Open-mindedness explained

[Nicodemus]

How can I speak of the world as the other truth if the world predominately believes in scientific truth?

The world as in 'that which lies behind all appearance', the 'thing in itself'.

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

The world as in 'that which lies behind all appearance', the 'thing in itself'.

It would be very misleading to associate the nature of truth to the world. You exercise your belief like anyone else, and the world predominately believes sciences to be truth. That is why I say how can I refer to them separately?

 

[Nicodemus]

It would be very misleading to associate the nature of truth to the world. You exercise your belief like anyone else, and the world predominately believes sciences to be truth. That is why I say how can I refer to them separately?

Okay, play alone...

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

Okay, play alone...

Who, to me, is knowledge, is to you yet to be believed. This is why you see me as alone.

 

[INTP]

I think the scientific process is well intentioned to discover more but ultimately would have to be defined as the more close-minded paridigm because it's in constant denial that truth exists before proof ever does or could. In science, truth is only determined to exist once the empirical framework of proof has been built under it, yet truth is totally independent of our means of proving it. Therefore there is no objective person, but only truth and different tolerances for believing it. Since there is no objectively true person (besides Jesus Christ but know I am suspending my knowledge to write this) then there is no absolutely objective human methodologies, only religions which attempt to reflect truth to varying degrees of success, science being the most successful because by its nature is to rigorously isolate itself from anything personal.

Science seeks to isolate itself from anything personal because, as I said, there is no objectively true person. Therefore, it is an disillusioned jump in reason to think we have created an absolutely objective methodology. To do so is to merely believe in science rather than truth, and a person only does this because they have a low tolerance of belief. You may intuit now, correctly, that believing in science will never be the same as believing the truth. It is better, and more true, to believe.

Lol, scientific method isnt about denying anything before it has been proven to be right, its about keeping the options open until it has been proven to be true.. You are the one whos doing the denying(and projecting it onto who you consider as your opposites) about the things that has been shown to you, for example believing that world is around 6000 years old, even tho we have found people and animals older than that..

 

[Synapse]

An invaluable ability, I enjoyed his views.
The speaker sounds so frustrated.
Yes open mindedness, when ones energy is in a fixed position is anyone open minded to receive? Same side of the coin.

 

[highlander]

It's a strange thing but that video really annoys me.

 

[King sns]

It's a strange thing but that video really annoys me.

Yeah, it's a bit over-explanatory and condescending. 9:40 to explain something that could have been done in 2 minutes? Other than that, it was okay, kind of self evident. Funny and entertaining @ times.

 

[Blank]

[MENTION=15136]EvidenceOfRedemption[/MENTION], what I think [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] was trying to say is that there's a difference between what the world is and what we can describe about it. Science seeks to "describe" the world as best it can; it does not seek to claim what it "is."

It's all well and good if you experience the world in your own way, but if you can't accurately describe your experiences, then it really does nothing to benefit others.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

"You're mom fell off a bridge and got eaten by a shark? I don't know man, I'm gonna need to see her limbs."

 

[INTP]

"You're mom fell off a bridge and got eaten by a shark? I don't know man, I'm gonna need to see her limbs."

He did explain that in certain situations its better to accept things without proofs. Did you even watch the whole video?

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

[MENTION=15136]EvidenceOfRedemption[/MENTION], what I think [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] was trying to say is that there's a difference between what the world is and what we can describe about it. Science seeks to "describe" the world as best it can; it does not seek to claim what it "is."

It's all well and good if you experience the world in your own way, but if you can't accurately describe your experiences, then it really does nothing to benefit others.

Science doesn't seek anything, but scientists certainly do - and they make claims about what "it" "is". For an easy to find reference, search in the subcategory "news" for "claim claims scientist mars life", or even "claim claims scientist". Lots of scientists, lots of claims about what "it" "is" and lots of those claims are in contradiction with other claims.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

He did explain that in certain situations its better to accept things without proofs. Did you even watch the whole video?

Yes, I did.