2 + 2 = 4 |
|
Last edited by DeathCell; 11-19-2008 at 04:53 PM.
No, you need mathematics for that. And maths is a tool used by science. |
|
- Are you an idiot?
- No sir, I'm a dreamer.
Math is a tool used by science so I was right, you don't need science for Math. |
|
Last edited by DeathCell; 11-19-2008 at 07:07 PM.
Most people who feel like they don't need science actually are confused between Science and scientific discoveries. Science is a method of testing reality. Without knowing it, you use science every day. For instance, without even thinking about it, you know that the left knob on a sink will almost always be the hot water. Why? Because you've spent years using the scientific method collecting data subconsciously. Every time you test the knob to see which one is hot, you file the information away and build a scientific model of reality. |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
Yes. In order to make sense of 2+2=4, I must formulate a hypothesis (e.g., that the sum total of two twos is equivalent to four) and test that hypothesis. Such as by observing that adding two objects to two more objects results in me having a total of four. Without this kind of testing, any arbitrary conclusion can be drawn and there is no standard by which to measure its truth. Without science, it is equally believable that 2+2=2 or 2+2=cat. If I hypothesized that 1=2 and so 2+1=4, and gathered two objects, added another and proceeded to count the total, I would see that I did not have four objects. The prediction my hypothesis made was not correct. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth. |
|
Yes, you still need it because the observation is relative. The sun doesn't "come up"; once we have done more research by flying into space, we realize that it was an illusion of the observer on the Earth, including the condition of the Earth's consistent rotation. The safe trust in science and technology usually comforts us; that we don't have to fly out into space to find this out for ourselves. However, since there is a limited address, perhaps this does not apply to spiritual contexts. I.e. hearing that "somebody is enlightened" does not make one understand enlightenment nor reveal the truth itself. |
|
Last edited by really; 11-20-2008 at 04:53 AM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
That's because this statement is essentially meaningless. Whether or not an individual finds a particular piece of music to be "perfect" (whatever that may mean) is subjective to that person's preference, however it should be possible to objectively demonstrate that it is that person's preference. That is, outside of human preference, there is no such thing as "perfect music", or for that matter such a thing as "perfect", so it's useless to speculate on such things or try to prove them. |
|
Yes, since objectivity has little subjective relationship (I.e. there is no "objective truth"; truth is a subjective premise), there is no way to understand with the same method. |
|
Last edited by really; 11-20-2008 at 05:00 AM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
No, it isn't. It's based on a person's emotional response to the sounds, which are the result of the function of the human mind. It isn't a "spiritual understanding", it is a result of culture, the way the individual was raised, our biology, etc.. All of these things are very real and objectively verifiable things. |
|
It is a spiritual understanding because it relates to meaning and perception. Even if you're scientifically aware of the situation, there is still no contradiction because it is a different model of understanding; they do not counteract each other or cancel each other out. |
|
Last edited by really; 11-20-2008 at 05:18 AM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
Questions. |
|
Last edited by Cyclic13; 11-20-2008 at 07:58 AM.
The Art of War <---> Videos
Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
"These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME
|
|
Last edited by freak; 11-20-2008 at 01:47 PM.
freak, those things are understood with science. Be it the logical method, rationality, the process of learning and acquiring information, etc.. |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
Yes, but you don't need to know the science of reading/languages to know how to read; I don't, and, my parents and the rest of my family don't--and they still know how to read. Most of Mark75's answer was describing how a person would go about using the scientific method in reading a novel... and that was not the question asked. |
|
Last edited by freak; 11-20-2008 at 03:35 PM.
I know everyone loves when the dictionary's term is referenced. |
|
Yes... and the majority of people in this world aren't knowledgeable in the science of reading/language, but they still know how to read. When you learned how to read, all your teacher did was show you how to pronounce things, what each word meant, etc., but they did not tell you why these things were; you just accepted them. DeathCell was asking if you needed this extra information to know how to read. |
|
Last edited by freak; 11-20-2008 at 03:23 PM.
Do you consider some of the fundamentals of science to be carried out on an unconscious level? For example does our brain systematically gain general knowledge as we learn to read? |
|
|
|
Last edited by freak; 11-20-2008 at 04:53 PM.
Perfect Squares?? |
|
Last edited by DeathCell; 11-20-2008 at 09:38 PM.
This was that cult, and the prisoners said it had always existed and always would exist, hidden in distant wastes and dark places all over the world until the time when the great priest Cthulhu, from his dark house in the mighty city of R'lyeh under the waters, should rise and bring the earth again beneath his sway.
Observation is part of science, dude. |
|
Bookmarks