Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41293)	6/21/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

Such as the phenomena that every human culture has understood and accepted in some form or another the concept of divinity. It is as universal as language, and more universal than arithmetic. Yet scientists accept the existence of language and arithmetic, but not of God. Whoa, dude, you are reaching. What is observable is the impulse to worship, the impulse to seek an external cause. Jumping from there to the conclusion that because people seek an external cause there must necessarily be one would hardly be scientific. We observe attempts to communicate, we develop a theory of language. We test the theory by talking to each other; we succeed often enough to justify a conclusion that language exists. Whatever labels we put on the construct "2+2=4", if two physically normal humans, each with a coconut in each hand, place their coconuts in an empty box, there will always be the same number of coconuts in the box. There is a huge gap between observing the concept of divinity and accepting the existence of God. To assume that one proves the other would be to say that if all humans want something to be true, it must be true. If all men want ten inch penises, do all men have ten inch penises? Ask any woman.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41293)	6/21/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>A scientist observes phenomena, But often chooses to ignore phenomena which don't fit their perceptions.< I must object. Scientists come in all flavors, but the trend is toward honesty. They may be a little slow to come around to a controversial theory that cannot be dismissed - but if the theory holds water they will come around in a generation or two. The singularly fascinating component of the scientific method is that nothing is fixed in stone. Even the vaunted theory of evolution would be subject to revision if truly inconvenient and verifiable facts came to light. The consensus on evolution is So far, So good. Thus I "believe in" evolution as long as it remains consistent with the source material - primary observables like hands-on fossils ot animal populations or DNA. Any scientist who selectively ignores inconvenient facts in order to hang onto a pet theory will see that theory dismissed within one generation of his demise. Do you have refuting examples? If so - I'd be fascinated and I'd be willing to amend or modify my opinion.