|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 9:41:59 GMT -5
I appreciate that but I dont think were less religious. You could hardly comprehend all of the faith based decisions regarding science and technology today. All the funding and research decisions. These dont always produce a profit or a product but they do reflect the heart of what we put our trust in. I dont fear science. I fear people who want to control other people, and I fear the mindset that beholds the world through the optics of using it to the exclusion of being refined inwardly.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2016 11:37:24 GMT -5
Its crossed my mind your atheism and attitude towards theists may be related to your experiences as well. Why do we refer to science as a category of its own, as opposed to the specific sciences say of history or physics? Why does the word science arouse something globular in the mind today, something larger than life? What is it about science thats all-important? A quick peek at wikipedia: Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.It is a process that can be applied to any field of study that can produce testable results. What makes it important is that the theories/ideas/etc. are supported by the data. And anyone can challenge the validity of the data.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2016 11:39:49 GMT -5
I appreciate that but I dont think were less religious. You could hardly comprehend all of the faith based decisions regarding science and technology today. All the funding and research decisions. These dont always produce a profit or a product but they do reflect the heart of what we put our trust in. I dont fear science. I fear people who want to control other people, and I fear the mindset that beholds the world through the optics of using it to the exclusion of being refined inwardly.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 17:18:45 GMT -5
Its crossed my mind your atheism and attitude towards theists may be related to your experiences as well. Why do we refer to science as a category of its own, as opposed to the specific sciences say of history or physics? Why does the word science arouse something globular in the mind today, something larger than life? What is it about science thats all-important? History isn't a science!
Why is science all important?
Science all important because science answers questions in a methodical manner without a prejudiced opinion that religion forms beforehand and without knowledge, thought, or reason.
We are able rely on it, whereas, religion is like a broken stick! We can rely on medical science to mend a fracture where as religion would just tell us to get up & walk!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 17:24:34 GMT -5
I appreciate that but I dont think were less religious. You could hardly comprehend all of the faith based decisions regarding science and technology today. All the funding and research decisions. These dont always produce a profit or a product but they do reflect the heart of what we put our trust in. I dont fear science. I fear people who want to control other people, and I fear the mindset that beholds the world through the optics of using it to the exclusion of being refined inwardly. Lee, would you please name some decisions regarding science and technology that are based on "faith?"
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Mar 23, 2016 19:41:58 GMT -5
I hear the book referred to a lot. My dad read and recommended it. if you want a review of the book there are lots of discussions . Just google : Closing of American Minds. some of it is quite profound , like the analysis of social tolerance . We are living in a country that goes overboard with PC and tolerating all kinds of irrational ideas. We are encouraged to adopt the philosophy of toleration of "everything", to what extent? We are taught .....there might not be any absolute knowledge, things "change/evolve" , what is true today does not mean it will always be true. relativism..... It seems to get by, until an absolute truth comes along and those that believe , are NOT tolerated, they are intolerant of belief. They want relativism instead of truth. And the latter end of this cycle is worse than it began . Education should teach us how to think critically and logically, the problem is that social toleration breeds intolerance . hmmmm...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 20:24:49 GMT -5
I hear the book referred to a lot. My dad read and recommended it. if you want a review of the book there are lots of discussions . Just google : Closing of American Minds. some of it is quite profound , like the analysis of s ocial tolerance . We are living in a country that goes overboard with PC and tolerating all kinds of irrational ideas. We are encouraged to adopt the philosophy of toleration of "everything", to what extent? We are taught .....there might not be any absolute knowledge, things "change/evolve", what is true today does not mean it will always be true. relativism.....It seems to get by, until an absolute truth comes along and those that believe, are NOT tolerated, they are intolerant of belief. They want relativism instead of truth. And the latter end of this cyclis worse than it began . Education should teach us how to think critically and logically, the problem is that social toleration breeds intolerance . hmmmm... While you read the "Closing of American Minds" by Allan Bloom, keep your own mind open to criticism of the book & author. "The criticism of the book was continued by negative and impassioned reviews by Benjamin Barber in Harper's; by the scholar of ancient philosophy and Nietzsche Alexander Nehamas in the London Review of Books; and by David Rieff in The Times Literary Supplement.[10]
David Rieff called Bloom "an academic version of Oliver North: vengeful, reactionary, antidemocratic."
The book, he said, was one that "decent people would be ashamed of having written." The tone of these reviews led James Atlas in the New York Times Magazine to conclude "the responses to Bloom's book have been charged with a hostility that transcends the usual mean-spiritedness of reviewers."[4]
One reviewer, the philosopher Robert Paul Wolff writing in the scholarly journal Academe, reviewed the book as a 'work of fiction' : he claimed that Bloom's friend Saul Bellow, who had written the introduction, had written a "coruscatingly funny novel in the form of a pettish, bookish, grumpy, reactionary complaint against the last two decades", using as the narrator a mid-fiftyish professor at the University of Chicago, to whom Bellow gives the evocative name 'Bloom.'"[10] Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2016 20:34:37 GMT -5
Oh I think it would fit into the social sciences.
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Mar 23, 2016 21:19:28 GMT -5
if you want a review of the book there are lots of discussions . Just google : Closing of American Minds. some of it is quite profound , like the analysis of s ocial tolerance . We are living in a country that goes overboard with PC and tolerating all kinds of irrational ideas. We are encouraged to adopt the philosophy of toleration of "everything", to what extent? We are taught .....there might not be any absolute knowledge, things "change/evolve", what is true today does not mean it will always be true. relativism.....It seems to get by, until an absolute truth comes along and those that believe, are NOT tolerated, they are intolerant of belief. They want relativism instead of truth. And the latter end of this cyclis worse than it began . Education should teach us how to think critically and logically, the problem is that social toleration breeds intolerance . hmmmm... While you read the "Closing of American Minds" by Allan Bloom, keep your
own mind open to criticism
of the book & author. "The criticism of the book was continued by negative and impassioned reviews by Benjamin Barber in Harper's[/ .....b][10]
Just saying...
[ But being careful to closing your mind to erroneous views . right!?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 21:46:43 GMT -5
Oh I think it would fit into the social sciences. Yes, - I suppose, as in analyzing social trends etc.
Even those can be iffy according to how different people view the data with the many factors involved and difficulty of replicating as using the scientific method of finding answers to our questions.
I was thinking more in terms of the history as written as narratives about past.
Those stories are usually written by the victors and as such often can't be relied on as the complete picture.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 22:31:39 GMT -5
While you read the "Closing of American Minds" by Allan Bloom, keep your
own mind open to criticism
of the book & author. "The criticism of the book was continued by negative and impassioned reviews by Benjamin Barber in Harper's[/ .....b][10]
Just saying...
But being careful to closing your mind to erroneous views . right!? We have been hearing this old argument for quite awhile, -the argument against our being "tolerant" of others, -which when you get right to the nub of it, - being "tolerant" of others is actually thinking and acting in terms of "treating others as we would want to be treated" -does that phrase sound familiar?
The problem is that there some people who just do not want to be be "tolerant" towards others beliefs, ideas, color, gender, etc. They want to keep their old intolerances.
So those people re-invented this phrase "political correctness"(PC), -as they call it, in order to try to smear those who really do want to "treat others as they would want to be treated."
I don't know why it surprises me any more, but it still does, -that when society moves a step forward to be a better society, there are always those who do their best to try to force us back.
Hmmmm, Can you name any "social toleration that breeds intolerance?"
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 23:32:13 GMT -5
The right or wongness of tolerance hinges on whether we have a center. If our center is moral and ethic in nature, our tolerance will exist in tension with these and have context and conditions. If we dont have a center we will fall for or allow any thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 23:34:48 GMT -5
So interpretive history is as important as factual history. I couldnt agree more. Quite a science, history is.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 23:38:21 GMT -5
A decision regarding science and technology based on faith . . . any decision regarding its funding.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 24, 2016 0:32:28 GMT -5
A decision regarding science and technology based on faith . . . any decision regarding its funding. Lee, aren't you just repeating yourself ?
I ask you this question in my last post. "Lee, would you please name some decisions regarding science and technology that are based on "faith?"
What decisions are you talking about?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 4:11:32 GMT -5
Oh I think it would fit into the social sciences. Yes, - I suppose, as in analyzing social trends etc.
Even those can be iffy according to how different people view the data with the many factors involved and difficulty of replicating as using the scientific method of finding answers to our questions.
I was thinking more in terms of the history as written as narratives about past.
Those stories are usually written by the victors and as such often can't be relied on as the complete picture.It is true to say that natural scientists have varying views and opinions also, they dont always agree on everything.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2016 9:23:09 GMT -5
A decision regarding science and technology based on faith . . . any decision regarding its funding. I am guessing that you have not been involved whan applying for research funding. To make your case you have to present evidence that there is some possibility of success.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 24, 2016 11:57:18 GMT -5
The possibility, not a guarantee. But you could apply the science of selling and probably sell ice to most Eskimoes, most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2016 20:53:22 GMT -5
The possibility, not a guarantee. But you could apply the science of selling and probably sell ice to most Eskimoes, most of the time. I think the data would support the need for both the Inuit or the Yupik to purchase ice. Perhaps not to the cartoon Eskimo!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 25, 2016 12:01:19 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I saw a commercial on television for an antidepressant. It went, "Studies show up to 2/3 of patients feal no improvement from symptoms of depression while taking their medication. Taking ABC antidepressant with your regular antidepressant has resolved many patients symptoms. You dont have to give up all the progress youve made."
When I see a commercial like that I think Im being fed a line of bull. Given the predudice of "science" in favor of physicalism Im disposed to be skeptical of physical cures within the psychological dicipline. Im glad most physicians recognize the value of behavioral therapy in conjunction witb medication. As just one example, doing something good for someone else is a powerful antidepressant.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 25, 2016 13:46:26 GMT -5
But being careful to closing your mind to erroneous views . right!? when you get right to the nub of it, - being "tolerant" of others is actually thinking and acting in terms of "treating others as we would want to be treated" [/order to try to smear those who really do want to "treat others as they would want to be treated."
I don't know why it surprises me any more, but it still does, -that when society moves a step forward to be a better society, there are always those who do their best to try to force us back.
[
u]Hmmmm, [/u]Can you name any
"social toleration that breeds intolerance?"[/b][/font] [/quote][ This is what his book tries to explain We need a standard for moral behavior (good manners......?) If we don't we have social relativity and eventually we all become abhorred at the offensive manners that will be bred out of its likewise offensive behaviors ? Hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 25, 2016 14:02:59 GMT -5
There was a time that higher education involved learning what was the "normal" thought . Fitting in to the predominant culture of the day.(Normal School) If you didn't agree they would say you were not normal ? hmmm
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 25, 2016 14:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 16:05:05 GMT -5
I appreciate that but I dont think were less religious. You could hardly comprehend all of the faith based decisions regarding science and technology today. All the funding and research decisions. These dont always produce a profit or a product but they do reflect the heart of what we put our trust in. I dont fear science. I fear people who want to control other people, and I fear the mindset that beholds the world through the optics of using it to the exclusion of being refined inwardly. Lee, would you please name some decisions regarding science and technology that are based on "faith?"Can I play? That the Titanic was large and unsinkable so it could hit a big iceberge and shift it out of the way? That must have been great faith in the technology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 16:21:45 GMT -5
I appreciate that but I dont think were less religious. You could hardly comprehend all of the faith based decisions regarding science and technology today. All the funding and research decisions. These dont always produce a profit or a product but they do reflect the heart of what we put our trust in. I dont fear science. I fear people who want to control other people, and I fear the mindset that beholds the world through the optics of using it to the exclusion of being refined inwardly. Wow, Stone a crow! For once rational is left lost for words. This must be a record worth noting.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2016 16:33:36 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I saw a commercial on television for an antidepressant. It went, "Studies show up to 2/3 of patients feel no improvement from symptoms of depression while taking their medication.
Taking ABC antidepressant with your regular antidepressant has resolved many patients symptoms. You don't have to give up all the progress you've made."When I see a commercial like that I think Im being fed a line of bull. Given the predudice of "science" in favor of physicalism. Im disposed to be skeptical of physical cures within the psychological dicipline. Im glad most physicians recognize the value of behavioral therapy in conjunction witb medication. As just one example, doing something good for someone else is a powerful antidepressant. Lee, -could the reason that you think that you are "being fed a line of bull," is perhaps due to the fact that you know very little about depression or the medications for depression, and/or other therapies for depression?
What is it about that commercial that you see as "a line of bull?" Is it because it is that the medication was developed by "science" and you seem to have this rather severe antipathy against "science?"
Do you realize, don't you, that there is nothing unusual about taking more than one medication for depression? You aware, aren't you, that most all doctors and counselors already know & prescribe medication and counseling together because as such they work best together as therapy for depression?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2016 16:46:06 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I saw a commercial on television for an antidepressant. It went, "Studies show up to 2/3 of patients feal no improvement from symptoms of depression while taking their medication. Taking ABC antidepressant with your regular antidepressant has resolved many patients symptoms. You dont have to give up all the progress youve made." When I see a commercial like that I think Im being fed a line of bull. You are. Let's not get marketing mixed up with reality. Having worked with people within the psychological discipline I was glad for the availability of physical cures like haloperidol and fluphenazine.{quote]Im glad most physicians recognize the value of behavioral therapy in conjunction witb medication. As just one example, doing something good for someone else is a powerful antidepressant.[/quote]In some cases this is true.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 25, 2016 17:09:45 GMT -5
when you get right to the nub of it, - being "tolerant" of others is actually thinking and acting in terms of "treating others as we would want to be treated" [/order to try to smear those who really do want to "treat others as they would want to be treated."
I don't know why it surprises me any more, but it still does, -that when society moves a step forward to be a better society, there are always those who do their best to try to force us back.
[
u]Hmmmm, [/u]Can you name any
"social toleration that breeds intolerance?"[/b][/font] [/quote][[/font] This is what his book tries to explain. We need a standard for moral behavior (good manners......?) If we don't we have social relativity and eventually we all become abhorred at the offensive manners that will be bred out of its likewise offensive behaviors ? Hmmmm[/quote] I don't understand how you take parts of what I have posted, and cut them up into bites that don't seem to make any sense and often aren't even what I said! So I am going to re-post what I did said: "We have been hearing this old argument for quite awhile, -the argument against our being "tolerant" of others, -which when you get right to the nub of it, - being "tolerant" of others is actually thinking and acting in terms of "treating others as we would want to be treated" -does that phrase sound familiar?
The problem is that there some people who just do not want to be be "tolerant" towards others beliefs, ideas, color, gender, etc. They want to keep their old intolerances.
I'm not sure you are seeking to political correctness"(PC), -as they call it, in order to try to smear those who really do want to "treat others as they would want to be treated."
I don't know why it surprises me any more, but it still does, -that when society moves a step forward to be a better society, there are always those who do their best to try to force us back.
Hmmmm, Can you name any "social toleration that breeds intolerance?"
Perhaps I don't understand what you are purposing. Is it "political correctness"(PC) that you are finding fault with?
|
|