User Tag List

First 311121314 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 134

  1. #121
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    No, it doesn't break any rules. I just thought it was a cheap shot.
    That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My opinion is that it wasn't a cheap shot, just fact.

    And you've avoided my question in reference to real thread topic which Jennifer has kindly reminded us of, more than once. What's your take on hair of the dog methodology?

  2. #122
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    And you've avoided my question in reference to real thread topic which Jennifer has kindly reminded us of, more than once. What's your take on hair of the dog methodology?
    I have no opinion on that... don't care about it, not interested thanks. Accordingly, I will stop posting off-topic and depart the thread.

  3. #123
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's hard to separate tech from science, and both have been around since humanity, we just formalized the scientific method more recently. I don't know where you get the idea that I think tech and scientific application hasn't always been here. Back when the wheel was invented, that was a scientific application; there was experimentation, logic was implemented, and it was applied. The pyramids, same deal. Stone hedge, same deal.

    Why would I reckon there wasn't tech before the Enlightenment? Science, even before it became a more formalized systematic study, and tech has been around forever.... even back with apes figuring out how to use tools for food collecting.


    The Pharohs were scientists?!

    Sorry, cant go on because I'm cracking up, you should take that one on the road, and the scientific apes?! Man, you got an entire act there.

  4. #124
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    It's hard to separate tech from science, and both have been around since humanity, we just formalized the scientific method more recently. I don't know where you get the idea that I think tech and scientific application hasn't always been here. Back when the wheel was invented, that was a scientific application; there was experimentation, logic was implemented, and it was applied. The pyramids, same deal. Stone hedge, same deal.

    Why would I reckon there wasn't tech before the Enlightenment? Science, even before it became a more formalized systematic study, and tech has been around forever.... even back with apes figuring out how to use tools for food collecting.
    I think you have a rather broad and useless definition of science. A synonym for truth and technology, rather than the scientific method.

    The scientific method is not nearly as glorious as the term "science" you are using. It's not responsible for most technology, and I'd bet my savings it played no part in creating the wheel for the first time. It's great and all, but it's benefits are exaggerated and its flaws ignored too much.

    In that sense, and what I thought Lark meant, science would either be improved upon, or replaced with a better system, and in its current form be left behind and frowned upon (much like old religions are now). I'm no futurologist (lol), but that's where my money is at.

    I do wonder where this glorified definition of science came from, as it's so commonplace now. Early modern texts all seem to clearly separate science from the other truth-finding methods, and never associate it with technology the way it happens now. I wonder why that changed.

  5. #125
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post


    The Pharohs were scientists?!

    Sorry, cant go on because I'm cracking up, you should take that one on the road, and the scientific apes?! Man, you got an entire act there.
    The Pharohs sure weren't, but their very talented and brilliant engineers were.

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    I think you have a rather broad and useless definition of science. A synonym for truth and technology, rather than the scientific method.

    The scientific method is not nearly as glorious as the term "science" you are using. It's not responsible for most technology, and I'd bet my savings it played no part in creating the wheel for the first time. It's great and all, but it's benefits are exaggerated and its flaws ignored too much.

    In that sense, and what I thought Lark meant, science would either be improved upon, or replaced with a better system, and in its current form be left behind and frowned upon (much like old religions are now). I'm no futurologist (lol), but that's where my money is at.

    I do wonder where this glorified definition of science came from, as it's so commonplace. Early modern texts all seem to clearly separate science from the other truth-finding methods, and never associate it with technology the way it is now. I wonder why that changed.
    My favorite definition of science, from the Random House Dictionary: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    That's a fair enough definition, wouldn't you say? Keywords, observation and experimentation. It's not a synonym for truth, just observing and experimenting won't guarantee you the truth, it's a process. Some might say, a scientific process. And I'm not sure on what you think will replace it.... a mass 2nd religious Christian revival, a new religion, maybe something new-agey and spiritual, healing crystals? Whatever it will be, you have absolutely no idea of a viable truth-finding method to replace science, and I wouldn't hold your breadth waiting for one. Science is in a constant state of change and flux and improvement of itself, and you even hinted that you understand that.

    The creation of the wheel no doubt involved observation and experimentation, as did building the pyramids, as did the discovery of the double-helix molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, as did [insert literally any technological achievement].

  6. #126
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    That's a fair enough definition, wouldn't you say?
    No.

    Experimentation is a good word to use. Other than that, that's one of the worst definitions I have ever seen. It's ridiculously vague. Assume you had no prior exposure to science, then read that definition, then see how many different types of idiocy you can describe with that sentence. I can get paganistic magic in there for starters.

    I have ideas on how to improve science, yes, but they are well known (all on wikipedia last I checked). If I had some ground breaking ideas on truth-finding in general, I'd be using them to get rich. I know of plenty of truth-finding methods that perform better than science in most areas, but again they are all on wikipedia and acknowledged as such. Where have you got the idea that modern science will be an immortal technique from?

  7. #127
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    No, it doesn't break any rules. I just thought it was a cheap shot.
    Lark wanted to know about how I notice his posts, I said through the Reported Posts subforum. Big deal. It's true. I don't go for the wall-o-texts typically on the forum, just gimme the dirt.

    The only downside is that as a mod you have to deal with the crap, other than that it's like my second favorite subforum.

  8. #128
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Science has always been a part of human creativity, and always will be. What changes is how science is done, and toward which questions it is directed. Science involves understanding how the objective, material world functions. It involves experimentation and observation, and seeks to identify repeatable cause-and-effect relationships that can be used to predict future events. We use the term "scientific method" to describe a specific version of this process. Following it cookbook-wise as it is often taught in schools is needlessly limiting; abandoning it altogether, on the other hand, will lead to meaningless results. Technology is essentially the application of scientific knowledge. Once humans understand how some aspect of the natural world works, we can exploit that knowledge to make things that are useful. Science feeds technology, until technology gets stuck somewhere, and throws a problem or anomaly back to science for investigation.

    Religious/spiritual traditions have often attempted to explain the natural world; that is the basis of much of mythology. While these stories have provided inspiration, useful lessons, and even entertainment, they have not explained the workings of nature accurately. Their utility has thus been on the spiritual and social level rather than on the physical level. Both help us understand and make the most of our human existence, in different and complementary ways.

  9. #129
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Intelligence is not in the mind of the observer, it is actually in the object. Whether something is intelligent is decided by the traits of that thing, not the person observing it. You can do whatever you like to the observer, but the object will stay just as intelligent.
    I agree that the object will not change, but just how would you define intelligence? How would you measure it with accuracy and repeatability? The degree of intelligence measured will depend as much upon the definition and tool used.

  10. #130
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Lark wanted to know about how I notice his posts, I said through the Reported Posts subforum. Big deal. It's true. I don't go for the wall-o-texts typically on the forum, just gimme the dirt.

    The only downside is that as a mod you have to deal with the crap, other than that it's like my second favorite subforum.
    I reckon its dumb to complain about people, I just put them on ignore.

Similar Threads

  1. What's the difference between healthy self-esteem and narcissism?
    By proteanmix in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 04:40 AM
  2. Low- Self Esteem and Spirituality
    By Lexlike in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-15-2008, 10:40 PM
  3. Humility, confidence, low self-esteem, and arrogance
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 08:50 PM
  4. Satan, Self-Esteem and Divorce
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-09-2008, 05:49 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