Isn't it refreshing to know there are people like Pat Robertson who is convinced that he is able to scientifically account for catastrophic occurrences such as the Haitian disaster. He understands that 200 years ago Haity (I guess he means every Hatian) made a pact with the devil. And now 200 years ago they are getting their due. Now how come I couldn't have figured that out for myself.; It is so obvious and neat and clean. If only we had more thinkers lie him.
-----Original Message----- From: archytas <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Jan 13, 2010 6:31 pm Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: science The sum of energy in the universe is often considered as zero. Science is clearly not just about answers. Most of us would say it is about asking questions that can be resolved by observation and experiment, one reason string theories may not qualify as physics (yet). Problems in social science often arise because we are dealing with interpretations rather than 'nature' (though science accepts observations are theory laden and hence our views on what nature 'is'). Hence 'hermeneutics', though I feel these are unreliable rather than 'guaranteeing truth' in Gadamer's dogma. At some point in any enquiry we are likely to be in a creative thinking phase in an imagination in which anything goes if we can think it up. This is needed to break up dogma, even if we end up putting it together again, perhaps with a better idea of how it works. The 'observation states' of observers are often excluded from consideration, generally a mistake across all the disciplines. There is still a prevalent notion that one can somehow achieve an objective state of observation and thinking. On analysis, this turns out to have a great deal to do with manners and connected social dogmas. General argumentation contains many rhetorical tricks and plays with words, often to conceal lying and ignorance and present an objective voice that is nothing of the kind and actually appeals to ignorance and soaked-up tradition. Science tries to makes its assumptions patent. Often we get very precise, as in our understanding of CO2 absorption of long-wave energies and subsequent photon-puking; but to pretend this in global warming models (the precision) is not science. Lay people get into a real mess on this point. We can only be agnostic about god in thought. This very agnosticism is probably at the root of scientific consideration of theory and evidence - the trend is towards consideration of theories as under- determined by evidence, and evidence as more worthy of epistemic faith than theory at any time we know of (yet). None of this rules out consideration of religion. I broadly consider most of it a mess of lies, but this does not stop me admiring someone who has found peace and wishes to share that peace (as long as this doesn't involve daft gestures of walking towards hostile aliens, bible aloft - though they might be a useful, heroic diversion). On 13 Jan, 17:15, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 Jan, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 13 Jan., 12:21, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Kant? Wasn't he 'the pissant who was very rarely stable'? > > > "A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed ..." :-) > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc > > Absotively, Posilutely!! -- 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.--
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.
