|
|
Post by LorrB on Apr 21, 2011 13:14:17 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 7:50:18 GMT 9.5
So does the human have specific place (function) in the universe?
This question seems to imply that the human exists in places/systems other than Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by credible evidence on Jul 5, 2013 11:33:04 GMT 9.5
So does the human have specific place (function) in the universe? This question seems to imply that the human exists in places/systems other than Earth. It does indeed imply that as possibility. If you assert that to be the case can you provide credible evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 11:39:17 GMT 9.5
What is credible for some is incredible for others. I was taught by the priests many beliefs that in retrospect were incredible (mysteries) and equally taught by them that many other beliefs were not be be believed that now might seem quite credible.
Is credibility an objective standard for human discussion? It seems to be a matter of training.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon Llull on Jul 5, 2013 11:43:53 GMT 9.5
What is credible for some is incredible for others. I was taught by the priests many beliefs that in retrospect were incredible (mysteries) and equally taught by them that many other beliefs were not be be believed that now might seem quite credible. Is credibility an objective standard for human discussion? It seems to be a matter of training. Or a matter of wilful ignorance. “If understanding followed no rule at all, there would be no good in the understanding nor in the matter understood, and to remain in ignorance would be the greatest good.” - Ramon Llull. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Darwin on Jul 5, 2013 11:51:16 GMT 9.5
“I might have said with entire truth that I had no wish to dispute any dogma; but I never was such a fool as to feel and say 'credo quia incredibile.” - Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 12:05:37 GMT 9.5
Do you have an objective standard for credibility? Majority vote?
|
|
|
|
Post by scientific method on Jul 5, 2013 12:37:47 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 12:43:10 GMT 9.5
As we have seen with the disgraceful suppression of Pons and Fleischmann, the majority view of scientists (even when delivered by standing ovation) is not at all suitable for dealing with new areas of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by scientific domain on Jul 5, 2013 14:54:02 GMT 9.5
As we have seen with the disgraceful suppression of Pons and Fleischmann, the majority view of scientists (even when delivered by standing ovation) is not at all suitable for dealing with new areas of knowledge. The so-called "suppression" only came after once hopeful colleagues who had actively participated in the field lost patience with the experimental results. They decided to move on, while others were free to continue with this particular version of cold fusion if they wished. Better the scientific domain than the pseudoscientific and superstitious circuses characterised by blind faith. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 15:02:52 GMT 9.5
So do humans have any place in the universe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Earth on Jul 5, 2013 17:47:10 GMT 9.5
So do humans have any place in the universe? Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 18:07:58 GMT 9.5
So do humans have any place in the universe? Earth. As you must know occupation of territory is not the meaning of the thread. Perhaps someone else can contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by Earth on Jul 5, 2013 18:33:42 GMT 9.5
As you must know occupation of territory is not the meaning of the thread. We evolved on this planet and are attuned to its conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 5, 2013 20:14:37 GMT 9.5
We evolved on this planet and are attuned to its conditions. That must be why human eyes do not work well in bright or dark conditions, why humans need clothes in most environments and the children need support for more than a decade and the feet no longer work as hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Jay Gould on Jul 5, 2013 22:01:50 GMT 9.5
We evolved on this planet and are attuned to its conditions. That must be why human eyes do not work well in bright or dark conditions, why humans need clothes in most environments and the children need support for more than a decade and the feet no longer work as hands. Evolution does not guarantee optimisation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Panda%27s_Thumb_(book) |
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 5, 2013 22:40:07 GMT 9.5
As I recall it was one of my instructors in college who characterized all of occult thinking as mental masturbation. We indulged in it because it felt good. I wonder if what's good enough for the goose is also good for the gander. We argue points as if there were an objective standard of truth, but, no, we argue because somewhere internally it feels good. According to this idea, we are simply hedonists indulging ourselves in self-pleasure. Frankly, I'd rather spend my time counting the angels on the head of a needle.
Debate is predicated on the assumption that there is absolute truth. If that assumption is removed, an assumption that is based on fuzzy logic btw, then debate is impossible. If, on the other hand, we debate to reveal a relative truth, would the activity be half as much fun?
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 6, 2013 6:38:52 GMT 9.5
...we argue because somewhere internally it feels good. ... Oh dear you could be right. Here is an example: So what part of a human feels the necessity to argue regardless? Is it this? |
|
|
|
Post by stepnwolf on Jul 6, 2013 10:41:19 GMT 9.5
Well, Paul, what a fascinating idea. I'd like some time to think about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 6, 2013 10:45:37 GMT 9.5
>what a fascinating idea
I hope so, I think I copied that from one of your posts.
A parallel but less common system exists in the emotional structure of some humans which is how child abuse is contagious.
|
|
