Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_Chap]

Socrates wrote about his ponderings and they are still read today.

Nope. Socrates didn't write anything. His disciple Plato wrote a number of dialogues which purport to record Socrates' debates (often very lively) with a number of people, some of whom disagreed with him strongly.

I should like to see a dialogue between Socrates and Franktalk. I don't think F would find it at all congenial, since one of S's principal occupations was (according to Plato) to zoom in on people who thought they knew all kinds of stuff and ask them to explain more clearly, including telling him why they were so sure, and so on. Just like people do to Franktalk. And they often (like Franktalk) did not like the process to which he subjected them.

In the end this kind of thing made him more than a little unpopular ...

(Very unpopular: an Athenian jury democratically condemned him to death for 'corrupting the youth' and 'impiety', i.e. 'not believing in the gods'.)

[_spotlight]

Franktalk has been fighting a losing battle.



But now Chap has entered the ring.

[_Chap]

Hmmm ... there are alternative possibilities:



Or perhaps even:



But this is, ahem, Celestial. Can we make jokes up here?

[_DrW]

My comments to Spotlight were intended to point out how he is focused on the men of science and not the knowledge. I have made it known many times that I think science is like many other groups of men on this planet. There are layers of priest and the lower classed people must grovel at the feet of the leaders in the field. If you think the men of science are pure and don't sport huge egos then I invite you to read the posts of DrW.

Hello there Franktalk,

While I greatly appreciate your seeming designation of me as being among the 'men of science', my guess would be that scientifically literate folks like Spotlight, Gunnar, Chap, Maksutov and others on this board would not hold the same view. One would have to dig pretty far and fairly deep (back to 1976 or so) to find me on any list of 'men of science'.

Likewise, I would guess that the individuals mentioned above would not consider my ego (or that of other scientifically literate folks) as inflated for simply providing scientific facts and insights to counter the fantastical, irrational, and usually just plain erroneous, statements that you and certain other woo-woo artists are prone to make on this board.

It would seem that your latest attempt to insult science and scientists has flown wide of the mark, yet again.

[_Franktalk]

Nope. Socrates didn't write anything. His disciple Plato wrote a number of dialogues which purport to record Socrates' debates (often very lively) with a number of people, some of whom disagreed with him strongly.

His student took notes and wrote it for him. In much the same way Matthew wrote down the words of Christ. So are you saying that the book The Republic did not come from Socrates? Or are you just being "Chap" for the sake of being "Chap"? Since most books come from the printer and not the author are you saying that the ideas should not be assigned to the author? It is apparent to me that your silly comment lacks any deep thought and appears to be sand box level at best.

[_Franktalk]

Hello there Franktalk,

While I greatly appreciate your seeming designation of me as being among the 'men of science', my guess would be that scientifically literate folks like Spotlight, Gunnar, Chap, Maksutov and others on this board would not hold the same view. One would have to dig pretty far and fairly deep (back to 1976 or so) to find me on any list of 'men of science'.

Likewise, I would guess that the individuals mentioned above would not consider my ego (or that of other scientifically literate folks) as inflated for simply providing scientific facts and insights to counter the fantastical, irrational, and usually just plain erroneous, statements that you and certain other woo-woo artists are prone to make on this board.

It would seem that your latest attempt to insult science and scientists has flown wide of the mark, yet again.

Thanks for the response. And thank you for making the point I was attempting to make. In your comment you admit to a hierarchy in science. Thanks.

[_Maksutov]

Hmmm ... there are alternative possibilities:



Or perhaps even:



But this is, ahem, Celestial. Can we make jokes up here?

You can ask that after reading some of the OPs?

Good to see my home boy Nietzsche on a comic book.

[_Maksutov]

It is apparent to me that your silly comment lacks any deep thought and appears to be sand box level at best.

Note to Chap: You can definitely make jokes in Celestial.

[_Franktalk]

I actually think that Socrates and I would have gotten along fine.

"In the Phaedo, Socrates argues that the senses do not grasp reality in any way. He believed that a philosopher's "concern is not with the body but ... [with] the soul."(1) To the ancient Greeks the word 'philosopher' had a different meaning from today's and it denoted a lover of wisdom or knowledge. Socrates was a philosopher who spent his entire life searching for the truths -- the simple, uncomplicated, and indestructible truths that make up knowledge. Socrates believed that there was a division between the body and the soul,(2) and that the body played no part in the attainment of knowledge.(3)

The body is only concerned with pleasures such as food, drink, sex, material acquisitions, and wealth.(4) To Socrates, the body with all its needs was an obstacle in the "search for knowledge," and never gives us an accurate account of anything.(5) That no two people will ever hear or see the same thing in an identical way and consequently, will never perceive sensory information in the same way either. Socrates' contention was that human beings cannot rely on their senses in any way as a source for knowledge because information from them varies.(6) Knowledge to Socrates was never changing, but concrete and eternal. He thought that we will never learn the reality and truth of anything if we continue to rely on our senses.(7) Socrates would give an example to prove his point: if you put a straight stick halfway in the water, it will look bent. Take it out, it looks straight again. Is the stick really straight? Our senses try to trick us."

http://www.moyak.com/papers/socrates-truth.html

[_spotlight]

But this is, ahem, Celestial. Can we make jokes up here?

We are adrenaline junkies living on the edge.