Re: Objectivity: The Science, Art, and Religion of sycophancy, patronization and self interest


Raving wrote:
On Oct 2, 1:20 pm, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Objektivität: Die Wissenschaft, die kunst und die Religion von
sycophancy, von patronization und von Selbstinteresse

... Die beständige braune Nase dynamisch.

It remains to develop this exposé further.

Quid nunc?

Inside <~~ or ~~> Outside
... the Klingon empire.

Scatological <~~ or ~~> Priapic
... process


In http://tinyurl.com/24bxpn stew dean (abridged) wrote:
On 1 Oct, 15:04, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 1, 9:07 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 1 Oct, 12:52, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Put crudely:

What separates our positions is that I am alluding to features
'Outside the box'. You are emphasizing considerations 'Inside the
box'. These are complementary positions which are awkward to resolve
concurrently.

No, I'm pointing out that you are criticising science for always
thinking "inside the box" when it is that "box" which makes science
possible.

I am in agreement with you here.

Science is about the box, itself.

We are jointly co-aligned to the envelope that debarks its perimeter.
One of is is perhaps gazing towards the interior of the box whilst the
other of us is looking outwards.

- There is also perusing across the surface of the 'box'.

- There is also the transporting of that 'box' across a broad, deep
space of consideration.

- There is also the mixing and matching that box to other boxes which
possess comparable surface features.

- There is also the arranging a set of such boxes in an ordered
sequence.

Please, enough. I love the English language and you're murdering it.

In this case the box is the scientific process - there are no surfaces
etc, it's a metaphor that you've totally killed.

As pointed out to you the scientific process, or method to be more
correct, requires stuff to be fed into it, and this stuff comes from
the free exchange of ideas. These ideas are not limited to the
scientific method so are 'outside the box' or as I often say 'what
box?'. Science feeds of weird and wonderful ideas and those who
imaginations to come up with what may be absurd but, once tested,
looked at and reviewed, turn out to have some objective merit.




I've also pointed out that just because someone is a scientist, it
doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking outside the cognitive
framework of science.

Is the progression of 'engaging the box' that I have presented above
beyond the purvey of the cognitive framework of science?

The 'cognitive framework of science' is about being objective about
reality and finding out how things work. How exactly you transport
that idea across distance is something that will remain a mystery to
you. You havnt actual 'progressed' the whole box argument but dressed
it up in a hat and called it Eric, rendering it somewhat silly.

In other words, far from offering any insights, all you are doing is
projecting your preconceptions onto others and imagining them to be
insights.

As I have stated before, the *insight* that I claim to offer is the
ability to see 'perspective in context'

... to see the Point Of View of another withing the context of a
bigger picture.

It's 'within'. Everyone here, except the poorly educated creationists
that hang around here at times, is capable of seeing the world from
multiple view points.

They aren't. You are making assumptions about me and about how I think ...

With yourself, I am merely attempting to "do" as I do with any person,
any process, any object, or any event.

I seek to recognize "RFs" Point Of View ... insofar as RF's POV
relates to all POVs in general.

Get help now. We all, including yourself, only have limited views on a
given subject.

If you think otherwise then you are delusional.

Stew Dean


.

Relevant Pages