|
Post by necroshine on Mar 23, 2007 6:13:45 GMT -5
I forgot about your one question. Is truth relative? Yes. Its relative to the data that we have. when we get better data then we change what we think is true. Just because we thought the earth was flat did not make it so. Just because we thought the earth was in the center of the universe didn’t make it true. But as we question the world around us we find out what is truth and what we think is true. But we have to ask the correct questions before we get the true answers. Einstein asked what a light wave would look like of you were to travel so fast that you were beside it. That helped to bring about his life work.
Its human to question everything, and we should question everything. Even the things we think are true.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Mar 23, 2007 7:54:20 GMT -5
Many people never understand why history changes, after all facts are facts, aren't they? It doesn't work that way. History changes because people from different approaches ask different questions. This is quite often generational. This generational difference can cause serious schisms between the generations. My father gets very upset when I point stuff out to him in history that he doesn't know due to learning history from the perspective that he did. Because of this lesson of history I have learned, yes, truth is relative.
I am an exceptionally generous person, in the games I play, and in real life. I have only recently come to the realization that I need to start thinking of myself first. I have lived most my life very sacrifically. It is not within my nature to be selfish - despite what my ex may say.
As far as Taoism goes, I do not follow any of the religious precepts that many Taoists do. I follow it's philosophy:
It is better to avoid than hurt; hurt rather than maim; maim rather than kill. It is easy to take a life but impossible to replace one.
When it comes to Taoism; it is a philosophy to be approached that you look to nature for answers to life's questions. There is a question that Taoists always ask: when a large rock is in the middle of a river who controls that space, the rock or the river? The rock does at first and it only seems the winner of this contest. The water wins by taking it's time to wear down the rock slowly until the water wins. This is how nature and life work; that you do not look to the immediate reward. Sometimes you are the rock and you find quickly it is better to be the water. This philosophy encompasses many aspects of life.
Here are some excerpts from the Tao Te Ching:
When people see some things as good, others become bad.
If you over value possessions people begin to steal.
When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king.
And one that some here will truly appreciate:
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is.
The Tao Te Ching is not a large book; it can be read in about an hour. And, as they say, a lifetime to understand.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 23, 2007 20:31:48 GMT -5
Can their be two different truths. The one that is the real answer and the one that society accepts at the time?
Even though I know God made it all doesn't mean that I know how He did it. And it would be my pleasure to understand how He went about making everything and marvel in the experience of learning about it as well as the fact that it exist.
I dig the parable
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Mar 24, 2007 6:58:25 GMT -5
This is actually quite common and normal. Look at the dark ages. Look at many societies that function on myths that they believe to be true that hold no validity under study. This can range from some things that are quite simple to others that are quite complex. People hold many beliefs when something comes to fruition in a society and it can take decades to millenia to eradicate from the make-up of a society.
To start with the simple, look at the cholesterol scare back in the mid 80s. It was believed by so many, so quickly, that eggs should be elliminated from everyone's diet because cholesterol is bad for you. The concept swept through society like wild fire. There were some though that immediately stood up and said to wait a minute. It was also known that eggs contain another chemical called choline that helps the body breakdown that digested cholesterol so that it functions properly in the body. It was also known that the human body required cholesterol to function, period. Did this matter? No. People paniced and we had a serious problem come about. What problem? Let's try alzheimers! It has come to light in the last few months that cholesterol missing from natural sources may be contributing to the increase in alzheimers. People over reacted and now we have a price to pay.
To the more complex, look to any societies religious beliefs. Take the middle east and their propensity toward violence to the "infidel." They believe themselves to be a perfect people. Since they are perfect all their problems must come from an alternative source, namely the west and Isreal. Where does this belief come from? Their religion. This isn't just with them. Look at the Crusades. Look at the far east and their conflicts. We have so many religions at odds with the world causing so many problems it is doubtful that we will ever achieve some form of stasis. A statis between one recognizing they have a religion and not a factual belief that can be supported by scientific validity.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 24, 2007 8:18:39 GMT -5
Well said snafui. I’m clapping right now for you. Guerrilla you said you don’t know how god made the universe. the bible clearly says he spoke it into existence. He said let there be light and there was. That is man writing something down that we didn’t understand at the time. That is why the church is so against evolution. Evolution is true. It explains a lot about what we see in nature. Intelligent design doesn’t explain anything about how organisms work or react to its surroundings. But yet the preachers would have you believe that all the answers are in the bible, they are not. Intelligent design has yet to even put forth one prediction. No tests have been ran to see if its fallible, nothing. They just say god did it. There is no learning in it anywhere. Well said snafui. I’m clapping right now for you. Guerrilla you said you don’t know how god made the universe. the bible clearly says he spoke it into existence. He said let there be light and there was. That is man writing something down that we didn’t understand at the time. That is why the church is so against evolution. Evolution is true. It explains a lot about what we see in nature. Intelligent design doesn’t explain anything about how organisms work or react to its surroundings. But yet the preachers would have you believe that all the answers are in the bible, they are not. Intelligent design has yet to even put forth one prediction. No tests have been ran to see if its fallible, nothing. They just say god did it. There is no learning in it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 24, 2007 12:19:32 GMT -5
If you take our society in as a whole what would you see? Not just the religious people but everyone.
Does true truth prevail or just societal truths? Can it truly be possible for everything to be right if it feel right?
To say that some preachers don’t believe in evolution is a assumption. I have a preacher in my church who is a scientist. Placing the source of all of creation in God's hands does not nullify sciences true truths.
So do you believe all of the findings that scientist attribute to evolution is true ? Is it plausible to be able to find a small bone of an unknown animal and then from that bone decide what the entire animal looks like?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 25, 2007 19:18:37 GMT -5
So do you believe all of the findings that scientist attribute to evolution is true ? We don't have to believe the scientists, the evidence speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 25, 2007 20:57:50 GMT -5
but isn't it the scientist who find the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 26, 2007 5:58:38 GMT -5
It felt right that the sun went around the earth just like the moon does, but it does not.
Scientists find the evidence and others reproduce the tests to see if they hold up. If they can reproduce it and find that something else doesn’t cause the outcome then they confirm the evidence. That is how things are found out. We don’t just rely on one person saying something. When many people look at what someone finds and the data holds up then we call it a fact. But only after years of looking and trying to falsify it.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 26, 2007 18:08:38 GMT -5
so what do you think about society as a whole?
Does true truth prevail?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 26, 2007 18:30:40 GMT -5
So do you believe all of the findings that scientist attribute to evolution is true ? Is it plausible to be able to find a small bone of an unknown animal and then from that bone decide what the entire animal looks like? show me one example of that happening. your blowing things out of proprtion. true enough that sometimes scientists fudge the numbers and have to see past the missing parts but when that happens no one is saying that it is a fact only a thery. there is a difference
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Mar 26, 2007 19:02:29 GMT -5
Within a system of any society you have a certain level of freedom and a level of tyranny. Picture a circle that does not quite connect at the bottom. Say the left is freedom and the right is tyranny; the top is order, the bottom chaos. We are somewhere on the lower middle of the left side. Were we to have complete freedom it would be chaos because there would be no law and order. Were we to have complete tyranny, as on the bottom right, we again would have choas because people would revolt under that stringent of a control (not to mention the terror and brutality that would ensue from the oppressors - look at some african nations). That being said, what we experience in this country is about as free of a society you would want but those freedoms are erroding. Pressure from irrational fears have forced our hand in passing laws and regulations that disallow freedoms we once had. These irrational fears come from all types of people; guns, drugs, abortion, environmental and other issues are what we get.
Personally, I think we need to decriminalize so called illicit drugs immediately and let society make it's own rules about them as it once did. If you have a job where you can't do drugs then that company needs to police their own. The only time drugs have been a problem in society has been when drugs were banned (look at prohibition, the Opium Wars and our current war on drugs).
Abortion may be another issue that should be left alone. Abortions have been taking place since the time of the Pharoahs and we are never going to erradicate them. This is not a license to let it run rampant. This just means trying to pass laws to abolish it is not dealing with reality. The Chinese had a rather good program that helped pregnant women with food, shelter and other needs during the pregnancy and after so that they would not abort. In our society you get an unwanted pregnancy and you are ostracized; hence, you get an abortion. We do not handle this well in our culture.
Guns are essential to maintianing a society, in that, when the people have them it keeps the government in check. Remember it was our own government that we rebelled against to make the United States. People are slowing fighting left and right to ban guns here, there and over there just because they fear them. A gun is a tool. It's never the gun itself that is the problem it's the person weilding it. Take away guns and people will find something else to kill with, period. After all murder has been with us long before guns, crossbows or even rocks in a sling. My grandfather told me that when he went to school you had to carry a gun and there was even a gun rack in the back of the classroom. Again we handle this poorly.
As far as legislating morality... good luck. The Taoists believe the more you try to do so the more people will desire to be immoral. I've already touched on illicit drugs and abortion but what about things like prostitution, smoking, drinking and sex. People are constantly trying to curb these types of behaviors (this comes from all segments of society). And it's pointless. You cannot stop these types of behaviors no matter how hard you try. Let people make their own decisions and let people live with the consequences.
The affore mentioned irrational fears run the gammet from fear of diseases being spread on toilet seats to guns are some kind of evil to the idea that we have the power to destroy this planet, that is just vanity. Insert your favorite fear as you wish, examine it and look at the outcome on society. It's always an errosion of some freedom we once had.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 26, 2007 23:16:09 GMT -5
but isn't it the scientist who find the evidence? If you question the evidence it's not hard to look at their materials and methods sections. Also datasets are required to be kept for several years so that anyone who requests it make take a look at it. Before publication in a journal a manuscript must go through an anonymous peer review by experts on that topic in that field - they don't know whose work it is. This is done by often 3 or more independent reviewers and recommendations made to the journal editor. From there, the methods, materials, conclusions are all up for commenting, replication of experiments by other researchers and so forth. There isn't some dark, shadowy group of scientists controlling what we should and shouldn't think - that defeats the whole purpose of empirical inquiry. The scientific "conspiracy" stuff is simply ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 28, 2007 12:12:32 GMT -5
necro. about your statement. When I was still in college I was watching the Discovery Channel or National Geographic. I can't remember. But this scientist came on and had just the jaw bone of an animal, from there he began to explain how it walked and looked. I thought that was kind of strange. I am not a scientist but I didn’t know that you could decide if an animal was bipedal or not with just the jaw bone. I got tired of the show and change the channel after that.
snafui do you think that you could have law and order and have a happy and peaceful society.
You talked about what Taoism says about the more people have moral rules the more they want to go the other way. I have few theories on that. One could be they don't know the usefulness of the rule and therefore see it as oppressive. The other is since there are moral rules they become a standard which shines a light on the depravity of humanity. Another could be the moral rules are wrong.
Do you think the father of the child that is being aborted has a right to want to keep the child even if the mother doesn't? I remember I used to work at this place with this man he caused some woman to be pregnant. He wanted to keep it but she didn't so she was going to abort it. I thought that was wrong because it takes two to make a baby and if the father wants to keep his child then he should have that opportunity. That is the thing that we never really talk about when it comes to abortions. What about the men who want their children?
Solidsquid. Do they do a review with all journal manuscripts this way?
I have been thinking about tolerance of other people’s opinions/beliefs/ways of life. Has it become the act of just putting up with something or actually accepting their views. Then if their views ect are totally contrary to your beliefs should you be shunned for not tolerating those beliefs or actions. I am not saying that one shouldn’t give respect to everyone. If, like most of us, I don’t believe in people eating other people but they are call out for their rights as cannibals and it is becoming a movement should I be forced to tolerate that? (now I used an extreme and absurd example but you can stick whatever you want in that spot)
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 28, 2007 12:44:39 GMT -5
Solidsquid. Do they do a review with all journal manuscripts this way? If it is labeled a peer reviewed journal - yes. A publication can't really call itself a scientific journal without having that peer review process. Usually these can be had by the public by subscription or by going by the local library. The two biggest journals as far as exposure go are probably Science and Nature. From Nature's peer review policy: From Science's peer review policy: These are just two journals, there are many, many more. Most are specific to a particular field. For instance, if I wanted to publish a paper over some research over the PANDAS hypothesis of Tourette's Syndrome where I specifically analyzed serum from patients for anti-streptococcal antibodies, I'd most likely submit my manuscript in the prescribe format (set down by the journal) to the Journal of Neuroscience or the journal Neurology. Or if I wanted to do a review paper over the research on PANDAS, I'd probably submit my manuscript to Trends in Neuroscience which focuses on review papers.
|
|