|
Yinlock posted:alchemy is more along the lines of "we know this does something but we have no loving clue why, oh well who cares", the second part is the difference. there is however not much difference between alternative "medicine" and old-timey medical fuckery. let's just pump this baby full of meth, that'll get the blood pumping. An Alchemist like Isaac Newton would use experimentation, note down his results and try to figure out why things worked or what had happened using the knowledge he has available. The big difference between Chemistry and Alchemy is that Chemistry is a based upon a materialistic model of the universe while Alchemy models the universe as an interaction between a material and an ideal "plane". We have a cultural tencency in the post-modern Occident to dismiss all explanations that uses the older planar cosmology of our ancestors as ignorant superstition. This does little to help us understand our own history, our own culture.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
computer parts posted:The idea you choose to follow a given religion is generally ridiculous. Given that one of the main benefits of conversion to Islam was lower taxes I would argue that hundreds of millions of people have looked at Islam, weighed the cost/benefits of conversion and then reach a decision to either convert or not. Quift fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Quift posted:Key phrase "modern numerologists"! Nope, the historical record disagrees: you're really just misusing terms. Ancient Cryptography dealt with the encryption and decryption of messages between people. Ancient Numerology was the belief in the mystical importance of numbers, either as a form of divination or some sort of "universal truth" where everything is related to everything else by just understanding numbers in a special way. These are completely different fields. What you're doing is akin to arguing that linguistics is a sub-specialization of speaking in tongues. Numerology and cryptography were distinct schools of thought as far back as the ancient Greeks, the former being the mystical and the latter being the practical. Naturally you can apply numerology to cryptography (because you can apply numerology to anything where numbers are involved) but Cryptography is definitely not a type of Numerology. Now, that's not to say that Cryptography could never have some mystical or spiritual component. Literally anything can have a mystical component; plenty of scientists and other professionals feel a spiritual or mysteical connection to their work, that's just a personal thing and it's fine. The point is that their work is not based on mysticism. quote:Same goes for alchemy by the way. We cannot claim that the alchemist unknowingly used "chemistry" . An early modern scientist used alchemy which is a completely separate thought system that depends on a scientific model of the world that has very little resemblance to the one used by modern chemists. To claim that alchemy that works is chemistry is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Alchemy that worked was proof of the value scientific value of alchemy, just like the miracles of chemistry are obvious proof of the efficacy of modern chemistry. This only illustrates that you don't understand science. If a new model basically supplants all of existing chemistry, better explaining our observations than everything we already know, then that new model doesn't invalidate chemistry. Chemistry still works, the new model would just be better. We have countless real-world examples of this kind of thing actually happening, by the way: Einstein's theory of relativity is a superior theory to classical gravity, but that doesn't make classical gravity "ignorant superstition". Newtonian physics works quite well in most circumstances, but now we understand better that model's limitations. Apply this to Numerology. Numerology has no foundation except whatever its practitioners happen to make up. It does not follow any of the rigorous practices laid down by every other serious scientific discipline. Its results cannot be disproven because they're based on faith and a lack of understanding of statistics. Numerology can't be supplanted by something new because it's entirely baseless. This right here illustrates what I mean: quote:Many of the beliefs and assumptions of chemistry have been proven false and this new model allows humanity to perform even greater feats of engineering. Chemistry is not based on belief. Science is not based on belief. You can only invalidate a scientific model with counter-examples; the model will either succeed or it won't, belief doesn't enter into it. New models can supplant the old if they do a better job of explaining the data, but that does not invalidate the old models or turn them into "superstition", it merely helps to better define the limitations of the older models. Numerology is based on belief. It cannot be supplanted because of this. It is the art of bullshit. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Science is not based on belief. Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. How is this not faith?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Quift posted:Key phrase "modern numerologists"! You mean something that doesn't exist? No, that isn't true. Cryptology as a thing has been around since the ancient Babylonians, that we know of, and why would something primarily implemented with words and letters (as was the custom of the time) be under numerology? The reason I say "that we know of" is that in all likelihood there were strictly oral methods of coded messaging used by large civilizations prior to widespread/easy writing, but we can't really show they were there. Quift posted:Given that I live in a barbaric culture that forces school-children to take amphetamines in order to indoctrinate them No you don't. Less than 10% of children ever get medicated for ADHD and of those not even all of them use amphetamine-related medicines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. I mean for one thing the idea is neither as vague or as untested as you believe, nor is it asserted as the only possible explanation (though logically even if you take panspermia seriously abiogenesis had to happen at least once, somewhere). The spontaneous formation of organic molecules from extremely basic components under harsh early-Earth-ish conditions was famously tested a long time ago in the Miller-Urey experiment, which uh based on your post is the most recent science you've ever seen on the subject. That was in 1952. A lot of the scientific concepts that "everyone" knows, like the primordial soup, are based on quite old experiments; science didn't just stop where common knowledge does. Since then there have been a lot of experiments which have helped to flesh out the details of possible paths to life from basic organics to self-replicating RNA, which were likely the first living systems, and then to greater levels of complexity. It's true that we don't know exactly what happened as of yet, but we have much more than the vague outline implied by "unknown process", too. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. Dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Quift posted:Given that I live in a barbaric culture that forces school-children to take amphetamines in order to indoctrinate them I know three people diagnosed with ADHD that went on prescription medication that only enhanced their productivity. "Ritalin made my kids a zombie" people have no clue how ADHD brains work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Quift posted:Alchemy is science! To claim otherwise is ignorant and short sighted. Nice triple post melt down. If you think alchemy works as well as modern chemistry, go drink some mercury. Ancient alchemists did it all the time. Or some oil of vitriol. That was a fun cure-all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. "I don't understand this hypothesis and haven't looked up any evidence behind it, therefore it's totally made up."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Quift posted:Given that one of the main benefits of conversion to Islam was lower taxes I would argue that hundreds of millions of people have looked at Islam, weighed the cost/benefits of conversion and then reach a decision to either convert or not. Muslims in Muslim-majority countries paid a separate tax and were required (among other things) to be drafted into the armies. So no, it wasn't a get rich quick scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Poldarn posted:I know three people diagnosed with ADHD that went on prescription medication that only enhanced their productivity. "Ritalin made my kids a zombie" people have no clue how ADHD brains work. Yeah. As someone who made an utter loving shitshow of college despite it not being at all past my abilities because of untreated ADD, I'm not sure how to react to it, because I loving wish we did a better job of it because maybe then I wouldn't have ground my teeth down in my sleep from stress and finished college early before the job market got totally hosed, but on the other hand gently caress that guy so hard for suggesting that it's better to spend all day fighting to do work rather than having time to be an actual human without it hanging over you and having to fight to get going without getting distracted long enough to get to the dining hall before it closes for the night before I had anything to eat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. Somehow, people arguing for more than a sideways glance at wacky poo poo like numerology always end up revealing just how bonkers they are in other subjects. Funny how that works out. Seriously: you obviously know very, very little about modern science, or indeed any science at all throughout history, and you shouldn't pontificate on things you know little about. The Miller-Urey experiment is not some esoteric mystery, and you make yourself sound like a proponent of bullshit like the peanut butter argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. Claiming that something is definitely true without any evidence or willingness to entertain alternatives would be faith, yes. But your made up strawman is not representative of modern science
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Quift posted:Let us imagine a future science that has overcome some of the obvious flaws in our current paradigm. This new science uses a completely different model of explanation to explain the behavior of matter. This model has supplanted the obsolete models used by our contemporary chemistry. Many of the beliefs and assumptions of chemistry have been proven false and this new model allows humanity to perform even greater feats of engineering. "first, let us imagine that my argument is correct"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha What's it like beign an adult who managed to fail their way through middle school science classes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"first, let us imagine that my argument is correct" Isn't that how "science" was done back in Aristotle's day? Got a problem with Aristotle? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Aristotle isn't so bad as far as ancient science goes, it was all of the people clutching desperately to Aristotle's words for centuries and centuries afterwards that were the real problem. Straight up, if what you said contradicted Aristotle then most people would just assume that you're wrong You could take a step back and ask "well what if there's something to numerology after all", and that'd be fine if numerology had some method that produced reliable results. Instead it's always "Okay guys I know that my prior doomsday predictions have all been wrong but this time an angel came down and told me the code so you've got to believe me now" Any field can legitimize itself with evidence, it's not like we laugh at numerology for no reason
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Quift posted:Modern "science" claims that life emerged spontaneously from some sort of pri-mordial goo. This imagined process never been replicated. So I am to believe in the existence of an unknown process that can create life from non-life despite there being no evidence of such a process existing. i'll put science in loving scare quotes, that'll show them
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Quift posted:Key phrase "modern numerologists"! The science of numbers is math you idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Quift posted:Given that I live in a barbaric culture that forces school-children to take amphetamines in order to indoctrinate them I'm quite certain that the future will judge the "progress of our science" quite harshly. Just like the world re-known Alchemist Isaac Newton we are nothing but midgets standing on the shoulders of giants. Nobody is force feeding children adhd meds forget about doing it to indoctrinate him
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah. As someone who made an utter loving shitshow of college despite it not being at all past my abilities because of untreated ADD, I'm not sure how to react to it, because I loving wish we did a better job of it because maybe then I wouldn't have ground my teeth down in my sleep from stress and finished college early before the job market got totally hosed, but on the other hand gently caress that guy so hard for suggesting that it's better to spend all day fighting to do work rather than having time to be an actual human without it hanging over you and having to fight to get going without getting distracted long enough to get to the dining hall before it closes for the night before I had anything to eat. I wasn't diagnosed with ADD, but I was recently prescribed a low dosage of adderall to help with my generalized anxiety and it has helped better than any of the (numerous) other drugs I have tried before. It no joke has basically changed my life. It's unfortunate there's so much information about those drugs because it can probably help a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
disjoe posted:I wasn't diagnosed with ADD, but I was recently prescribed a low dosage of adderall to help with my generalized anxiety and it has helped better than any of the (numerous) other drugs I have tried before. It no joke has basically changed my life. It's unfortunate there's so much information about those drugs because it can probably help a lot of people. My medication isn't actually Adderall because I already have serious issues sleeping and unlike popular wisdom it isn't just a matter of amphetamines or doing nothing, and I wish I'd known that sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Quift posted:Given that I live in a barbaric culture that forces school-children to take amphetamines in order to indoctrinate them I'm quite certain that the future will judge the "progress of our science" quite harshly. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Nope, the historical record disagrees: you're really just misusing terms. Ancient Cryptography dealt with the encryption and decryption of messages between people. Ancient Numerology was the belief in the mystical importance of numbers, either as a form of divination or some sort of "universal truth" where everything is related to everything else by just understanding numbers in a special way. These are completely different fields. What you're doing is akin to arguing that linguistics is a sub-specialization of speaking in tongues. Oh come on. Talking about Ancient Cryptography and Ancient Numerology; as if they were distinct studies with identifiable figures and ideologues; possibily in conflict with each other and thematic of reason against superstition, what a story to make! You'd think the backstory was that archaeologists just unearthed an cache of Ancient Numerology and Ancient Cryptography tablets buried underneath the Athens Polytechnic, lain undisturbed for 3000 years, informing us exactly how separate these fields were, like no kidding, they really were strict in their separation, there were no cryptanalysts getting admitted into numerological studies, ever, and if one was found out, the numerologists would break marble chunks from statues, pelt the unbeliever and chase them, and that's why there can't be any inkling of similarity; because it'd be anthropologically inaccurate. Anyway, if it was phrased that cryptography is numerology wherever numerological systems have been used, then the phrasing is bad because it pits the two in opposition, diverting into a false discussion which is like arguing that codes chiselled onto a block of wood must be either a use of cryptography or of carpentry. It's academic. Would a reasonable, non-university going person insist on the sole use of one term just to exclude the other? They'd probably permit the use of either. Language (by nature) is cross-contaminated. According to the philosopher who was mentioned above, sophists try to succeed their arguments with accusations of word errors and the playing offverbal puzzles, which is what you're doing by insisting on this terminology about the uses of Numerology not being of numerology but 'applications' of numerology to cryptography -- a diversion into a maze of semantics, escaping the point that Numerology has uses. quote:Numerology is based on belief. Now that's a tautology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Deep Thought posted:Oh come on. Talking about Ancient Cryptography and Ancient Numerology; as if they were distinct studies with identifiable figures and ideologues; possibily in conflict with each other and thematic of reason against superstition, what a story to make! You'd think the backstory was that archaeologists just unearthed an cache of Ancient Numerology and Ancient Cryptography tablets buried underneath the Athens Polytechnic, lain undisturbed for 3000 years, informing us exactly how separate these fields were, like no kidding, they really were strict in their separation, there were no cryptanalysts getting admitted into numerological studies, ever, and if one was found out, the numerologists would break marble chunks from statues, pelt the unbeliever and chase them, and that's why there can't be any inkling of similarity; because it'd be anthropologically inaccurate. No. You just don't want to admit that your favourite topic is actually bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 14:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Deep Thought posted:Oh come on. Talking about Ancient Cryptography and Ancient Numerology; as if they were distinct studies with identifiable figures and ideologues; possibily in conflict with each other and thematic of reason against superstition, what a story to make! I didn't though? I don't know how the gently caress you could misread what I wrote as some sort of "these schools of thought are at odds!" story. Maybe go get your reading glasses and try reading my post again. What I said was that numerology is a form of mystic divination whereas cryptography dealt with the practical coding and decoding of messages. You're trying to mix the two together in order to legitimize some bullshit mysticism. What you said was that Cryptography is just a type of Numerology, which is so far from the truth that you may as well be saying that a funeral is a type of Necromancy. quote:You'd think the backstory was that archaeologists just unearthed an cache of Ancient Numerology and Ancient Cryptography tablets buried underneath the Athens Polytechnic, lain undisturbed for 3000 years, informing us exactly how separate these fields were, like no kidding, they really were strict in their separation, there were no cryptanalysts getting admitted into numerological studies, ever, and if one was found out, the numerologists would break marble chunks from statues, pelt the unbeliever and chase them, and that's why there can't be any inkling of similarity; because it'd be anthropologically inaccurate. You're making mountains out of mole hills. What I said was completely reasonable: numerology and cryptography are not the same thing and never really were. A fancy wine party is not a kind of Catholic mass Grave digging is not the same thing as speaking to the dead Preparing and drinking tea is not the same thing as reading tea leaves (although the former does often use the latter) Solar astronomy is not the same thing as solaromancy Archery is not the same thing as bolomancy (predicting the future based on where a bunch of arrows land) Preparing a hearty soup is not the same thing as osteomancy (reading of the boooooones) quote:Anyway, if it was phrased that cryptography is numerology wherever numerological systems have been used, then the phrasing is bad because it pits the two in opposition, diverting into a false discussion which is like arguing that codes chiselled onto a block of wood must be either a use of cryptography or of carpentry. It's academic. Would a reasonable, non-university going person insist on the sole use of one term just to exclude the other? They'd probably permit the use of either. Language (by nature) is cross-contaminated. According to the philosopher who was mentioned above, sophists try to succeed their arguments with accusations of word errors and the playing offverbal puzzles, which is what you're doing by insisting on this terminology about the uses of Numerology not being of numerology but 'applications' of numerology to cryptography -- a diversion into a maze of semantics, escaping the point that Numerology has uses. "Anyway, if we start from the position where I am correct" No, just no. Cryptography is not a kind of numerology. It's not even a distant cousin of numerology. The rest of this part of your post is a bunch of pedantic nonsense. You're blatantly trying to mix an actual field of study with a bullshit form of divination, and you're accusing me of using sophism? That's bullshit, and the only one you're fooling with this argument is yourself. Numerology is a form of divination that uses numbers, I'm sorry that you thought it was more legitimate than that but it's not. quote:Now that's a tautology. If you believe that's a tautology, then you agree that Numerology is based on nothing rigorous than personal belief. It's all just random beliefs that don't ever amount to anything. Do you see why that might distinguish it from creating a cipher?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Focacciasaurus_Rex posted:Nice triple post melt down. I had no clue that this ws considered a "melt down". I just tried to reply to the posts in some semblance of order and thought it would be easier to separate the discussions. The norms for this vary on different forums just like the level of reading comprehension. I didn't claim Alchemy should use Alchemy instead of our current knowledge. But to argue that alchemy never was a science because it doesn't hold up to the bar we set today is just ahistorical. Alchemy WAS science for a very long time and merits study from a socio-cultural and historical perspective. I personally find the subject fascinating but that does't mean that I run around collecting the light of Sirius into a bottle of mercurial essence and male life force in order to create homonculi. I obviously use proto-organic compunds and electricity like the very model modern scientist instead. Progress! Neither do I claim that numerology can give you insights into your personality based upon your date of birth etc. I DO claim that it might be used to find hidden meaning left on purpose by historical practioners within historical documents though. The 13 steps of the pyramids are not random. Nor is the number 42 in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy a random number. But what the discussion seem to boil down to is that many of you seem to be as blind to the fact that your world view is just as based upon faith than any other. There can be o such thing as a "scientific" world view. There is just the scientific method. Use of the method is a but a way of investigatiion through empiricism. I get the image that some hold on to their adherence to the scientific method as some sort of magical talisman that will protect them from bias aand false reasoning. This is nothing but magical thinking and according to very good info I have recieved on this very forum should be considered a sign of shizophrenia. Take you meds people! Every human held world view is imperrfect, flawed and subjective. And ultimetly rests on faith. Their might be an objective universe out there, but we cannot ever make that claim for ourselves. To believe yourself objective is delusional. BTW. I have no quarrel with adults taking meds for whatever mental illness. I do object to the distribution of narcotics to children on the flimsiest of evidence though. The age distribition of the recipients seem to be a clear indicator of some serious over-prescription. Unless being born in november-december causes brain injury in and of itself of course, but that strikes me as unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Quift posted:I had no clue that this was considered a "melt down". I just tried to reply to the posts in some semblance of order and thought it would be easier to separate the discussions. The norms for this vary on different forums just like the level of reading comprehension. You tried to post that way, but you failed. I'm not going to get pulled into an obvious Gish Gallop, especially because doing so would probably just feed into your mental illness. You're trying to conflate an evidence based world view with ancient mysticism and your own twisted psyche. Half that, like the prescription things, is stuff that only happens in your head. Please, and I'm saying this earnestly, 
Focacciasaurus_Rex fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Humans are biased therefore a manner of thinking designed to minimize error is totally indistinguishable from one that relies on that bias to function. loving unassailable logic right there. Pack it all up, hand in your computers, science and engineering don't work, a guy said it on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Quift posted:But what the discussion seem to boil down to is that many of you seem to be as blind to the fact that your world view is just as based upon faith than any other. There can be o such thing as a "scientific" world view. There is just the scientific method. Use of the method is a but a way of investigatiion through empiricism. I get the image that some hold on to their adherence to the scientific method as some sort of magical talisman that will protect them from bias aand false reasoning. This is nothing but magical thinking and according to very good info I have recieved on this very forum should be considered a sign of shizophrenia. Take you meds people! ahh continuing the 90's nostalgia theme that 2016 has going so far, it's been a very long time since i've seen anyone sincerely bust out "it takes as much faith to believe in science as spirituality" in an actual debate. back when you'd be quoting fox mulder too with 98% certainty fwiw quift i'm in the minority here and i dont think you're crazy but i do think you have a profound, far reaching lack of knowledge and insight as to how science works
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
basically the way this line of argument goes is that next you'll be all "we can't even trust our eyes, we have to have faith that our eyes aren't lying to us" and then you end up with brain-in-a-vat virtual reality solipsism if you were actually crazy. the safety net you have is that your brain works fine, you're just dumb
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Quift posted:Neither do I claim that numerology can give you insights into your personality based upon your date of birth etc. I DO claim that it might be used to find hidden meaning left on purpose by historical practioners within historical documents though. The 13 steps of the pyramids are not random. Nor is the number 42 in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy a random number. That's conjecture and a work of fiction, respectively. If I choose to set up 11 candles in a room because my religion has 11 gods in its pantheon, then that's meaningful. It's also not numerology. A numerologist would try to divine something about that person's life or the future based on there being 11 candles in that room. Or a numerologist could see the number 11 somewhere else and jump to the conclusion that there's some link to my room with 11 candles in it. quote:But what the discussion seem to boil down to is that many of you seem to be as blind to the fact that your world view is just as based upon faith than any other. There can be o such thing as a "scientific" world view. There is just the scientific method. Use of the method is a but a way of investigatiion through empiricism. I get the image that some hold on to their adherence to the scientific method as some sort of magical talisman that will protect them from bias aand false reasoning. This is nothing but magical thinking and according to very good info I have recieved on this very forum should be considered a sign of shizophrenia. Take you meds people! What you're talking about is philosophy, not science. Faith requires the absence of doubt. Science requires doubt. Faith and science are opposites. "I followed the scientific method therefore my conclusions are definitely correct" is not how science is done, as you're suggesting here. It might be how science appears to a layperson, thanks to the shittiness of journalism. Science does not create world views, nor is it a world view. It's a system for testing the validity of ideas, and it doesn't claim to be infallible. All of the insinuations that you've made about what science is and how science is done are completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:basically the way this line of argument goes is that next you'll be all "we can't even trust our eyes, we have to have faith that our eyes aren't lying to us" and then you end up with brain-in-a-vat virtual reality solipsism if you were actually crazy. the safety net you have is that your brain works fine, you're just dumb How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Deep Thought posted:Oh come on. Talking about Ancient Cryptography and Ancient Numerology; as if they were distinct studies with identifiable figures and ideologues; possibily in conflict with each other and thematic of reason against superstition, what a story to make! You'd think the backstory was that archaeologists just unearthed an cache of Ancient Numerology and Ancient Cryptography tablets buried underneath the Athens Polytechnic, lain undisturbed for 3000 years, informing us exactly how separate these fields were, like no kidding, they really were strict in their separation, there were no cryptanalysts getting admitted into numerological studies, ever, and if one was found out, the numerologists would break marble chunks from statues, pelt the unbeliever and chase them, and that's why there can't be any inkling of similarity; because it'd be anthropologically inaccurate. Ancient cryptography relied on the writer (speaker, fabric bead stringer, whatever) intending to send a hidden message, either in normal sentences concealing a second meaning, or something self evidentally non meaningful except as a coded message. Ancient numerology relied on just looking at random things and assigning random numbers ("the" equals 86!), or seeing already existing numbers and assigning meaning unrelated to what was being said. Occasionally, someone would reference a particularly well known numerology meaning (I named my dog 13 because he's unlucky) in the way you'd reference some great Shakespeare line. As you can see the crypto stuff is about actual intended meaning, while numerology is just farting around. If you happened to decode an intentional message beyond mere allusions in a text by throwing a random numerological pattern at it, then it was essentially lucky coincidence, or more likely the guy making the ciphertext thought he could be secure enough while using a common number - meaning correspondence. And none of that makes anything numerological true. You could probably decode some messages out there by drawing random lines between words and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:
I will just leave this here. I may be insane but you are obviously an idiot. And to prove my point through example I will now use my magic skills in numerology to decode a hidden secret within an esoteric guide. I will teach you ignorant fools about the meaning of life, the universe and everything. I warn you though. You will not like it. "42 is the number with which God creates the Universe in Kabbalistic tradition. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number) Hmm.. Thats quite the coincidence. As I argued before there should be some mathematical reasoning for the "value" assigned to this particular number in the kabbalistic tradition. Turns out that there is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#/media/File:Simple_Magic_Cube.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_cube Hmm.. Does the cube have any other religious or spiritual significance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba The hidden message left by the mystical and revered thinker Douglas Adams. = Think outside of the box. I told you you weren't going to like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
Quift posted:I told you you weren't going to like it. perhaps because it's dumb. You're saying that "Kabbalistic tradition is internally consistent about this number which proves numerology is real" which, even if it wasn't completely insane, does absolutely nothing except link numerology farther from science. the further you retreat the further you reveal the baselessness of your beliefs though, we've currently hit "takes a sci-fi comedy book way too seriously"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Alternatively: "The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story." - Douglas Adams.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Quift posted:I will just leave this here. I may be insane but you are obviously an idiot. You called me an idiot and then wrote that? Come on, are you being intentionally ironic for our amusement like Shbobdb does sometimes or are you really just off your meds? e: Others have already pointed out that you're wrong, but I'll choose a different way to point out why you're wrong: if Douglas Adams wanted to attach significance to the number 42, in the way that you propose, then that would not be Numerology but simple literary allusion. Also I liked your post very much, thank you for writing it QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Jul 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Alternatively: One of the greatest tragedies of all the history we've lost is we don't get to see how many beliefs held by idiots/crazy people/sometimes actual science were started by some person going "eh gently caress it" I'm guessing it's a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 11:10
|
|