I agree. I answered each of your questions. If my answers weren't good enough, you should identify which questions I failed on and how I failed. I have a problem with that. The rules by which change occurs are not constantly changing. In physics, biology, and other sciences, there are rules that are the constants - the knowledge that is of lasting value. New species will arise. But, that is not derogatory of human knowledge.
Newton was born in 1643. His physics is what we use today - sufficient for traveling to the moon, calculating trajectories, and all sorts of other stuff that isn't close to light speed. Our knowledge improved when we got Einstein's relativity. But, that didn't change Newton's physics - it just showed where the limits for his rules are. At the same time, we got quantum mechanics. While human understanding of quantum mechanics has improved, it's still essentially the same as it was in the early 1900's. In biology, evolution remains a foundational principle of all biology. Knowledge has improved. Today with electron microscopes and other stuff there are a good number of known mechanisms inside cells that support the kind of changes that evolution gets to work with. That allows various kinds of advancement in knowledge. You seem to be fixated on the idea that increasing knowledge invalidates what we have known. And, it is true that there have been mistakes made where further knowledge has allowed those mistakes to be corrected. But, I don't believe you can legitimately suggest that increased knowledge is necessarily destructive of past knowledge. Today, perhaps the largest question in physics has to do with reconciling quantum mechanics model of what happens in the small and the Einstein/gravity model of how things work in the large. But, when that answer comes, it IS going to support both quantum mechanics AND Einstein. The reason is that both those models have been tested in numerous ways every day of the year since the early 1900s. Physicists are saying that whatever the unifying answer is, it is NOT going to invalidate either model any more than Newton's model was invalidated by Einstein. Instead, like with that past case it may identify limitations - limitations that have not been discovered so far.
I get it. I studied all these things in school, as well. Let's make it a bit more practical and consider medical science. Do you realize what was going on in medicine 100 years ago, 200 years ago? If not, do a bit of reading and you will understand how much things have changed. One hundred years from today, physicians [among which I count myself] will be seen as pre-historic. Medical science is changing so rapidly that it's almost impossible to keep-up. Change is what defines intellectualism. Our thinking changes all the time...but it never approaches the truth. The truth can only be accessed non-intellectually and is available at all times. Don't worry so much about what people think it is. Open your eyes to what it is by going with the flow of change [as opposed to the gospel of intellectual truth].
Yes. Medicine is constantly improving. No. The truth of how this universe works can NOT be approached non-intellectually. For example, religion doesn't answer the questions of how this universe works. Religion doesn't lead to a better understanding of medicine, or physics, or technology, or cosmology, etc. If you want to consult religion for the meaning of life, etc., fine. But, that is an entirely different realm - as the Pope terms it.
Remember, there are two "truths," the first is intellectual [personal] truth, the other is Absolute Truth [non-intellectual]. Religion falls under the intellectual banner whereas pure spirituality, the non-intellectual. This is an entirely different conversation, but you are correct that religion does do any of these things. The best the intellectual can accomplish is to put forth the currently accepted "mish-mosh" that is accepted as the current truth. You might wish to consider that 99.999...% of all things that take place are completely unknown to the human mind, yet somehow we go forward just the same. IOW, we are able to put together some kind of world view and make it work on a rudimentary level DESPITE our inability to understand it. What's as close to real as it gets takes place before our thinking mind takes this "information" and transforms it into our personal realities. Our appreciation of even the simplest things is not even close because even these things are way too complex for the human intellect to grasp. The simplest of things are determined by an infinite number of events preceding. Each succeeding event is again determined by an infinite number of events, etc., so you can see how it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things. Yes, I know that it appears as if all this science works, but it really doesn't. It's just as close as we can get [at the moment]. After all, do you really believe you can understand how anything works? I believe you vastly under-estimate the power of religion...and although you are correct that religion cannot answer these questions, it can point people in the correct direction.
LOL I don't accept your concept of "truth" here. What we have is the best knowledge humans have been able to develop. Humans can not develop truth. But, we can continue to improve human knowledge. Personal realities have far more to do with what individuals decide to search out and learn. Expecting individuals to incorporate the knowledge of all areas of human endeavor is obviously ridiculous. So, humans put in varying degrees of effort to learn what is known. This always leaves huge gulfs in personal knowledge. Individuals can not be expected to learn all human progress. I think you agree with that. The implication is that humans need to learn to operate on far less than perfect grasp of what is known. We have to learn how to seek out information from those who are experts, from repositories of human knowledge. We have to be constantly aware of how much we do not know as individuals. I don't accept that. The first step is that these events are not random. There is great evidence that the physics on this Earth are the same as the physics throughout this universe. Thus, humans can use methods of verification of principles that are postulated. I've addressed that many times. The knowledge we have gained does work, as do the methods used to gain that knowledge. You want to claim that we have ZERO if we don't have ultimate truth, and that's just plain nonsense. No, I believe there is power in religion. It's just that there is no power in religion when it comes to discovering how this physical universe works. On the other hand, our methods of discovering how this universe works aren't successful when trying to address WHY questions.
people associate what they don't know with what they already know in a scientific process known as schematics. So, the OP is right. Our new knowledge is compared with our old knowledge.
Wow - wasn't aware of that! I guess it would be difficult to have long lasting memories if the involved neurons kept dying! But, when a body dies, there sure are a lot of dead neurons. So, not so convinced about that last part.
Sure. If you get a pizza shop address you can combine that with what you already know about your city, for example. But, that's not how one goes about finding new information.
If it were not for science you would have no computer and no forum to criticize science on because all those millions of littler transistors in your computer that make it work are a direct application of quantum mechanics. did you think there are millions of little men inside your computer pulling levers and rotating gears making your computer work??? Vision has evolved many different times independently between many different organisms. Turns out vision is a big deal in the survival of different organisms. Truthfully, science is wrong many times. The textbooks present science as if that is actually how it works but textbooks our wrong often times as new evidence comes along and presents itself. My teachers hated me because i questioned the textbooks. The studies are where it's at. the textbooks used to say dna is replicated continuously on both strands turns out dna is replicated discontinuously on the lagging strand because dna cannot be replicated continously in the 3 prime to 5 prime direction. But if you had read a textbook a few years ago????
New information is compared to old information in a process known as schemata. That's how people learn. Have you learned more since you have been in school compared to when you were in school Willreadmore. I have. You're a lifelong learner.
Knowledge is more like a river instead of a stone. Although the stone continuously changes [although cannot perceive this change in real time], we can see the flow of information that constantly inter-mixes with all other information to produce new truths each and every moment. The only problem is that we do not live in the present because of the time-lag between Reality and our perception thereof. This lack of access creates several issues, the most important being that we stand outside of what is taking place. Not only that, but we cannot understand what is taking place regardless. Our intellectual abilities are simply not up to the task as even the simplest of things holds infinite complexity. What we can do [and must do] is understand the flow of change and literally hitch a ride on it. Most people do quite the opposite, always being distracted by something or other that causes them to concentrate on a particular moment [as the flow continues on]. Science is just like this...constant change. Again, the key lies in the understanding of the flow so you can perceive its direction. This is the best we can do. The details are already "out of date" by the time we can even get our heads around it. And just the same, we can only apply our limited intellectual skills which come up with the human version of actually what it is. This is why everything changes and will always change. This is why nothing we can "think" is really ever correct [and cannot be]. Don't be fooled into believing that so and so system proves such and such. It's not the case. It's like saying that this is the way it is because this is the way it is. Not so much.
This goes back thousands of years. Absolute and relative truth surfaces frequently through philosophy. That's fine. I am not asking you to accept anything. I would suggest that everybody has their own truth [one that keeps changing]. And I would agree with you that human knowledge continues to improve [but it's a pretty low bar considering we have little capacity]. Be wary of experts! Whenever possible, read original texts and do your own research. I am sure the physics is the same. It's just that we haven't a clue as to what it is [and never will]. What we do know is a system created in an attempt to make some sense out of the world. If you study our predecessors, they did the same thing [although we laugh at their foolishness and give Nobel Prizes away for our own!]. I've addressed that many times. The knowledge we have gained does work, as do the methods used to gain that knowledge. I didn't write that. I am saying that most mis-understand what our intellects are capable of. Do you really believe these are separate issues? Could it be that it is only our minds create such a duality?
Our minds DO create that duality. Long into prehistory humans were attempting to bring solace and some level of understanding to the many questions by postulating magic. Why am I here? Why this famine? Why did my child die? What happens when I die? The objective has nothing to do with HOW this universe works. And, the answers derived were as many as the communities on Earth. Today we have New Age, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, and thousands upon thousands of more regional answers to "why". And there is no agreement, as there is no evidence or methodology for finding what is true and what is not. If you want to call that a search for "truth", fine. But, there isn't even a starting point for any kind of search in that. It's totally founded in "I'm right". On the other hand, we have modern science that doesn't even try to answer any of those questions! But, it does have a strong, world wide methodology for approaching the questions of HOW this universe works. And, it IS working. Science throughout the world does have an established way of comparing ideas. And, the result is that our understanding of how this universe works has been increasing at an incredible rate and with world wide agreement. Of course, science doesn't pretend that it's found some sort of ultimate truth. Frankly, anyone who makes claims of progress on that is a charlatan.
This is extremely complex subject-matter. Again, I believe you have to acknowledge that there are two main areas of interest, spirituality [the non-intellectual] and religion [the intellectualization of spirituality]. As you well know, libraries of volumes have been written on both of these areas of interest. If you believe that the heart of the matter is, "I'm right," then you are only seeing the superficial. Deeply religious folks many times have a very serious spiritual foundation. Try not to discount something that has been so fundamental to human existence since the beginning. Wouldn't that be nice! Just take a look at the abortion debate raging in this country. Yes and no. The system that we use constantly undergoes improvement until it is unseated by the next that makes former adherents seem like morons [e.g., drilling holes in people's skull in order to exorcise evil spirits not so long ago...not to mention all the crazy medical therapies currently in vogue]. Science [especially in the last fifty years] has been [like everything else] sold to the highest bidder. If the average person out there had any idea what goes on [beyond the financial extortion] in medicine these days, their heads would spin!
Those appear to me to be slightly different approaches to the same problem. There isn't religion without spirituality. And, those who focus on spirituality to the exclusion of religion appear to be simply rolling their own. I agree. And, I don't discount that. But, the catch is that there are numerous foundations and there is no methodology for determining which is close to being right. That doesn't mean there is no value in this pursuit. But, claims of "truth" are really no more than claims that one approach to the supernatural is right and all the others on Earth are wrong. The abortion debate is the religion/spirituality side, NOT the science side. What does God want? When does an egg get a soul? Etc. On the other hand, the science side can answer the questions of how procreation and sexuality work. It is religion, NOT science that does things for evil spirits. The homeotherapy, prisms, prayer, and other nostrums we have today have NOTHING to do with science. They have to do with religion and spirituality, that purposefully ignores science. Homeopathy, for example, refuses to be guided by issues such as testing efficacy. You're going WAY over the top. Suggesting that learning is a reason for despising science is seriously deranged. Science is about learning. Science can not by itself stop the abuses of what is learned. Einstein learned that e=mc^2, and that got used to slaughter about a quarter million unsuspecting civilians. You can't blame Einstein or learning for that.
[QUOTE="impermanence, post: 1073567570, member: 122191" (clip) Then why does mathematics break down as you get to its extremes [zero and infinity]? (clip) .[/QUOTE] It doesn't. Zero and infinity are not numbers. Zero is also called the "placeholder" . It simply means there are no numbers there in that place. Infinity is a process, it means "it goes on endlessly" There is no great mystery about either of these things. No less a transcendent mathematical genius than Isaac Asimov, who disliked calling mathematics mystical, explained this in one of his books.
It's difficult to discuss a subject if the participants cannot agree on definitions. The way I use spirituality is in its Absolute form, that is, it exists outside of the intellect. For example, you cannot describe what love is, but you can certainly feel it. That sort of thing. I believe there are many people who are non-believers who feel that abortion is not such a wonderful thing and should be looked at in a more comprehensive manner. Having a society that takes sex so lightly has turned out to be an extremely unhealthy practice on many levels. To some degree, but I would guess that the percentage of information known about it is tiny. You should look up some of the crazy things that were taken for hard science in the not too distant past. Look at what science did with people who had mental illness. Look at what they still do today! How about encouraging small children to consider altering their bodies to align with the gender dysphoria craze ongoing. In not so many years, people will look back on this as if the whole of society lost their minds. How can scientifically trained people get onboard with such insanity? And I would write off methods such as prayer and meditation. These practices have been shown to help people in any number of physiological ways. Mind and body are quite similar, as you know. I am not saying any of that. My point is that people need to understand the limits of understanding [and only then will they be able to go with the flow of information instead of stopping to ponder some truth (that no longer exists)] so they can follow the truth of the matter as best as is possible.
Infinity "means" that it goes on endlessly? What does that mean? How can something go on endlessly? Just like you can half one endlessly? As pointed out previously, and since all things in the Universe are unique, there can only exist one number, 1 [but there is no need for this anyway]. What could "2" possibly mean?
Well, there certainly are various areas of religion, spirituality, etc. But, I'm arguing that they are a separate realm from science (as the Pope puts it). No divide is ever 100%. But, a majority of Americans believe abortion needs to be totally the woman's choice, or nearly so. Of those who don't agree, it is the religious segments of our society that are most opposed to the right of women to make this choice for themselves. Science has brought significant knowledge concerning sexuality, mental illness, etc. But, the things you describe concerning sexuality are not science. They are human responses. Plus, you're forgetting that science has helped make HUGE improvements in the lives of those who suffer mental illness. Let's remember that when we look farther back in history, the work done to improve how science works can not be overlooked. I don't see that in any of your posts. So far, you have presented human knowledge as being so ephemeral as to be worthless.
How could they be? Science essentially became the new religion du jour. Both present a world view and both are quite creative in that endeavor. That an enormous simplification of an incredibly complex subject. Although I am for a woman's right to choose [as it is her body], this is wrapped up in many, many other issues. Essentially using abortion as a means of birth control seems horribly inhumane. In the end, there's an equal amount of good and bad in everything [but that's not the point]. I am a physician. Give me a little credit for understanding that much! This is where you completely mis-interpret my comments. Let me try to make my explanations clearer. My case is as follows... The human intellect has severe limitations [for many reasons]. Perhaps the most important is that our minds are not capable of deciphering the complexity of Reality [for all kinds of reasons]. What we can perceive [and process] becomes our human reality [each person with their own version]. What is not perceived probably over 99.9999...% of what's really going on because the amount of information out there is nearly infinite [in each moment]. So our human reality is a very simple interpolation of what's going on, one that seems massively off the mark [by definition]. After all, how accurate could it be? What we humans seem to do is try to figure things out [just the same] and have historically made up all kinds of theories to explain every damn thing. Since these theories are pie in the sky guesses, they are always proved wrong, then replaced with the next brilliant theory...on and on and on... Some of our methods seem to work [the same way they always have despite the fact that folks really had no idea why]. And this is the key to this whole thing...understanding that our "understanding" is a continuous process of trial and error [the scientific method] but there is a significant limit to how close one can get to the truth [for all of the above reasons]. And it's not anywhere near close. How could it be? Is this making sense?
Science is dramatically NOT like religion in terms of all components of decision making. The problem with that is that abortion is also used as a way of saving the woman's LIFE. Plus, not everybody shares your views on embryos. Well, I totally disagree on your ideas concerning the knowledge humans have developed and what that means for decisions we have to make. When a doctor makes a decision it is NOT OK to ignore what is known to medical science. And, I don't just mean that you might lose your license to practice. The fact that humans don't know absolutely everything is NOT an excuse for ignoring the best knowledge available at the time a decision is required. The fact that we continue to improve human knowledge CAN NOT be held as an excuse to IGNORE that knowledge. I mean, how much sense could that make?
