The Post Your Thoughts of the Moment Thread 2

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.

I'm too tired and exhausted from the day that I can't muster up the willpower to explain... plus, I really must finish this essay.

[SuperFireKirby]

I think what he is trying to say is that science in general, while being something that deepens are understanding of the universe, is not the perspective from which we should exclusively view the universe from and in doing so we dehumanize ourselves.

[MassiveMayhem]

I'm sick. Stayed home from school. On the bright side, I was playing piano, just improv, and my neighbor was weed waking and could hear the piano from outside and he just yells "Shit, that's fucking awesome."
haha

[FSM-Reapr]

Actually, I feel pretty sick too. I left from school at the second last class. I need to stay home at least the weekend. But at least I can focus the TWG I'm hosting.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

I think what he is trying to say is that science in general, while being something that deepens are understanding of the universe, is not the perspective from which we should exclusively view the universe from and in doing so we dehumanize ourselves.

Somewhat like what I was trying to say.
In addition: I'm a bit tired of everyone blaming everything else (everywhere) for the world's problems... what's actually causing the world's problems are US; we have to understand that before we can even try to do anything about that.

[FSM-Reapr]

Somebody stole my future YouTube account! D:

www.youtube.com/user/fsmreaper

[Ruto]

"...one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions."
THAT'S the problem with our world; science cannot determine morality any more than a two-sided coin should determine your next actions (yes, I'm looking at Two-Face ). People are placing too much faith in science, something developed by fallible, imperfect humans (no matter how we try to accept that we're literally "perfect"); no matter how advanced sciene gets, it will never be perfect.

You don't place faith in science, it's not a belief. Scientists study the natural world and come to conclusions by what they measure and observe through tests. If anyone finds any conflicting evidence, it is examined and if it is correct, it replaces the old theory. No scientist would say any human is perfect either or more special than an ant, but guess what does?

Scientists (this is a generalization, though, quite unfortunately, not as broad as I'd like it) often see humans merely as carbon copies following a set formula with minor variations; they don't see humans as individuals, but as a robot programmed by nature, doing nothing else but "living" and carrying out "tasks." Something almost... that they could predict and manipulate, that they could control and grasp in the palm of their hands. (though they don't seem to remember that they themselves are humans)

Far from it. I disagree and I'm pretty offended at you what said scientists think like. What have you been reading or listening to? -.- Richard Feynman said, "I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts." There's nothing in here dismissing all life as carbon blobs or whatever.

In that path, I forsee no bright future- maybe for a short time- but it will all have to end, eventually. When someone uses science as their only code of conduct, they have no one to be responsible to but themselves; THEY will decide their own rules... and someone's rules might just destroy humanity and the earth.

That's completely not true. Science does NOT serve as a code as conduct. Again, I think you should look up what science actually is. Scientists don't decide the rules, they are just finding out what is. I suppose you also don't know that scientists need to consult ethics boards and follow safety regulations to do experiments?

I'm too tired and exhausted from the day that I can't muster up the willpower to explain... plus, I really must finish this essay.

If you feel like explaining now, go ahead...

[KefkaticFanatic]

Yes... science is meant to broaden our understanding, not to dictate it :|
For example knowing the intricate way of how something the brain works *can* actually help determine how somebody would be thinking, or having trouble thinking, and only leads to a more deep understanding of the human nature.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

You don't place faith in science, it's not a belief. 

Then why do some people follow science as if it were a belief (common definition of belief being "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing")? Please read the link provided by Kekfa about the Dalai Lama for more information about people's opinions.
There is a person on that website, called 'Eatmine', who posted a very interesting comment, that makes it seem as if he/she has a similar state of mind as me: "The very moment we start divining moral dogmas from test tubes we can start programming ourselves to follow these scientific morals blindly like techno-zealots."

Far from it. I disagree and I'm pretty offended at you what said scientists think like. What have you been reading or listening to? -.-

I've been listening directly at the source: the scientists themselves and the people of the internet (may seem quite silly at first, but believe me ), who all seem to have conflicting views on the matter. Reading their arguements can provide more information that can be obtained from merely reading the article itself. Opinions can often be as important as facts.
About Richard Feynman: That artist is right; science does not see the flower from the same perspective as him, but Feynman is also right: the human aspect of scientists is what sees the beauty of things (when that doesn't exist, though...). Also, note that Feynman lived from 1918 to 1988; you would be surprised at how things change in 24 years. 

That's completely not true. Science does NOT serve as a code as conduct. Again, I think you should look up what science actually is.

"The Dalai Lama's advice sounds startling familiar — one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions."
"The moment we admit that questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, are actually questions about human and animal well-being, we see that science can, in principle, answer such questions."
Science shouldn't serve as a code of conduct, but people want it to.

I might not be some genius, philosophical, mastermind professor, but that doesn't mean I know nothing.
I like discussions because you can learn a lot from them... as long as they don't sprout into all-out arguements, of course.

[Ruto]

Then why do some people follow science as if it were a belief (common definition of belief being "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing")? Please read the link provided by Kekfa about the Dalai Lama for more information about people's opinions.
There is a person on that website, called 'Eatmine', who posted a very interesting comment, that makes it seem as if he/she has a similar state of mind as me: "The very moment we start divining moral dogmas from test tubes we can start programming ourselves to follow these scientific morals blindly like techno-zealots."

What the Dalai Lama said was a direct opposition to fundamentalists. I mean, if you teach something in your religion that goes against reality, it's not a truth anymore, right? Teaching it anyway would be lying to everyone...it's like how the Christian church used to teach that the Earth was in the center of the universe. Today we know (from science) that it's not, and anyone who teaches it is lying to others.

I've been listening directly at the source: the scientists themselves and the people of the internet (may seem quite silly at first, but believe me ), who all seem to have conflicting views on the matter. Reading their arguements can provide more information that can be obtained from merely reading the article itself. Opinions can often be as important as facts.

Really? I do the exact same thing and I don't come to the same conclusions based on the facts I know.

About Richard Feynman: That artist is right; science does not see the flower from the same perspective as him, but Feynman is also right: the human aspect of scientists is what sees the beauty of things (when that doesn't exist, though...).

Well then, what defines this human experience? Feynman meant that his deeper understanding in the world (as a scientist) made him appreciate the world even more. The same flower he was talking about not only has shape, color and a certain number of petals, but if you studied biology you would know how the flower came to be, why it looked like that. If you studied chemistry, you would know the chemical reactions that took place to make that flower and how it survives, etc. This is much more than what that artist would see.

Also, note that Feynman lived from 1918 to 1988; you would be surprised at how things change in 24 years. 

In that time, I think most of us grew from single cells to human beings...yeah I know things can change quickly -.-

"The Dalai Lama's advice sounds startling familiar — one that echos the sentiment put forth by outspoken atheist Sam Harris who argues that science can answer moral questions."
"The moment we admit that questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, are actually questions about human and animal well-being, we see that science can, in principle, answer such questions."
Science shouldn't serve as a code of conduct, but people want it to.

Lol Sam Harris -.- He doesn't speak for everyone but I think he is really simplifying everything...And again science is not a code of conduct and i doubt anyone, even scientists, would like society to be an anarchy or whatever kind of chaos you're thinking of.

I might not be some genius, philosophical, mastermind professor, but that doesn't mean I know nothing.
I like discussions because you can learn a lot from them... as long as they don't sprout into all-out arguements, of course.

I'm not saying you don't know anything, but you should think about the person making those arguments...and where they're getting their information from.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

...it's like how the Christian church used to teach that the Earth was in the center of the universe. Today we know (from science) that it's not, and anyone who teaches it is lying to others.

It was the Ancient Greek philosophers (and other "scientists" of the times) who proposed the geocentric model in the first place. By the time Copernicus proved the heliocentric model, everyone was used to the old model! Everyone (or, nearly everyone) had accepted it.
Think about it... it would be like if scientists today somehow found out that everything was technically flat, but our perceptions of them made them seem non-flat (Just an example! Just an example!)

Really? I do the exact same thing and I don't come to the same conclusions based on the facts I know.

Because you perceive it different; you may only listen to what they say, and not what they do in addition, to be used as a 'filter' ("actions speak louder than words"). We are obviously coming to different conclusions because of the WAY we look at it.

Feynman meant that his deeper understanding in the world (as a scientist) made him appreciate the world even more... This is much more than what that artist would see.

Again, with perceptions: each sees it in a different way; scientific facts do not necessarily always mean that you are seeing "more." The scientist knows more about the flower, but the artist connects with the flower in a more intimate way, so to say. I can know about how the sun formed, how it gives off heat and light, or at what times it rises and sets in each season, but that doesn't mean that it makes me appreciate it any more than if I didn't know all that.
It's like comparing a writer of a novel to the novel's readers.

In that time, I think most of us grew from single cells to human beings...yeah I know things can change quickly -.-

...There is no logical and comprehensible way (or reason) to respond to that properly without infuriating tons of people on the boards.

Lol Sam Harris -.- He doesn't speak for everyone but I think he is really simplifying everything...And again science is not a code of conduct and i doubt anyone, even scientists, would like society to be an anarchy or whatever kind of chaos you're thinking of.

I do not know many people that speak for everyone; asking the 'collective voice' though, might speak for quite a few people, given that there are not too many contradicting opinions.
As I said... science should not be a code of conduct... I never said scientists would like total anarchy or chaos... I never once said THAT!

[KefkaticFanatic]

It was the Ancient Greek philosophers (and other "scientists" of the times) who proposed the geocentric model in the first place. By the time Copernicus proved the heliocentric model, everyone was used to the old model! Everyone (or, nearly everyone) had accepted it.
Think about it... it would be like if scientists today somehow found out that everything was technically flat, but our perceptions of them made them seem non-flat

Paraphrasing this logic gives me something along the lines of this: if you can misguide enough people into believing something then it is not only acceptable but any contradicting opinion should be swept aside.

Nobody should ever be held to primitive or unfound determinations, and that is one of the main ways the pursuit of the sciences betters us as a species.  Further and deeper understanding doesn't suddenly make you mechanical, it is an increase in knowledge.  The very things an artist might find "beautiful" are some that can be investigated and found to be equally beautiful by a scientist when learning the math and science behind the natural forming of something like the shape of a flower's petals.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Paraphrasing this logic gives me something along the lines of this: if you can misguide enough people into believing something then it is not only acceptable but any contradicting opinion should be swept aside.

That is not my logic, I have never said that that is my logic, nor did I ever say anything to make one assume that that way MY logic. If you were to read the example which Ruto posed (the geocentric model, and the church rejecting it) you would see what I was trying to say. I don't support keeping people ignorant.
I was talking about how perceptions change through time.

Further and deeper understanding doesn't suddenly make you mechanical, it is an increase in knowledge. 

Never said that either. Knowledge gives you power, and power in the hands of humans is one of the worst (if not the worst) weapons of mass destruction WE can make.
Unfortunately, not all humans are entirely responsible... but that's just going in circles to what I originally said.

The very things an artist might find "beautiful" are some that can be investigated and found to be equally beautiful by a scientist when learning the math and science behind the natural forming of something like the shape of a flower's petals.

I doesn't make the flower any differernt, nor does it make the scientist's perception any stronger (only increasing KNOWLEDGE ABOUT the flower). The artist appreciates the flower for what it is, not what it's made of (not exactly the best wording, I know ).

[Ruto]

It was the Ancient Greek philosophers (and other "scientists" of the times) who proposed the geocentric model in the first place. By the time Copernicus proved the heliocentric model, everyone was used to the old model! Everyone (or, nearly everyone) had accepted it.
Think about it... it would be like if scientists today somehow found out that everything was technically flat, but our perceptions of them made them seem non-flat (Just an example! Just an example!)

Wait a tick, I said "center of the universe" not "center of the solar system." And no, not everyone accepted the heliocentric model right away. Simply because a well known text said that "Earth was the center of the universe." It was the same until in Galileo's lifetime, at least.

I don't see how scientists could find out something is flat while at the same time, the senses clearly tell them otherwise.

Because you perceive it different; you may only listen to what they say, and not what they do in addition, to be used as a 'filter' ("actions speak louder than words"). We are obviously coming to different conclusions because of the WAY we look at it.
Again, with perceptions: each sees it in a different way; scientific facts do not necessarily always mean that you are seeing "more." The scientist knows more about the flower, but the artist connects with the flower in a more intimate way, so to say. I can know about how the sun formed, how it gives off heat and light, or at what times it rises and sets in each season, but that doesn't mean that it makes me appreciate it any more than if I didn't know all that.
It's like comparing a writer of a novel to the novel's readers.

Okay so I am studying science and working as a photographer and teaching art...I'm glad to know I can't understand the beauty of anything because the scientist part of me says I can't. Better wipe all my SD cards and burn all my canvases because I have no emotions and therefore can't draw better than an elephant, right? I know I am seeing more in the flower than just colors -.-

...There is no logical and comprehensible way (or reason) to respond to that properly without infuriating tons of people on the boards.

And I don't expect you to.

I do not know many people that speak for everyone; asking the 'collective voice' though, might speak for quite a few people, given that there are not too many contradicting opinions.

...What? What collective voice? Have you ever read the newspaper, Pharyngula, went to a college campus, spoken to professors, been outside the country?

As I said... science should not be a code of conduct... I never said scientists would like total anarchy or chaos... I never once said THAT!

And it isn't, but you don't seem to listen to people who are saying it isn't, including scientists.

[KefkaticFanatic]

The way you argued it put for that impression.

Additionally,

Scientists (this is a generalization, though, quite unfortunately, not as broad as I'd like it) often see humans merely as carbon copies following a set formula with minor variations; they don't see humans as individuals, but as a robot programmed by nature, doing nothing else but "living" and carrying out "tasks."

Saying knowledge is dangerous is almost like you want to advocate against advancing high tech and science education resulting in generations that aren't keen to studies of intellect, overall putting as back as a civilization.

Your statement with the artist is going nowhere and doesn't make a hint of rational sense so I will just ignore it for your sake.