What makes a good scientist?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: set theory intersection is a multiplication (due to semigroup)#544 Correcting Math
Next: TWO FOR ONE AT PIZZA HUT
From: Marshall on 29 Mar 2010 10:01 On Mar 28, 6:35 pm, "THE BORG" <b...(a)gone.com> wrote: > "John Locke" <johnlocke...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones wrote: > > >>There are only two kinds of scientist. > > > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to > > scientific procedures and not entertaining even the > > slightest notion of supernatural control and design. > > In other words, the kind of men who want to know precisely > where an egg came from without ANY reference to chickens. I do not speak for John Locke of course, however I am pretty sure that when he wrote "supernatural" above he was not referring to chickens. Marshall
From: Zerkon on 29 Mar 2010 11:51 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones wrote: > What makes a good scientist? Adherence to a science method Illustrating... > There are only two kinds of (good) scientist(s). Those that are boring to most and those that are even more boring to even more. A good scientist will show up at a protest with a sign that reads "This is a tricky gray area!!!" the exclamations inserted to make them seem part of the moment and hopefully get invited to the party after.
From: omprem on 29 Mar 2010 12:22 On Mar 28, 8:52 pm, "THE BORG" <b...(a)gone.com> wrote: > "omprem" <omprem...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9092bfcc-c859-4f98-a3a8-669721597f91(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 28, 6:33 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> > wrote: > > > > > There are only two kinds of scientist. > > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is > > noisy and > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and > > gibbering to > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of > > science in action. > > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The > > bone-rattler is > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. > > Onlookers are > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden > > strengths of > > science. > > There is a third kind of scientist, a good kind of > scientist, and > that is the scientist who initially uses empirical means to > explore > the unknown possibilities of existence and is prepared to > allow his > prejudices to be dispelled, his learning modes to be refined > and > changed, and his consciousness expanded. These scientists > are among > the leading astro-physicists. > > Your other two types of scientist can be likened to a > steward who is > content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it > is > sinking. They can make major changes in very minor areas. > The third > kind that I mentioned can eventually know the face of God, > so to > speak. > > ****** > Cosmology is also interesting. > Here is a snippet on Esoteric Cosmology which is quite > enlightening. > > Here in this snippet you can see that he states there is no > God, or > concept of God, no concept of sin or salvation, merely that > in eternity, it is the goal of all life to work with one > aim, and that is to alleviate boredom. > > ***** > Michael Sharp in The Book of Light elucidates a Kabbalistic > cosmology where "consciousness is the root" of all things > including (and perhaps especially) the physical universe and > all its dimensions. According to Sharp, consciousness > "unfolds" from the original, monadic I (the single point) to > the current state of trillions upon trillions of monads > which exist in multiple dimensions and in multiple > universes. As consciousness unfolds through the twelve > levels of The Unfolding, dimensions are added as a sort of > epiphenomenon (i.e., they emerge because of the peculiar > state of consciousness). First there is perspective, then > chance, then time, space, etc. All told there are twelve > "dimensions" of existence that correspond to the twelve > levels in The Unfolding. Not all of these dimensions > correlate directly to physical aspects of the physical > multiverse but all of them are rooted in the changing > composition (state) of consciousness. > > Sharp's cosmology is particularly interesting because no > matter how complex the universe gets, it is ultimately all > an aspect or a state of the grand creator consciousness. It > is also interesting because the cosmology does away, for > better or worse, with traditional esoteric canon regarding > "soul evolution" and replaces it with the collective > alleviation of boredom. That is, it is not our purpose to > advance towards God, work towards redemption, or redeem > ourselves from sin. Like the artist who paints a canvas or > the musician that plays a song, it is our purpose to create > in an interesting and entertaining fashion. Sharp is getting close.
From: omprem on 29 Mar 2010 12:24 On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke <johnlocke...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones > > <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >There are only two kinds of scientist. > > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific > procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of > supernatural control and design. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > ""All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, > or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to > terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." > -- Thomas Paine Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by the presence and intent of the scientist. If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
From: omprem on 29 Mar 2010 12:26
On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Immortalist wrote: > > > [1] - A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge > > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term > "systematic" implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is. In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings howling their despair to the Moon. |