23 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJack===============================
Now you're cooking with fire, Sherlock! Indeed, I never claimed to be able to explain the universe. I am content to whirl in place like a good cog and let the observable facts speak for themselves. I suspect that most people that dredge up evolution every time they need an ego-inflating punching bag do not have the slightest idea what the scientific meth han what they do. If you lose that feeling it can only be because you've lied to yourself.
An honest person must be able to live with uncertainty. They should be tolerant of others because honestly they know more about what they don't know than what they do. If you lose that feeling it can only be because you've lied to yourself.
==================================
I think a tolerant person is one who first has something that they are sure of. Then we can determine how tolerant they are toward others who believe differently.
I've known a lot of people who were clueless about their life and fancied that because of this they were very "tolerant". I don't think that is real tolerance.
I think today a lot of what passes for tolerance is really sloppiness and apathy.
23 Aug 09
Originally posted by TerrierJackNow you're cooking with fire, Sherlock!
Now you're cooking with fire, Sherlock! Indeed, I never claimed to be able to explain the universe. I am content to whirl in place like a good cog and let the observable facts speak for themselves. I suspect that most people that dredge up evolution every time they need an ego-inflating punching bag do not have the slightest idea what the scientific meth ...[text shortened]... han what they do. If you lose that feeling it can only be because you've lied to yourself.
Does that make fire transcendent?
I am content to whirl in place like a good cog and let the observable facts speak for themselves.
Hogwash. You wouldn't be concerned with setting the record straight, were this the case.
I suspect that most people that dredge up evolution every time they need an ego-inflating punching bag...
You have to admit, it is a rather inviting and easy target for even the simplest of intellects, let alone a person who closely examines things.
... do not have the slightest idea what the scientific method is - not a single solitary clue.
I dare say you could count yourself in that group since you seem to hold there exists something called "The Scientific Method."
No scientist believes in evolution in the same way that some people believe a tribe of wandering bronze-age con-artists knew the secrets of the universe.
If, by that, you mean there are no scientists (what? a new ethnic classification, now?) who do not hold to a belief sans compelling evidence otherwise, you're flat out wrong. There are legions of rank-and-file "scientists" who hold to the dogma of evolution purely for the sake of preserving their careers. Hell, there are even some of them who hold to it just because they're afraid E. Scott might make fun of them!
Also, if, by that, you mean to say that the Hebrews who crossed over the river thought they were caretakers of the universe's secrets, well, you're flat-out wrong again. The Hebrews' claim to fame was their guardianship of doctrine as it related to who and what God is. Nothing more, nothing less. The universe is small potatoes in comparison.
Science is just trying to understand the universe - not explain it.
Really? I think you need to brush up on your understanding of science. By its very nature, science endeavors to understand man's surroundings, and does so by explaining the same.
An open mind, a seeking spirit, a sense of humility, and a deep compassion can take you anywhere except certitude.
Of this, we can be, uh, certain.
They should be tolerant of others because honestly they know more about what they don't know than what they do. If you lose that feeling it can only be because you've lied to yourself.
I tell that to myself everyday. And then my self always responds back with:
"What do you know?"
23 Aug 09
1 edit
Nothing is more vital than error. Controversies rarely if
ever die. They merely sink beneath the surface of literate attention
and continue a submerged existence in the dark, unfathomed caves
of the popular mind.
The History of Nonsense, p. 6
The most vital of all the mythical birds, though, is the
ostrich that hides its head in the sand at the approach of danger. It
has outlived the roc and the phoenix, and will probably be with us
long after Keats's nightingale, Shelley's skylark, and Poe's raven
have been forgotten. Immortal bird, indeed! It is too precious to
die. Women can get on without the plumes of the ordinary, living
ostrich, but what would politicians, preachers, and prophets do
without the convenient metaphor of this ornithological fiction?
The History of Nonsense, p. 55