Feb 6, 2009 12:30:26 AM cite

This is an interesting twist on this thread, that those of subjective and objective thought are having a dialogue on truth and facts. There are some who argue that all perception is to be questioned and can only be validated by intellectual debate, and seek to determine the nature of reality by reason and thought alone. Counter to this are those who observe and record these perceptions, and when observation is consistent, use this to describe the nature of reality. Unfortunitly there is no middle ground for those who hold these opposing views of the world. The proponents of using reason and debate to acquire knowledge will probably not accept the findings of those who rely on observation and experimentation. And those who favor examination of the physical world will want to see concrete evidence. Dialogue is likely to be pointless as the debate would be at cross purposes and would achieve nothing, except that each side would validate their own view by accepting or rejecting, in turn, the evidence or arguments that are presented. Those who observe and record will continue to do so as there has been no valid evidence to disprove their findings, and those who look to cognition and debate will reject any findings based on the physical reality.

by thedoc

Feb 24, 2009 10:57:38 PM cite

Well I do like this well written assessment and I normally would take my side and disagree, however I will step out of character. I do have a considerable scientific education that I have been hesitant to divulge, this is because I have to a large extent rejected the path science has slashed through the face of nature in the name of profit above all else. This is because the corporate world controls the end results of science and disregards the future for immediate satisfaction and greed. In the past five years I have been developing a scientific plan for my sustainable future. I have recently purchased a small plot of farmland where my wife will grow fruits and vegetables along the lines of sustainable farming methods. This is farming without pesticides using natural insect repelling herbs and natural fertilizers. The productive efforts of William Mc Donough who is the leader in designing a future based on the designs nature utilizes to design housing, factories, cars and ideally all products used by man is commendable. He is not a scientist however he is an architect. Interestingly his designs are already proven as profitable solutions; do not harm nature and the byproducts of his products are designed to be reclaimed by nature as nutrients. His by line is (waste = food), that means the wastes that we now use in our closed end systems where raw materials make toxic waste can be replaced by byproducts that are foods for nature, biological fertilizer or biological compatible materials, no waste to put in a toxic landfill. That we can use objective methods to achieve an end that is not only compatible with nature but can do what nature does is possible. We are on the threshold of such technology and it is not only cost effective it is less expensive to implement and maintain. If we succeed in these endeavors we can transform our world into what is basically science using designs emulating nature’s formulae. This is the middle ground Marky is talking about. It is the synergistic development reintroducing mankind to mother earth and living in cooperative harmony with her. It is likely also compatible with Doc’s beliefs. So how is this compatible with my views of reality? It is compatible because the closest thing to reality is my mom, the planet. I have always been one with her as my chosen reality; she is what I choose to accept as real with certain reservations. She is a temporary nurturing shelter for the body that is the temporary shelter of my eternal soul. All physical things have a limited reality and are perceived as real but compared to eternal conditions beyond the confines of space and time are unreal. All things physical exist in a confined environment and will soon cease to be when the factors that constitute time are no more. In the meantime I still maintain that man is the only evil that exists and that he will cause the demise of the planet unless he sees the errors of his ways due to his eating from the tree of knowledge and asserting his domination over the planet and all its life forms for the satiation of his insatiable greed. His salvation is not anything religious but due to his own positive actions making restitution for his sins against the planet that gave him birth and sustenance. This is the taming of mans destructive nature utilizing science as his tool of salvation. It would be his repatriation into a world where all life is interdependent and self sustaining, the way it was before man began his insatiable consumption. I am trying to be optimistic about this reconciliation and the imminent physical annihilation that may cause the end of so called physical reality but given mans track record nothing short of revolution will decide the continuance of so many people’s realities. I am trying to be a part of the solution but I realize I am perceived as an idealist/realist with seemingly conflicting points of view. Will we have peace and harmony, what the religious call heaven on earth or a rotting toxic planet decaying to a hell like condition? I ask you is there a middle ground where love rules or will we all die in greedy effluence?

by Thai sean

Feb 20, 2009 3:01:15 PM cite

What is the ultimate goal of those who observe and record? Do you think it is validating a preexisting conclusion or striving to arrive at a conclusion?

by April