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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Metacomet who wrote (9629)	4/24/2006 10:04:22 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78416

<He is basically of the opinion that positions based on faith cannot co-exist with positions based on philosophy (science).> Yea, I think in practice it certainly makes more sense to study the observable than religious dogma, although again, Taoism and certain Buddhist sects are completely based on observation. It's my understanding (could be wrong) that Taoist ancients were (among the) the first "scientists". I only point this out because it IS considered a relgion, and therefore warns of generalizing and labeling. I'd also note that lot's of scientific positionality is based on 'faith'.... relying on the current accepted use of the scientific method is one GIANT system of faith... assuming that all truths should be able to be repeated in an experiment, or be based on some causual mechanism that is repeatable based on an experiment we would somehow know how to set up. That said, if science would stick to admitting that what is not proved is simply unknown, rather than false (science 101), it would go a long way. That's not the way it works however. A good example to tie in the above would be accupuncture... which has been observed to work for hundreds or thousands of years, but since the mechanism of efficy is unknown (ie. there is no proof "Qi" exists), most modern scientists label it as 'false'. DAK

To: Metacomet who wrote (9629)	4/24/2006 10:39:22 PM
From: roymario	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78416

Is it not generally agreed that the outcome of a "scientific experiment" is affected by the premise (bias) of the observer (experimenter) (ie. is light a particle or a wave)? This is the current position of the scientific experiment. Have you read the definition of faith as "the SUBSTANCE of that which is hoped for and the EVIDENCE of that unseen". This few thousand year old definition is not much different that the scientific experiment would you not agree? R

To: Metacomet who wrote (9629)	4/24/2006 11:19:37 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 78416

You are right on the money Metacomet. Man is a sensory animal. He is a looker, he sees, and can actually enhance his memory by visualizing. He can engage in abstract thought but he is more naturally inclined, and is more comfortable with, concrete thinking. Which is usually simplistic and incorrect. Like explaining a 3 diminsional world using two dimninsions. So the conflict is between those who exercise abstract thought and those who do not. And over history the concrete thinkers have pretty much consistantly decimated the abstract thinkers. Religous dogma vs open exploratory philosophy.