Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
When we are talking ancient history it is never that easy.
|
That's partly the point I'm making, let's try not to get lost in the semantics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
I just started watching this, it's not that bad actually!
|
No Arnie, no terminator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
I'll admit I had to google kantain. Keep in mind that by using terms and phrases not common in most people's vocab it weakens your arguement. You've been doing it a lot in this thread. But a quick read of Kantain ethics, makes it seem like it sides with me, could you go into depth?
|
Don't assert generalities (in this case socially accepted logical axioms) with common sense, instead, define it accordingly.
I got this off wiki:
"Kant defined the Enlightenment in the essay "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?" as an age shaped by the motto, "Dare to know" (Latin: Sapere aude). This involved thinking autonomously, free of the dictates of external authority. Kant's work reconciled many of the differences between the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions of the 18th century. He had a decisive impact on the Romantic and German Idealist philosophies of the 19th century. His work has also been a starting point for many 20th century philosophers.
Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of reason, no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife, and conversely that no one could really know that there was not a God and an afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not."
I for one, don't agree with Kant, I can't be so certain that one can't know God due to limitations of reason.
Really I Kant.
The work continues...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
But I don't subscribe to the same thoughts as the church so that's not applicable to me. Your arguing that it has shelf life because the church has used some arguements for so long. But I've never quoted anything from the church. So while it might have shelf life against someone from the church who uses those arguements and has that set of morals, arguing against me, it doesn't.
Something the church does, doesn't apply to me.
|
Shelf life. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
I agree, many findings in history are lost because of filters (nationalities, ethics, and religion). And it's a shame, but some filters aren't a bad thing. If society was to truthfully have an unbiased debate on every "scientifc find" are we supposed to debate creationism? Hallow Earth? The bermuda triangle? Scientology?
|
In an extremely sound, non confrontational philosophical debate interested in data rather then vested interests in the status quo/revisionism. Idealistic you say? Maybe, but not unrealistic, it depends on how much strength one reserves for cynicism. It'd be a world without Bill O'Reilys and Stephen Colberts... OMG JOHN you wouldn't survive for over a week!
No really, it'd be a world where findings such as Burr's L-field wouldn't be dismissed with catch phrases such as "wishful vitalism". Data would speak for itself, and with experience being the primary data for being, many obscured topics could sooner be brought to light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
All supports of these theories have "findings". You for example have a huge bias against scientology (one I agree with) but a bias and filter none the less.
|
I however debate the code of ethics, rather then outright reject it.
Despite a ton of questionable material I have found on the organization, I won't outright reject it's principles until they're proven to be falsified (which I have begun as a non official critique), even though I for instance would like to see it shut down on a commercial enterprise basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
People have to be rational in this day and age when disscussing sciences. The last few hundred years have seen many different types of pseudoscience rise and fall. Many in the last decade have found a larger following thanks to the spread of technology.
|
Yet that technology is based on measuring/observing through the 5 senses.
Supposed pseudosciences that measure out of the 5 senses reality (say Shamanism in this case) have been proven more valuable than believed by western skeptics within recent decades with comparative findings in microbiology, but due to a steady knowledge filter in the mind of human beings at large, many don't even consider such findings, and so it's continued to be believed a pseudoscience for the masses.
Technology is only as resourceful as those who are willing to consider it's limitations. It otherwise will take another revolutionary mind/idea to prove such limitations when theoretical inquiry met with concern instead of rejection masked by skepticism (ie: knowledge filter) may have unraveled such limitations without the added expense of lost time/resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
Modren communication allows people to express their ideas freely and openly. Too many people present these ideas as facts, and far too many people accept them as facts. If people didn't have "knowledge filters" in place then the line between fact and fiction would blur.
|
So would the line between apparent fact and dogma...the question is, why do we find living in a world of deterministic logic so damn comfortable?
Personally I find the delusions of an individual much more palatable then a society gone mad...the society is already prepared for trickery among individuals, though needs to improve it's skepticism on institutions (be it religious or scientific).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaBoy
The internet allows the blogger have as much credebility as the scientist. A youtube video subsituites research for some.
Without people being skeptical of the knowledge that is coming in, society is going to be dumbed down (more so).
|
This is true in varying degrees, it supports both our viewpoints.
Feb 14, 08
Similar Topics
