Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > 2+2 Communities > EDF

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:08 PM
Dids Dids is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 215 lbs of fatness
Posts: 21,118
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:14 PM
guids guids is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,908
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]


Science cannot rationalize how we got here. There are plenty of people who believe in god that have no trouble rationalizing thier existence. You say they believe in a big Unicorn, but most of them, while in your opinion may be ignorant, are probably much more happy and at peace with things (ecspecially near the end of thier days). If ignorance is bliss, i have no trouble being happy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:20 PM
gumpzilla gumpzilla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,911
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[ QUOTE ]

Science cannot rationalize how we got here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not inclined to say that this is completely true, but suppose that it were. To me, this is pretty much saying that it is impossible to rationalize how we got here at all. There's not really a strictly rational way to introduce God to the conversation. In that case, why try to rationalize? Why does there need to be a reason at all? I've never really understood the "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" style questions.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2007, 03:49 PM
guids guids is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,908
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:19 PM
dylan's alias dylan's alias is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 279
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:53 PM
guids guids is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,908
Default Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth.

[/ QUOTE ]


By definition if you accept an end result of "dunno", there should be no more drive to probe the question further. I think what you guys are trying to say is that scientists can accept that they are wrong sometimes, or dont know the methods to find the answer yet, but the search will continue.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.