The irony of the scientists of mistakes, mistaken.

[David T]

How a Pioneer in the Science of Mistakes Ended Up Mistaken

I found this recent article too ironically true. I would put Magritte human condition painting here as an illustration but the whole article addresses what goes on here in religious forums. Are the debates viable? Or is it mistakes arguing with mistakes as to which mistAke is the correct and proper mistake? If both parties are mistaken, but agree with one another on base assumptions with no awareness of their shared base assumptions possibly being wrong. Isnt that what needs to be looked at instead of the debate? To me this is what socrates was alluding to but that of course over time becomes mistaken and once again we are staring at the cave wall and nothing more

 

[Revoltingest]

Of all people, one who studies the making of mistakes should exemplify it.
It's shibumi.

 

[Nietzsche]

This just proves how qualified he is for the job.

 

[McBell]

How a Pioneer in the Science of Mistakes Ended Up Mistaken

I found this recent article too ironically true. I would put Magritte human condition painting here as an illustration but the whole article addresses what goes on here in religious forums. Are the debates viable? Or is it mistakes arguing with mistakes as to which mistAke is the correct and proper mistake? If both parties are mistaken, but agree with one another on base assumptions with no awareness of their shared base assumptions possibly being wrong. Isnt that what needs to be looked at instead of the debate? To me this is what socrates was alluding to but that of course over time becomes mistaken and once again we are staring at the cave wall and nothing more

The mistake is in assuming absolutes.

 

[allfoak]

once again we are staring at the cave wall and nothing more

I finally got out.
Now i am considered a madman because i try and tell people what i see.
And yes Socrates was correct.
You can't learn the truth when you start with a false premise.

 

[buddhist]

 

[McBell]

how do you know?

 

[Nietzsche]

The mistake is in assuming absolutes.

ONLY SITH DEAL IN ABSOLUTES!

...which is probably why they're so much more ****ing effective than the Jedi.

 

[David T]

how do you know?

Awwww Schultzy is a hilareous character. What is Buddha what the no fun zone!!! The cosmos laughs with schutzy and at schutzy.

 

[McBell]

ONLY SITH DEAL IN ABSOLUTES!

If only that were true

...which is probably why they're so much more ****ing effective than the Jedi.

Fanatically killing all who disagree is not, IMO, more effective.

 

[McBell]

Awwww Schultzy is a hilareous character. What is Buddha what the no fun zone!!! The cosmos laughs with schutzy and at schutzy.

if he honestly knows he knows nothing, how can he know nothing if he knows he knows nothing?

 

[allfoak]

if he honestly knows he knows nothing, how can he know nothing if he knows he knows nothing?

How does anyone know that they know what they think they know?

 

[David T]

ONLY SITH DEAL IN ABSOLUTES!

...which is probably why they're so much more ****ing effective than the Jedi.

Rabbits on an island with no predators are very effective at destroying the environment and becoming extinct!!! So if we value effective above all else we effectively become our own enemy. That was laid out by Lukas rather well surprisingly with anikan Skywalker trying to save his wife turns to the dark side and effectively kills his wife!!!!
.

 

[Nietzsche]

Fanatically killing all who disagree is not, IMO, more effective.

You may not agree with the results, but at least the Sith get results.

 

[David T]

if he honestly knows he knows nothing, how can he know nothing if he knows he knows nothing?

Which schutzy would reply

if he honestly knows he knows nothing, how can he know nothing if he knows he knows nothing?

Schutzy always made the comment as a dishonesty comment it wasn't an honest statement but a dishonest statement. Have you seen the show? Very funny a bit of a take off on Mel Brooks musicAl comedy about Hitler in 1963. You have to remember, that was very edgy and radical in its say and only a jewish playwright such as mel brooks, could have gotten away with that. It turned th the very big demon Hitler into a joke of a person. Maybe a rather radical cutting Hitler down to his proper dimensions that was needed.

 

[Iti oj]

ONLY SITH DEAL IN ABSOLUTES!

...which is probably why they're so much more ****ing effective than the Jedi.

no its the only two rule that gave the sith there strength.

 

[McBell]

You may not agree with the results, but at least the Sith get results.

now you are moving the goal posts.
I agree they get results.
I disagree they are more effective.

 

[David T]

I finally got out.
Now i am considered a madman because i try and tell people what i see.
And yes Socrates was correct.
You can't learn the truth when you start with a false premise.

Write a song, create a story, paint a picture just avoid philosophy debates it's all silly nonsense. Kinda hard to a dress nonsense if nonsense is required to address it.

 

[Milton Platt]

How a Pioneer in the Science of Mistakes Ended Up Mistaken

I found this recent article too ironically true. I would put Magritte human condition painting here as an illustration but the whole article addresses what goes on here in religious forums. Are the debates viable? Or is it mistakes arguing with mistakes as to which mistAke is the correct and proper mistake? If both parties are mistaken, but agree with one another on base assumptions with no awareness of their shared base assumptions possibly being wrong. Isnt that what needs to be looked at instead of the debate? To me this is what socrates was alluding to but that of course over time becomes mistaken and once again we are staring at the cave wall and nothing more

Perhaps there are people arguing on the basis of verifiable facts and others arguing on the basis of beliefs or faith, or unverifiable personal experiences, so all claims are not equal, are they???

 

[David T]

Perhaps there are people arguing on the basis of verifiable facts and others arguing on the basis of beliefs or faith, or unverifiable personal experiences, so all claims are not equal, are they???

Well facts are interesting. We can observe (experience) and we can't create narrative to our observations and then our created narratives become the reality of what we are observing(experiencing). Theology over time stumbled into stupidity because it was emperical study examination to the bible. Its what originally gives Christianity it's separated self identity we have facts the bible you have fiction not in the bible. We tend to factually approach nature scientifically today in the exact same hyper reductive kind of ways. Not everyone in science just like not everyone in religion falls into this but most do in both domains. In religion we have the new testemt Joseph the religious dogma doctrine rejector. In science one coulf say we have Einstein the scientific dogma doctrine rejected. Which then becomes new dogma in the same way that happens in religion as well. Artists are a curiosity to both domains to say the least.