Yes, it is even more than I had expected to get. Thank you very much!
OM
On Apr 28, 10:51 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we're talking about mathematical proof, I can't say I'm concerned
> about those particular proofs very often. When it comes to science,
> for the most part I accept the word of general concensus of
> scientists, since I am not a scientist. Even if I were, I'm sure I
> wouldn't have the ability to learn each field in depth to challenge
> those who make the subject in question their life's work.
>
> When it comes to human behaviour.. I use myself as a barometer. I pay
> attention to my behaviours and their motivations. Especially the ones
> that people generally don't admit to in public. When someone does
> something that I don't understand, I try to imagine a situation that I
> might behave in the same way. In that way I attempt to evaluate the
> claims of knowledge of reasons for people's actions.
>
> Then for day to day things, I attempt to use reason, trying to cut
> through prejudices and adjust for points of view, myself and others.
>
> Then I weight the proof in my head from "probably not true, given the
> source, but possible", to "I'm certain this is right, and if its not,
> then I seriously need to reevaluate myself". Also a second scale is
> helpful ranging from "this is amazingly important to how I should be
> living day to day" to "true or false, it has very little effect on my
> life".
>
> Umm.. is that what you wanted to know?
>
> On Apr 28, 11:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So lon, what do you use to determine whether a proof is valid?
>
> > On Apr 28, 9:06 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > ornamentalmind,
>
> > > Yup, I'm BSing, and I hope I get points because I'm willing to admit
> > > it. I do believe my own BS though, until proved otherwise. ;)
>
> > > On Apr 28, 10:47 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "...Back when, there was not a thing such as Religion (believe in
> > > > things
> > > > that can't be proved). There was just stuff people knew in order to
> > > > survive, some of which were true, some were untrue, but not worth
> > > > testing, just in case. Gods were just an obvious explanation, it was
> > > > Occam's razor for the time." - Lon
>
> > > > Of course, this too is but opinion/belief. No papers 'proving' it
> > > > anywhere I can find at least.
>
> > > > Occam, when turned upon itself melts.
>
> > > > On Apr 28, 8:34 am, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's really an odd question. To postulate you'd be able to seperate
> > > > > say, the Greek Pantheon from Greek Civilization. When did religion
> > > > > really become into being?
>
> > > > > Today's common definition of Religion automatically makes the concept
> > > > > stupid. It basically breaks down into: the belief of things that
> > > > > can't be proved or are untrue. It must be about unprovable things,
> > > > > elsewise, why would you have to believe, instead of know? I think the
> > > > > problem today is that we have ways of proving and disproving things,
> > > > > but they have little to say about how we should behave. And it's
> > > > > really hard to decide to behave one way or another based on any reason
> > > > > science gives us.
>
> > > > > Back when, there was not a thing such as Religion (believe in things
> > > > > that can't be proved). There was just stuff people knew in order to
> > > > > survive, some of which were true, some were untrue, but not worth
> > > > > testing, just in case. Gods were just an obvious explanation, it was
> > > > > Occam's razor for the time.
>
> > > > > When humans went beyond simple survival, Religion was born. Even the
> > > > > most scientific people deal with belief today, though they may not
> > > > > include a God. Take global warning... is it real and human caused?
> > > > > God knows there are scientists out there to prove just that, even if
> > > > > it is not so. Because, they believe certain things: that nature
> > > > > should progress with as little human impact as possible. You can't
> > > > > scientifically prove that something like that is true. You may say
> > > > > that it is better for human survival, but even that is not exactly
> > > > > provable, and still requires the belief that our survival is a Good
> > > > > thing.
>
> > > > > I don't think you can disentangle belief from human kind, history or
> > > > > future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
