| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > Do you agree that the scientific method is a good tool for investigating
> > > _anything_ that can be perceived? That would be my assertion.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Anything in the physical world can be investigated by the scientific method.
> > Art maybe made of physical properties such as clay, rock, dyes(paint) on
> > canvas, whatever. However, most artists say they were 'inspired', whether
> > by a muse or something. Science can understand what makes up the art, but
> > it cannot give us a point by point method for producing art. If it could,
> > we'd all be Picasso's. I mean, there was that computer program on that
> > website to help you make your own <can't remember artist with the lines and
> > the coloured squares> and it was a neat thing. And that can help me make a
> > LEGO mosaic and I can say that's art, and, to me, it is. It won't be art to
> > my dad, though.
>
> Kadinsky? Anyway, read Dr. Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the
> Brain" (I believe there is a new edition "The New Drawing on the Right Side
> of the Brain"). She uses numerous techniques for teaching drawing that in
> fact had been around for years, she just used borrowed scientific research
> into the human brain and put an explanation to why those techniques worked.
And let me mention that a spider web is, to me, quite the piece of art as
well. Leftist thinking or Rightist thinking does not an artist make, nor
intelligence or stupidity a defining factor for art, or for that matter,
even *human*. I find beauty and art everywhere--the leaves in the fall, the
spots on a leopard, whatever... But we even have a french phrase to
describe such things 'je ne sais quoi' - it has a certain factor which is
*inexplainable*.
> > And I don't think, as has been apparently shown here in this very thread,
> > science can perceive infinite. We don't have to understand, we don't have
> > to be able to write down a text book of 'Infinity for Dummies', but we can
> > comprehend that there's something 'outside' what the 5 senses tell us.
>
> What would that be? You keep piping up with that line, but it is nothing
> more than an emotional appeal.
An emotional appeal that cannot be rationally logically, scientifically
explained, and yet, omigoodness-there it is--it *does* exist. It exists
even though it's *outside* science. Is it real? I think it is. Is it
important? Inasmuch as people's feelings, their emotions are important for
us being human. Does science *care*? Prob'ly not. But if it dosn't factor
into science, then it must exist *outside* of science. So there you are.
>
> > To
> > say there isn't anything is robbing us of, well, the infinite. Some
> > philosopher once said that if it can't be proven to me, it does not exist.
> > Well philosophy is all well and dandy, but *my* take is that this concept
> > reduces us, and there's my problem--reductionism. A metaphor would be 'lost
> > in the translation', which is probably a little better than most of the
> > metaphors I've been coming up with (sorry 'bout that).
>
> A philosopher isn't a scientist. If philosophy is robbing you of a
> philosphical idea, then the problem resides entirely in the philosphic
> realm, so why all the discussion of science?
No, 'Sciencism' is robbing me of my humanity. You may say it's all fine and
dandy to say that science covers *all* aspects of your life, but just by my
God's very nature, it cannot encompass mine. It also cannot encompass the
'je ne sais quoi' of life, either, so foget about *my* God, and just know
that science does not, and cannot, know all.
>
> >
> > So yes, the bottom line for me is the scientific method is wonderful for
> > investigating that which can be understood by science (i.e. the physical
> > universe). To say it's good for *everything* is making science into a god.
> > That would be my assertion.
>
> The final argument of the religious is invariably to reduce the opposition
> to its own terms. Belief in god is blind. It is a matter of faith.
> Science isn't a matter of faith (no, don't start in on you have to have
> faith in your senses - science doesn't trust those either). Science isn't a
> god because it isn't a matter of faith. Further, science doesn't claim that
> it is good for everything - those are words constantly put into its mouth by
> the religious so it can knock down a straw man.
>
> Bruce
Belief in God is *faith*. Your very wording is demeaning. You want me to
give you respect (which I give you anyways 'cause that's just who I am) but
you demean and put down my ideas and ideals and subscribe them to the realm
of some sort of 'mass dellusion'? Yes you are doing that by saying 'belief
in God is blind'.
Not once have *I* asserted that science claims that it is good for
everything. All my posts have stated time and time agian that science can
not, by its very nature, explain everything. That's what some other
proponents of scientific godhood claim. I have mentioned that I don't have
a problem with science. Science is wonderful. Science is great.
"Sciencism" reduces the scope of everything into itself--there's your straw
man, my friend. Sciencism claims that which cannot be observed or studied
via the scientific method cannot be shown, therefore cannot be believed
therfore cannot exist.
Show me *any* evidence that God exists - those are words constantly put into
my face by the close minded people who believe in the god of science so they
can knock down my *belief*.
Dave
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) I'm sorry to keep harping on this point, but it is really central to your approach to the entire debate. I believe the literal translation is "I don't know what" (thanks, Dr. Evil!) which is *fundamentally* different from "it cannot possibly (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) You can have whatever belief you like. It's when you want ME to believe that you have to play by my rules. And if you're forcing your morality on me (not you, David K, but the generic you) meaning you want me to believe in a christian god... (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) The book is speaking about what part of your brain you use to execute art, not your relative liberal or conservative thinking. Read the book and you'll understand. (...) What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Kadinsky? Anyway, read Dr. Betty Edwards "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" (I believe there is a new edition "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain"). She uses numerous techniques for teaching drawing that in fact had been (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
