The (lack of the) Mysterious

[zhao]

As for Zhao not "denying" the value of what he perceives to be a "rationalist" way of looking at things

right. i am denying the value of rationality. altogether! there is no use for logic or the scientific method what so ever!

this is exactly what i've been saying all along.

i think a few of your marbles have rolled away nomad

 

[nomadthethird]

And today at the special olympics...

Or as you put it earlier,

Let's see, can your statements, aside from their inaccuracy, even be said to make actual sense in the context?

The first third of that post consists of one personal subjective statement and one multiple choice question addressed to the OP's position, which I guess by implication are together rhetorically asking if there is really a dichotomy here. So I would say that logically neither of these types of sentence are things you can meaningfully call 'untrue'. Nor I believe can we identify any viable candidates for the title of 'strawman'.

The second third is basically a statement to the effect that while science provides us with more and more useful models and systems for working with and predicting phenomena, there remain as always many places to find mystery and wonder if you wish to. Would you care this time to outline how you interpret this as 'not even vaguely true' or identify where you see your 'strawmen'? Preferably without relying on petty hair splitting semantic squabbling. Or shall we just save time and agree that you were talking out of your arse?

Finally for the sake of completeness let's consider the third part of that post. This was a borrowed metaphor, I suppose saying something about the ever expanding or fractal nature of knowledge. We can of course question the relative veracity of this idea, I've got no problem with doing that, you might for instance believe that one day 'we' will know all there is to know. Maybe you think you do already.

The strawman was the characterization of science as an enemy of the mysterious. This strawman had alread been pretty well dismembered earlier in the thread before you posted.

I said that two-thirds were untrue and characterized by strawmen. So the untrue parts are the first and last paragraphs. The second one I have no problem with logically, but as I clearly stated later, people had already made that point several times in the thread.

The third part of the post...ever-expanding AND fractal? Are you serious right now? "Relative veracity"? I already said very early in the thread that science teaches us as much about what we don't know as it does about what we do. But your metaphor made no sense. I like metaphors. I just prefer metaphors that make some kind of sense.

 

[nomadthethird]

right. i am denying the value of rationality. altogether! there is no use for logic or the scientific method what so ever!

this is exactly what i've been saying all along.

i think a few of your marbles have rolled away nomad

Zhao, read your own posts. Re-read them. Go back and re-read what you actually wrote. We have proof. You can't really pretend you didn't say it.

You didn't "deny" the "validity" of rationality altogether, nor did I claim that you did. You posted a long string of insults on purpose to annoy a certain few people. Don't be upset because they answered in kind. Be a good sport about it.

I don't think you ever had any marbles to begin with, Zhao.

 

[zhao]

and saying some progressives can not imagine that life in a "superstitious" society has some advantages

equals

saying scientists have no imagination.

none what so ever!

 

[nomadthethird]

and saying some progressives can not imagine that life in a "superstitious" society has some advantages

equals

saying scientists have no imagination.

none what so ever!

No, I didn't say that...but you have implied, over and over in the thread, that people who are into science simply cannot understand or value culture and art on the same plane that YOU can. The dimension of "imagination", you said, has been lost in our lives due to "rational" thinking and the scientific worldview.

It's absurd. I'm done. I've said what I want to say.

 

[massrock]

Science has not been trying to make "mysteries" go away, per se.

The strawman was the characterization of science as an enemy of the mysterious.

Aw, it's a figure of speech, a mildly jocular one, it's not pejorative or dismissive though and is clearly not presented as an exhaustive description of scientific theory and practice. It doesn't mean to say that science is an 'enemy of the mysterious', as if it makes sense to speak of such a thing, it's simply a way of saying that in doing science we 'seek' to discover more reliable and applicable ways of modelling certain phenomena. And yes, in a sense some mysteries do 'go away'. Did I say this was not desirable?

ever-expanding AND fractal

Yes why not, we can think about advances in knowledge and expanding fields of knowledge in both of these ways if we choose. Metaphor again, poetic license, multiple descriptions. Got a problem with that? Oh yeah you do.

Relative veracity

Well obviously this is your petty interpretive inflexibility again, but the way I think about it metaphors can more properly be said to possess relative veracity rather than absolute veracity.

your metaphor made no sense.

Hmm, well it's an image. It's not mine, I can't remember where I got it from, but I think it illustrates something, and I thought I'd put it out there. Sorry you were offended enough to put digits to keyboard. You say it doesn't make sense to you but of course something like that does require imagination to extract some meaning from. LOL.

 

[massrock]

nope, it's turning into rent-a-cyber-argument

There is something sort of relevant here to do with modes of cognition, don't you think?

Oh maybe not.

 

[baboon2004]

i should've added to that statement "....which is preferable to it turning into the Mighty Boosh". Noel Fielding has the most punchably smug 'comedic' face this side of David Walliams. The other one is funny though.

 

[zhao]

i should've added to that statement "....which is preferable to it turning into the Mighty Boosh". Noel Fielding has the most punchably smug 'comedic' face this side of David Walliams. The other one is funny though.

i guess i'm a bit like howard?

 

[Mr. Tea]

they are so insecure that they get rude and resort to mud slinging and name calling in their childish attempts to discredit me.

You'd do well not to bang on about "childish name-calling" when one of your main arguments in this thread is how much better you are than someone with an ordinary 9-5 office job because you smoke weed and mix some records occasionally.

Nothing wrong with either of things, of course - it just doesn't make you Alan Watts, is all.

 

[grizzleb]

I think that a reasonable point to make is that people like Dawkins et al DO think that religion has absolutely nothing of any value to teach us, and taking up issue with that seems fair enough to me. Beyond that it's just nonsense.

 

[zhao]

one of your main arguments in this thread is how much better you are than someone with an ordinary 9-5 office job because you smoke weed and mix some records occasionally.

man these guys straight from Mexico city man,
doods just opened up a little taco shop just down the street from me!
DanzigerStr. and Duncker man!
ain't even gon lie.
dont give a fuck essay!
BOOOM!!
know wut i'm sayin?
you know how much i been jonesin for that shit for so long yo...
shit is UNFUCKWIDABLE!!!
straight PIMPIN.
reppin that special sauce HARD yo!
they got pumpkin burritos!
PUMPKIN BURRITOS!!!

damn!!!

Ima go eat like 12 right now.
watch me.

 

[nomadthethird]

You'd to well not to bang on about "childish name-calling" when one of your main arguments in this thread is how much better you are than someone with an ordinary 9-5 office job because you smoke weed and mix some records occasionally.

Nothing wrong with either of things, of course - it just doesn't make you Alan Watts, is all.

I'm beginning to suspect weed smoking has more to do with this thread than "modes of cognition" as such do.

It's not even a personal thing. I couldn't stand potheads when I was a junkie, and I can't stand them now. The things that come out of their mouths... the way their brains pointlessly cycle back and forth between the wishy-washy ass-ends of a "middle ground" where utterly mundane, trivial concepts/insights live, and which they are chemically induced into finding very profound and deep...

The endless repetition of the same talking points...

The way their sense of "humor" doesn't connect up with the social vibe a good percentage of the time...

 

[nomadthethird]

Not that there aren't things to criticize about other drug cultures, of course...just that one always particularly bothered me, even when I still enjoyed smoking weed a whole lot.

 

[swears]

I don't think "the west" is all that rational though. A good example is drug laws: they're more to do with outdated morality and "sin" than harm-reduction. "Look at these junkies enjoying themselves, this will not do!"

We're probably too tolerant of religion tbh. No other organisation could get away with widespread child abuse the way the catholic church has, for example.

 

[zhao]

PUMPKIN BURRITOS!!!!

(that is exactly what Im talkin about Swears you clueless little fucker)

 

[swears]

Yeah, well. You said the west is too rational and I said we're not rational enough. Maybe this deep paradox is over my clueless head. You know where I stand, anyway.

 

[scottdisco]

will they do you pumpkin tacos?

 

[zhao]

will they do you pumpkin tacos?

probably can... really nice guys. 2 Mexican and 1 Australian. especially since i just made them an mp3 CD full of great classic Latin music. but i don't see much point as the Burrito is much better for pumpkin methinks... for tacos i prefer the traditional lamb, beef, or pork.

Josef K was the one who told me about the place, we went there last week... he must be in Israel by now...

 

[zhao]

Yeah, well. You said the west is too rational and I said we're not rational enough. Maybe this deep paradox is over my clueless head. You know where I stand, anyway.

and if you read the thread a little more you will see where i stand, and it's not exactly against your position.