and here i am, protesting against rational thought - it is a wonderful
flag of illuminating energy, i agree, but we would not have it without
feelings and emotions, human action (however accidental and
incompetent), unreasoned experimentation, and experiential results
the merging of spiritual values (not religion) and science has already
begun, and if one can view the seeming polarity that they've been
culturally placed in (and for good reason historically), they are in
the range of a single conception, in which new paradigms overlay the
anachronistic, antiquated, distored, and old ones
dream art-sciencing out
On Feb 4, 5:49 pm, "hermes" <l.her...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> David Mitchell wrote:
> > I'm trying to evangelise for rational thought and the scientific
method,
> > and demonstrate how powerful they are when used in their domains, in
the
> > hope that just a little will rub off on the more "mystical" posters in
this group.
>
> I was hoping for this answer. That's a most noble goal. I sup****t you
> unconditionally about the first two lines. Rational thought is my
> flag, too.
>
> You expressed the opinion that I'm not using Occam's razor all the
> times. I assure you once more that I try to use reason and logic all
> the times, in all honesty. I may not be very successful sometimes, but
> I do try.
>
> However, I think your strategy is not the best one. In my opinion, you
> could be [more] friendly, less aggressive, less insistent. More
> comprehensive. This way, people will have about you the right image: a
> calm, rational, coherent person. State your opinion, scientific facts
> you know about, give references whenever possible, try not to hurt the
> other's feeling. Give up when you see the other is insensible to your
> arguments. I beleive this is the way to earn everybody's respect. And
> if they respect you, they might become more sensible to your
> arguments. Right now you give the impression of somebody who has
> nothing better to do at home and is replying to every message just to
> call everybody's attention on his person. I hope you don't mind my
> advices. By no means am I trying to show superiority. You are pursuing
> the right goal, but you may be using wrong tools.
>
> I suppose you wonder "How comes ? He speaks sometimes like a smart
> guy. How can he not see that his explanation is less likely ?" Maybe
> this is the best part of life. Two intelligent people may have
> opposite opinions, even after discussing the subject thoroughly. Time
> will decide. Or not.
>
> Einstein disagreed profoundly with the quantum theory, at least in its
> beginnings. Quantum physics has a strong probabilistic component; it
> replaces the concept of particle with a "cloud" of probability.
> Einstein disliked this statistical description of the world, he said
> "God does not play dice".
>
> Here is another cite from Einstein: "I do not think that it is
> necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites.
> In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the
> two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and,
> conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are im****tant
> and should work hand-in-hand."
>
> > suppose each time you buy a brick to build a house, it's flawed.
> > Surely, you might argue, there must be _some_ good in all those
> > bricks - see how many there are.
> > The problem is: your house will fall down.
>
> Nice image. I mean it. Applicable to many situations. Not necessarily
> to all.
|
