placed upon the MOST LIKELY situation, with the information currently available. But I don't want a 90% probability to be viewed as 100%. That last 10% always bites yeu in the butt when yeu don't expect it.
    Of course the scientific method is devoted to falsification.

    And astrology, alchemy and creationism have been falsified.

    And when I discover something is false, I change my mind.

    What do you do?

  3. #123
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Simple astronomical facts known to every astronomer make nonsense of astrology.

    You can ascertain these facts for yourself by reading a book on astronomy, or you could ring the Astronomy Department of a University and ask to speak to an astronomer. And they would be able to tell you these facts over the phone.

    But what is truly important is that children be taught astronomy rather than astrology, in the same manner they are taught chemistry rather than alchemy, and biology rather than creationism.

    Do we want our children to be taught astrology, alchemy and creationism or do we want them to have an education?
    Victor,

    You've not owned your own ignorance, and are accusing other people of being untruthful. This smacks of bigotry, which kids ought not to be taught.

    It is infinately more important that kids are taught an all round education and given the tools to accept and reject points of view based on an actual understanding and rational to make a decision.

  4. #124
    Nickle Iron Silicone Charmed Justice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    "Girls just wanna have fun?".

    What about women? Do women just wanna have fun?

    C'mon, women read women's magazines for diets that make you fat, for make-up and fashion that mimic arousal, for astrology that is a confidence trick, and all sold with a celebrity on the cover.

    Hey, "girls just wanna have fun", 'cause they are emotionally and financially dependent.

    You know, girls grow up into women. Girls grow up into independent women. Girls grow up to be emotionally and financially independent.

    To refer to women as girls is to infantilize them. To refer to women as girls is to keep them as children - to keep them emotionally and financially dependent.

    To refer to women as girls is confidence trick just like astrology, for women are not girls any more than men are boys.

    We all know that to call a black man, "boy", is an insult. So to call a woman, "girl", is equally an insult.

    But you have made it abundantly clear that you want to be seen as a girl, when in fact you are a woman. Why is that?

    Surely you are not trying to pull a confidence trick.
    Whoa whoa whoa guy. Cyndi Lauper, no?

    I don't read women's magazines, or the horoscopes. I have nothing against it though. I don't know anyone who bases their entire life off of the horoscope in the back of a magazine, or newspaper. The stuff is good for entertainment value and good laughs.

    Now, I don't think it's a total stretch to consider that when and where you were born affects you and potentially your personality. Seasons affect adults and their moods. Why not infants, or the condition of the pregnant woman?

    Research Links Month of Birth to Disease - ABC News

  5. #125
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Of course the scientific method is devoted to falsification.

    And astrology, alchemy and creationism have been falsified.

    And when I discover something is false, I change my mind.

    What do you do?
    The scientific method is also heavily flawed =3

    It works well enough, but it prevents many more accurate theories from comming to light due to its' restrictive forms of testing and documentation.

    It works insofar as it does whot it's supposed to do... but it is not a guaranteed covers-everything design which people treat it as.

    Astrology has had sections of it falsified. Alchemy is real just not in the way it was originally envisioned. Most physicists are creationists, and there has never been proof contrary to it so don't just make stuff up.

    When I discover enough EVIDENCE to believe something to no longer be probable, I change my mind, until new evidence suggests the old evidence may've been inaccurate. I don't assume anything to be 100%, because nothing ever is. There's always a grain of truth somewhere, and often that grain can be far larger than expected. People who invalidate things with pure totality miss out on some of the most important discoveries, because they didn't look closely enough at the information.

    Yeur mere statement of "proved false" shows this. Nothing is ever 100% proved false, just proved well beyond reasonable doubt, into the point that it's exceptionally unlikely. Dropping the matter there and never looking back will fail yeu in the end, because when yeur belief that something is false is proved false... yeu won't look at that evidence since yeu've already made up yeur mind.

    Criticism is highly important, yeu SHOULD put every idea and notion, belief and concept through a painful process of evaluation, but yeu should never believe yeur mission is 'done', because there's always a few more drops of truth that can be squeezed out of it that yeu missed. And ignoring that little leftover bit can be as disasterous as accepting the flawed concept whole heartedly.

    Being a blind believer in logic can be just as bad as being a blind believer in faith. Never go to extremes, it'll always fail yeu in the end.

  6. #126
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Nothing is ever 100% proved false
    The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

    However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.

  7. #127
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    The scientific method is also heavily flawed...
    This would be most interesting to scientists. So perhaps you might like to write a letter to, "Scientific American", and let them know your views.

  8. #128
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

    However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.
    Nu.... the scientific method can prove that, with the information provided, in the context it was given, with the assumptions made of the starting data, that this is not the case under these specific conditions.

    It can't however, prove that the assumptions made were correct, that the information provided to start with was true, or that the context was valid. It can't even prove that the test itself wasn't interfered with by external stimuli that was not noticed. There's been loooooots of experiments performed where something external screwed up the measurements and noone noticed because they weren't aware that the external interaction was even occuring.

    So no, it can't prove anything 100% false. It can only prove it to be exceedingly likely with the information understood at the time.

  9. #129
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The scientific method can prove some things 100% false.

    However the scientific method cannot prove anything to be 100% true.
    Actually your first point is wrong... it can only prove a negative within the limit of the test used, the test may be flawed or limited to a parameter that doens't suit the subject.

    An example, viruses cells (are increadibly small), and endocrines didn't get proven until microscopes were powerful enough to see them - which was realitively recently... Prior to that science fell short

    In the 1950's clinical depression was classified as being on Axis ii because it was untreatable... It is now on treatable.

    Science method is flawed as it is limited to the measurment within the time, using the quipment of that time. Any good researher can tell you that - it is the basic parameter of any research programme

  10. #130
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Most physicists are creationists, and there has never been proof contrary to it
    Creationism says that species were created individually by God, but biology in the, "Origin of Species", says that species were created by natural selection.

    And natural selection has been recently confirmed by genetics. And indeed the genome allows us to pin point with accuracy just where on the branches of life any species had its origin.

    So creationism has been 100% falsified, just as astrology has been 100% falsified by astronomy, and alchemy has been 100% falsified by chemisty.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] can someone give me an exercise to get into the mindset of introverted intuition
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-20-2016, 01:40 AM
  2. Can someone please give me advice on how to find my type?
    By Sweetheart in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-08-2015, 09:02 PM
  3. Replies: 71
    Last Post: 06-18-2015, 09:08 PM
  4. Can someone give me a simple explanation of the Ti Te Si Se concept?
    By Lily flower in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:40 AM
  5. Give me ALL of the details on a J person por favor
    By /DG/ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO