muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Which does and which doesn't, then?
oooh you're gonna make me use my head aren't you?!!!!
Ok its gonna hurt (like filling out tax returns) but i can do that!
I'll respond but need a bit of time!
Which does and which doesn't, then?
Which does and which doesn't, then?
The so called gut feeling / common sense, true.
Before going down, I'd like to point out that for one successful breakthroughs in science (and let's not even talk about psychology), who knows how many failure / broken theories are there? Not to mention, the 'right' (at the time, within the agreement of someone/anyone, etc, etc, the implications aside) thing tend to receive much more publicity than others.
I'd say the amount of ....mmmm, wrong / false seems too judging / generalizing within these context, invalid / incomplete / imperfect theories are probably a lot more than those that are right.
But those believing those theories would generally lean towards the side of thinking they are (at least more) valid / complete / perfect than the others / the status quo, wouldn't they?
Do you agree?
.......And.....?
Right, but; do you think those seekers are free from zeal?
Again, and?
The way I see it, you're talking about dogma and (defensive, sometimes irrational) zeal.
I wasn't exactly calling your statement above -wrong-, but I'm asking whether if those can also be applied to the opposite case.
And apparently, from what you're saying, it can. So.... o-kay?
Ok here is quote number 1:
''Some people have a lot invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes fight to enforce those paradigms even if scientific guardians are overturning those paradigms''
Who are the scientific 'guardians'? I never used the word 'guardian'
Anyone, someone and everyone.Quote 2:
''Some people have nothing invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes ignore to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers are proving those paradigms''
By some people do you mean members of the general populace or do you mean people from the scientific community?
Quote 3:
''Some people have everything invested in certain paradigms and they will sometimes continue to see those paradigms even if scientific pioneers/guardians are overturning those paradigms''
I think that to say someone has 'everything' invested in a paradigm is a little strong. But yes somepeople have a lot invested in a paradigm. For example a professor may have made a career out of teaching their paradigm and may have written books on it....they might be reluctant to let it go if it affects their career adversly
I have no comments upon this, I consider this as your personal opinion/observation and thus, respect this, but I personally see there's some grain of truth at some time, some place, with some people, even when it's not yours or mine.Conventional wisdom is often wrong...it often just becomes a convenient foundation to build a perception of reality upon
NOOOOOOT my point. You've got a point, but that's not what I'm talking about.I think that some research is favoured over others for sure
For example we are all very aware of the global warming debate. there are powerful forces aligned on both sides of that divide. For example the oil industry might want to argue against man made climate change in order to protect their industry, so they will fund research that affirms their claims
powerful people often fund the research that helps justify their actions and can also influence what research gets published
Question A : Do you agree that there may have been invalid/incomplete/imperfect/zany theories out there in this world; that there are people who believed it?I'm not sure what you're asking me here?
But does that have any effect in people's zealousness?...and these factors may affect what perceptions see the light of day and which are buried, denied or fought against
Yep; their perceived truth; their perspective.A zeal for the truth if that's what you mean? which is not to say they are free from the desires of the ego
True, it's nice.Its a nice quote.....he's an elderly man looking back on his life and seeing his endeavors as an almost childlike enthusiasm.....finding joy in unlocking the worlds mysteries like a child playing among rockpools by the sea
He also acknowledges that there is an ocean of truth that he hasn't fathomed....that shows he is aware of his own limited understanding and also a kind of reverence for the mystery of existence.....that lends a further spiritual dimension to his particular seeking
The same entrenchment in one's dogma and theory, the same unwillingness to budge, to be wrong, to accept; the same zeal in protecting their own perspective, but from the seeker's side.I'm still not sure what you mean by the 'opposite case'?
And my original point is about the possibility that the other person is indeed, in your words, a liar or a madman.I'm talking about the following:
We (humanity) are on a journey of discovery. Its an ongoing journey, which i see as a cool and beautiful thing. There's no point stopping, setting up camp and declaring that we have arrived at the 'truth'.....its an ongoing process.
Just when we have stopped and set up camp another person comes along and says 'hold on there is more to see over that horizon'. Some people grumble and say 'no there isn't i'm staying here...you're a liar or a madman!'
I'm calling them untested; and still potentials. But to each their own. Agree to disagree! <3So i believe that the various claims of the mystics, for example that we are all connected in a sort of energetic web and that material reality is given form by consciousness may now be shown by science to have some truth to them
Not always mad, just different-- some of the time. :|Ultimately i think this reality is an illusion (maya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29) which opens the door to unlimited possibilities.....however i also appreciate that to others who do not share my perception, such a view will appear completely mad!
No seriously what the hell are we talking about here, it's not even RELATED ANYMORE!
[/B]Yep, I switched the 'pioneers' with 'guardians', to look at it from the other side. Because protecting and pioneers doesn't sound.....compatible. But I'd say they are within the same positions? :|
The guardians are most likely what would be called as 'scientific community'. :| Or the status quo, depending on how you're seeing it.
Anyone, someone and everyone.
I can see why it'd be different, but my point is to express a zealousness in indifference / not caring / "I SAID I DON'T GIVE A DAMN DAMMIT'
Was it only career (and all that entails) that's within stake, truly?
I have no comments upon this, I consider this as your personal opinion/observation and thus, respect this, but I personally see there's some grain of truth at some time, some place, with some people, even when it's not yours or mine.
NOOOOOOT my point. You've got a point, but that's not what I'm talking about.
My point is there are invalid/incomplete/imperfect/worst, zany theories (and their believers, and their grains of truth, and their perspective) before, during, and after the right theory (for now) has been made.
Question A : Do you agree that there may have been invalid/incomplete/imperfect/zany theories out there in this world; that there are people who believed it?
Question B : If you do agree, do you also agree that the amount of those are more than the amount of (currently) proved / valid / scientific theories?
Question C : If you also agree with A, would you say that the supporters of the theories generally sees the theory as more valid/scientific/perfect than other theories?
well zelousness might be cancelled out by the bias of elites. Some people believe that Tessler was murdered and his work suppressed.But does that have any effect in people's zealousness?
Yep; their perceived truth; their perspective.
True, it's nice.
I think we're focusing on different things; you're mostly talking about what to see, while I'm talking about how people see.
The same entrenchment in one's dogma and theory, the same unwillingness to budge, to be wrong, to accept; the same zeal in protecting their own perspective, but from the seeker's side.
And my original point is about the possibility that the other person is indeed, in your words, a liar or a madman.
I'm calling them untested; and still potentials. But to each their own. Agree to disagree! <3
Not always mad, just different-- some of the time. :|
and always consider looking in from the outside -- do we also do the same thing? Are we calling their view mad? If so, how different are we from them?