So you don't think that someone can be sane, and also go against the current 'opinion' of science?
If someone insists on being able to levitate because in his opinion there's no gravity, would you consider that sane?
So you don't think that someone can be sane, and also go against the current 'opinion' of science?
Not what I said.So you don't think that someone can be sane, and also go against the current 'opinion' of science?
Subjectivism breaks down when you look at things like acceleration due to gravity. It can be measured. It can be calculated. there is one right answer, and it doesn't matter who does the calculating or the measuring, if they do it properly, they all arrive at the same answer. Me saying that there is gravity on the moon, based upon experiments and calculations that others have done, does not magically change the result.
I wonder how well you would do in math class if I asked you to add two and two in a base ten numbering system and you answered five, and insisted it's correct because that's what you subjectively believe.
I'm not saying that everything can be objectively measured or quantified, but there are some things that most assuredly can be. Like gravity. Someone who claims that gravity does not affect them is lying or insane.
It all ends with what YOU think.
It all ends with YOU.
(Or since YOU are reading this, if you speak the words to yourself I should perhaps say it all ends with ME )
Anyway, the important thing is not really which answer you end up believing in, but that you are free to believe it without persecution.
If a community wants a school that teaches to their members the earth is 6000 years old, and the moon is made of cheese, let them have it. Just send your kids somewhere else.
I can't be wrong, everything's subjective, remember?You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass.
You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass. If you weren't subjective you wouldn't be human. You can't elevate yourself above that limitation.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results.
You are wrong, Hielor. Subjectivism is impossible to bypass. If you weren't subjective you wouldn't be human. You can't elevate yourself above that limitation. You can't logically assume to know objectivity without BEING objectivity itself.
I think you meant "science is objective" here...Science is subjective, even if scientists are not. A digit is not changing its behavior because you treat it with more respect than others.
:goodposting:I hear calls to report the teacher to her superiors for something she said in a private conversation with one student she evidently considered bright enough, a conversation totally unrelated to her subject. That's really shameful.
You should have that attitude not just toward teachers that are officially part of the educational system. Cameron M Semmens' take on an old proverb: "Give a man a teacher, and he'll learn many a thing. Teach a man to learn, and he'll learn from everything." Everything (including everyone) is potentially your "teacher". Allow everything to be your "teacher" by questioning everything (including yourself).Besides, this is my belief: all teachers are merely educational puppets and that if you fail to disagree with them, then you will have truly learned nothing.
Do not underestimate the power of delusion (including delusion which is self-induced). You can pretty much make a mind believe anything. Another old proverb "Seeing is believing" is not an objectivist actuality. You do not believe what you see, but rather see what you believe.Sure, many things they teach are true, but they tend to argue about things that they surely must know are wrong.
Explain to me please, JEL, what exactly is subjective about "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2"?
It's either wrong or it's right.
This isn't English class where you can write an essay full of wishy-washy ideas and still get an A. This is science.
I can't be wrong, everything's subjective, remember?
Explain to me please, JEL, what exactly is subjective about "the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8m/s^2"?
That YOU are the one stating it.
You are a subjective being, are you not?
And if people, in the name of science, then begin to bash, or hand out berufs-verbot to, anybody who aren't properly conformed or in line ("it should be a crime to teach so and so idiocies")
There's a right and wrong whenever you make an assumption about nature
we can discuss dialectics all eternity long. It immediately stops when something needs to WORK.
if a math teacher starts to teach that 1+1 = 3, or a physics teacher starts to teach that the surface acceleration of the earth is 8 m/s^2, I'm sure you'd agree that a dismissal would be in order
So, JEL, are you saying that an apple which is affected by gravity is only affected because it believes it should be affected?
I don't see any difference.
That something appears to you to 'work' doesn't take away the possibility that it could still just be a dream or self-aware experience that you're the only individual having.
It doesn't prove that you're wrong, but just says that there's always a chance that you're wrong.
And here we get a problem with concepts of superiority. You see, you argue against an objectivists viewpoint in the potential damage it can cause (stagnate in arogance and supress free thinking). I could argue against subjectivism on the same basis of potential damage it could do, namely people becoming perfect sociopaths that don't care about anything or anyone because all of it is potentially an illusion.
Why so black and white? why not simply admitt that there are things that simply make no sense to decide, no matter how free our will? The discussion from "life of Brian" comes to mind, where a man that decided to be a woman feels opressed because he cannot get pregnant. That makes about as much sense as "deciding" that there's no gravity on the moon.By ordering/dictating people to believe in a certain truth (and what would you do to those who dis-obey?), or by allowing people the freedom to make their own choices (even when those choices may appear irrational to you)?
Why so black and white? why not simply admitt that there are things that simply make no sense to decide, no matter how free our will? The discussion from "life of Brian" comes to mind, where a man that decided to be a woman feels opressed because he cannot get pregnant. That makes about as much sense as "deciding" that there's no gravity on the moon.
That's what science basically is: a lot of subjective opinions that get filtered by confronting them with reality, over and over again.
I'm still going to have to disagree with you. How do you confront subjective views with reality when you don't know reality but only know the subjective views? You can at best end up with a degree of probability, but never with certainty.
I'm still going to have to disagree with you. How do you confront subjective views with reality when you don't know reality but only know the subjective views?
What do you see here:
Here she is in concert, LIVE and in HD...
My interest is mainly in the political aspects and ramifications of different belief-systems, since that is what trickles down from those in power onto our personal lives and thus affect us most directly
and yes I do have a super-distaste for power-absorbing people, be it politicians, priests, company-leaders, or other