I dug through some old threads here!

[Erik Mesoy]

In the archive, I pulled up stuff from 3-4 years ago, and had to grin at how little and how much has changed around here since then. Le me present:

1. Gays in Military
References to Ancient Greece, FL2 in a flamewar. Yawn.

2. Do They Make the Grade In The War On Terror
Averaging a C-, three years ago.
North Korea's nukes were mentioned.

3. News: Uranium found at bin Laden/Al-Qaeda base...The WMD?

4. Taliban/Al-Qaida: The end is near!
Oh, the optimism...

5. Science vs Religion - The Ultimate Battle?
One word: CurtSibling.

Now, anyone want to actually discuss what I said related to the topic? You know, before this turned into an unfortunate (but necessary) slugfest with Curt?

Hmm, when I read this I had to blink and wonder whether I was simply reading today's threads, or whether I had gone to a completely different forum. So little change and so many events.


I hope you enjoy these archives as much as I did!

 

[Rik Meleet]

And your point is ?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I need a POINT? On the Off Topic forum?

Well, I thought it was very amusing to see a lot of the exact same discussions going on four years ago as now. If you don't think it amusing, not my problem.

OT is about posting pointless threads that don't belong anywhere else. Certainly the archives are an instance of this.

 

[Ramius75]

Well, there are ppl coming and going and so topics will get repeated, for example, "what is the best movie", "best musical", "best general" etc etc. or also there are also current affair like the 2004 presidential election. Or sometime ppl will post about love affairs, affiars of the heart etc etc. maybe be different ppl different actor, but the story is always the same. That also the history of men. gay in 200BC, gay in 2000AD.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The only reason those discussions haven't gone on for forty years is that the forum hasn't been around that long.

 

[punkbass2000]

Science vs. Religion?? Science is a religion

 

[Princeps]

Science vs. Religion?? Science is a religion

I fail to see the logic of that.

 

[punkbass2000]

You must be a devout Scientist

 

[Taliesin]

Re + ligion: relinking
Science involves plenty of relinking (new theories draw new connections between data and principles, etc.) so the statement is true if taken literally.

 

[Yom]

@Taliesin: Where's that sig from?

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, even without the technicalities, I would yield that some might not consider a religion per se, as many seem to think religion requires a god. But really, what is and is not a religion is as fine a line to draw as any. You could say Taoism was a religion or that it was not. In any case, Science is certainly dogmatic.

 

[punkbass2000]

@Taliesin: Where's that sig from?

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing it's from "Nausea."

 

[Taliesin]

@Taliesin: Where's that sig from?

My very own fevered brain.
I figured it would automatically gain respectability if I wrote it in another language.

 

[Yom]

My very own fevered brain.
I figured it would automatically gain respectability if I wrote it in another language.

Good idea. The only problem is when the person reading the sig knows the other language.

It sounded as if it were some profound-sounding (don't forget the qualifier ) quotation from some French author about life up until you started talking about killing vampires with garlic and crosses.

 

[Taliesin]

Who says science doesn't have a god? Most pantheons have a suitable figure. You could take Vulcan on the basis of recognition, but Prometheus or Ea would do as well.

 

[betazed]

In any case, Science is certainly dogmatic.

finally! Punkbass and I disagree.

Can you show me one example of where science has been dogmatic? Cautious of course. Slow to accept new theories (of course, othewirse it wouldn't work). But dogmatic?

Google defines dogmatic as : characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

If something is unprovable and unproven then by definition it is not science.

 

[Yom]

finally! Punkbass and I disagree.

Can you show me one example of where science has been dogmatic? Cautious of course. Slow to accept new theories (of course, othewirse it wouldn't work). But dogmatic?

Google defines dogmatic as : characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

If something is unprovable and unproven then by definition it is not science.

It depends on your definition of dogma. Dictionary.com talks about unprovability in the definition for "dogmatic," but it isn't mentioned in the definition for dogma.

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

Obviously the first and third do not apply. The second can be applied to scientifically proven ideas or principles that are "considered to be absolutely true" such as laws.

On the "unproven" part of the definition of dogmatic, though, the definition does not fit.

 

[Taliesin]

Good idea. The only problem is when the person reading the sig knows the other language.

It sounded as if it were some profound-sounding (don't forget the qualifier ) quotation from some French author about life up until you started talking about killing vampires with garlic and crosses.

It's the stirring conclusion to an essay I wrote for French class, essentially a rebuttal to Maupassant's claim that having killed the supernatural, true fear no longer existed. My point was to observe the fears we've made up for ourselves in the last century: we fill our popular culture with the very fiends that terrorised our ancestors a millennium ago, and replace the dark of the demon-filled night with the dark of the alien-filled night sky. My interpretation was that this is a way of dealing with our newfound existential fears, since one can repel the supernatural with rituals and acts. And hence the context of the vampire bit-- it's easier to ward off blood-suckers than face up to nihilism.
That would hardly have fit in the signature, however, so the unexplained remark remains.

 

[betazed]

Obviously the first and third do not apply. The second can be applied to scientifically proven ideas or principles that are "considered to be absolutely true" such as laws.

No. Nothing in science is ever absolutely true. Everything is falsifiable. Actually being falsifiable is a basic and fundamental requirement for a scientific theory. {which is the reason why ID is not a scientific theory. } Science progresses by falsifying existing theories. So even by that definiton of dogma science is not about dogmas.

 

[Akka]

My very own fevered brain.
I figured it would automatically gain respectability if I wrote it in another language.

Well, then please make it so that the beginning of the first sentence have a meaning