Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 416 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by Marchimedes
05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 4
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#28478 - 11/25/08 08:53 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Anonymous


The question “What is the ultimate aim of science?” is not really a question. It is merely a string of words with a question mark at the end.
But then the statement above is just a string of words with a period at the end, and doesn't really express the extent of reality. Maybe an opinion or belief or an experience...
Expansion of consciousness or the ongoing movement of reality that is absolute is reflected in our actions and our interaction with the manifest which includes strings of words even if they have little conscious meaning. How clear the intellect is or how clouded the intellect is as the mirror of the absolute, is part and parcel to the active absolute and how it is expressed and experienced in conscious awareness.
The science of conscious awareness is the discovery of consciousness as the source and the expansion of it into manifestation and the exploration of its potential regardless of the fact that it has no boundaries or limits.

Relative Sciences deal with relative ideals, opinions, beliefs and the structures within natural laws that can only exist within the manifest reality of awareness of the absolute.
It still happens to be consciousness being aware of itself, and is not an illusion, but a heartbeat of life as immortal as infinity is to the extent of ideas regarding who we are and what the world is.

You cannot stop it even if you decide its not real, or if you decide it is meaningless.
Science is a rhythmic reflection of the evolution of the intellect in the soul.
Not unlike a child wandering in life discovering what it can do and what it wants to do.
Only ego puts on the labels of what it is and what it isn't and holds it there.
Consciousness is free to express itself any way it wishes, even if it's a string of words with a period or a question mark, or even capitol letters in quotations... wink


I'm not trying to stop anything, and, I certainly did not attach any subjective values to my statement such as "not real" or "meaningless" as regards science. My statement referred to a question that can have no answer. Science is a concept and concepts cannot have "aims'.

"Absolute, The Absolute, evolution of the intellect in the soul..."? Sounds more like New Age Religion than science. "Immortal"? You mean something, of us, could survive a Big Crunch? Where do you get the data for this stuff?

I understand there is a topic here called Not Quite Science or something like that. I think that's where rhythmic reflections and heartbeats of the soul belong.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
.
#28479 - 11/25/08 09:11 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Anonymous]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
When you refer to the "ultimate AIM of science", you assign "science" a sentient characteristic...I read atheists referring to science and/or evolution, quite frequently, as if these concepts possessed a mind capable of having a goal.

I'm sure you know better. It should be obvious that in this thread 'the aim of science' = 'the aim of doing science". Failure to acknowledge that (and the rest of your post) suggests that you're splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to denigrate atheists.

This forum has become bogged down in such NQS, but I guess it's a sign of the times.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#28480 - 11/25/08 09:28 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: redewenur]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
When you refer to the "ultimate AIM of science", you assign "science" a sentient characteristic...I read atheists referring to science and/or evolution, quite frequently, as if these concepts possessed a mind capable of having a goal.

I'm sure you know better. It should be obvious that in this thread 'the aim of science' = 'the aim of doing science". Failure to acknowledge that (and the rest of your post) suggests that you're splitting semantic hairs in an attempt to denigrate atheists.

This forum has become bogged down in such NQS, but I guess it's a sign of the times.


Denigrate atheists? You read a lot into a simple statement. A lot that just isn't there. As an avowed agnostic, I have no wish to denigrate atheists... or anyone else, for that matter. And in fact I was not. But, just because I identify with atheists and agnostics doesn't mean that I should hold them to a lesser standard in logic than I would a theist.

What is "obvious" is subjective. Intuitive. If you mean "doing science", say "doing science". Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science. They have a place in our emotions and they do just fine there. But to use them in science is to dilute the meaning of the word. It becomes pseudo-science instead.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28481 - 11/25/08 09:50 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Science is a concept and concepts cannot have "aims'.

"Absolute, The Absolute, evolution of the intellect in the soul..."? Sounds more like New Age Religion than science. "Immortal"? You mean something, of us, could survive a Big Crunch? Where do you get the data for this stuff?

I understand there is a topic here called Not Quite Science or something like that. I think that's where rhythmic reflections and heartbeats of the soul belong.

If Science cannot have aims it must be limited by beliefs. That would be dogma, same as that of religion.

It's the interest in reality that motivates the mind toward greater understanding.
Just because someone doesn't believe spirituality is relative to science doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in science, it just means someone thinks one way and doesn't want to think any other way.
Where is the data that says there is something of us that can't survive a big crunch?
Have we reached an absolute in knowledge that we must rule out a universal intelligence that has designed and bred order into creation?

I can understand prejudice and the need to specialize when it stretches the mind to uncomfortable limits. Some will always demand certain subjects be defined as not worthy of fitting in a category. But where does our search begin and end when the potential for understanding continues to evolve and expand beyond the boxes we insisted could not expand further than the projections of theory and belief that must be democratic to be real?
How much of science is a belief, and what really separates it from the definitions of religion if one insists it be narrowed by certain thoughts and beliefs?

One God is the same as another. You worship the nuts and bolts of the universe or the mechanism as a living entity, or thru superstition and fear you shut out what you fear could take your identity of reality away because it doesn't fit your belief in the world.

Today's data is going to give way to tomorrows discoveries and a whole new way of thinking.
How does mankind fit into the scheme of things? Are we part of the process or subject to its process without any consequence?

Should Science automatically assume we humans are nothing more than a meatbag within some haphazard and random ocurrence, and that we are destined to remain insignificant to forces we assume we have no connection to other than as observers to mechanical process?

I think science, is waking up to a much bigger picture, leaving those who are so stubborn as to deny any intelligence other than what we can prove today within the limits of our knowledge in humanity as the rule and only reality in the universe behind.

Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science.

Then humans are victim to knowledge and expansion of knowledge rather than part of it, and beliefs can never evolve into awareness without being subject to ridicule.
Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are.

How do you separate imagination inspiration and intuition?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28482 - 11/25/08 10:06 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Denigrate atheists? You read a lot into a simple statement.

Apologies, I did indeed misinterpret you.

Originally Posted By: Iztaci
What is "obvious" is subjective. Intuitive. If you mean "doing science", say "doing science". Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science. They have a place in our emotions and they do just fine there. But to use them in science is to dilute the meaning of the word. It becomes pseudo-science instead.

You'll note that I'm not discussing intuition in science (where it has evidently lead to a great deal of productive work), but rather the false idea that it's necessary, or even helpful, to subject many of the minutiae of daily events to logical analysis, and thus miss that which can be grasped intuitively without difficulty.

However, this is a digression from the topic.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#28483 - 11/25/08 11:11 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: redewenur]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Denigrate atheists? You read a lot into a simple statement.

Apologies, I did indeed misinterpret you.

Originally Posted By: Iztaci
What is "obvious" is subjective. Intuitive. If you mean "doing science", say "doing science". Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science. They have a place in our emotions and they do just fine there. But to use them in science is to dilute the meaning of the word. It becomes pseudo-science instead.

You'll note that I'm not discussing intuition in science (where it has surely lead to a great deal of productive research), but rather the false idea that it's necessary, or even helpful, to subject many of the minutiae of daily events to logical analysis, and thus miss which can be grasped intuitively without difficulty.

However, this is a digression from the topic.


Perhaps I misused the word intuition. Like you, I hate getting mired in the minutia but definition goes a lot further than the dictionary. It goes to the individual interpretation of the standard definition. To some, intuition is something mysterious that comes from the aether or some concept of a "collective conscience". I'm afraid I may have used it thus. I believe it is actually the result of familiarity with a subject through study. Valuable, as you indicate.

The only thing I meant to say, in the beginning of this debate, is that we should be careful in assigning sentient-like qualities to a concept. A concept has no aims. It is a tool no different than a ruler or a compass.

As to the "aim" of those "doing" science, the possible ideas are infinite. As infinite as the designs of fingerprints or irises or snowflakes. The best we can do is arrive at a consensus. And a hundred and fifty years ago the general consensus on flight was: "If God wanted mankind to fly, He would have given them wings."

I'm not saying that scientific thought is the only thought worthwhile. Emotional thought is just as important. As you implied, it can lead to the research that discovers a cure or leads to some kind of improvement in our lives. But the inspiration is not the science. E does not equal inspiration times the speed of light*(*Knowhattimeanhere?). We need both the emotion/inspiration/gut feeling and science to make things work. But... when we mix them, we wind up with snake-oil hucksters and nutritionists, Pat Robertson and Deepak Chopra, urban legends and apocrypha. We need both but we must cook them in different pots.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28484 - 11/25/08 11:32 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Science is a concept and concepts cannot have "aims'.

"Absolute, The Absolute, evolution of the intellect in the soul..."? Sounds more like New Age Religion than science. "Immortal"? You mean something, of us, could survive a Big Crunch? Where do you get the data for this stuff?

I understand there is a topic here called Not Quite Science or something like that. I think that's where rhythmic reflections and heartbeats of the soul belong.

If Science cannot have aims it must be limited by beliefs. That would be dogma, same as that of religion.

It's the interest in reality that motivates the mind toward greater understanding.
Just because someone doesn't believe spirituality is relative to science doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in science, it just means someone thinks one way and doesn't want to think any other way.
Where is the data that says there is something of us that can't survive a big crunch?
Have we reached an absolute in knowledge that we must rule out a universal intelligence that has designed and bred order into creation?

I can understand prejudice and the need to specialize when it stretches the mind to uncomfortable limits. Some will always demand certain subjects be defined as not worthy of fitting in a category. But where does our search begin and end when the potential for understanding continues to evolve and expand beyond the boxes we insisted could not expand further than the projections of theory and belief that must be democratic to be real?
How much of science is a belief, and what really separates it from the definitions of religion if one insists it be narrowed by certain thoughts and beliefs?

One God is the same as another. You worship the nuts and bolts of the universe or the mechanism as a living entity, or thru superstition and fear you shut out what you fear could take your identity of reality away because it doesn't fit your belief in the world.

Today's data is going to give way to tomorrows discoveries and a whole new way of thinking.
How does mankind fit into the scheme of things? Are we part of the process or subject to its process without any consequence?

Should Science automatically assume we humans are nothing more than a meatbag within some haphazard and random ocurrence, and that we are destined to remain insignificant to forces we assume we have no connection to other than as observers to mechanical process?

I think science, is waking up to a much bigger picture, leaving those who are so stubborn as to deny any intelligence other than what we can prove today within the limits of our knowledge in humanity as the rule and only reality in the universe behind.

Originally Posted By: Iztaci
Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science.

Then humans are victim to knowledge and expansion of knowledge rather than part of it, and beliefs can never evolve into awareness without being subject to ridicule.
Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are.

How do you separate imagination inspiration and intuition?


I'm afraid I can't debate with you. If I answered to everything I disagreed with or see as logical fallacy in your posts, I would use up all the space others, who could possibly learn something from each other, might use. I think it would be better if we just agreed to disagree. I know that's cliche but hey, sometimes ya just gotta.

Regards.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28485 - 11/25/08 06:55 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Iztaci


I'm afraid I can't debate with you. If I answered to everything I disagreed with or see as logical fallacy in your posts, I would use up all the space others, who could possibly learn something from each other, might use. I think it would be better if we just agreed to disagree. I know that's cliche but hey, sometimes ya just gotta.

Regards.

No problem, there is opportunity to gain something from the approach to debate. That is self reflection. People often take too much for granted on the basis of who they are and measure themselves according to data rather than from their own subjective and objective experience.
Debates become meaningful for textbook thinking, but eventually one has to stop thinking from their software programs and discover who they are and how intimately they are connected with the universe to really see what it is.
Then debates can evolve into the ongoing expression of the universe and all that it is.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28489 - 11/25/08 09:17 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Iztaci


I'm afraid I can't debate with you. If I answered to everything I disagreed with or see as logical fallacy in your posts, I would use up all the space others, who could possibly learn something from each other, might use. I think it would be better if we just agreed to disagree. I know that's cliche but hey, sometimes ya just gotta.

Regards.

No problem, there is opportunity to gain something from the approach to debate. That is self reflection. People often take too much for granted on the basis of who they are and measure themselves according to data rather than from their own subjective and objective experience.
Debates become meaningful for textbook thinking, but eventually one has to stop thinking from their software programs and discover who they are and how intimately they are connected with the universe to really see what it is.
Then debates can evolve into the ongoing expression of the universe and all that it is.


C'mon now. Tell me the truth. You're stealing this stuff from Shirley McClain aren't you.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28491 - 11/25/08 10:31 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
If I was to steal something of hers she would have something she could lose. In this case she hasn't lost anything. And you have everything to gain.

Everybody wins. cool
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28493 - 11/26/08 03:03 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Isn't it fascinating the way this 'simple ' query has become so bogged within the various competing ideologies?

Surely the aim of science is to find out all about stuff!! With all due respect to the 'real' scientists who post here, I think that they would mostly agree that this simple wish to understand EVERYTHING is what motivated them when they asked why the sky is blue when they were a child, and it still motivates them now.

I 've suggested that civilisation runs parallel to science. I still think it does, but I also think it is a rare scientist, for example, who starts out an area of research with the end of discovering a substance that allows eggs to slide around the pan instead of sticking as a primary aim. It's much more likely that such a great innovation happened by chance, perhaps whilst exploring something different, like Space Travel. Certainly research into the nature of the atom took a drastic turn unanticipated by the scientists involved at the start.

So that's what I think is the aim of science...to find out all about stuff! (Even if the stuff that is found out ha nothing to do with the original idea! )


TT-- He's/she's on to you!!!

"You're stealing this stuff from Shirley McClain aren't you."

Top
#28494 - 11/26/08 03:53 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Ellis]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Ellis

TT-- He's/she's on to you!!!


Damn! I hate when that happens.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28496 - 11/26/08 04:29 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I find this statement interesting, "Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."

what do you mean by;"and we must HYYPNOTIZE ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."



Top
#28499 - 11/26/08 05:09 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Anonymous]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
I find this statement interesting, "Our ideas must be thrown aside, beliefs detached from thought and we must hypnotize ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."

what do you mean by;"and we must HYYPNOTIZE ourselves into pure objectivity without thought of who or what we are."




I was being partially facetious in order to stimulate the cut and dried statement toward a greater idea. Responding to the statement..
Quote:
Intuition and subjectivity have no place in science.

The Human mind is connected to the flow of the Universe which has intelligence. It is what connects us to ideas that become part of our reality when something new is discovered or invented.
In one sense the wheel wasn't invented but realized. It was only unknown until someone brought it forth from potential. Same as anything that has been discovered. Nothing we say is impossible is impossible when it becomes reality.
A Man that doesn't comprehend ideas before he is ready to put those ideas into experience and gain something from it, does not limit potential, potential is just ignored or not realized.

There is a saying: If you can conceptualize something it exists somewhere in time and space. Intuition is part of universal mind, it is what inspires us or draws our awareness to greater potential like a moth is attracted to a flame.

In one sense hypnosis is the cause of limited sight. We condition ourselves to believe in a particular thought about life and being.
If we remove belief from awareness it becomes innocent to potential. If we add belief to potential it can focus potential into manifestation.
If we hypnotize ourselves into thinking we are separate from universal intelligence and potential then science that has no room for intuition and belief is unfocused and unimaginative.
A software program specifically designed to run in one direction only.

The human potential is only limited by those beliefs that are self imposed. Science then follows limitation of belief like a 5th wheel behind a truck. If you drive it over a cliff the 5th wheel follows you.

Belief if applied objectively can be constructive. Belief applied religiously destructive.
One has to become self aware to utilize potential, otherwise one can only see on road and one destination.

Science in order to be effective is without boundaries or limitations. Can't as an absolute is always such a limited thought when it is loosely applied without deeper thought and awareness.
You can take anything and make it into something, and take something and make it into anything.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28500 - 11/26/08 07:20 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Ellis]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Isn't it fascinating the way this 'simple ' query has become so bogged within the various competing ideologies?

Surely the aim of science is to find out all about stuff!! With all due respect to the 'real' scientists who post here, I think that they would mostly agree that this simple wish to understand EVERYTHING is what motivated them when they asked why the sky is blue when they were a child, and it still motivates them now.

I 've suggested that civilisation runs parallel to science. I still think it does, but I also think it is a rare scientist, for example, who starts out an area of research with the end of discovering a substance that allows eggs to slide around the pan instead of sticking as a primary aim. It's much more likely that such a great innovation happened by chance, perhaps whilst exploring something different, like Space Travel. Certainly research into the nature of the atom took a drastic turn unanticipated by the scientists involved at the start.

So that's what I think is the aim of science...to find out all about stuff! (Even if the stuff that is found out ha nothing to do with the original idea! )


TT-- He's/she's on to you!!!

"You're stealing this stuff from Shirley McClain aren't you."


I would certainly agree with your first two statements and would also agree with the rest in a general way. However I don't think it is as rare as you think for a scientist to prove or disprove what he/she started out to discover. True, there are a lot of accidental discoveries along the way. I spent 40 years in a scientific occupation and neither me or any of my peers, that I know, ever discovered anything. Tens of thousands of "scientists" are engaged in pursuits that do not lend themselves to discovery. They simply practice their science in practical applications. Practical scientists don't get the press. Theoretical scientists do. In my line, geophysics, most are involved in data acquisition. Acquisition scientists are not headliners. The geophysicists who get the press work in the lab and formulate predictive theory. If you live in CA., that's what you want to hear about, not the guy who collected the data. So, for every discovery you hear about, whether accidental or not, there are a thousand times more scientists who just follow the algorithm and report the result.

You are certainly correct in that civilization follows innovation. Every major discovery is quickly embedded in the culture. American cities, for instance, are literally designed around the automobile.

While your idea that it's all curiosity is fine as far as it goes, go one layer down from there and things get sticky. What causes curiosity? Is the mind simply a product of the brain and curiosity just got wired in by some supreme designer or a-causal chance? Or not? Where I draw the line is when I hear some "authority" whipping out his deep knowledge to beat you over the head with it. These people are, quite simply, full of s***. When you analyze the "logic" in their statements and cross out the logical fallacy, you end up with 100% woo. I ain't got time. There are too many rational people out there I want to talk to.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28501 - 11/26/08 07:54 AM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
Where I draw the line is when I hear some "authority" whipping out his deep knowledge to beat you over the head with it. These people are, quite simply, full of s***. When you analyze the "logic" in their statements and cross out the logical fallacy, you end up with 100% woo. I ain't got time. There are too many rational people out there I want to talk to.

Where most draw lines is when personal belief is shadowed by alternative thinking that doesn't fit within the box of belief.
When you analyze reality and it refuses to be forced into compliance it is easily dismissed without attempting to expand vision to a new level.
The idea that anyone could act as the absolute authority is only the reaction to ones fear they might lose control of their ideals be they standardized by rationality founded by democratic social standards that will have little meaning when those who believe in those standards are dead and buried.

One can make time or not, that is the condition of a closed or open mind. Life is full of choices, for some. Without choice for the suffering.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#28502 - 11/26/08 06:17 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
[quote]
Where most draw lines is when personal belief is shadowed by alternative thinking that doesn't fit within the box of belief.
When you analyze reality and it refuses to be forced into compliance it is easily dismissed without attempting to expand vision to a new level.
The idea that anyone could act as the absolute authority is only the reaction to ones fear they might lose control of their ideals be they standardized by rationality founded by democratic social standards that will have little meaning when those who believe in those standards are dead and buried.

One can make time or not, that is the condition of a closed or open mind. Life is full of choices, for some. Without choice for the suffering.


"Where most draw lines..."

Classic weasel words. A staple of politicians, lawyers and snake-oil hucksters. "Well, we all know..." "It's common knowledge that..." "Anyone with a brain can tell you..." "If you really think about it..." "Common sense would tell you..." There are lists of these classics all over the net. It's Logical Fallacy 101. It's in the required course load for liberal arts courses at any JuCo in the country. Anytime you read a statement prefaced with weasel words, you can bet what comes next is woo. Nothing but woo. Your diatribe here is no exception. All your posts, that I have read, consist primarily of weasel words, tautology, circuitous statements and bad cliché.

"One can make time or not,"
Thanks for that! Nice to know that I can "make" time. I'll try to get that to Stephen Hawking as quickly as possible. He'll probably want to abridge his books.

"that is the condition of a closed or open mind."
Wow! You are so full of new facts.

"Life is full of choices, for some."
A new type of rhetorical statement. Not just rhetorical but a Qualified Rhetorical Statement with the qualifier at the end of the statement. Let's call it QRS just for S&Gs. Or, we could just call it RRBC (Really Really Bad Cliché)

"Without choice for the suffering."
I think MS Word would flag this as a fragment. You are in bad need of another clause.

So... like I implied when I tried to opt out of further dialog with you, it would take a week to cross out your errors in logic in just one post. Now, I've gone and wasted a big block of time talking to a big block of basalt. I guess I'm just a sucker for this brand of metabolic by-product.





Edited by Iztaci (11/26/08 06:51 PM)
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28505 - 11/26/08 07:59 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Stick wih it Izzy---he's annoyingly addictive!

Top
#28506 - 11/26/08 09:40 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Ellis]
Iztaci Offline
Member

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 84
Loc: Rocky Mt. West
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Stick wih it Izzy---he's annoyingly addictive!


Well, maybe so but... I come to these forums to learn. I'm looking for that rare "surfer dude" with something cogent to offer. I have to keep in mind that these people don't just show up every time you dial in. The occasional side-trip argument can be fun but they wear out pretty quickly and I find myself moving on when no more interesting responses are posted. How much time are you willing to spend trying to punch a hole in a cloud? I may be a little quixotic but there are limits.

But thanks for the encouragement.
_________________________
When you talk to me like I'm five, I want to write on you with a crayon. -- Joanna Hoffman

Top
#28507 - 11/26/08 10:51 PM Re: What is the ultimate aim of science? [Re: Iztaci]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
I may be a little quixotic but there are limits.


Predictable would be the word I would use, because of your limits.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.