do I hate philosophy?

Learn_To_Know wrote: That's the real trick isn't it? So often the goals are not the same.

Look at stem-cell research as a prime example. Sometimes dogma is placed above the advancement of knowledge and that's what needs to be neutralized if not eliminated by science.

Can science and religion work together? Yes. Are they likely to? I'd say not very often.

You'll see science and religion more closely with Jediism as it continues to grow as a movement than you'll ever see it with traditional religion unless said religion undergoes a major paradigm shift.

suliskveteba wrote:
why can't they work together?

the truth is they can.

catholic hospitals?
they incorporate doctrine and ideals from catholicism
with the study and advancement of science

the truth is that science and religion can in fact work together

they just need to find a common goal

stem cell research only conflicts with a small majority of religion

YES I SAID SMALL

most religions accept it

and even support it

suliskveteba wrote:

Learn_To_Know wrote: That's the real trick isn't it? So often the goals are not the same.

Look at stem-cell research as a prime example. Sometimes dogma is placed above the advancement of knowledge and that's what needs to be neutralized if not eliminated by science.

Can science and religion work together? Yes. Are they likely to? I'd say not very often.

You'll see science and religion more closely with Jediism as it continues to grow as a movement than you'll ever see it with traditional religion unless said religion undergoes a major paradigm shift.

suliskveteba wrote:
why can't they work together?

the truth is they can.

catholic hospitals?
they incorporate doctrine and ideals from catholicism
with the study and advancement of science

the truth is that science and religion can in fact work together

they just need to find a common goal

stem cell research only conflicts with a small majority of religion

YES I SAID SMALL

most religions accept it

and even support it

and look at it this way

both science and religion have a purpose to lead humanity

I actually didn't view them as different topics until somebody did it for me

I found that I could be just a spiritual watching the reactions in a test tube, to praying.

it really isn't that hard to combine the two

in a way, alot of my friends even utelise science as a part of worship, I am not kidding

it is a beautiful world isn't it?

why do we feel the need to break that by seperating the two topics?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is a conversation with others.

That there are many voices in the conversation attests to its importance and vivacity.

There are many different kinds of philosophy including the philosophy of science.

Ethics is one branch of philosophy under which such discussions as stem cell research would fall. Any moral philosophy will have its foundation in other branches of philosophy, particularly metaphysics, the philosophy of reality, and epsitemology, the philosophy of knowledge.

Activities related to the expectation of results are not everywhere the same. Some kind of repetitive actions are experiemental; a specific result is sought and each repetition is an attempt at achieving that sought after result. Some are delusional and others are habitual.

There is also the philosophy of religion and one of the philosophies of religion asserts that each particular religion has its own particular kind of metaphysics and epistemology. Roman Catholic philosophy when influenced by Aristotle has its fullest expression in Thomas Aquinas.

Self-identified religious persons can be philosophical or not, scientific or not (or even dogmatic or not).

suliskveteba wrote:

suliskveteba wrote:

Learn_To_Know wrote: That's the real trick isn't it? So often the goals are not the same.

Look at stem-cell research as a prime example. Sometimes dogma is placed above the advancement of knowledge and that's what needs to be neutralized if not eliminated by science.

Can science and religion work together? Yes. Are they likely to? I'd say not very often.

You'll see science and religion more closely with Jediism as it continues to grow as a movement than you'll ever see it with traditional religion unless said religion undergoes a major paradigm shift.

suliskveteba wrote:
why can't they work together?

the truth is they can.

catholic hospitals?
they incorporate doctrine and ideals from catholicism
with the study and advancement of science

the truth is that science and religion can in fact work together

they just need to find a common goal

stem cell research only conflicts with a small majority of religion

YES I SAID SMALL

most religions accept it

and even support it

and look at it this way

both science and religion have a purpose to lead humanity

I actually didn't view them as different topics until somebody did it for me

I found that I could be just a spiritual watching the reactions in a test tube, to praying.

it really isn't that hard to combine the two

in a way, alot of my friends even utelise science as a part of worship, I am not kidding

it is a beautiful world isn't it?

why do we feel the need to break that by seperating the two topics?

It is a beautiful world

Why is there harm in separating the two topics? I don't see anything inherently wrong with that...

Your thoughts?

Wendaline wrote: Science or business that man was a sadist. Nobody who has ever spent anytime with any animal would willingly electrocute them (you know, unless they like hurting things). It just speaks volumes about what kind of a person he was. :sick:

That's the way they were back then. Not saying it was right but they thought so then.

Theodore Roosevelt killed almost everything that walked, flew or swam but....

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/npshistory/teddy.htmTheodore Roosevelt,

We live and learn. Take the good with the bad. That's life.

Can anyone post their links on Edison for me to check out, thanks.

suliskveteba wrote: he tried the same methods more than once

but screw eddison

let me give you a different yet just as true example

I don't remember his name though

but this guy in his forties visits a sports center after 20 years
he looks at the bleachers and attempts to run from the bottom to the top
and fails

he realises he strength has waned

so he trains, he climbs the steps as slow as he can until he can do it at the speed he starts jogging

he did the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result in him reaching there faster or at all

is this insanity or perserveerance?

and what you said about delusions actually back MY point on stupidity

delusions are the failures in understanding or failures to accept a reality due to lack of information

it rarely involves emotion

insanity is always involved with emotion

But eventually he deviated (Edison).

As for the runner, he didn't do it the same everytime either. He improved and became quicker/ran farther up/down the bleachers. So even though it may have looked like he was doing the same thing again and agian by training on the same set of bleachers his workout evolved.

But yes, his was probably perserverance. And it's quite a motivating story

My turn:

You decided to do create an expirement. Say you're trying to improve toothpaste. You take 5 tbs. Calcium powder, 2 tbs. Baking Soda, 3 tbs. Xylitol, 4 tbs. coconut oil, and 1/2 tsp. Mint Oil. You place the ingredients in a bowl in written order and stir 100 times. Then you try it. It's minty, gritty, and foams. You decide to try and create another, but instead of doing something new, you pour out the ingredients in the same measurements, in the same order, with the same amount of stirring. Would you expect your toothpaste to taste, feel, perform any different than the first?

As for delusions, many times delusions DO include emotions. Like the woman who stopped eating because she was afraid food would harm her. She wasn't anorexic, she was just kind of crazy.

And I don't agree that delusion and stupidity are one in the same. Stupidity can probably tie in with laziness while delusions are something else entirely.

But stop me if you get bored. I just like debating points sometimes.

"That's the way they were back then. Not saying it was right but they thought so then.

Theodore Roosevelt killed almost everything that walked, flew or swam but....

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/npshistory/teddy.htmTheodore Roosevelt,

We live and learn. Take the good with the bad. That's life.

Can anyone post their links on Edison for me to check out, thanks."

Oh i understand things were different back then (not by much), my point is, he did not slaughter countless animals for research as he did to try ro prove a validless point in order to procure contracts to supply his form of electricity to North America. It wasnt science, it was greed, plain and simple.

http://www.reformation.org/thomas-edison.html

I know I'm coming into this conversation kind of late, but if all philosophy is garbage, then you must be a Zen master or something.

Streen wrote: I know I'm coming into this conversation kind of late, but if all philosophy is garbage, then you must be a Zen master or something.

well that point is garbage, I like philosophy

it's just modern philosophy that annoys me

Wendaline wrote:

suliskveteba wrote: he tried the same methods more than once

but screw eddison

let me give you a different yet just as true example

I don't remember his name though

but this guy in his forties visits a sports center after 20 years
he looks at the bleachers and attempts to run from the bottom to the top
and fails

he realises he strength has waned

so he trains, he climbs the steps as slow as he can until he can do it at the speed he starts jogging

he did the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result in him reaching there faster or at all

is this insanity or perserveerance?

and what you said about delusions actually back MY point on stupidity

delusions are the failures in understanding or failures to accept a reality due to lack of information

it rarely involves emotion

insanity is always involved with emotion

But eventually he deviated (Edison).

As for the runner, he didn't do it the same everytime either. He improved and became quicker/ran farther up/down the bleachers. So even though it may have looked like he was doing the same thing again and agian by training on the same set of bleachers his workout evolved.

But yes, his was probably perserverance. And it's quite a motivating story

My turn:

You decided to do create an expirement. Say you're trying to improve toothpaste. You take 5 tbs. Calcium powder, 2 tbs. Baking Soda, 3 tbs. Xylitol, 4 tbs. coconut oil, and 1/2 tsp. Mint Oil. You place the ingredients in a bowl in written order and stir 100 times. Then you try it. It's minty, gritty, and foams. You decide to try and create another, but instead of doing something new, you pour out the ingredients in the same measurements, in the same order, with the same amount of stirring. Would you expect your toothpaste to taste, feel, perform any different than the first?

As for delusions, many times delusions DO include emotions. Like the woman who stopped eating because she was afraid food would harm her. She wasn't anorexic, she was just kind of crazy.

And I don't agree that delusion and stupidity are one in the same. Stupidity can probably tie in with laziness while delusions are something else entirely.

But stop me if you get bored. I just like debating points sometimes.

I never said Eddison didn't deviate, but as a scientist he knew that trying once method once won't give you all the datat he needs

he did it with the expectation that something would happen, but most likely not
even though he thought it was most likely not, he did in a way expect it to change as a part of perserverance.

and you treated it as if I said it never includes emotion

I said rarely, but my point is that Insanity isn't as related to delusions as you believe

I have had psychotic episodes

yes I have suffered psychosis

it scares me to this day

it also angers me when people try to explain something that hurt me so much and saying I was wrong

the paranoid are delusional, but not insane
paranoia is related to insanity, but not insanity itself


and I never said stupidity and delusions are one in the same!

I said they both relate to a lack of information
either out of laziness or not

you can defend his statement all you like

but factually, as I know insanity, he was wrong


you can be insane without delusion, myself as an example


would people quote it if Einstein didn't say it?

possibly not

Insanity can be caused and acted upon in several different ways

OCD will make them do the same thing again, but they will always expect the same result.

the insane are unpredictable, very rarely do they do the same thing twice

and I know what you are going to say : the insane can be obsessive

wrong! yet right! well done, everybody can be obsessive the insane included but they are obsessive because the fall under the category of everybody, it doesn't really have anything to do with insanity, obsesion is actually stress related


but I don't want to talk about how much I know insanity from my own experience and those I know.

Einstein was still wrong, look at the way he even referenced it.... he was basically calling the insane stupid, his comment actually directs towards stupidity, but because of poor wording, people interpret it as we have.

Einstein said beautiful things and wise things, I can't argue that

this was not one of them, it was an autistic man calling what he saw.

but hey, it must be true because einstein said it right?