Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Young Know-it-alls
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 72 (389021)
03-10-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dubious Drewski
03-10-2007 3:08 AM


He's right. I checked on windows calculator. "Standard" mode? "Scientific" mode? Bah, my calculator has an "Arbitrary" mode, how about yours?
It's just different in the southern hemisphere. That mythical reverse coriolis effect, dontcha know. Ask the Aussies on the board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-10-2007 3:08 AM Dubious Drewski has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 72 (389076)
03-10-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dubious Drewski
02-04-2007 7:20 AM


New beliefs don't negate old beliefs.
I'm sure none of you can find flaws in the logic of "2 plus 2 equals 4"
Yes, this logic is flawless but incomplete because 2 +2 also = 1 modulo 3. (And it equals 0 modulo 2, as in binary arithmetic.) I'm not just trying to be a smart-ass here. This bears directly on your OP. You will find as time goes by that a lot of your views don't change, but get imbedded in a greater context with more options. The indeterminentcy (sp.?) of quantum mechanics that fully describes nuclear decay without invoking strict deterministic causal mechanisms averages out for large scale objects (like us) to give the appearance of strict determinism. So, your belief in strict determinism is perfectly fine for you and your experiences.
For over a century now physicists have used a beautiful and powerful tool for advancing knowledge called The Correspondence Principal. This principal simply states that a new theory that describes new phenomena should reduce to the previously held theory(s) that was (were) very successful in describing previously understood phenomena in the limit where those older phenomena predominate. Einstein used this principal to determine which of many possible forms of general relative to use by finding the one that reduced to Newton's laws in the limit of low speeds and low mass densities.
I think this principal applies to a lot of what happens to a person during their intellectual growth. We don't reject old 'truths'. We just understand them in a broader context with additional meanings, nuances, and limits. I've always been fascinated, in studying art history, how the progress of art seems to occur as a form of punctuated equilibrium, a sequence of fairly well defined art movements, each of which originates as a reaction or rebellion against the previous genre but still encompassing most of the key elements of that genre.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dubious Drewski, posted 02-04-2007 7:20 AM Dubious Drewski has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-11-2007 1:50 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 33 of 72 (389139)
03-11-2007 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AnswersInGenitals
03-10-2007 2:22 PM


Re: New beliefs don't negate old beliefs.
quote:
We don't reject old 'truths'. We just understand them in a broader context with additional meanings, nuances, and limits.
I really like that. And I'm starting to see how that may really be true. I'm currently reading CS Lewis' Mere Christianity for the first time. It isn't fundamentally changing my mindset: I already shared many of his views (though my own seem simplistic and juvenile in comparison!)
It is, however, shining light on my beliefs about morality from a whole new angle. To sum it up: I'm understanding morality in a "broader context". Maybe this is what I can continue to do with other areas of my knowledge.
quote:
Yes, this logic is flawless but incomplete because 2 +2 also = 1 modulo 3. (And it equals 0 modulo 2, as in binary arithmetic.)
Oi vey! Semantics, people! lol. I regret not writing that as "the value of Two added twice equals Four." in the first place, because that's all I meant from the beginning. Nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 03-10-2007 2:22 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Aztraph, posted 04-08-2007 10:58 PM Dubious Drewski has not replied

  
Aztraph
Member (Idle past 6199 days)
Posts: 53
From: Seymour, Indiana, United States
Joined: 07-25-2005


Message 34 of 72 (393991)
04-08-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dubious Drewski
03-11-2007 1:50 AM


Re: New beliefs don't negate old beliefs.
Ya know, you can read everything on the planet, but it's what you believe that defines you as an individual, do you believe what you read or do you go out and experience things on your own? What do you know to be truth because you've experienced it, incontrovertibly? It's not the easiest thing to quantify, because you start questioning everything you've ever learned, I know I have. I question both sides of the coin of this entire forum, that's when I truely started Looking within and tried to forget what I've been taught, and I see myself for what I really am.
I don't know, what do you think, too deep?
But then specificaly to take my advise, you can't take my advise as a general rule. so if you want to, you can just forget all the bull farts i just laid down, your choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-11-2007 1:50 AM Dubious Drewski has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 35 of 72 (393999)
04-09-2007 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dubious Drewski
02-03-2007 10:55 PM


Just because no cause for atomic decay can be found, it does not prove that none exists. For everything in existence to follow the rules of determinism except for atoms themselves is a bit strange.
If you think that modern physics simply gave up on trying to find a cause to behaviour like rando decays, you would be wrong. There actually is hard proof that the world is not entirely deterministic. try googling "Bell`s inequality". By the way, this kind of behaviour is the rule rather then the exception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dubious Drewski, posted 02-03-2007 10:55 PM Dubious Drewski has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 04-09-2007 1:18 AM fallacycop has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 72 (394004)
04-09-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by fallacycop
04-09-2007 12:42 AM


I would argue that what can be perceived as random are actually chaotic in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by fallacycop, posted 04-09-2007 12:42 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by fallacycop, posted 04-09-2007 9:32 AM Taz has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 37 of 72 (394020)
04-09-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
04-09-2007 1:18 AM


I would argue that what can be perceived as random are actually chaotic in nature.
Argue as much as you want.
I'll chose experimental results ove arguments every time.
Edited by fallacycop, : pressed submit button to early by accident

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 04-09-2007 1:18 AM Taz has not replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 38 of 72 (434568)
11-16-2007 11:27 AM


In hindsight...
I was pretty arrogant in this thread, and not one of you called me out on it? Tsk tsk!
Now, nine months later, I'm starting to believe something I never thought I'd catch myself believing. I'm starting to see why some people choose to disbelieve in materialism and secularism. Sure, it's the truth, but it sure isn't uplifting! Appeals to emotion don't seem so foolish after all.
I sometimes find myself wishing I could be ignorant, deluded and happy rather than analytical, right and depressed. Odd, no?

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-16-2007 11:50 AM Dubious Drewski has replied
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 11-16-2007 3:51 PM Dubious Drewski has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 39 of 72 (434572)
11-16-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dubious Drewski
11-16-2007 11:27 AM


Re: In hindsight...
A question. Your OP says you are for
freedom of speech UNLESS your words deliberately and needlessly harm (Muhammed cartoons, anyone?)
Do you draw the line at harm or just offence?
I ask because you state your opposition to the first, but your example is of the second.
I share your interest in making civility a priority. But one cannot speak at all without offending someone, somewhere.
If the possibility of causing offence defines the boundary, in itself, on freedom of speech, we all stand vetoed before we begin.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : repair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 11:27 AM Dubious Drewski has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 12:23 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 40 of 72 (434577)
11-16-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Archer Opteryx
11-16-2007 11:50 AM


Re: In hindsight...
Sorry, I'm not sure if you noticed that this thread has been 'necroed', so to speak.
freedom of speech UNLESS your words deliberately and needlessly harm (Muhammed cartoons, anyone?)
One cannot speak at all without offending someone, somewhere.
If the possibility of causing offence defines the boundary, in itself, on freedom of speech, we all stand vetoed before we begin.
But in defence of my statement, the key words are "deliberately harm". Offence as a result of ignorance is obviously more forgivable, in my eyes. It's when someone purposely sets out to harm/offend that I take issue with, naturally.
Edited by Dubious Drewski, : better quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-16-2007 11:50 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-16-2007 12:50 PM Dubious Drewski has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 41 of 72 (434592)
11-16-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dubious Drewski
11-16-2007 12:23 PM


Re: In hindsight...
Necro? What is this 'Necro'?
It's when someone purposely sets out to harm/offend that I take issue with, naturally.
So what is the answer to my question?
'Purpose' was not the issue. The deliberate and voluntary nature of most speech, in the face of the fact that anything one says will cause offence somewhere, was acknowledged in my statement.
My question was about what difference you see, if any, between harm and offence.
In response to my request for clarity you merely put a slash between the two terms (see above) and treated them as synonyms. Surely you realize this only perpetuates the ambiguity I asked you to clarify.
Do you in fact regard the terms harm and offence as synonyms?
If yes, please acknowledge. If no, please clarify.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 12:23 PM Dubious Drewski has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 3:19 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2007 3:29 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Dubious Drewski
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 73
From: Alberta
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 42 of 72 (434619)
11-16-2007 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Archer Opteryx
11-16-2007 12:50 PM


Re: In hindsight...
Forgive me for saying so, but I get the feeling you are being a bit 'smart' with me here. But I understand your desire for clarity.
I'll bet you know very well what the prefix 'necro' refers to. Then considering the context, that this thread 'died' many months ago and that I brought it back 'from the dead'. The term 'necroed' should be easy to decipher, even if it is a made-up word. (Is there a rolling-eyes emoticon?)
And regarding your request to specify whether I feel it is 'offence' or 'harm' that I oppose; does it matter? No, they are not synonyms, I know. My point was: don't be a jerk. I'm not sure why you're asking for clarification on that.
Anyway, we're both getting a bit asinine here. I would like to avoid any sort of unconstructive debate on semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-16-2007 12:50 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-16-2007 3:22 PM Dubious Drewski has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 72 (434622)
11-16-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Dubious Drewski
11-16-2007 3:19 PM


On offense
A Gentleman tries to never offend unintentionally.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 3:19 PM Dubious Drewski has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 72 (434625)
11-16-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Archer Opteryx
11-16-2007 12:50 PM


Re: In hindsight...
Necro? What is this 'Necro'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-16-2007 12:50 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 45 of 72 (434628)
11-16-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dubious Drewski
11-16-2007 11:27 AM


Re: In hindsight...
Dubious Drewski writes:
was pretty arrogant in this thread, and not one of you called me out on it? Tsk tsk!
You padded the arrogance with just enough personal introspection.
I'm starting to see why some people choose to disbelieve in materialism and secularism. Sure, it's the truth, but it sure isn't uplifting! Appeals to emotion don't seem so foolish after all.
Maybe not The Truth, but at least the best we have so far. I can see the subjective ignorant attraction for appeals to emotion. They certainly feel good. But why would you consider them not foolish?
I sometimes find myself wishing I could be ignorant, deluded and happy rather than analytical, right and depressed.
I'm not sure your statement should be taken extremely literally, being analytical doesn't always lead to being right. But, in staying within the idea of the expression... why does it depress you?
I don't see how understanding can be depressing.
If you are referring to something like "I can no longer hope for 100 virgins in the afterlife" or some such fantasy, I still do not find the loss of such a fantasy depressing. It's not like you lost something you once had. You never really had it in the first place. And now you've freed the section of your mind fixated on the false-hope. That area can now be utilized to focus and hope for something that still has a chance of being real.
I find that uplifting. To no longer waste time on something that can never be, and now focus that time on something that is a part of reality.
I ask again... where does the depression come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 11:27 AM Dubious Drewski has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-16-2007 5:58 PM Stile has replied
 Message 47 by Dubious Drewski, posted 11-16-2007 11:28 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024