"Woooooooosh".............Straight over my head
(why can't i edit the space out of the word 'straight'?)
Is it the Moon?
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
"Woooooooosh".............Straight over my head
(why can't i edit the space out of the word 'straight'?)
actually, I personally do find it offensive for one simple reason - its acceptable to critique science (and rightly so, science progresses by critique) but I would equally like to critique religion, especially christianity and the bible. Unfortunately you once expressed offense at me using the phrase "god damn" so I had assumed the same kind of critique would be unacceptable for you. If it isnt then fine,and Im sorry to have misunderstood you, but truly, this is not the thread for it, and not really the forum unless the mods give a thread of the subject a go-ahead (we can always ask I suppose) until then, this isnt the place.
I think you'll find that most people who are confident in their religion don't mind some debate about it, most probably welcome it. In my experience the people who don't want to entertain debate are the ones who believe science has all the answers. They remind me of the church in the middle ages ie any opposing view is heresy. Just my opinion.
I've also noticed a lot of people are able to mock and ridicule those whose beliefs lean towards creationism but it is not so acceptable for those beliefs to be defended (check my previous posts). Just my opinion.
This has been a very entertaining and interesting debate.
to be spoken in ascottish accent "you,re aall madd! tootally mmaadd!!..don,t tell them your name pike!, I,m lost I need a map and a compass Oh no I don,t there,s the moon,aawhooo!
Not at all unacceptable to me to offer a critique, Christianity is not my belief system or religion of choice so I have no particular mandate to defend it or otherwise - I am respectful towards others religions naturally (although not particularly or exclusively towards that one). I have no recollection of you using that phrase curiously enough (and can't find it by searching) but thats by the by - if you can PM me a link I'd be grateful
Personally I do see a subtle distinction between religion and science in that science proclaims itself as a matter of fact and not faith and therefore opens itself to challenge on that very basis.
That said if this discussion or debate annoys you, then that alone is enough of a reason to leave it alone.
Red
Personally I do see a subtle distinction between religion and science in that science proclaims itself as a matter of fact and not faith and therefore opens itself to challenge on that very basis.
That said if this discussion or debate annoys you, then that alone is enough of a reason to leave it alone.
Red
Well I consider it a complement to be mixed up with JF
No worries - no harm done
I like a debate too
Red
No worries - no harm done
I like a debate too
Red
To add a further question (or throw oil on the fire
I'm not sure I quite see it as either. I guess I see pure science as more a refining of models of reality[1], though that refining may indeed involve showing that a particular model is not valid for anything thing other than the most granular viewpoint.
As flat earth has been mentioned as a theory here I'll take that as an example. For many things a flat earth model is enough a lot of the time as a working model of reality, crossing the road, rolling a ball etc, whereas if you want acurate flight navigation over long distances it no longer is.
A roundish earth with gravitation is a better model for accuracy but it has to be said cumbersome for crossing the road, until you've appreaciated the scale that your working with, which allows you not worry about the round bit until you get to the other side and can carry on planning your navigation points and journey times for your round the world yatch race.
As such I guess I see it as amoral almost by definition and the application of those models is where any moral of ethical concerns are to be applied. That does extend to the moral and ethical consequences and collateral of any experiments that a scientist should use to refine their models.
Though it has to be said that many times it's almost imposible to know just how someone in future would use it. eg I doubt the person who invented the engine envisenged it being used in tanks, whereas the man who invented the gun must have had a good idea that it could be used equaly on humans and animals
Putting it another way Scinece strives explain why boiling your water makes it safe to drink, it doesn't actually do it and you don't actually need to know or believe it.
A religious belief that the dieties of the fire kill the bad deities in the water could also do the same thing.
One, seems to me, a better more refined model than the other.
I guess there are ethical and moral questions to destroying the bactera that may be present though
Relating this back to my previous posts, please note I've only said gravitaional influence on water in the human body is not a good model to explain any luna influence directly on human behaviour during the full moon.
A question.
Is a full moon always closer to the earth than a waxing or waning one ever is?
[1] Yeah I know it's a biggy, very vague and open to all sorts of interpretations, the nearest I can find without taking up several pages is "what actually happens"
Havent had time to read the entire thread yet so apologies if this has already been made, but this happens about the same time every year, its almost as if people start getting depressed as soon as the weather starts turn and take it out on here.
Should settle down in a few weeks
Should settle down in a few weeks
Shambling Shaman
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
That is my view as well, the whole "defend it" bit all ways get me started so as firecrest said this is not the place so I will bite my tung.
"Science explain why boiling your water makes it safe to drink, it doesn't actually do it"
I do like to know why some thing happen and why, But theres a lot of things I'm happy not to know. The simple Knowledge that It Dose is more than sufficient for me most of the time.
Descartes actually reaches a bit too far with this statement.
Instead of "I think, therefore I am" it should be "Something thinks, therefore something is". Moving from the existence of a thinking being to identifying that with a "self" needs a few more philosophical somersaults.
A case of putting "Descartes before the horse", as it were.
____________________
Descartes walks into a bar.
Barman say, "Would you like a Bacardi Breezer... they're on special today?"
"Hmm," replies Descartes, "a Bacardi Breezer? I think not."
And promptly vanishes.
Arf!
Descarte was merely explaining in laymans terms that which Aristotle had written a couple of thousand years before.Descartes actually reaches a bit too far with this statement.
Instead of "I think, therefore I am" it should be "Something thinks, therefore something is". Moving from the existence of a thinking being to identifying that with a "self" needs a few more philosophical somersaults.
A case of putting "Descartes before the horse", as it were.
____________________
Descartes walks into a bar.
Barman say, "Would you like a Bacardi Breezer... they're on special today?"
"Hmm," replies Descartes, "a Bacardi Breezer? I think not."
And promptly vanishes.
Arf!
".....whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist."
Sub sole nihil novi est
Well I've only skimmed the last couple of pages, as philosophy isn't really my bag, but I think it's a credit to the main posters that this debate has continued politely and eloquently over 6 pages. I know it's gone a little off topic, but that's the nature of threads sometimes.
:You_Rock_
:You_Rock_
Well, this has certainly come a long way from its beginnings... While I largely agree with the various points that have been made about the important distinctions between descriptive knowledge and prescriptive knowledge, between truth and right, etc, etc, I completely fail to see what bearing any of that has on the simple empirical question of whether people behave differently when it's a full moon or not. That is a proposition which is either true or false, and is entirely susceptible to rational investigation. There is no moral dimension to that question.
If you want to know how the world works, science is the best tool for the job. It can't offer any insights as to what you should do, and nobody in this thread ever claimed that it did. Certainly not me - that would be the most fundamental kind of category error.
If you want to know how the world works, science is the best tool for the job. It can't offer any insights as to what you should do, and nobody in this thread ever claimed that it did. Certainly not me - that would be the most fundamental kind of category error.
What did I do now?
I have been following this thread with interest.
I know I share quite a few opinions with Mr Red, but you have made my day confusing the two of us - I am some what honoured!
I too like a good debate, but as some of my arguments and statements have in the past been mis-taken I have been keeping quiet on this one
Keep the debate running folks!
Similar threads
