• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Modesty, self-esteem and body confidence?

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
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?
 
O

Oberon

Guest
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.

:D :D :D :D

The Pharohs were scientists?! :D :D

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.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
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.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
:D :D :D :D

The Pharohs were scientists?! :D :D

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.

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].
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
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?
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
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.
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 
Top