The real question.

Started by Alliance6 pages

Originally posted by inimalist
🙂

nothing is sacred anymore

Thats a false presupposition of the post-modern movement. However, its incorrect, because ideals are still present in society and certain things are still sacred to individuals.

This "nothing is sacred anymore" concept will end.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats a false presupposition of the post-modern movement. However, its incorrect, because ideals are still present in society and certain things are still sacred to individuals.

This "nothing is sacred anymore" concept will end.

lol

well

🙂 sure told me

I know, Spaghetti is sacred to me.

For it is the body of the FSM.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

well

🙂 sure told me

I had an art teacher once who was very post-modernist...I have a strong romantic streak so we had some good discussion.🙂

lol, I'm a pretty strong post modernist, but in good form, it doesn't mean nearly enough to me to argue about it

Modernist or post-modernist?

post modernist

not devout in any way, but ya, I'm pretty sure that there is nothing to be sure about

😂 Then yes...that seems correct.

There was another period like that in history...the Moral Crisis...we made it out of that one and went right into the enlightenment.

lol

I don't know. Some form of post modernism has been incorporated into science (if under completely different philosophical traditions). Scientific uncertainty basically says that we can't take what we know as fact.

However, unlike most post modernists, I see the results of science as indicating that they probably have the best answers, if not the strictly correct one.

There is a functional limity to what is significant. Best is still workable.

Its the accpetance of the approximation, the embrace of fuzzy edges that moves the world today. Thinkers just have to accept that too.

This has been done in both biology and physics. Just beacuse you don't understand something, doesn't mean you can't work with it.

lol, very certainly. Not understanding a concept has never been a reason not to work with it 🙂

I do think science does an excellent job of explaining reality, even with the fuzzy edges. Too often people just reject science because it conflicts with what they want to believe. Or ya, they just run to the fuzzy edges where they can say "quantum" and all of a sudden you are supposed to believe what they say.

I've find that the only people that reject science are those that don't actually understand it.

yes and no

there are some pseudoscientists who seem to understand the mechanisms of science enough to be critical of it for not accepting subjective evidence, though they fall apart on the philosophy side of it

but ya, I would say the large majority of people are ignorant of science. I think there is some stat that goes something like, there are 2.5% of americans who could be considered "scientifically literate", which is only marginally larger than the number of scientists in the country (2%).

EDIT: on second thought, I'm sure those percentages are off, as I don't suppose there are 6 000 000 Scientists in America. However, I have heard that meme several times before, so I will leave it up, though I am pretty sure the numbers are not the right ones

Somewhere, there are three republican presidential candidates raising their hands.

oh man, how sad was that?

Originally posted by Alliance
Moral, Philosophical, Religious, Social, Historical, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you are the guy that's been called the smartest with sciences?