|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
so things are totally random....or are they?
in fact some physical laws state that certain things are random. however we dont see the universe in random organization.
thus there is a driving force that 'creates' order within chaos. these forces have been observed by scientists and thinkers throughout history.
we can observe how this force, 'created', perhaps randomly, everything that exists in the universe.
so it isn't hard to believe that the universe has a driving force towards creation. and driving forces can be interpretted as 'the point'. perhaps |
I'm not sure things are totally random but there is little evidence to support any creation. So it would be hard to say that creation is the point of the universe. Why would the universe have a point? You seem to be givinng meaning and awareness to something that just is.
| Quote: |
thus there is a driving force that 'creates' order within chaos. these forces have been observed by scientists and thinkers throughout history.
we can observe how this force, 'created', perhaps randomly, everything that exists in the universe.
|
Explain what you mean by this? What is the force? How does this follow that therefore the point of the universe is creation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity). |
If you make a claim and back up that claim with evidence(alot of evidence for a big claim) I will believe it. If in the future the burden of evidence contradicts that claim I will change my belief. Understand now, honey? |
This is too deep for me to understand. Please explain. 
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty |
The universe doesn't have a point. In fact what does this even mean? How is creation the point of the universe? |
OK. Congratulations! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity). |
If you make a claim and back up that claim with evidence(alot of evidence for a big claim) I will believe it. If in the future the burden of evidence contradicts that claim I will change my belief. Understand now, honey? |
This is too deep for me to understand. Please explain.
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty |
The universe doesn't have a point. In fact what does this even mean? How is creation the point of the universe? |
OK. Congratulations! |
Thanks. Thread ended people. Let's move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity). |
His stance is entirely in keeping with science and what a good scientist would say.
Let's quote Feynman again:
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."
Claims are not equal under science and are not treated as such. This is a reason why some thing get funding and others don't.
|
Neither you nor JMO understand what I was trying to say. Doubt by scientists such as Feynman or Einstein is qualitatively different from that of the likes of you.
Who decides what claims are worthy? And who decides what should get funding? Most breakthroughs in science were achieved by scientists working alone without official (or much) funding or recognition.
Did you even read some of the quotes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity).
When I say that I can't believe something, it means I am considering its possibility by re-examining my current system of knowledge. I may decide that some things are logically impossible as far as I know the universe to be. But who TF am I to know everything about the universe? And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty. |
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
so things are totally random....or are they?
in fact some physical laws state that certain things are random. however we dont see the universe in random organization.
thus there is a driving force that 'creates' order within chaos. these forces have been observed by scientists and thinkers throughout history.
we can observe how this force, 'created', perhaps randomly, everything that exists in the universe.
so it isn't hard to believe that the universe has a driving force towards creation. and driving forces can be interpretted as 'the point'. perhaps |
I'm not sure things are totally random but there is little evidence to support any creation. So it would be hard to say that creation is the point of the universe. Why would the universe have a point? You seem to be givinng meaning and awareness to something that just is.
| Quote: |
thus there is a driving force that 'creates' order within chaos. these forces have been observed by scientists and thinkers throughout history.
we can observe how this force, 'created', perhaps randomly, everything that exists in the universe.
|
Explain what you mean by this? What is the force? How does this follow that therefore the point of the universe is creation? |
i'm not suggesting the universe has 'a point'. I'm not personifying anything. There is no end result that the universe is striving to become.
what i mean is that things are not random. our own existence is proof of that.
the 'forces' that guide organization, could be interpreted as 'the point', in regards to the previous post i was talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity).
|
Well aren't you a snide little man.
If you make a claim and back up that claim with evidence(alot of evidence for a big claim) I will believe it. If in the future the burden of evidence contradicts that claim I will change my belief. Understand now, honey?
| Quote: |
| When I say that I can't believe something, it means I am considering its possibility by re-examining my current system of knowledge. I may decide that some things are logically impossible as far as I know the universe to be. But who TF am I to know everything about the universe? |
Strawman. Who said they know everything about the universe.
| Quote: |
| And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty |
The universe doesn't have a point. In fact what does this even mean? How is creation the point of the universe? |
This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity).
|
Well aren't you a snide little man.
If you make a claim and back up that claim with evidence(alot of evidence for a big claim) I will believe it. If in the future the burden of evidence contradicts that claim I will change my belief. Understand now, honey?
| Quote: |
| When I say that I can't believe something, it means I am considering its possibility by re-examining my current system of knowledge. I may decide that some things are logically impossible as far as I know the universe to be. But who TF am I to know everything about the universe? |
Strawman. Who said they know everything about the universe.
| Quote: |
| And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty |
The universe doesn't have a point. In fact what does this even mean? How is creation the point of the universe? |
This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours." |
I didn;t submit any evidence, nor claim that I was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity).
When I say that I can't believe something, it means I am considering its possibility by re-examining my current system of knowledge. I may decide that some things are logically impossible as far as I know the universe to be. But who TF am I to know everything about the universe? And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty. |
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. |
One more time: How I doubt is the deciding factor between excessive and healthy skepticism. What is my attitude toward others and the universe? The attitude displayed by JMO, and others here, is that of condescending dismissal. None of you seem to recognize this crucial factor of internal attitude. Therefore, the bolded statement is not a personal attack but a statement of fact.
I understand that you may perceive it as such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity). |
His stance is entirely in keeping with science and what a good scientist would say.
Let's quote Feynman again:
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."
Claims are not equal under science and are not treated as such. This is a reason why some thing get funding and others don't.
|
Neither you nor JMO understand what I was trying to say. Doubt by scientists such as Feynman or Einstein is qualitatively different from that of the likes of you.
Who decides what claims are worthy? And who decides what should get funding? Most breakthroughs in science were achieved by scientists working alone without official (or much) funding or recognition.
Did you even read some of the quotes? |
Well I'm sure CB Clark will help us out with the glaring logical fallacy in this post.
Can you back up the claim that most breakthroughs in science are done without official funding or recognition?
Claims are worthy once they have gone through peer review and not found lacking.
Corporations, governments decide who gets funding. How would you change this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| arjuna wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me evidence and I will believe. Don't and I won't. I don't think thats excessive. |
How do you mean "believe"? You don't even know what you are saying yourself. Your internal attitude is as far from that of a true scientist as can be. Your non-belief is a dismissal, by your internal, barely acknowledged dogmatism (aka stupidity).
When I say that I can't believe something, it means I am considering its possibility by re-examining my current system of knowledge. I may decide that some things are logically impossible as far as I know the universe to be. But who TF am I to know everything about the universe? And even if I somehow did, the point of the universe is creation, not certainty. |
An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. |
One more time: How I doubt is the deciding factor between excessive and healthy skepticism. What is my attitude toward others and the universe? The attitude displayed by JMO, and others here, is that of condescending dismissal. None of you seem to recognize this crucial factor of internal attitude. Therefore, the bolded statement is not a personal attack but a statement of fact.
I understand that you may perceive it as such. |
I bolded the part that I took as an insult.
I'm not condescending. Show me the evidence for your claim. If it is a big claim, the evidence needs to be overwhelming. That is just fair. What is your problem with this outlook? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
i'm not suggesting the universe has 'a point'. I'm not personifying anything. There is no end result that the universe is striving to become.
what i mean is that things are not random. our own existence is proof of that.
the 'forces' that guide organization, could be interpreted as 'the point', in regards to the previous post i was talking about. |
How is our existence proof that things are not random? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Corporations, governments decide who gets funding. How would you change this? |
NPO's, charity organizations, individual contributions also support funding.
and there is such a thing as, 'bad science'...even after peer review.
to claim science is unbiased his hilarious. everything that controls the advancement of science is biased towards one thing or another.
i would agree that it is the best thing we have so far...but far from good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Can you back up the claim that most breakthroughs in science are done without official funding or recognition? |
No one can back-up such a claim. Start, for example, with contemporary nuclear physics and space transportation and exploration and work backward.
And no one can draw nice, neat lines separating the processes that produced antibiotics and the polio vaccine from official funding and recognition, either.
The list goes on...NSF and other governmental grants amount to billions of dollars annually in America.
Arjuna merely resists acknowledging anything good about [sneering this] "the government." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Show me the evidence for your claim. If it is a big claim, the evidence needs to be overwhelming. That is just fair. What is your problem with this outlook? |
The problem is not with the "outlook" as you stated.
The problem is with the way you (people in general including scientists) look at the world and organize it in your thought systems. Most people think the world is explained by the thought system, or even that the world is the system. Most people's thoughts stay within the system. They cannot even imagine anything beyond it. When a claim is made that does not fit with the organization of the system, the claim is, just about always, dismissed as <insert your choice of derision>.
Not all claims turn out to be true, of course. But the prevailing attitude that thinks itself enlightened and any contrary thought ridiculous opposes new thoughts and kills them when they become too threatening.
Yes, I am saying that this is exactly what is going on now in this world. And no, not in some other misguided people but in you right here right now.
And as I write here, you seem to read my words but understand nothing of what I try to point to.
I understand the exasperation behind the quotes (of the OP). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
