bornagainathiest

Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

Recommended Posts

o5p9FUe.jpg

 

I found this today and immediately thought of our conversion about science having a very limited perspective of reality, Dude.

Imho, we can look at this image and draw different conclusions about our ability to understand reality thru science.

 

One interpretation is that we can only ever see the Truth (of reality) from our own particular pov and we are forever condemned to see it as a green triangle or a orange square or a blue circle.  That whatever we see is incomplete and not the whole tri-colored, square/circular/triangular Truth.  That, because we cannot see the whole, the parts we can see are of no or little value.  That because we can never see the whole, we shouldn't make the effort to see more than we do today.  That because we can never see the whole, we shouldn't use what we can see to guide us in making decisions.  That if we don't and can't have the complete knowledge of the full Truth, we should just switch everything off, close up and go home. 

 

I will go on record right now and clearly state that I do not subscribe to this interpretation.

Instead, I see the above diagram in a different way.  Humans are not forever locked into a single, limited and unchanging view of reality.  History is witness to our creativity, adaptability and resilience when it comes to finding new scientific ways of discovering how reality works.  Therefore, it's unnecessarily pessimistic and defeatist to say that we can only occupy one of the three viewpoints from which to observe the full Truth.  An excellent example of such a multiple viewpoint approach are the many ways science allows us to observe and understand the workings of the human body.  None of these many diverse techniques yields the full Truth about the body, yet each one is still True, each one has value and each one can been added to another, so that a better understanding of reality results.

 

For myself, with my interest in astronomy, I can paint the following picture.

Over most of human history we only ever saw the stars in one way - with our eyes.  Galileo changed that forever.  In the 20th century we expanded the range of our vision from just the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum to all of it.  Radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays.  Nothing is off limits any more.  We can also detect cosmic rays, neutrinos, Cerenkov radiation, magnetic fields and various high-energy particles.  Last year the new technology of 'listening' to gravitational waves came to maturity, allowing us to probe black holes, neutron stars and supernovae.  Now, while I readily admit that none of these techniques on their own can tell us exactly what is happening out there, what they do tell us can be added together and the sum of the parts is very valuable indeed.  We have learnt and we are learning.

 

Anyway, enough from me, Dude.  What are your thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



BAA,

 

I might be missing something here, but...

 

If I'm on Earth, the sun moon and stars all revolve around me.  If I'm on Mars, the sun moon and stars all revolve around me. If I'm on some exoplanet in another galaxy, I'm guessing that the sun, moon, and stars will all be revolving around me.

 

So what's your point? Do you have some special knowledge  of a "whole tri-colored, square/circular/triangular Truth" as you put it that the rest of us don't have?

 

What would that "Truth" be, and you know I don't know that much about science. Have things progressed beyond the concept of relative motion?

 

ETA: We don't need to go down the road of astronomy, BAA, because I think this might be about something else. Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I might be missing something here, but...

 

If I'm on Earth, the sun moon and stars all revolve around me.  If I'm on Mars, the sun moon and stars all revolve around me. If I'm on some exoplanet in another galaxy, I'm guessing that the sun, moon, and stars will all be revolving around me.

 

So what's your point? Do you have some special knowledge  of a "whole tri-colored, square/circular/triangular Truth" as you put it that the rest of us don't have?

 

What would that "Truth" be, and you know I don't know that much about science. Have things progressed beyond the concept of relative motion?

 

ETA: We don't need to go down the road of astronomy, BAA, because I think this might be about something else. Am I wrong?

 

Yes, I'm afraid you are missing something, Dude.

 

No.  By myself, I don't have special knowledge 'beyond myself' about the whole truth of reality.

Instead, we ALL have special knowledge from beyond ourselves that enables us to say more about reality than we could from just our own, isolated, individual, limited points of view.  Not the whole truth, but enough to get by when it comes to making certain decisions and much more than we could acquire on our own.  Now, having made this claim, I'd better make good on it and explain what I mean.  To do so I won't have to use astronomy or anything out-of-this-world.  Instead, because I'm a gardener, I'll use the gardening to explain.  That should be down to earth enough.  (Pardon the pun! wink.png)

 

My favorite pruner is one like this.  

19S0241_11.jpg

http://www.garrettwade.com/ 

If I had to make one of these from scratch, I simply couldn't do it.  I don't have the knowledge, skills or tools to do so.  I don't know where to source the iron ore that will become the steel parts. If I did know where, then I don't know how to go about getting the iron ore out of the ground.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore  If I did know that, then I don't how to go about refining and smelting and converting the raw iron into steel. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_hearth_furnace

 

Even if I could get this far and had an ingot of steel to work with, what then?

How would I know how to convert this into A10 Tool Steel?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_steel   Then, could I shape and machine it to give me the sharp, but durable working edge that my work demands?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machinability

 

Assuming I make it to here, what about the different grade of steel needed for the pruner's coiled spring?  That needs a steel which can compress and expand over and over again without losing it's resilience and flexibility.  Ok, let's assume that I do that.  I now need to find and fell a tree of a suitable wood for the handle.  Where does French Olivewood grow?  Only in France?  Or can I source it here in the US?     Wendyshrug.gif   And once it's been felled, are there any special techniques of tricks-of-the-trade I need to know about selecting which part of the timber to use?  How long do I let the wood season for, before starting to work it?  Is there anything I can do to prevent the wood warping or bowing while the seasoning process is happening?   And once I'm ready, what tools do I need?

Then there's the leather holster.  Where do I...     STOP!  Wendystop.gif

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ok Dude.

There's no need for you to answer any of the above questions.  They're rhetorical.  But please answer this one.  Your answer will be part of my explanation.

 

What special knowledge from beyond myself do I rely on to use this pruner?

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a gardener, I'll use the gardening to explain.

Huh we share a number of interests!

 

Well... I like gardening.... I don't know if I'd call myself a gardener. smile.png

 

Thought provoking posts here - do you want this to remain between you and dude, or are comments from others acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting enough this video essay "I, Pencil" remarks to many of those questions brought up. Something a simple lead graphite pencil takes many interactions from sources in most probability unknown from each other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1,000 for the video, Kev!

 

It should give the Dude food for thought.

 

smile.png

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm a gardener, I'll use the gardening to explain.

Huh we share a number of interests!

 

Well... I like gardening.... I don't know if I'd call myself a gardener. smile.png

 

Thought provoking posts here - do you want this to remain between you and dude, or are comments from others acceptable?

 

 

Could you hang back for a little while, please LF?

 

I could just explain everything that I mean to the Dude, all in one go.

 

But sometimes things are better received if people work them out for themselves.

 

And there's always the possibility that I've messed up.

 

So this is a golden opportunity to have my ideas checked and tested.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool bananas biggrin.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I've been goofing off tonight and joking around in ToT and even here in Science vs. Religion. 

 

Meanwhile, I've been pondering this thread, and I thank you very mulch for your patience. smile.png  If this is going to be about a one sided view, am I wrong about relative motion? 

 

Then there's this that you said, and I don't think I've taken it out of context;   "By myself, I don't have special knowledge 'beyond myself' about the whole truth of reality." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

I've been goofing off tonight and joking around in ToT and even here in Science vs. Religion. 

 

Meanwhile, I've been pondering this thread, and I thank you very mulch for your patience. smile.png  If this is going to be about a one sided view, am I wrong about relative motion? 

 

Then there's this that you said, and I don't think I've taken it out of context;   "By myself, I don't have special knowledge 'beyond myself' about the whole truth of reality." 

 

Ok Dude.

 

I don't know if this is going to be a one-sided view, because I'm not sure what you mean by 'relative motion'.

LogicalFallacy and I are discussing the Copernican principle elsewhere and this involves using the concept of relativity.  Where there's no absolute frame of reference for anything.  Every viewpoint is relative to each other.  Is this what you're referring to?

 

Which is what I was referring to, when I wrote,  "By myself, I don't have special knowledge 'beyond myself' about the whole truth of reality." 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following....... 

 

I loved the pencil video! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA,

 

Really cool perspective picture and demonstration. Thanks. And for dude it seems to me that he has the realization that science itself is a perspective, and not always a valid one or truth concerning reality. Sometimes it can be a truth like any of the 3 perspectives in the OP. Other times IMO it can be an incorrect perspective drawing partly wrong conclusions from only half a picture. Still other times science IMO can be an interpretation seemingly completely off-the-wall like trying to make sense out of a Rorschach test, which tells more about the perceiver than it does about the object, similar to religion, where you see what you want to see.

 

Sometimes IMO science can be a very good description of reality which includes many valid perspectives of reality. An example of this IMO is the theory of Natural Selection. Still with only valid perspectives there still never could be an all-inclusive truth. The reason for this IMO is that there is no such thing as an all-inclusive truth. All such "truths" are just perspectives. Some are much better than others if they include different generally valid perspectives of the same thing in the same description.

 

Of course this explanation involving perspectives of reality does not apply just to science. It can apply to human understandings of anything in general, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's right Pantheory.

 

The square/circle/triangle image isn't just useful for discussions about science and scientific matters.  We all have our own 'unique perspectives of reality'. (Thank you! Very apt and descriptive phrase.

 

One major point under examination in this thread is this.  

If our personal perspectives (our human understandings) are unique to us, does that also mean that they are incompatible with anyone else's?   Is unique equivalent to incompatible?  I have an opinion on this and I believe that I also have a solid, evidence-based argument to back up that opinion.  However, it's too soon for me to share either of those things in this thread.  

 

Another major point of debate and discussion is this.

Does unique mean exclusive?  Or is it possible for us to bring our personal understandings into alignment with those of other people?  That is, can we by common agreement, arrive at collective understandings using commonly-agreed frames of reference, that work for everyone, everywhere?  Once again, I have an opinion and an argument, but these must also wait.

 

Lastly, there is this highly significant point that needs to be looked at.

If we accept that humans can never gain absolute knowledge of reality (your all-inclusive truth?) how should that acceptance affect our efforts to gain some knowledge about reality?  Should we say that because we can never know anything with 100% certainty, everything we believe we can and do know is actually an illusion?  That if we cannot have total and absolute victory, our lot is total and absolute defeat?  That to strive to understand more today than we did yesterday is... foolish?  My opinion and argument on this one must wait too.

 

Many thanks for your thoughtful input.

 

BAA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What started this? Did Dude simply express that science doesn't have it all figured out in a completely innocent way?

 

Or has he been campaigning for supernaturalism because science doesn't have it all figured out?

 

What's the context here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA, 

 

I'm actually not sure what the point of this thread is. You seem to have an agenda, and I can pull a couple of quotes from this thread to show why I say so. It seems that you are trying to take me by the hand and lead me into some great Truth, which you will spring on me in a great reveal as you lead me into the light of reality. Or something like that. It's coming off as condescending on your part, although that may be just my perception, so no offense meant. 

 

Really, can we leave analogies and etc. out of this and just cut to the chase? What is it you are saying? I do believe this has something to do with Fort Pickens, and now we have the Copernican Principle, Pencils (i.e. You didn't build that!) and gardening tools in play.

 

Really, BAA, just spit it out, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What started this? Did Dude simply express that science doesn't have it all figured out in a completely innocent way?

 

Or has he been campaigning for supernaturalism because science doesn't have it all figured out?

 

What's the context here? 

 

Hi Josh.  It's the former, and I'm all for science, but not Science. I'm not sure of the context here either.  smile.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's right Pantheory.

 

The square/circle/triangle image isn't just useful for discussions about science and scientific matters.  We all have our own 'unique perspectives of reality'. (Thank you! Very apt and descriptive phrase.

 

One major point under examination in this thread is this.  

If our personal perspectives (our human understandings) are unique to us, does that also mean that they are incompatible with anyone else's?   Is unique equivalent to incompatible?  I have an opinion on this and I believe that I also have a solid, evidence-based argument to back up that opinion.  However, it's too soon for me to share either of those things in this thread.  

 

Another major point of debate and discussion is this.

Does unique mean exclusive?  Or is it possible for us to bring our personal understandings into alignment with those of other people?  That is, can we by common agreement, arrive at collective understandings using commonly-agreed frames of reference, that work for everyone, everywhere?  Once again, I have an opinion and an argument, but these must also wait.

 

Lastly, there is this highly significant point that needs to be looked at.

If we accept that humans can never gain absolute knowledge of reality (your all-inclusive truth?) how should that acceptance affect our efforts to gain some knowledge about reality?  Should we say that because we can never know anything with 100% certainty, everything we believe we can and do know is actually an illusion?  That if we cannot have total and absolute victory, our lot is total and absolute defeat?  That to strive to understand more today than we did yesterday is... foolish?  My opinion and argument on this one must wait too.

 

Many thanks for your thoughtful input.

 

BAA.

 

Being a general optimist, my opinion is that mankind's on-going struggle for ever-better understandings of reality is one of our noblest :) quests, no pun intended.

Again, many thanks for finding this cool OP perspective-variation illustration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, duderonomy said:

BAA, 

I'm actually not sure what the point of this thread is. You seem to have an agenda, and I can pull a couple of quotes from this thread to show why I say so. It seems that you are trying to take me by the hand and lead me into some great Truth, which you will spring on me in a great reveal as you lead me into the light of reality. Or something like that. It's coming off as condescending on your part, although that may be just my perception, so no offense meant. 

Really, can we leave analogies and etc. out of this and just cut to the chase? What is it you are saying? I do believe this has something to do with Fort Pickens, and now we have the Copernican Principle, Pencils (i.e. You didn't build that!) and gardening tools in play.

Really, BAA, just spit it out, please.

.

.

.

Well, sometimes in life Dude, what you see is what you get.

And in this case, what you saw was this...   "I found this today and immediately thought of our conversion about science having a very limited perspective of reality, Dude."  ...and that's what you're getting.  No agenda.  No subtext.  Nothing else.   In our recent dialog in ToffT you wrote...  "Everything we observe in the universe is based only on what we see from our severely limited perspective, based on what may be considered cutting edge technology that may in a short time be shown to be only as cutting edge as a Model T is to a 2017 Mustang GT. Would you agree with that?"  

And since LogicalFallacy and I are covering somewhat similar ground in the 'Attn BAA - Beginning of the Universe Question' thread, when I found that square/circle/triangle diagram it seemed to me the ideal time and opportunity for me to kill three birds with one stone.  One, to discover why you think our powers of observation are so limited - hence the title of this thread.  Two, to complement LF's reading in that other thread with a helpful exposition of the workings of and limits of science.  (And he has shown significant interest in this topic.  So I reckon I read him right.)  And third, to discuss science matters outside of ToffT, which is now the only sub-forum where political matters are kosher.  By leaving ToffT, if the issue of global warming did come up in this thread, then we'd be obliged to discuss it apolitically.  Since I always abide by my self-imposed rule never to get involved in anything political in Ex-C, exiting ToffT and moving to this sub-forum was the only way I can maintain my political neutrality yet still discuss global warming - if it came up here.  If.  So I was covering for that eventuality, not planning to raise it, ok Dude?

Now, I'm real sorry that my efforts to bring things from the skies (astronomy) and down to earth (gardening) came across as condescending to you.  That wasn't the intention.  If you're familiar with my style of explanation (and you should be) you'll know that verbose analogies are what I do.  I'm sorry if they try your patience.  That wasn't my intention either.   

Ok, the above is a fully transparent declaration of my intentions, which I hope will satisfy you.  Since you want me to just spit out what I mean,  here it is.

Our individual perspectives of reality are severely limited.  That is not disputed.  But the examples of the pruner, the pencil and the Copernican principle were given to illustrate the point that none of us live by using only individual perspectives to do anything or to decide anything.  We live and think collectively and cooperatively because we have evolved as highly social animals who thrive by sharing our knowledge, skills and experience with others.  Therefore, when it comes to the diagram, our limited and individual perspectives of just a square or just a circle or just a triangle are NOT how we actually see reality.  We take note of and employ what others think, adding their views to our own, to give us a better understanding of reality than we could acquire just by ourselves.  Our understanding of reality is never purely individual.  It is always more than we can just see on our own.   None of us grow up in total isolation from the knowledge and experience of others.  Nor do any of us live and think and decide in isolation either.  We learn from others.

Having spat it out and explained myself as best I can, there are just two remaining items of business between us, Dude.

The first is that I still don't understand what you mean by the 'concept of relative motion', in the context of this thread.  I've explained myself, so please explain yourself.

The second is to ask you what your thoughts are re: my full explanation.

Thanks,

BAA.

.

.

.

.

ps.

I do NOT like this new format.  There seems to be no facility for me to preview what I've written before posting it. :(

 

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Hi Josh.  It's the former, and I'm all for science, but not Science. I'm not sure of the context here either.  smile.png

Thanks for explaining. I'm just trying to understand what in the world's going on here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA, Yeah this new format sux. At best it will take a lot of getting used to. It feels like we went from crashing on a big comfy couch to talk to sitting in an uncomfortable waiting area at a tire store, if that makes any sense. It doesn't feel like home.

I did notice there is a preview  button at the top right when you are posting, to the right of the "size" menu. Maybe that's what you were wanting?

I'm hoping you didn't take offence at my post. I just don't want to dive into a lake of minutiae here if I can avoid it, or at least take one cup full at a time. :)  Your explanation of everyone sharing knowledge, that is to say no man is an island as it were is correct, but it's only good if the foundation and all of the following layers are solid, which leads me to relative motion...

Can it be shown conclusively that the Earth does not sit dead still at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the Bible seems to claim?  Yes or no. If yes, please explain, and if no, then maybe we need better tools, which is why I said this:

"Everything we observe in the universe is based only on what we see from our severely limited perspective, based on what may be considered cutting edge technology that may in a short time be shown to be only as cutting edge as a Model T is to a 2017 Mustang GT. Would you agree with that?"  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

BAA, Yeah this new format sux. At best it will take a lot of getting used to. It feels like we went from crashing on a big comfy couch to talk to sitting in an uncomfortable waiting area at a tire store, if that makes any sense. It doesn't feel like home.

I did notice there is a preview  button at the top right when you are posting, to the right of the "size" menu. Maybe that's what you were wanting?

I'm hoping you didn't take offence at my post. I just don't want to dive into a lake of minutiae here if I can avoid it, or at least take one cup full at a time. :)  Your explanation of everyone sharing knowledge, that is to say no man is an island as it were is correct, but it's only good if the foundation and all of the following layers are solid, which leads me to relative motion...

Can it be shown conclusively that the Earth does not sit dead still at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the Bible seems to claim?  Yes or no. If yes, please explain, and if no, then maybe we need better tools, which is why I said this:

"Everything we observe in the universe is based only on what we see from our severely limited perspective, based on what may be considered cutting edge technology that may in a short time be shown to be only as cutting edge as a Model T is to a 2017 Mustang GT. Would you agree with that?"  

Hey Dude!   Thanks for responding.  Ok, let's see...

"Can it be shown conclusively that..."

Strictly speaking, nothing except a mathematical proof will show anything conclusively.  But math is an idealized concept, a language that we use to describe reality.  It's not reality itself and it's not how we apprehend reality thru our senses.  It's one of those ways of looking at the Truth, as shown in the diagram.  Math is True, but it's not the whole Truth.  So, not knowing the whole Truth is what it means to be human.  To be human means to find True ways to look at the Truth, but to never know the whole thing.  To be human means to never know anything with absolute certainty, but to always be working with less than 100% certainty.

If you accept that last sentence Dude, can you see how that affects the Yes/No condition you set down for the answer to your question?   If you accept it, then your Yes/No question cannot be answered.  Using better tools will not lead to a Yes/No answer either.  The problem doesn't lie with the tool, but the tool user.   Now, the fact that your question cannot be answered doesn't mean that the Earth is as the Bible says it is - at the center of everything.  That conclusion is not indicated.  All that's happened is that we've decided that human nature itself rules out possibility of using the terms of your question (Y/N?) to obtain a meaningful answer.   You follow?

There is also a second conclusion that is not indicated.  That because the 'foundation and all the following layers' are not solid (i.e., not the entire and complete Truth) they therefore have no value and should play no part in our decision making.  That is not indicated, either by our acceptance of the limits human nature or by what the diagram tells us.  Square, circular or triangular views of the True shape of reality, while not being the full Truth - are still True.  It's quite wrong to conclude that anything less than 100% of the Truth must be false.  That's an unreasonable and erroneous conclusion.   

How do we know this?  Because the decisions we make don't have to be 100% right or perfect or absolutely correct.  They just have to work well enough to get us the results we want.   They just need to be practical - not perfect.   100% right is an un-realizable ideal.  Ditto perfection.  Ditto the right answer.  Ditto the correct answer.   Going back to the diagram and to the point we tentatively accepted in the first paragraph (that humans can never know anything with 100% certainty) ...it's clearly wrong to ask for the 'right' answer to a problem and to insist that only this 'right' answer is acceptable.  That anything less than a 100% right answer is 100% wrong and is of no practical value.  To claim that a solution only has value and is only viable if it is 100% right.  By definition, no solution and no answer that humans can come up with is 100% right.  So we should stop asking for the perfection we know that humans cannot achieve.  Stop demanding the absolute certainty that is forever beyond us.  Stop requiring the foundation and all the following layers to be totally solid.  

As you can see below Dude, I'm holding to a consistent line here.

On 2/7/2017 at 0:53 PM, Burnedout said:

 

1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
 
 
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
 
 
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
 
 
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
 
 
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
 
 
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the north and south poles.
 
 
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

 

 

I don't know if your post was meant for me BO, but I'm happy to respond to it.

All seven criteria have the same answer.

Nothing on the Earth's surface or under it is "correct" because everything constantly changes and is always in flux.  There is no such thing as a fixed and absolute point of reference for anyone, anywhere or anywhen.  All measurements must be considered relative to each other and nothing should ever be considered fixed or absolute.  Everything changes, albeit at different rates in different locations.

Of course, if you accept this BO, you'll have to stop using Fort Pickens as the "correct" and fixed, absolute and unchanging marker by which you call it as you see it.

 

So, are these ideas acceptable to you, Dude?  

That even though everything is relative and nothing is absolute or perfect, we can get by without perfection or absolute truth?  

That even though we cannot know the whole Truth, what we do know is still True and good enough to go with?

That correct answers can never be found or asked for - but practical ones can be?

That relative is good enough?

 

Thanks,

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then BAA, I take your answer to my question ( can it be shown conclusively that the Earth does not sit dead still at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the Bible seems to claim?) is no? 

Sorry BAA, but just now because of time constraints and this new format, I'll have to eat this elephant one bite at a time, if at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, duderonomy said:

So then BAA, I take your answer to my question ( can it be shown conclusively that the Earth does not sit dead still at the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, as the Bible seems to claim?) is no? 

Sorry BAA, but just now because of time constraints and this new format, I'll have to eat this elephant one bite at a time, if at all.

.

.

You didn't follow, did you? (See end of the second paragraph.)

Please take sufficient bites to read, follow and understand, Dude.

(Or find some reasons not to?)

Thanks,

BAA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BAA, I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this:  "(Or find some reasons not to?)"

I hope you aren't implying that I would attempt to weasel out of a good discussion/argument/debate. If it comes to that, I'd be glad to show you the holes in your arguments so far, and how (since you accused me of Ironhorseism in another thread) you are the one that refuses to answer a simple question about science with a yes or no by dancing all around it by bringing in human nature, and truth with a capital "T".                                                                                                      

Also, there's this, which I don't think is quoted out of context:   ..."Because the decisions we make don't have to be 100% right or perfect or absolutely correct.  They just have to work well enough to get us the results we want.   They just need to be practical - not perfect."   Wow!  The results we want!  The results we want! You'd better hope that the "Climate Change" issue doesn't come up now that you've said that!

There's another thing... I respect the fact that you want to discuss this with me one on one, and I also respect the others that have posted here for backing off at your request, but I'd prefer that they also jump in with their thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

BAA, I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this:  "(Or find some reasons not to?)"

I hope you aren't implying that I would attempt to weasel out of a good discussion/argument/debate. If it comes to that, I'd be glad to show you the holes in your arguments so far, and how (since you accused me of Ironhorseism in another thread) you are the one that refuses to answer a simple question about science with a yes or no by dancing all around it by bringing in human nature, and truth with a capital "T".                                                                                                      

Also, there's this, which I don't think is quoted out of context:   ..."Because the decisions we make don't have to be 100% right or perfect or absolutely correct.  They just have to work well enough to get us the results we want.   They just need to be practical - not perfect."   Wow!  The results we want!  The results we want! You'd better hope that the "Climate Change" issue doesn't come up now that you've said that!

There's another thing... I respect the fact that you want to discuss this with me one on one, and I also respect the others that have posted here for backing off at your request, but I'd prefer that they also jump in with their thoughts.

 

Oops!  Nope. :(

That wasn't what I meant Dude and I see now that I could have worded it better.   I didn't mean us actively looking for these reasons not to carry on.  I meant that these (unwelcome) reasons would find us.  Recently one of those reasons found me (a family crisis) and because of it I was away from Ex-C for over two weeks and couldn't carry on in any thread.  Sorry for any misunderstanding caused!

Now, let's clear up another misunderstanding.  'The results we want' doesn't mean or imply that we are pre-deciding what results we want to see from science.  No.  The results we want are... to understand, to discover and to know.  These are the practical goals I was talking about.  If we acknowledge that absolute certainty is out of our reach, we must also acknowledge that the conclusive answers we want to certain questions are also out of our reach.   So, we must relinquish the ideal and go with the practical.   Practical results that help us understand - these are the results we want.  I hope that clarifies things?

Lastly ...ok, let's throw this thread open.  I don't see any problem with that.

Thanks,

BAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now