And I love when people discount scientific works that have clearly gone through WORLD wide peer review. Science is a process that constantly evolves so ten year old science is, well, ten year old science. Regardless of source.
Originally Posted by ADillon
Thermodynamics is about the best example possible. It is not possible to view a more misunderstood science regardless of the plain as day explanations.
People twist things in to what they wish them to be, and it's fairly easy to detect that process.
As the saying in programming goes; garbage in, garbage out.
We all of our own standards of judgement which will not change regardless of source.
"Social networking" is an oxymoron.
Your last line is so correct! We all have our presuppositional bias, even scientists do. There are no unbiased people or opinions. There is no such thing as being completely neutral. It is possible to not have an opinion on something if you don't know anything about it. Not caring is still a position and is in itself a presuppositional bias of its own.
Originally Posted by scrogdog
So had I agreed with you and the author you would not have challenged my questioning. So that means you, me and him would have been right, right? Anybody who had a different understanding, point of view or value system would be wrong, right?
Originally Posted by royc
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money.
- Alexis de Toqueville, 1835
Well, let me add to the article.
Originally Posted by Hugh B
Try to remove all preconceived notions that we have as a world population, and ask, what do we have in common, and what divides us. If we look at it close, we will find that we have more in common than what divides us, for most of the division is man made, and is not natural.
The question is who and what makes us act in such an unatural way. The fact is we have been programed to act this way for reasons that is not in our best interests, and only advances the agenda of those who want to control or be our masters.
If we on this earth want to survive and be free at the same time, we need to remove certain preconceived notions and programmed believes that have negative stereotypical reactions, and come to an understanding that what we have in common unites us, and throw away all the divisions which are destructive.
That doesnt mean we shouldnt have a difference of opinions, for its healthy to discuss different ideas, as long as they are there to advance our understanding of each other and the world we live in.
The idea that we shouldnt do to others, what we wouldnt want them to do to use, goes a long way.
"The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"
Yes, scientists are human beings and are subject to human failures. Science is not infallible.
Originally Posted by Hugh B
Still, staying on practical science rather than various philosophies that surround it, that is the very reason for the scientific method and stringent peer review. Because it is unlikely that error or bias will survive that process.
Besides, again, practically speaking, the major intent of science is to uncover and understand processes under which things work and then manipulate them for the overall betterment of mankind.
Roy, I somewhat agree with your latest post. There are many societal constructs that are unnatural. Which is pretty much what morals and standards are all about.
The battle against our basic instincts is necessary if we want to call ourselves civilized.
That doesn't mean I think they are all good. Take the sexual double standard between men and women. I get why it exists, but the fact that it is only for women doesn't really serve us too well in my opinion.
What, good parenting requires only good and moral women but not men (who are instead championed for womanizing in many cases)?
Bad deal, bad message to young folk.