Personalitys

[Sync182]

What some fail to (or don't want to) realise is that science and logic are only the beginnings to enlightenment. Knowledge and wisdom start with understanding and process, but they do not end there. Science can only teach us so much; logic can only do so much. When you reach the end of those roads, you need to take that next step - leap beyond logic and science - to improve your knowledge.

 

Experience does not come from reading science books and thinking things through logically, yet it is one of the best teachers mankind has. Sometimes you have to just do things to understand them...regardless of how illogical or unscientific it might be.

 

"Jarvis...sometimes you gotta fly before you can crawl." -Tony Stark, Iron Man

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sync182

[draconix]

I don't know why Science and logic have such a bad rep for being cold and calculating. The fact of the matter is that anybody is capable of thinking freely and acting out of passion. This kind of thinking is exactly how wars start, murders are committed, and teen pregnancies are conceived. It's therefore something that needs to be controlled, especially in today's hostility.

 

This is not to say that emotions should be done away with altogether, as they are also the things that spark literature, art, music and culture. These are all important things that humanity needs to hold onto in order to maintain it's humanity. Emotion and subjectivity is a double-edged sword.

 

Logic and science are every bit as irrefutable as mathematics, and similarly have to be learned. Through practice and training, some are eventually able to control their emotions in order to see clearly. Sometimes it's still difficult to maintain a cool head, but most of us still try. After all, it is the pursuit of truth that drives us, not the drive to prove that our beliefs are truth. Denying the truth only serves to hold us back from further understanding.

 

Because I am a fan of analogies:

Emotions and dreams are the fiery wild stallions that draw the cart of humanity forward. Logic and science, the reigns that keep the horses in check, and keeps them on the trail to our prosperity.

[Sync182]

I don't know why Science and logic have such a bad rep for being cold and calculating.

 

They get that reputation when people use them as absolutes: if it's not scientific/logical it's nothing.

 

That is wrong. A good scientist knows to never deal in absolutes, because there is always a chance of error.

 

Likewise, relying only on emotional & passionate reactions is also wrong. There is no reason in instinct.

 

Prosperity, wisdom and understanding are best achieved when science, logic, emotions & passion are utilised in balance with each other.

[draconix]

I pretty much said what you said in your last paragraph in the totally amazing conclusion of my post, that artistic yet logical approach to explaining exactly how the two go hand in hand. It was pretty awesome, you might give it a read sometime. :laugh:

 

Saying that one can not know anything for certain, ever, is quite a naive thing to say. You shouldn't deal in absolutes, after all. Sometimes it's okay to accept certain absolutes. I exist, for instance is a truth that we can say is true for certain. If you can think it, then it must be so. Now what it is that you are may be up for grabs.

 

Science is totally open to having it's foundation rocked. It's just that to do this, it takes proof. After all, like a great man once said, "It is the pursuit of truth that drives us, not the drive to prove that our beliefs are truth." - Draconix

 

This is getting off topic though. Might make a good new debate, but this is the last I'll post of that in this topic.

Edited August 7, 2011 by draconix

[marharth]

I still do not understand why people are so convinced there is so much outside of the realm of science.

 

I don't believe there is any evidence to show that there is anything outside of the reach of science. You can say something makes you feel good, or something is beautiful, but those are just effects and not causes.

Edited August 7, 2011 by marharth

[draconix]

I still do quite understand why people are so convinced there is so much outside of the realm of science.

 

I don't believe there is any evidence to show that there is anything outside of the reach of science. You can say something makes you feel good, or something is beautiful, but those are just effects and not causes.

 

Marharth, you and I may have some differences here and there, but I think we're both on the same page overall.

[marharth]

I really need to start reading over what I type.

 

I wrote "I still do quite understand."

 

Anyways edited my post.

[LadyMilla]

What some fail to (or don't want to) realise is that science and logic are only the beginnings to enlightenment. Knowledge and wisdom start with understanding and process, but they do not end there. Science can only teach us so much; logic can only do so much. When you reach the end of those roads, you need to take that next step - leap beyond logic and science - to improve your knowledge.

 

I'd replace the to "improve your knowledge" with "to enrich your repository of experiences". Certainly you are right when you say experience improves knowledge - I experience something that I haven't experienced before and thus I know more than I did before. Something that was unknown to me is now familiar, even if it is only the sum of my perceptions. Experience provides practical answers to things that cannot be adequately described with words: you experience beauty when you look at a landscape, a human face or a work of art, you experience culinary pleasure when you sample a delicacy, you experience emotions when you are in love, you experience the thrill of free flight when, for example, your boyfriend convinces you to try skydiving for the first time and yet, you would be in trouble if somebody asked you to described these experiences, using only the tool of language, so that others may live through the same experience (very good artists are able to do that).

 

My philosophy lecturer used to say: "Art is the carrier of experiences that resonate with your own, philosophy is the seeker of answers that mostly begin with the question 'Why...?' and science is the child inside us who takes apart his toy to answer to question: "How does it work?" and in the process sometimes also answers the question: "Why (and yes, sometimes it spoils the subject :P )"'.

 

Problems arise when people who debate a subject start to mystify things because they think that the others' realm of thought and way of thinking somehow threatens their own, and they start to impose artificial limits. What Sync182 does not seem to understand is that for science, there is no end of the road with a stop sign: "Do not trespass! Beyond this sign lies the great realm of experience. Take your rationality and instruments elsewhere". Science progressed because those who advanced it ignored those signs, and continue to ignore them to date. Galileo ignored the stop signs of belief that told him 'the Earth is the center of the universe', Copernicus ignored the belief in perfect circles and slapped his ellipses on the planetary system, and provided a better theory. Science came to existence because some people were not satisfied with the answers gained through experience. We saw the sun moving through the sky and we did not feel the rotation of our planet - experience told us something superficial, and while most of the mankind was content with the simple answers, a few people decided to ask questions (is the thing that I experience really what it appears to me). The tension between our experience and our drive to learn 'what it really is' gave birth to science and philosophy.

 

Science does not deliver absolute truth. Science provides a working theory that describes certain things that we experience: either with our senses or through our instruments that extend the range of our senses, and often science produces its own mysteries. ("If it's truth you're interested in, Doctor Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall " :happy:). Science and experience overlap to a certain extent as they both provide workable knowledge but science does not stop asking questions. Science is aware of its current limits but this fact seldom stops it from trying to exceed them. You cannot tell others to stop asking the questions 'how' and 'why'. Claiming that something that is part of the unknown and unexplained will remain unexplained is claiming knowledge of the unknown, which is a contradiction, and in this case logic does not fail.

 

Our life starts in a world that only consists of experiences at the beginning of our existence. You have no words, no concepts - they will be taught to you later. You feel the taste of your food, the warmth and comfort of your mother's embrace - these are your first positive experiences, and the absence of your mother or the hunger or the discomfort of your soon - hopefully - to be replaced diapers are your first negative ones. Rational, analytical and abstractive thinking will assert itself later (or never, depends on the person). We are born into a world of experiences, only a part of which will be explained to us to a satisfactory degree. Saying that science and logic are the beginning of our enlightenment is thinking backwards: our enlightenment starts at the moment of our birth. Science and logic offers interpretation of the knowledge gained through experience. There are things that are too complex to describe: our vocabulary simply fails to convey them to another person because they are too personal. You are forced to use analogy or other indirect methods - like art - to carry your message, hoping that those who watch or listen will associate it with their own personal version of the experience you want to present to them.

 

However, no matter how hard some people try to parade them as archenemies, science, beliefs and art (art as a form of expressing our experiences) can coexist peacefully. Lemaitre was a scientist and priest. Einstein played violin. Chemists and biologists do not enjoy the culinary pleasures less because they know about the underlying process. We are the sum of all these ways of thinking. We are beings based on experience, art, philosophy, beliefs and science. Denying any part of it is denying our own nature. Denying any part of our consciousness the right to venture into the realm of the others is denying our innermost drive to learn about the unknown and the unexplained by any means available to us.

 

[Sync182]

Problems arise when people who debate a subject start to mystify things because they think that the others' realm of thought and way of thinking somehow threatens their own, and they start to impose artificial limits. What Sync182 does not seem to understand is that for science, there is no end of the road with a stop sign: "Do not trespass! Beyond this sign lies the great realm of experience. Take your rationality and instruments elsewhere". Science progressed because those who advanced it ignored those signs, and continue to ignore them to date. Galileo ignored the stop signs of belief that told him 'the Earth is the center of the universe', Copernicus ignored the belief in perfect circles and slapped his ellipses on the planetary system, and provided a better theory. Science came to existence because some people were not satisfied with the answers gained through experience. We saw the sun moving through the sky and we did not feel the rotation of our planet - experience told us something superficial, and while most of the mankind was content with the simple answers, a few people decided to ask questions (is the thing that I experience really what it appears to me). The tension between our experience and our drive to learn 'what it really is' gave birth to science and philosophy.

 

Firstly - you don't know me from a bar of soap to presume to state what I do and do not understand.

 

Early astronomers challenged the beliefs of the church because their observations did not match the statements issued: some star-like objects in the night sky moved faster than others, therefore they must be rotating around something. These astronomers didn't really begin with an "I don't like what I'm being told, I'm going to prove them wrong" mentality; they were already looking and seeing things that didn't gel with the status quo.

 

I am well aware that science is always looking to find another answer somewhere, somehow. It's the nature of mankind to explore and expand, and Science is but one tool used in doing so. Philosophy is another. So are Art, and Music, and Mathematics. They are all tools used by man to improve his understanding of the world around him, as he uses them to express himself, and in doing so learn more about what his world is. It is well-considered that Music is an extension of Mathematics. As a musician, singer, IT technician and amateur astronomer, I fully accept and agree with this.

 

To limit yourself to one, though: that is where you will fail. To issue an absolute statement such as "If Science can't explain it, it cannot exist" is incredibly narrow-minded. To issue a statement such as "Science will never see what I see" is incredibly narrow-minded.

 

Remember the Universe's Greatest Computer's answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything was 42. Science Fiction, yes - but it shows that a computer (whose existence is based on Science, Maths and Logic) cannot fathom the deeper mysteries of life.

 

To grow as a human, you need to embrace & utilise multiple tools of understanding - the more tools you embrace, the more you will understand, the greater your growth will be.

 

I likely understand more than you realise. You may not understand this.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Sync182

[LadyMilla]

Firstly - you don't know me from a bar of soap to presume to state what I do and do not understand.

 

I likely understand more than you realise. You may not understand this.

 

Let me throw back your first sentence at you. You don't know me and you don't know what, how and how much I understand.

 

You blame others for their trust in science, yet you show unwavering belief in your own ideas.