|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
A1 |
quote:Khalilallah... Who gives a F~ck what the Catholic Church would have done? Ah.... And there was a 'world' outside of what was in the sphere of the "Catholic Church". What did those "other" people believe?? What did they have a monopoly on "scientific" knowledge? And by what methods did they prove their beliefs? The historical TRUTH is that they had little or no info. to support their beliefs and it was all conjecture. They had hardly even studied the world much less traveled it when those beliefs were held. So to equate their ignorance with the Laws or Universal Truths that are now believed is very poor, weak, irresponsible and lazy. I would hope you can come up with a better example than that. |
|||
|
A1 |
Khalilallah:
You misread my post. What you say I attributed to you, I was addressing to MBM. I labelled my comment. You just missed it. But now in your last post you say the "Earth Theory and the Sun Theory. You are saying that what is accepted as science is relative to time. I agree. It was the science of the time. Therefore, I am sure you can see that there can't be a Universal Truth IF there is no Universal Truth. We all know time is a truth, but only twice a day. That's facetious, but you get my point. We are in a diminishing argument here. Nothing can be because nothing is. There must always be some basis upon which a discussion can take place. There is usually a set of givens. Humans do that. No other species does that. Some people believe the universal truths of our environment are those things that can be changed only by God. And that those laws apply to those who don't believe in God. Such as "up" is the opposite "down", and not simply "thataway." I am of the position that there are no Universal truths outside of the physical sciences and mathmatics. And that a universal truth is a postulate that cannot be reduced by deductive reasoning, and/or the scientific method. Sorry, for any misdirection in my post. P.S. I also agree that "up" and "down" are relative. What is down in China is up in the U.S. That is until you apply the universal law of gravity, then "down" in the direction in which the pull of gravity is exerted whether you are China, or the U.S. PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
Founder |
quote: Not the universality of the truth itself, just our interpretation of that truth. quote: No. Our interaction with the laws of nature are irrelevant to the laws themselves. My comments simply speak to our ability to understand those laws. For example, the laws are there. How do you know that we are understanding them perfectly? quote: No, just to the human interaction with those truths. quote: Whether we discover or understand universal truths has absolutely no bearing on whether those truths exist or not. Further, I previously used the example of the speed of light to describe our ability to comprehend universal truths. While we may be able to get very very close to a pristine understanding of a universal truth, the fact that that truth has to be processed by a human brain exposes it to bias and perspective that warps our understanding of that truth - however small that might be. Please explain how you disagree with this. I am earnestly waiting for a refutation of that point by any and all comers! quote: I anxiously await your response. Do you remember when Sugar Ray Leonard fought Roberto Duran in the "No Mas" fight when he stuck his chin out and dared Duran to punch him. That's what I'm doing here.  BTW - a connection between your conclusions and my reasoning? Hmmmm . . . |
|||
|
|
A1 |
What does "practical relevance" has to do with it?
Whether conflicts are resolved or not, the source of the conflict and what precipitated it remains the same. I understand what you are saying... but on an issue like AA there is a definite source, a definite truth that gave rise to the concept in the first place. The essential argument when it comes to that is: How to make things fair and/or equal? The Universal Truth acknowledged on both sides is that at some point and time "things were not fair or equal". ----------------------------------------------- Is your "practical relevance" another "convenient universe"? You don't have to answer that... this debate is practically wearing me out. I don't see any practical use for it. Practically, I don't see the point!  |
|||
|
|
Founder |
Practical relevance?
Nmaginate, what is the point of a truth if it has no practical application to human life? Is it really a truth at all then? Were those signs in Germany really communicating if I did not have the ability to read them? Now, there may be other "beings" in the Universe that can more precisely understand universal truths, just as most certainly the Germans could read the signs with no problem. I just don't believe that human beings can do so without warping their understanding of that truth. BTW - the "essential argument", TO US, is how to make things fair and equal when thinking about AA. To many white folks though - I assure you that that is NOT the question. |
|||
|
A1 |
MBM, your statement that the human mind warps nature's laws and truths are simply pure conjecture, but you present it as fact, then draw inferences and conclusion from it. I think that mathematics is the language of the universe and thus we can communicate truths wit the universe via mathematics. This is again how we have sent people to the moon and made all types of so called advances. It was via understanding natural phenomenon and converting it to mathematics. Thus, I do not agree that the human mind can NEVER process nature's truth undistorted for a given phenomenon. Laws of physics repudiate that proposition, for a human mind mapped it mathematically and correctly.
Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM:
You have offered nothing to demonstrate that human examination contaminates the data. You have forced that propostion into the discussion as a given. Not everyone agrees. You haven't proven it by any recognized method. It is therefore an invalid premise for discussion. Like I said, you are pushing first a "Yes, but...," argument and now the combination of a corollary of "half way there". What accepted rationale imbues your proposition with truth? Please don't tell us its you, MBM!!! PEACE Jim Chester You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are. |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote:I have to lay these posts side-by-side... quote:First, I guess I mis-spoke. The ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT or question is: Are things fair and/or equal?... to which the Universal Truth is that "things were not fair and/or equal at some point and time"... What I'm calling the UNIVERSAL TRUTH does not vary and is actually agreed upon at least on some level by both camps in the AA debate. Your concept of "practical relevance" seems to suggest that that TRUTH does not exist or is of no use unless the two parties are willing to talk to each other about it and allow that to be 'common ground' building point. I differ in saying that that TRUTH is not contingent on either of their admission or coalition. The fact that "things were not fair at some point and time" cannot be erased whether the two sides agree to how to proceed because of that or not. So my question is What does "practical relevance" as you defined it in that post have to do with the fact that "things were not fair and equal at some time"? How does "practical relevance" refute or disable the Universal Truth here? |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Correctly? LOL! Do you not understand that physics is an evolving field? Do you not understanding that some of Einstein's work, for example, while once considered to be "law", has been overturned by new learning that has occurred since his death? Science is merely a snapshot of what we believe to be true now. The addition of quantum mechanics, string theory, the concept of wormholes, etc. has revolutionized how we think about physics and our universe. I assure you that 2003 years from now, physics will look absolutely nothing like it looks today. NOTHING. It will be wholly different in 100 years, most likely. So what is "fact"? What is "truth"? Do you know that we are completely in the dark about 97% of the mass of the universe (the so called 'dark matter')? So we humans are drawing conclusions about the entire universe based on what little we know of a paltry 3% of it? Really? C'mon - we know so little about things that it should be hard to take ourselves seriously at this point. We're just doing the best we can. Science may be a rigorous/organized way of thinking about things, but science is bound by the limitations of those that are engaged in it. How could it be any other? To your other point about perception: I'm perplexed that this is something that is causing confusion. Just take a minute and think about how we learn and acquire information. Can you not see that it is through the filter of human experience? Can you not see that there are sometimes extraordinary differences in human experiences on this Earth? If you are with me up to this point, how can you deny that those differences create world views and perspectives that color everything we perceive? I might sit down to eat a delicacy of lobster which someone else might consider a huge marine bug! I might think that affirmative action is an appropriate measure while someone else might think it racism. Doesn't the very fact that there are so many differences in perspectives in our world prove that point? How can you argue differently? |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Why are there so many different views and perspectives in this world? Let's bring the argument down even further, why are there so many different religions? How about languages? What, in your mind, accounts for any differences in people at all? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
MBM, you see the universe as one mathematical formula, which it may be. However, it is composed of parts that can be isolated and represented mathematical laws. You do not have to present the WHOLE formula, to express truths of component parts, via sub formulas. It is irrelevant that Einstein's mathematical theories were disproved, but were those theories ever used practically in nature to prove them out? Not likely, thus, his theories were only theories and not laws. Furthermore, I never said that a human being cannot be wrong about the truths of nature; I simply stated that it is possible that humans can be right about the truths of nature. There are many LAWS of physics, proven by mankind via mathematics, that exist as truth and has nature confirm it via practical application. And experimentation.
You now LOL at the propositions? What does the old saying say: Sometimes we have to laugh to keep from crying. Truth is always fraught with impediments. Truth agreed with is a blessed duet. Truth confronting beloved vice will sever relationships, perpetrate flight, and uncover murderous rage. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( Noah The African in America |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: GREAT QUESTION! Thank you. This is the crux of what I'm trying to communicate. There is a universal truth in the AA case. The "practical relevance" in that situation has to do with man's ability to understand that truth however. Based upon a host of variables, people will see the universal truth and accept certain elements of it and reject others to the degree that it produces groups on either side of the issue. The truth remains the truth. People's perspectives create a veritable filter that warps their comprehension of that truth, however, to produce those in favor of AA and those against. Make any sense? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
So... MBM...
If there is no way of knowing anything for sure as with science... Then: WHAT IS THE USE OF LEARNING? What is the pursuit of knowledge for but to establish what "can be known"?? What can be known for certain? What is the driving force to obtain knowledge if everything is relative? I can just say "I'm right! And there's nothing you can say, because I think I'm right and that's all that matters!" Certainly, that would hardly be called a sound argument. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: Actually I am fascinated by the concept of science identifying a Unified Theory - explaining everything. I don't hink I've injected that thinking into this discussion though. quote: I agree. What we know today, though, I would contend is less of a part of a whole, and more of a foundation to future understsanding. quote: It is relevant in countering arguments that suggest that what we know today is fact, as opposed to our best guess at the moment. quote: Oh, I hope you know it's all in good spirit. I love these debates with you all! BTW - I will be crying at the work that is piling up on my desk!!!!! P.S. Anyone lese experiencing what appear to be server issues here? |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: Hey!! That's my point!!  quote: Yeah... BUT!! The UNIVERSAL TRUTH still remains. Even both sides of the AA issue admit that at some-point-in-time... "things were not fair and/or equal." Now, because of the fear of what things would be like if we were to explore "how to make things equal or fair", people formulate their opinions even to the point of discounting the degree to which things were "unequal" in the past. Nevertheless, even the most racist revisionist does not say that enslaved Africans were "equal" to Whites or treated "fairly"... So as you say that truth remains the TRUTH. (Why I am still posting I don't know...) The "practical relevance" doesn't change that. Most Whites feel like things have changed enough... and even some Blacks feel like it's as good as it's gonna get so that's why you have opposing sides on the AA issue... And, I dare say, their sense of what is practical is the basis of their feelings. In essence, what is practical is not necessarily based on the TRUTH. |
|||
|
|
Founder |
quote: I think it's getting as close to the pure truth as we can. We know SO little of what is going on around us and within us. Even with our biases, we have an extraordinary amount to learn. I don't think we'll have to worry about hitting that upper limit of knowledge for a few millenia! quote: Again, the facts are not relative. We can, however, do our best to develop strategies to limit the influence of the "warping" effect; of perspective and bias of human thinking - that 's for sure. I can seek to understand you. You can seek to understand me. quote: Yes and No. In the overwhelming majority of human interaction we have the ability to communicate our positions and seek understanding (if not agreement) from others about things. EbonyRose can say that the sun is in the sky. I can look outside and say, no it's not. We can explain our positions and end the conversation (or not) with hopefully at least a common understanding between us. Of course, on the other hand, there are plenty of people who do just proclaim their own realities, devoid of what others think. Sometimes those people are called schizophrenics, other times conservatives!! |
|||
|
|
A1 |
quote: MBM... Do try to stay on the subject! That was a low-blow!! Conservatives are "good" people and they are on the "Right"!  |
|||
|
|
Founder |
James - in attempting to respond to your last post I accidentally erased it. Could you please recreate it? I'm sorry.
MBM In any event one of the things that you asked about was whether any of Einstein's theories had been challenged. Here's an article that does that. Einstein's theory may be relatively wrong SYDNEY, Australia --The crux of Einstein's theory of relativity -- that E = mc 2 -- is under challenge, following evidence that the speed of light might be slowing down. The discovery, made by a team of Australian scientists, undermines Einstein's key formula which maintains that the speed of light must remain constant. The speed of light is measured as roughly 300,000 kilometers (186,300 miles) a second. The team's findings, which are published in the latest edition of respected science journal Nature, are causing a major stir in the lofty circles of theoretical physics. Team leader Paul Davies, of Sydney's Macquarie University, says that if the speed of light has slowed over billions of years, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe. "That means giving up the theory of relativity and E = mc2 and all that sort of stuff," Davies told Reuters news agency on Thursday. "But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones." What Davies and his team did was study a 12 billion-year-old stream of light. Cornerstone They discovered it did not have the properties it was expected to, and by a process of elimination deduced that the speed of light must have been much faster billions of years ago. "It's entirely possible that the speed of light would have got greater and greater as you go back," he told the Herald Sun newspaper. "If the speed of light were nearly infinite in the first split second [of the universe's creation] it would explain why the universe is so uniform." The implications of the discovery -- if it is proven correct -- are not necessarily clear. "When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses, it's not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard," Davies told Reuters. "If what we're seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear." 'All bets off' "For example there's a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity," Davies said. "Maybe it's possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. "It's a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off." Davies is a Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. Last week he received the British Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award for his efforts in furthering the public communication of science, engineering or technology in the United Kingdom. Davies has a worldwide reputation as an enthusiastic and skilled communicator of contemporary physics issues. |
|||
|
|
C5 |
Nmaginate:
(Khalilallah... Who gives a F~ck what the Catholic Church would have done? Ah.... And there was a 'world' outside of what was in the sphere of the "Catholic Church". What did those "other" people believe??) Temper, temper. Look at history back then. Much of Europe and the world understood this. As far as what you think about it, oh well. Nmaginate: (What did they have a monopoly on "scientific" knowledge? And by what methods did they prove their beliefs?) Well, I guess that proves my point. If you can't see that for yourself then your not that intellegent. Connect some dots. Nmaginate: (The historical TRUTH is that they had little or no info. to support their beliefs and it was all conjecture.) However they had truths regarding nature. To go against their truth would mean damnation in hell. Nmaginate: (They had hardly even studied the world much less traveled it when those beliefs were held. So to equate their ignorance with the Laws or Universal Truths that are now believed is very poor, weak, irresponsible and lazy.) Nope, it means that you jumped into a discussion wuthout understanding my whole premise. That humans decide what is truth. Nmaginate: (I would hope you can come up with a better example than that.) You think that I hold you responsible for deciding which of my answers are good or not? No, let me spell it for you in case I am not clear, N-O-P-E, no. So, if you can try and calm yourself down and perhaps know the angle in which I am coming from, perhaps then you can make a better assessment of my answers. Until then... "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment." Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (aka Malcolm X) |
|||
|
|
C5 |
|