Fredrick, how about we start from scientific fundamentals, instead of trying to interject words of faith, devotion and religion into the conversation, before you even try to understand what I am referring to. I have followed all you have written about fitting everything into your pyramid model, but I reject such a model as being un-scientific, because it includes what I consider to be far too much respect for imaginary thinking. As your last post mentioned about being neutral, I do not accept the possibility of any such neutral positions, as great philosophers of the past have already pointed out that; "All it takes for evil to triumph, is for honest men to do nothing", which I interpret as neutrality.
Now you can try to force your interpretations of what I say as being religiously following science, but such statement has no validity. I follow everything, yet eliminate the imaginary, as having no value, except to initial theorizing, as I have stated. This in no way interprets to any form of religious following science, as I also think much of science needs correcting to newer, more completed understandings. I usually take the radical right positions, to nudge the left further to the center of better understandings, since they are so far left of reality.
Here's the easiest way I can make my point. As a young man, I thought and thought and thought. I was schooled never to surrender my logic to passion. In other words, I thought until I knew something, and would never accept belief or faith, as any form of reality. IMO, thinking with reason leads to belief and faith, as there are no true reasons for anything, when pushed to the absolute understanding levels, yet thinking with logic leads to discovering facts, knowledge and even absolute wisdom. So, I think many must look deeper into the linguistic labyrinth, especially the differences between reason and logic, to even start to climb out of history's dark dictatorship of faith, and "faith's crucifixion of understanding."
Now, if you consider it un-scientific, to be more scientific, than most___do so___That's your choice. Myself, I choose better understandings of science, and do not see any meta-systems involved in any of the sciences. To me, they are false departures from logic, the king of all the sciences, including math...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrick  It is my honor to correct you here, Lloyd, because it is not science that I call a religion, it is you I call that way for following science religiously.[I think you should use logic, instead of the weaker reasoning of passion, as such judgements are always passions.] You may call me names, meta-names included; it does not phase me. Science = science,[True...] philosophy = philosophy,[True...] religion = religion, and non-existentialism, well... it just isn't.[Just your passionate judgement, and quite false...] They all have their own place,[Yeah, and some in the trash-heap of history...] but none of them can gain the top position unless that exact same top position fits the others in their own right just as much.[That again, is just your false passionate desire...] If you got the gist of my delivery, you know what I am talking about. |
Yeah, you're trying to force faith into science, where I already said___It certainly does not belong. Why you'd want to do that, is beyond me, or science...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fredrick The grand dame of science is math.[And, the king of science is sound logic...] Mathematics has often been the scout of scientific disciplines, delivering answers before the scientific questions were even asked.[I'll take logic's superior position, thanks just the same...] You make me wonder, Lloyd, if you are truly committed to science that is well-grounded or if you are more committed to science as a religion. |
Fredrick, when you stop bringing up religion, maybe we could discuss something scientifically real...?
Regards,
Lloyd