by iconoclastic 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Carl Sagan WAS strictly scientific.
He was also poetic. From cosmos (1980): "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us — there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries."
and
"We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it's forever."
He was also poetic.
He was. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you shown, and a perfect example of how being scientifically minded doesn't mean someone is cold and distant emotionally.
Carl Sagan WAS strictly scientific. The quote was 100% out of context and purposely misleading. If anyone has any doubt of that, they need to read "Demon Haunted World"
Ta da,..
https://7chan.org/lit/src/Carl_Sagan_-_The_Demon-Haunted_World.pdf
"In science, "how" and "why" are the same question, "how"."
Hmmm.
In philosophy, they are not. Teleology anyone?
The OP is fluff, nowt but the very worst pseudo-intellectual kind, IMO.
However, calling "how" and "why" the same question - is Begging the Question (gently, I'll grant), in this context.
Your answer assumes that there is no greater "Why", that there is in fact no purpose; only a cause or causes to be discerned through the scientific method... Then answers in the light of that assumption.
"How" and "Why" may very well be the same question in science, but that is hardly what the OP meant (the opening statement contains the claim that science cannot answer the why). Something you acknowledged your understanding of by typing "Your convoluted mess gets it wrong from the start".
Science avoids anything of a teleological bent, or reduces it to metaphor. To answer a teleonomic question with anything that begins "In science", is to dismiss the actual question being asked.
I'll infer that you implied and you can infer that I inferred. But I'll guess you understand my quibble (meagre though it may be)?
I don't think I put words in your mouth that were not there. 'Though if correction comes, corrected I will stand.
Death is not to be feared. It's the leading up to death that could inspire trepidation, imho. If a person wants to believe in religious poppycock, I'm okay with that, as long as their belief system does not harm others.
Carl Sagan was also a marijuana user, who felt it enhanced his creative process and had other benefits. This was discovered after he died, in his personal journals. He felt that his use and approval of marijuana would have a deleterious effect on his credibility in 'Murica and thus, the world, so he kept it secret.
Just something I thought was interesting, since Sagan was being quoted. : )
xx
Carl Sagan was also a marijuana user, who felt it enhanced his creative process and had other benefits.
How I loved that man.
In philosophy, they are not. Teleology anyone?
I didn't mention philosophy.
However, calling "how" and "why" the same question - is Begging the Question (gently, I'll grant), in this context.
Your answer assumes that there is no greater "Why", that there is in fact no purpose
It isn't and doesn't. Begging the question, is it's true form, is to reach a conclusion based on an assumption that needs as much proof as the conclusion. It is a form of circular reasoning. My answer didn't reach any conclusion, it's simply stating a fact of how science works, not assuming that there is no purpose or greater why. Should there be evidence that there is a "greater why" that "how", science will adapted evolve to handle that. As of today, however, there is zero evidence that such a thing exists.
"How" and "Why" may very well be the same question in science, but that is hardly what the OP meant (the opening statement contains the claim that science cannot answer the why).
Regardless of what he meant, he was wrong.
Science avoids anything of a teleological bent, or reduces it to metaphor. To answer a teleonomic question with anything that begins "In science", is to dismiss the actual question being asked.
The OP didn't ask a question, he made an incorrect assertion. Far from dismiss a question, I corrected his opening, incorrect premise.
Perhaps you should discuss what I actually wrote instead of construct a faulty argument around what you mistakenly think I wrote.
I don't think I put words in your mouth that were not there. 'Though if correction comes, corrected I will stand.
You're standing corrected.
Well, this is a bit silly .... arguing semantics is *SO* boring. YAWNS.
Science asks "How?".......... whilst working on "how", science may ask "why?" in the context of seeking a verifiable theory and or explanation.
If you wish to tie up a discussion in knots over semantics, then fill your boots. It's quite boring to read, though, to any other intelligent and educated person who sees the obvious (that some people enjoy making others look uneducated, just because the former person is good at semantics).
I mean, are we interested in finding TRUTH, and having DISCUSSION, or in proving how great we are at twisting other folks up?
*PUKE*
Correct THAT.
: )
Well, this is a bit silly .... arguing semantics is *SO* boring. YAWNS.
I know. It's SOOOO boring to use words in the right way so we understand each other. So boring you needed to jump in.
Science asks "How?".......... whilst working on "how", science may ask "why?" in the context of seeking a verifiable theory and or explanation.
No, it doesn't. Perhaps if this is such a boring thing, you could take the time to pop out of the discussion and read a book on science.
*PUKE*
That definitely sums up your post.
