Intellectualism at UCLA

<p>
[QUOTE]
Okay, now I'm just repeating myself. IF the question is about truth, as opposed to simply how the visible, perceptible world functions, then it IS a weakness. It is a weakness that ALL paradigms are subject to. I don't mean to sound sharp, but you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that what you see, and what you feel, may not in fact be reality. After all, someone who suffers from a mental illness may see the world as one way...who's to say you, or I, or anyone, does not suffer from the very same illness? The argument between you and an equally strong-minded person would be akin to that of two patents suffering from schizophrenia, who both think they are Jesus. One would say, "I'm Jesus," and the other, "No...I'm Jesus!" But they would never be able to agree because they see things in different ways. (Sure the example is rather extreme, but it applies.)

[/QUOTE]

but science does acknowledge that what we directly sense isn't exactly what the world is like. the world isn't actually full of colors, it's a bunch of photons bouncing around that our brain perceives as color. science acknowledges the limits of our senses to bring about accurate information, which is why we have machines do most of the sensing for us.</p>

<p>science attempts to find truth about the applicable world. our senses and our machines may not convey reality, but then that just means the "real" reality is irrelevant to us. what we are able to feel IS our reality because it's all we can observe. anything we can't observe is as good as nonexistent. science doesn't attempt to find the truth about anything outside what we can sense. that's impossible. but yes, if you are looking for the WHOLE truth, science MAY not be able to bring that to you, but if that's the case, nothing can. so don't worry about it.</p>

<p>as for mentally disabled people, science can explain why they feel what they feel.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that we know because WE KNOW. That argument is fundamentally flawed. What's the value of knowing something that is GIVEN? Mathematics (spelling, less so) is a closed system. It is no more true than one's senses. Besides, getting into the question of "what do we know" requires defining "knowledge." After all, there is experiential knowledge and academic knowledge, knowledge with different degrees of belief involved, etc.

[/QUOTE]

using the colloquial definition, it's still knowledge. i cannot give you a rigorous definition of knowledge</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I wasn't arguing either. It was a disclaimer. You just seem to like to argue, but that's alright...so do I. In terms of the whole picture, sure, the two may be irreconcilable. I am in no way qualified enough in either field to dismiss it completely. But it also seems like neither rules out the other entirely, i.e. if anything in science is true, everything in the Bible is false, and vice-versa.

[/QUOTE]

of course if science is true not EVERYTHING in the bible is false. but the bible would be just like any other fictional book. they will have facts that overlap with what science has produced, but it's still fiction.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Lol, I was under the impression that this thread began with one question. Apparently not. That's fine: it just makes discussion a tad more difficult.

[/QUOTE]

the thread began with the question "are there lots of intellectual discussions at UCLA" or something. i don't think we'd want to talk about that now though </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
But yeah, mr muffin, you seem like a passionate debater! This is fun! Let's just not let this get too heated or personal...I'm not looking for confrontation.

[/QUOTE]

boredom may have made me seem a little more passionate than i really am. and you sound like you think i might be mad at you... idiot</p>

<p>jkjk :P</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
but science does acknowledge that what we directly sense isn't exactly what the world is like. the world isn't actually full of colors, it's a bunch of photons bouncing around that our brain perceives as color. science acknowledges the limits of our senses to bring about accurate information, which is why we have machines do most of the sensing for us.</p>

<p>science attempts to find truth about the applicable world. our senses and our machines may not convey reality, but then that just means the "real" reality is irrelevant to us. what we are able to feel IS our reality because it's all we can observe. anything we can't observe is as good as nonexistent. science doesn't attempt to find the truth about anything outside what we can sense. that's impossible. but yes, if you are looking for the WHOLE truth, science MAY not be able to bring that to you, but if that's the case, nothing can. so don't worry about it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is a good point. Science does acknowledge what we cannot physically sense. But even such scientific principles/theories, such as photons, must be determined through the intake of information from experiments, through such physical senses. It is impossible not to rely on one's senses in order to explore the world through scientific means, and that is just something we have to accept in order to progress in our knowledge of the applied world.</p>

<p>And I guess we differ here, as I prefer to think of "reality" as the ultimate reality, as opposed to simply that which we feel directly with our senses...but the former is mostly just philosophical babble that borders on the irrational. In terms of the latter, science is the most accurate and efficient way of determining reality, I agree.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
using the colloquial definition, it's still knowledge. i cannot give you a rigorous definition of knowledge

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Haha, in class and extracurricular discussion last year, we actually went through various definitions of knowledge...using the colloquial definition, I agree, mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, certainly do count as knowledge.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
of course if science is true not EVERYTHING in the bible is false. but the bible would be just like any other fictional book. they will have facts that overlap with what science has produced, but it's still fiction.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree...they do not entirely rule each other out. Although, even mentioning the "truth" of science must be done more specifically (by all of us), as certain theories in science are among themselves irreconcilable. Then again, just to play devil's advocate, say the mainstream theories in science are true...what is there to contradict the presence of an omniscient being? Huh...I mean, sure, there would still be a lack of evidence for the existence of such a deity, but it is not necessarily impossible...even the dispute of evolution/creationism isn't necessarily unresolvable. Idk, maybe I'm just jawing now...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
boredom may have made me seem a little more passionate than i really am. and you sound like you think i might be mad at you... idiot

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lol! It's quite difficult to ascertain tone online, hence my caution. But now that we seem to be coming to a middle ground, we should find a slightly different topic to fuel debate in this thread once more!</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I agree...they do not entirely rule each other out. Although, even mentioning the "truth" of science must be done more specifically (by all of us), as certain theories in science are among themselves irreconcilable.

[/QUOTE]

science doesn't have theories that are proven to be irreconcilable yet. they're still trying to put the pieces together.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Then again, just to play devil's advocate, say the mainstream theories in science are true...what is there to contradict the presence of an omniscient being? Huh...I mean, sure, there would still be a lack of evidence for the existence of such a deity, but it is not necessarily impossible...even the dispute of evolution/creationism isn't necessarily unresolvable. Idk, maybe I'm just jawing now...

[/QUOTE]

there isn't currently anything to contradict an omniscient being. that's why science doesn't reject the idea, but it isn't included in the theories because there is no evidence, and so there is no reason to believe such a thing exists.</p>

<p>evolution is a fact, btw. species change over time. the only disputable part is HOW the evolution occurs. so far the evidence points to natural selection.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
boredom may have made me seem a little more passionate than i really am. and you sound like you think i might be mad at you... idiot
Lol! It's quite difficult to ascertain tone online, hence my caution. But now that we seem to be coming to a middle ground, we should find a slightly different topic to fuel debate in this thread once more!

[/QUOTE]

=O you took out the part where i said jk!</p>

<p>i dunno what to talk about. you think of something.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
science doesn't have theories that are proven to be irreconcilable yet. they're still trying to put the pieces together.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know, but I guess the example I was thinking of as I was writing about that was that of the various theories regarding the end of the world, although I suppose those aren't as scientific as I would like. Further, over time, there has been a multitude of irreconcilable theories, hence the multiple paradigm shifts of earlier centuries. I suppose the "truth" of science we were discussing referred to those theories currently in practice, which have yet to be disproven, if ever.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
there isn't currently anything to contradict an omniscient being. that's why science doesn't reject the idea, but it isn't included in the theories because there is no evidence, and so there is no reason to believe such a thing exists.</p>

<p>evolution is a fact, btw. species change over time. the only disputable part is HOW the evolution occurs. so far the evidence points to natural selection.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>haha, I never said that it wasn't. And HOW evolution occurs is where I said the two theories (scientific and religious) COULD possibly coincide, IF they do at all.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
=O you took out the part where i said jk!</p>

<p>i dunno what to talk about. you think of something.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, lol! Figured I could save a line of space, ;)</p>

<p>But yeah, I don't either. I guess any sort of ethical or political issue would be fine, as long as the thread doesn't go so far as to go into philosophical, bare-bones concepts, in which case I will totally go overboard, like I did here! hehe...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Well, I don't know, but I guess the example I was thinking of as I was writing about that was that of the various theories regarding the end of the world, although I suppose those aren't as scientific as I would like. Further, over time, there has been a multitude of irreconcilable theories, hence the multiple paradigm shifts of earlier centuries. I suppose the "truth" of science we were discussing referred to those theories currently in practice, which have yet to be disproven, if ever.

[/QUOTE]

a lot of people use the word "theory" very loosely, so you need to watch out for that. and yes, science has brought us to incorrect conclusions in the past, but the great thing about science is that scientists admit their mistakes and then they try to solve them. it's nothing like religion.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

haha, I never said that it wasn't. And HOW evolution occurs is where I said the two theories (scientific and religious) COULD possibly coincide, IF they do at all.

[/QUOTE]

yeah, i was confirming your suspicion. and i'm sure science and religion will be able to agree on how evolution occurs provided we gather enough evidence to convince theists. they're good at making things up.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
But yeah, I don't either. I guess any sort of ethical or political issue would be fine, as long as the thread doesn't go so far as to go into philosophical, bare-bones concepts, in which case I will totally go overboard, like I did here! hehe...

[/QUOTE]

i'd prefer something ethical, cause i'm not following politics strongly enough to be able to debate about it well. although it doesn't really matter cause other people may want to talk about politics. i dunno.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
a lot of people use the word "theory" very loosely, so you need to watch out for that. and yes, science has brought us to incorrect conclusions in the past, but the great thing about science is that scientists admit their mistakes and then they try to solve them. it's nothing like religion.[.quote]</p>

<p>Regarding the "theory" thing, I think it's safe to say predictions regarding the end of our world could, if properly formulated, be presented as theories. Although, what you typed about religion is certainly true!</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
i'd prefer something ethical, cause i'm not following politics strongly enough to be able to debate about it well. although it doesn't really matter cause other people may want to talk about politics. i dunno.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I'm actually kind of hoping someone will broach a new topic..."ethical" works for me!</p>

<p>they wouldn't be scientific theories though... unless it was a 100000000 ton meteor approaching earth.</p>

<p>ohh i got a good one... ahem... so tell me what's wrong with pedophilia. don't include other variables such as the rape that usually comes with it. and just so you know, i'm not advocating pedophilia rights.</p>

<p>NAMBLA!!!</p>

<p>NAMBLA's</a> Home Page</p>

<p>lol. :P</p>

<p>haha that's interesting...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
they wouldn't be scientific theories though... unless it was a 100000000 ton meteor approaching earth.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, I watched this thing on History Channel some time ago, and professors at different universities (you'll have to forgive my terrible memory) were discussing various theories about the possible end of the universe, such as "The Big Crush" (or something), everything returning to the infinitely dense point, "The Big Freeze," an eternal ice age, etc. It might have been "The Universe," but they stopped playing it! I'm so mad...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
ohh i got a good one... ahem... so tell me what's wrong with pedophilia. don't include other variables such as the rape that usually comes with it. and just so you know, i'm not advocating pedophilia rights.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>ummm...I'm not sure if anyone will argue FOR it...well, I can't stomach it, personally, and I'd usually argue anything...</p>

<p>ooh i thought you were talking about the crazy kinds like Y2K or 6/6/06</p>

<p>i won't argue for legalizing it, but i'll argue for it under the condition that the adult is responsible (gets consent, uses condom, etc.). it's okay if you don't want to talk about that though lol</p>

<p>I don't mind discussing the issue...as long as someone ELSE argues for it, lol. </p>

<p>And what is "consent"? (haha, going back to the UCLA Orientation "workshops"...)</p>

<p>consent is what UCLA told us what consent was =)</p>

<p>Um, yes. I WAS paying attention. They, like, made an acronym for the definition of the word, or something...</p>

<p>yeah that was unnecessary =P</p>

<p>this is why i hate the internet</p>