User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 134 of 134

  1. #131
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    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 like that sentence for some reason, it makes a lot of sense.

  2. #132
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    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.
    I'm unsure about that, its still a broad definition, I prefer Popper and Einstein's definitions.

    I reckon that high priests of whatever in the ancient world if they could get results and attribute those properly to observable or believeable hypothesis and treated with credibility and authority would be categorised as scientists by those defintions (yours and AJBs) when there's a serious difference between a modern day physicist explaining gravitation and an ancient describing it as being willed by a diety or dieties, although they might use similar attributions and observations.

  3. #133
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Right I'm watching at TV programme about how a photo studio has opened specialising in taking nude photos of regular women in an effort to assist them in overcoming self-esteem problems and develop body confidence.

    I dont know if they are photoshopped or just clever photographic posing, one of the women talked about being annorexic when they where younger as a result of body image.

    My question is whether or not it is a kind of collusion with the greater problem of objectification, people are getting in on the act themselves and objectifying themselves in their own sight, wouldnt it be a better idea to see ideas about modesty revived?

    I'm not being a killjoy in suggesting this or suggesting that people ought to adopt burkas or anything ridiculous like that, it just seems sometimes that a lot of the solutions people come up with resemble the problem in the first place in some way.

    You are onto something.

    Public displays of nudity desensitizes people. It loses any sacredness it has.

  4. #134
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm unsure about that, its still a broad definition, I prefer Popper and Einstein's definitions.

    I reckon that high priests of whatever in the ancient world if they could get results and attribute those properly to observable or believeable hypothesis and treated with credibility and authority would be categorised as scientists by those defintions (yours and AJBs) when there's a serious difference between a modern day physicist explaining gravitation and an ancient describing it as being willed by a diety or dieties, although they might use similar attributions and observations.
    I was trying less to define science than to describe it. I have studied enough history of science to understand the perils of attempting to do the first. I do find, however, that scientific inquiry tends to possess certain common elements.

    Some of the ancient priests were probably scientists, in that they made observations of the natural world to predict the coming of the seasons, investigated plants to help the ill, etc. As late at Newton's day, theology and physics were considered related enough that when Newton became head of the Physics dept at Cambridge, his predecessor moved on to the Theology dept.

    I see two primary differences between the approaches, though. First, the explanations scientists postulate for the phenomena they observe do not contain reference to deities, and their experiments, procedures, etc. do not contain elements like prayer or meditation that do not directly engage the physical world. Second, when new evidence appears that the existing theory cannot explain, scientists will revisit the theory. Priests will usually discount the evidence as anomalous, or criticize it as heresy, since adjusting the theory could call into question the entire belief system. There are, of course, exceptions to both tendencies due to individual variation, but the fact that individuals depart from an ideal does not change that ideal.

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