Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Faith for the Scientist

With the best will in the world, when I read one of your posts (or anyone else's) the content is filtered through my understanding, and coloured by my life experiences, so I may never really hear what you are saying. Obviosly, this works in both directions, so although discussion may help to clarify the situation, there can never be absolute certainty of mutual understanding.

Understanding is relative.

So is (obviously) the idea of real communication or dialogue.

You are absolutely, right! and I absolutely agree--in a relative sort of way.

To have everyone agree that we live within the boundaries of relative precepts, even if they are conflicting or distant from any kind of understanding?

tragedy and desperation does seem to bring people together

This may be true, but it misses my point which is that the understanding of that agreement which each participating individual has will be the result of filtering information through each person's mental/psychological system. Thus, there is no guarantee that participants are actually agreeing to what other participants believe they are agreeing to.

I guess that's why we pay the legal profession an arm and a leg to produce documents in a language that we all agree is incomprehensible to the layman

Not to mention interpreters if the language is not your usual one. The interpreter has to be skilful enough to convey the intent of the message in both the original language and the unknown one.

Thee was a news story on TV here the other day about the need for interpreters for doctors and hospitals. There are over a hundred different languages spoken by people here in Tulsa, and this is just a medium sized city. There are around 750,000 people in the metropolitan area. But when somebody has to see a doctor and nobody around speaks their language there can be huge problems figuring out what their problem is. As you said they need an interpreter that understands both sides of the conversation, and that can be hard to find in a medical setting.

Bill Gill

Rwy'n siwr nad yw un ohonynt yn Gymraeg

Don't trust the Google translation of this!

In the determination of what is good or evil, the will to cast illusions is a force that is vacuous.

Scientists need to be more precise: Of course, just as there is such a thing as junk science--the kind based on flawed theories--there is also such a thing as a blind and irrational kind of faith, the kind singled out above. In addition, there is such a thing as having a little faith, or having a weak one.

But let us not forget: A courageous, strong and sighted faith, like a good theory, is possible. It is the kind possessed by people with a deep respect for reason. It is very compatible with the scientific approach and with having a broad kind of education. People with a strong, educated, courageous and sighted faith will not foolishly leap blindly into the dark, but rather take a careful walk in the light they have.

Rev wrote...." but ... take a careful walk in the light they have."

What apt phrase, and something we should all try to do!

Everyone does the best they can. However righteousness is going to be subjective, and who knows what is good for all?
Growth and evolution is not without challenges. Sometimes you have to create chaos to be able to recognize it. Then it becomes useful and a good thing.

Wisdom often follows a path of education that is outside of determinism and the acceptable programming of the herd mentality. Something not easily recognized by mainstream programs of dogmatic education and social mores.

A person can be crucified for bucking the system.

How about a concrete example, rather than a vague, clever sounding pronouncement which would require blind faith if it were to be accepted?

http://www.cottagemed.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=13

As contrast to a lack of insight, chaos could be determined to be something that has gotten out of the control of those who have great ideas, and subsequently acted upon the idea without the knowledge of the outcome.

One example:
Thalidomide and it's application to ease morning sickness
http://www.google.com/search?q=thalidomi...024&bih=644

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/16limb.html?pagewanted=all

Interesting to know just what the thalidomide experience has taught us.

http://www.drhadwentrust.org/downloads/W...l%20testing.pdf

Well I hope it did teach us something. It was a distressing episode that could possibly have been prevented.

That is a thought provoking article you posted Bill S. It seems the tragic outcomes of not testing exhaustively are dire, but we do need medical research to continue, perhaps more than ever now that we have so many resistant organisms emerging.

I have read that once the patent on some quite effective proven drugs expire the big Pharmas do not bother with producing them any more. Maybe we should be using the tested by time drugs that still work as well as the new one-shot wonders that are pushed so hard by the companies.