Please let me give you my take in a friendly way without you being offended.
The science behind these issues is extensive and requires much study and work to understand. It cannot be adequately explained in a few posts unless you start with a good, broad knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology. Your expectations that there ought to be simple, hermetic answers to deep, difficult questions is unreasonable.
What grates on some people is an attitude of, "I read some comic book version of a scientific theory, don't really understand it, but I feel qualified to loudly state my opinions about it." You're not alone in doing this; I've seen some hilariously uninformed pontifications from prominent and otherwise-smart politicians on many technical issues.
Before you tag people as "pseudoscientists" because of your annoyance about non-scientific issues, go crack the books, learn something about science from actual scientists, and then feel free to disagree in an informed way. You'll be taken a lot more seriously.
The science behind these issues is extensive and requires much study and work to understand. It cannot be adequately explained in a few posts unless you start with a good, broad knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology. Your expectations that there ought to be simple, hermetic answers to deep, difficult questions is unreasonable.
What grates on some people is an attitude of, "I read some comic book version of a scientific theory, don't really understand it, but I feel qualified to loudly state my opinions about it." You're not alone in doing this; I've seen some hilariously uninformed pontifications from prominent and otherwise-smart politicians on many technical issues.
Before you tag people as "pseudoscientists" because of your annoyance about non-scientific issues, go crack the books, learn something about science from actual scientists, and then feel free to disagree in an informed way. You'll be taken a lot more seriously.
kingdaddy said:
That was before the mathematicians started exploring chaos/complexity theory... now such "impossible" events can be shown to be almost inevitable
dave
kingdaddy, either apologize or back up your statements. Calling me a pseudoscientist is the worst insult you could have thrown at me, even worse than saying nasty things about my mother.
That's funny, p10; I often refer to my wife as a Strange Attractor.
It will be most interesting to see if ET life is still based on some sort of nucleic acid blueprint.
It will be most interesting to see if ET life is still based on some sort of nucleic acid blueprint.
I'll jump in with my own opinion.
Nobody really KNOWS anything exactly how the universe is or was.
Athiests and the like should simply be self-satisfied with their own ideas. So what if someone else believes in a god?
And vice-versa with religious types.
Politics has been the great murderer in human history, not religion.
John
Nobody really KNOWS anything exactly how the universe is or was.
Athiests and the like should simply be self-satisfied with their own ideas. So what if someone else believes in a god?
And vice-versa with religious types.
Politics has been the great murderer in human history, not religion.
John
SY said:
So there is no knowledge without reading? What happened to original thinking, has it all been done? Do I have to read to be smart in your eyes; if I do some reading can I play then? I guess before there were books there was no intelligence, if that’s so then how did intelligence get started, which came first, written knowledge or knowledge? Does it have to be written down to be valid or true?
I find it a bit embarrassing when a group of narcissistic science talking people get together to discuss any subject as if they are the only ones with the knowledge to ponder a deep subject, the arrogance is sickening. The meaning and origins of life are not that hard to understand, if you really want to know anyone can. The closer you examine something in detail the less you know about the purpose, and vise versa.
True knowledge comes from desire to understand not reading.
Of course this is all just my opinion, nothing more.
Prune:
Didn’t realize a pseudo scientist was such a bad word, should I call you a real scientist? Is that what you do for a living, if so I apologize, I didn’t know. If not then don’t take it so hard, you use a lot of aggressive science theory as fact to support your view so it goes with the territory. I mean no disrespect, just venting frustration of the communication (ego) barrier that chokes these kinds of discussions.
kingdaddy said:
So, after you have the desire, what do you do with it?
Reading is a good place to start, no? Or are you privy to other exclusive bases. (of knowledge)
kingdaddy, if you want to edit your post it's OK, 'cause that statement is, well... not exactly forwarding your argument. I have understood your side of this until now. Sometimes things said in the heat of the moment don't always come out the way you want them to. I'd push the rewind button here.
Cal
Dude, this has nothing to do with ego. I'm abrasive due to my frustration with the failure of the education system to teach critical thinking, and holding the same arguments over and over. I've become set in my position not because of beliefs, but because of evidence and educated rational examination, educated to avoid the usual pitfalls (and I admit, many scientists miss some of them too, largely because of overspecialization). That does not mean I insist my position is 100% correct, as such certainty is only for the fools. Knowledge is probabilistic, and over time I have come to a position that I can defend and have good reason to see as PAC (probably approximately correct).
If you're smart enough to think on your own and come up with the ideas of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, Darwin, Watson, etc, then you can get by without studying or learning. But no offense, I don't think you're THAT smart; no one human is.
The kind of original thinking that kingdaddy proposes is exactly the one that unhindered by any knowledge achieved through previous work comes up with concepts that litter the floor of history, especially at the present. ID is apparently one of those, others are pyramid power, crystal power, alchemie (although this is a multifacetted item), esp, scientology, et. etc.
Original thinking should be based on knowledge - a thorough knowledge - of the concepts of research and "laws" and theories that have been found to govern our existence and that of the world(s) around us, that so far seem to have been mostly validated.
Without that knowledge you basically have to start from the beginning to rediscover it, with all its wrong turns and dead ends - and your live is not long enough for that, as many thousands over several thousand years have contributed to this "tree".
Original thinking should be based on knowledge - a thorough knowledge - of the concepts of research and "laws" and theories that have been found to govern our existence and that of the world(s) around us, that so far seem to have been mostly validated.
Without that knowledge you basically have to start from the beginning to rediscover it, with all its wrong turns and dead ends - and your live is not long enough for that, as many thousands over several thousand years have contributed to this "tree".
@kd
And, by the way, you'll also have to experimentally verify all of your Great Thoughts. That's the essence of science- theory has to relate to experimental results, to the reality of the world around us. And if the world does not give the results predicted by the theory, the theory is tossed or severely modified; science differs in that respect from theology or philosophy.
In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to be capable of being experimentally verified or refuted.
And, by the way, you'll also have to experimentally verify all of your Great Thoughts. That's the essence of science- theory has to relate to experimental results, to the reality of the world around us. And if the world does not give the results predicted by the theory, the theory is tossed or severely modified; science differs in that respect from theology or philosophy.
In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to be capable of being experimentally verified or refuted.
Maybe, some think they wer born walking 😀
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, Darwin, Watson, etc wernt that smart, infact no smarter then you and i, but what they did do is dedicate their life to learning and the way they aplied themselfs to learn is what produced them the goods.
We all have limited time in life, there is no such thing as knowing it all!!! That, purley is impossible.
Thats exactly right, but science is also governed.
Trev🙂
Well, I think they were pretty damn smart. There are many that apply themselves diligently , yet do not achieve anything near what these have accomplished. In fact the smarter people around seem to be more in awe of these peoples smartness, in that they are able to appreciate it.
But yes, they stood on the shoulders of those before them...
If you want to go back to the cave man days you have a point, but man didnt just pick up a flint to discover fire nor a tree branch to kill its prey. Man was shown how this worked one way or another, more then likley due by accident.
Cave man also had books, picture books (paintings in caves), stories ect. This was to inform future ancestors the route of survival from what they had learnt in the past.
My point is that man was shown how stuff works in the begining, he just didnt know, man is not born walking, he is shown how to walk!!! That is my point.
Today, after manny generations of failure and imagination, we can somewhat predict certain science, and i state certain, we are still shown how stuff works today. And with books, this give us an oportunity to understand it and to learn further. Without books, your as good as a cave man my son.
Trev🙂
Didn’t say you couldn’t get knowledge from reading, I meant that knowledge existed before written word and that books are not the only medium of higher learning.Cal Weldon said:
No need to edit anything, I stand behind my post.
audio-kraut said:
How does an original thinker obtain knowledge? This is the same old argument I've had with the religious bunch that worships a book (bible). The ideas came before there was any bible or books of science. Not long ago only the privileged few had access to any books or writings and they got along just fine, some were even intelligent.
Sy and others are forgetting the main source of knowledge, observation. Try it some time, you may learn more from a open-minded observation then any book. Books are written by humans who are often wrong and biased, just because it's printed does not make it correct or true. Truth can be obtained without any books, and acceptance of truth along with observation will teach you all you need to know about life and happiness.
Most haven’t learned to accept truth s an unmovable force, they spend their entire life trying to change or interpret it to meet their desires.
There is no knowledge without truth, and that’s a fact.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.