Originally posted by Jack Daniels
what happens if I take both..lol
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosOh that's just stupid.
And yet it so rarely works out that way.
Who are the winners in history?
Nelson was an amazing fighter, very intellectual, and won in Waterloo.
Bill Clinton was a very intelligent person politically, he won the 1992 election when the last guy lost in a landslide.
Who always wins arguments over the internet? The deeply intellectuals, or the parrots who sprout out ancient claims?
Knowledge is clearly power.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh that's just stupid.Who are the winners in history?
Nelson was an amazing fighter, very intellectual, and won in Waterloo.
Bill Clinton was a very intelligent person politically, he won the 1992 election when the last guy lost in a landslide.
Who always wins arguments over the internet? The deeply intellectuals, or the parrots who sprout out ancient claims?
Knowledge is clearly power.
Athens vs Sparta
PhD Candidate vs Man with Club
Rome vs Germanic Tribes
Fundamentalist Christianity vs Science
Extremist Islam vs Stock Brokers
Abraham Lincoln vs John Wilkes Booth
It's fairly stupid to claim that knowledge is power in anything but a very small number of circumstances. Technology is power. Influence is power. Knowledge is exploited by those who want actual power and then cast aside.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosDon't get what Athens and Sparta have to do with it.
Athens vs SpartaPhD Candidate vs Man with Club
Rome vs Germanic Tribes
Fundamentalist Christianity vs Science
Extremist Islam vs Stock Brokers
Abraham Lincoln vs John Wilkes Booth
It's fairly stupid to claim that knowledge is power in anything but a very small number of circumstances. Technology is power. Influence is power. Knowledge is exploited by those who want actual power and then cast aside.
PhD candidates aren't necessarily knowledgeable, and it's ridiculous to make that argument since that's not what inimalist is saying. Think of it more as Kung Fu expert vs man with club.
Again, I'm not seeing the point made here. The Holy Roman Empire took control of the germanic tribes because they knew how to fight better. They had more knowledge in the art of fighting.
Science has won everytime against fundamentalist christianity. The only places where creationism is taught are where there is little to no scientists.
Not seeing the connection.
John Wilkes Booth had the knowledge to shoot him in the back of the head. Lincoln had the knowledge that anyone who shot him would be severly punished.
Knowledge is power.
Originally posted by inimalist
for instance?
Rome destroyed by barbarians. The well educated Lincoln murdered by Boothe. All credit for Penicillin going to Fleming rather than the people how made it a viable drug. Fundamentalist Christians that formed their beliefs with limited knowledge having far more influence that brilliant intellectuals. A kung-fu master being shot dead by a rookie cop.
Knowledge is much too broad and abstract to make the statement that "knowledge is power" without falling back onto constant demands that knowledge be regarded as something different in each circumstance in order to make it true. You could reasonably say that "superiority is power" but that ends up being somewhat circular.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Rome destroyed by barbarians. The well educated Lincoln murdered by Boothe. All credit for Penicillin going to Fleming rather than the people how made it a viable drug. Fundamentalist Christians that formed their beliefs with limited knowledge having far more influence that brilliant intellectuals. A kung-fu master being shot dead by a rookie cop.Knowledge is much too broad and abstract to make the statement that "knowledge is power" without falling back onto constant demands that knowledge be regarded as something different in each circumstance in order to make it true. You could reasonably say that "superiority is power" but that ends up being somewhat circular.
I don't see how those are examples of knowledge not being power. It seems you have chosen situations where knowledge is moot. If you want, I can go over them individually, but I think you are reading too much into the statement.
I don't think inherent in that statement is knowledge = invincibility...
knowledge opens up options. The more you know, the more you are able to do or articulate, and thus, the more individual power you have. Violence is also a form of power, and largely much more capable of killing people than knowledge. I think using knowledge to have the most violent technology is probably good, but this is extremely tangential from what I was saying. I was speaking of individual emancipation, not about universal guiding princiapls of society and human behaviour....
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see how those are examples of knowledge not being power. It seems you have chosen situations where knowledge is moot.
If it can be rendered useless again and again it's a fairly poor source of power, IMO.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think inherent in that statement is knowledge = invincibility...
No, but the idea that knowledge is power would certainly seem to translate into knowledge gives the ability for success. That seems terribly abstract to me.
I'll use the Flemming example:
His total contribution to Penicillin was finding it making a note and eventually deciding he couldn't use it. Florey and Chain made it into a useful drug that altered the landscape of medicine and war. Flemming, Florey and Chain shared the Nobel Prize but Flemming's particular charisma is why we credit him with giving the world penicillin.
This covers knowledge of how to observe, knowledge of chemistry and knowledge of self-promotion. Any level of power gained by Florey and Chain was completely lost in the face of self-promotion. Knowledge simply covers too many things, IMO, to say that knowledge, in a general sense, gives one power.
Originally posted by inimalist
knowledge opens up options. The more you know, the more you are able to do or articulate, and thus, the more individual power you have. Violence is also a form of power, and largely much more capable of killing people than knowledge. I think using knowledge to have the most violent technology is probably good, but this is extremely tangential from what I was saying.I was speaking of individual emancipation, not about universal guiding princiapls of society and human behaviour....
I completely missed that. Yes, I would agree that control, power and improvement in one's own life is dependent almost entirely on knowledge.