do I hate philosophy?

Learn_To_Know wrote:

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?

when they are seperate, people eventually put them against each other

they work for the same goal, if science and religion worked together, we could advance both sides

but because we put them against, they are always pulling the other side down

[quote="Zenchi" post=96082
Oh i understand things were different back then (not by much), [/quote]

O I hope you're wrong. :laugh:

Clearly you're passionate about this but you haven't changed my mind.

My point was that if you do what the quote says then, yeah, it's "utterly foolish or unreasonable" one of the definitions for insanity. Because Insanity is like any other word. It encompasses a wide range of meanings.

I was in no way saying, "You do the same thing over and over and expect different results? You must be agoraphobic!"

*I also wasn't saying that you said that I said that. It's just an over the top, silly example. Sad that the interent forces people to point these things out. Where's the tone of voice in this new technology? :blink: *

So, yeah, I agree not all of the "insane" repeatedly do the same thing again and again, but those that do repeat the same thing and hope for different results are acting insane/delusional. All clydesdales are horses, but not all horses are clydesdales.

I do think the quote is spot on (how I see it) but I am curious if Einstein really did coin it...

So, if I try flapping my arms in different ways so I can fly, im not insane?

No, you may still be insane...just a different kind.

Wendaline wrote: No, you may still be insane...just a different kind.

Completely O/T, but your avatar pic makes me laugh almost every time I see it, haha.

Truly, it has to be one of the top 5 I've seen around here.

(back to thread topic...)

Wendaline wrote: Clearly you're passionate about this but you haven't changed my mind.

My point was that if you do what the quote says then, yeah, it's "utterly foolish or unreasonable" one of the definitions for insanity. Because Insanity is like any other word. It encompasses a wide range of meanings.

I was in no way saying, "You do the same thing over and over and expect different results? You must be agoraphobic!"

*I also wasn't saying that you said that I said that. It's just an over the top, silly example. Sad that the interent forces people to point these things out. Where's the tone of voice in this new technology? :blink: *

So, yeah, I agree not all of the "insane" repeatedly do the same thing again and again, but those that do repeat the same thing and hope for different results are acting insane/delusional. All clydesdales are horses, but not all horses are clydesdales.

I do think the quote is spot on (how I see it) but I am curious if Einstein really did coin it...

you have missed my point completely

I never set out to change your mind

I was explaining my thoughts on philosoophy

and I understand that to a perception that Einstein was correct
I never said otherwise

I said there is always an exception, in his case a major one

but modern philosophy has forgotten this, and just accepts everything and applies it to everything

Einstein is correct on one part of insanity

but a major part is vastly different to what he said

Jestor wrote: So, if I try flapping my arms in different ways so I can fly, im not insane?

this might be off topic

but you're a window washer?

suliskveteba wrote:

Jestor wrote: So, if I try flapping my arms in different ways so I can fly, im not insane?

this might be off topic

but you're a window washer?

I believe the conversation was about doing the same thing, expecting different results, constituted insanity...

I was asking about variation...

At what point is one insane?

Is it insane to want to, and attempt to, fly?

AT what point, is a subtle change, enough to remove that label?

I keep running and flapping my arms, am I insane for this? I mean, I change the trajectory of my arms... I change the speed at which I run... Change the height I begin at...

When is my actions been considered repetitious enough that im considered insane?

Sometimes, after only one attempt...

Anyway....

I do wash windows, but ground floor, and I have a list of other duties as well....

Im a Governmental Maintenance Man....

As far as this actual thread, and your OP, you explained yourself, we have ask questions and explained ourselves...

I think its moving along splendidly....

You, my friend, have the 'right' (ha-ha, tie-in to other threads) to consider this thread, and your first post, "not philosophy"...

But, if I remember correctly, it fits the Google definition, so I feel perfectly fine discussing it as "your philosophy"...

Jestor: As far as this actual thread, and your OP, you explained yourself, we have ask questions and explained ourselves...

I didn't say you didn't explain yourself, nor did I say don't bring me questions

my issue was misinterpretation.

the issue was : am I trying to change peoples minds?

and I wasn't

that was my actual intent that I had to clarify because it got lost in an issue of misinterpretation

my explanation wasn't the issue itself