Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you're using a wrong example. discovering the cause of a circuit failure is not a discovery of new knowledge.

the knowledge of electricity will not increase unless there is doubt in the current models.

In that case, that should cause great doubt in the model of evolutionary biology because it is all screwed up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In that case, that should cause great doubt in the model of evolutionary biology because it is all screwed up.

At least these guys are trying to work stuff out through reason and their own brains (rather than relying on someone else thinking for them - as some of you christians often do).

As usual you butt into a prefectly fine thread with your inane put downs that serves no purpose other than to show (further) what a douche you are.

Why bother? You have carved out a niche for yourself here. May I suggest you stick to it? Of course you dont have to, but when you start discussing things that you yourself admit that you dont understand, then I really dont see the point injecting your undeucated-ill-informed opinions into an otherwise interesting thread 😛

Originally posted by JS357

"...Both systems of the dialectic are designed to [b]remove consciousness from identifying with any conceptual structure and that includes both natural and philosophical languages, and to block the possibility of identifying with ontology. ..."

The part I bolded reminds me of how often in this forum and elsewhere I present an alternative etimes] to couch my idea in noncommittal terms, or just keep my figurative mouth shut.😉[/b]

Yes, this is "sort of" (another good avoiding-rigidity phrase) where I find myself settling, on the so-called the "non-conceptual" state often referred to in non-dual philosophies. I realize now it has been a a sticking point for me. I have understood the significance and practice of entering a non-conceptual state (i.e. in meditation), but its role and understanding in daily living is more a challenge to relate.
Some Buddhist understandings refer to "two truths" or realities and that is helpful, but still to me, leaves the serious application of the attitude or stance of non-conceptual approach somewhat divorced from daily living.

Taoist approach on the issue are reflected in such phrases as "wu-wei" - 'acting seeming as if not to acting' (my best translation). This idea may well be also transferred to 'conceptualizing but seeming as if not conceptualizing'. For me this means something of what you are pointing at, and has to do with a light and open hold on so-called working truths (and actions) that both liberates from being restricted and closed off from the new, different or unexpected, as well as lessening egotistical and emotional binds.

It thus does effect ones behavior and inner responses, and meditation sort of tunes one to have its influence underlying all hours of the day. This is what practice means to me. I have inwardly questioned the Buddhist tradition on this point often. Perhaps because of its historical monk based traditions, it can come over at times too other worldly and abstract, with a resultant difficulty for the normal everyday person. But thankfully now, principally arising in the west, there is a more modern grounding of the great philosophical contributions of the non-dual expressions.

Differentiation is differentiated itself from the non-dual state, but one realizes that a true non-dual state includes this polarity as well, and it becomes ultimately inexpressible. But one seeks to understand still the meaning how to most clearly point to this non-dual state and how it relates to daily existence.

Samsara IS Nirvana - Emptiness IS Form

Finally and most skillfully the Sages float between all polarities and yet are highly effective in daily living.

Perhaps my response shifts a bit from your post, but thank you for its stirring of further exploring.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
At least these guys are trying to work stuff out through reason and their own brains (rather than relying on someone else thinking for them - as some of you christians often do).

As usual you butt into a prefectly fine thread with your inane put downs that serves no purpose other than to show (further) what a douche you are.

Why bother? You have ...[text shortened]... he point injecting your undeucated-ill-informed opinions into an otherwise interesting thread 😛

Ah, watch the river, my friend. Enjoy the clouds. Calm, calm.
For and against, for and against, hooks so easily.
Come and share with the others who have dropped by.

Originally posted by Taoman
Ah, watch the river, my friend. Enjoy the clouds. Calm, calm.
For and against, for and against, hooks so easily.
Come and share with the others who have dropped by.

Thank you brother.

I just think it's a prequisite for anyone commenting to actually know what they are talking about.
The fact that he admits it is rather insulting.
Dont worry, old friend, I'll do mine thing and you do yours 😉

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Thank you brother.

I just think it's a prequisite for anyone commenting to actually know what they are talking about.
The fact that he admits it is rather insulting.
Dont worry, old friend, I'll do mine thing and you do yours 😉

I share from a good space at present. It would be good to be always in that state. The other day I was shouting at another driver, hooked, line and sinker! You could have calm me from a good space then. Practice, practice.
I no longer tangle with those who seek my post space, even if somewhat inappropriately. Who knows where it will lead? Go with the flow. This forum, I have decided, will always be a bit "untidy", I have grown to accept it. I am not without fault. I too have found myself commenting with too much certitude, where I am but a novice.

Have a good day mate.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, A was not doubting theory C, because it did not yet exist.

ah yes, i misread. he was doubting B which led to the discovery of C.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In that case, that should cause great doubt in the model of evolutionary biology because it is all screwed up.

there is doubt, but not for any reason you could understand with your limited intelligence and lack of familiarity with the theory in question.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. ...

thank you. you have vindicated the critical rationalist philosophy.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
ah yes, i misread. he was doubting B which led to the discovery of C.

Where'd you read that? 😕

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
thank you. you have vindicated the critical rationalist philosophy.

No, one example does not prove the rule.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, one example does not prove the rule.

no amount of examples prove the rule. you can only find examples to disprove the rule. such has not be done (yet).

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Where'd you read that? 😕

"Scientist A was working in field of study B and discovered theory C."

if you don't agree that his work involved doubting something in the filed of B (such as doing testing or experimentation), you'll have to give a specific example.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
"Scientist A was working in field of study B and discovered theory C."

if you don't agree that his work involved doubting something in the filed of B (such as doing testing or experimentation), you'll have to give a specific example.

testing != doubting and experimentation != doubting

Scientist A was studying B and experimenting to see what would happen under certain strange or novel conditions. He saw a result that no one had ever seen, experimented further (perhaps to see if this strange effect manifested under certain other conditions), and discovered theory C. At no time did he doubt anything.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]testing != doubting and experimentation != doubting

yes it does. testing is done to confirm the results of an experiment done previously. and so on down the line.

Scientist A was studying B and experimenting to see what would happen under certain strange or novel conditions. He saw a result that no one had ever seen, experimented further (perhaps to see if this strange effect manifested under certain other conditions), and discovered theory C. At no time did he doubt anything.

like i said, if you disagree, you'll have to give a specific example.