Art vs. Porn

[Delacroix]

@SS:
For me a Belief don't need a Theory to prove himself. But as you mixed the two(Belief and Theory), let me point that: The theory is the most vulnerable part of your Belief, and your belief the most strong part of your Theory.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>In the end, culture is the judge. Or a least culture starts the path down which everything is judged.


A heart/soul is neutral till the effects of culture come in to play. To even try to go against culture means that culture still played a role, the role of going against culture.</STRONG>

Theory: Weasel come with a intersting proposition. You say culture do not reach the heart. If there is no culture at all, there is no good or evil. The Heart still can be eared? Still Good and unchanged?


Belief (that cannot be contested only understanded): I reread your lasts posts, and found an intersting similarity in your Belief and Pascal [I love him, especially because I don't like the non philosophic sciences (Maths, Phisics, Quimestry)]. Have you read his biografy?
I think his life is amazing: 12 years old, learn geometry by himself. 16 years old, he write "Ensaios sobre as cônicas" and make Decartes fall on his knees . Latter he formulate lots of amazing theories about probability and invented a calculator. When he was about 30, he stop maths and scientific reserches to follow his Heart and his religion. "La coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point", The heart has its reasons which reason does not know about(Pascal) . "We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart"(Pascal).

My friend Daniel(who love Maths) say for me that Pascal could be the better mathematic ever, if his sister didn't show him the religious path. For me he is the better mathematic ever, exaclty because he throw the Maths away

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>@SS:
For me a Belief don't need a Theory to prove himself. But as you mixed the two(Belief and Theory), let me point that: The theory is the most vulnerable part of your Belief, and your belief the most strong part of your Theory. </STRONG>

Theory is a belief. It is something you believe to be true(unless you are against the theory) based on what you know. Really, Theory is the "scientific" version of belief. Since apply science to everything and apply everything to science, the terms "belief" and "theory" are, for me, interchangeable.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Theory: Weasel come with a intersting proposition. You say culture do not reach the heart. If there is no culture at all, there is no good or evil. The Heart still can be eared? Still Good and unchanged?</STRONG>

Culture/society affects all decisions, whether you make the decision with your mind or your heart because all decisions pass through your mind. In fact, it is with your mind that you decide to "follow your heart." I have tried to break this all down and make it as simple as I can(*is not trying to sound condescending*), but it is very complex. It is also something that cannot be proven one way or the other. It is a decision that everyone must make as to whether or not they believe this idea to be true. That's where society's biggest influence hits on this matter.

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Belief (that cannot be contested only understanded): I reread your lasts posts, and found an intersting similarity in your Belief and Pascal [I love him, especially because I don't like the non philosophic sciences (Maths, Phisics, Quimestry)]. Have you read his biografy?
I think his life is amazing: 12 years old, learn geometry by himself. 16 years old, he write "Ensaios sobre as cônicas" and make Decartes fall on his knees . Latter he formulate lots of amazing theories about probability and invented a calculator. When he was about 30, he stop maths and scientific reserches to follow his Heart and his religion. "La coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point", The heart has its reasons which reason does not know about(Pascal) . "We arrive at truth, not by reason only, but also by the heart"(Pascal).

My friend Daniel(who love Maths) say for me that Pascal could be the better mathematic ever, if his sister didn't show him the religious path. For me he is the better mathematic ever, exaclty because he throw the Maths away </STRONG>

I haven't read Pascal's biography. When I finish the twenty billion( ) books I've got stacked up to read, I'll look for it. It sounds very interesting.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>

Theory: Weasel come with a intersting proposition. You say culture do not reach the heart. If there is no culture at all, there is no good or evil. The Heart still can be eared? Still Good and unchanged? </STRONG>

Hmmmm... I believe you have it right. These part I'm having problems understanding..

1.The Heart still can be eared?
2.Still Good and unchanged?

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>
Belief (that cannot be contested only understanded): I reread your lasts posts, and found an intersting similarity in your Belief and Pascal [I love him, especially because I don't like the non philosophic sciences (Maths, Phisics, Quimestry)]. Have you read his biografy?

</STRONG>

I'm sorry to say I haven't. But this doesn't surprizes me....the part about similarity.

Weasel's Belief #34 : Every thought has already been thought. New thought's are rare, if ever found. The trick is not to forget the thought....because in time someone else will claim they discovered it first.

[Delacroix]

@SS
I must disagree with you again.

Of course, the man who create a Theory must believe in it. But there are diferences beetween the Belief (not the belief) and the Theory. They( Theory and Belief) can be splited, in fact in the most times they are split.

A Theory needs a proof. It is logically, and is preceded by a hipotesis. A Theory can be broken, it is fragile, especially by the Time. A Theory can be easily dissmissed by the humanity. And it can be considered right or wrong .

A Belief don't need to be prooved, it can legitimate himself. Have no purposes other than himself. It is far beyond the logical and the dialeticals capabilities. It cannot be broken, except if there are no more belivers. Cannot be judge by the logical right or wrong.

For example: Aristóteles Theory of the elements, is a Theory; Dalton, Rutheford, Bohr broken it. They prove that Aristótelis was wrong, with demonstration, logical and dialetics.
The Catolics Beliefs. Belief. Even after secles of science demonstrations of logicals evidences the Catolic Belief still . It cannot be broken, never. It is beyond the right and the wrong. It justify himself.

All the Theories that were inpregnated in the Catolic Belief were already broken, like the geocentric theory.

@Weasel that two question were adressed for SS.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>


@Weasel that two question were adressed for SS.</STRONG>

My bad

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG> My bad </STRONG>

No. My bad.

I use your quote to refer to another person, I should be more clear.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>@SS
I must disagree with you again.

Of course, the man who create a Theory must believe in it. But there are diferences beetween the Belief (not the belief) and the Theory. They( Theory and Belief) can be splited, in fact in the most times they are split.

A Theory needs a proof. It is logically, and is preceded by a hipotesis. A Theory can be broken, it is fragile, especially by the Time. A Theory can be easily dissmissed by the humanity. And it can be considered right or wrong .

A Belief don't need to be prooved, it can legitimate himself. Have no purposes other than himself. It is far beyond the logical and the dialeticals capabilities. It cannot be broken, except if there are no more belivers. Cannot be judge by the logical right or wrong.

For example: Aristóteles Theory of the elements, is a Theory; Dalton, Rutheford, Bohr broken it. They prove that Aristótelis was wrong, with demonstration, logical and dialetics.
The Catolics Beliefs. Belief. Even after secles of science demonstrations of logicals evidences the Catolic Belief still . It cannot be broken, never. It is beyond the right and the wrong. It justify himself.

All the Theories that were inpregnated in the Catolic Belief were already broken, like the geocentric theory.</STRONG>

Actually, we agree, we're just saying it in different ways.

Really, what you did just now, is explain what I meant when I said that "Theory" is the "scientific" version of "Belief." What is science? It is learning through proving and disproving by researching the facts and experimenting with possibilities.(this is a summarization of the basic idea of science, different sciences have slightly different views). As you said, Theories can be proven or disproven by facts. They are often dropped as soon as they are disproven, unless they can be modified to fix the mistake. What we call "beliefs" are not scientific in nature and are often held onto even if the 'facts' 'prove' the belief to be false. The Roman Catholic church believed that the planets, moon, sun, and stars revolved around the Earth. It was a belief. It was also a theory. Capearnicus and Galileo 'proved' the RC church wrong, but because it was, instead of just a scientific theory, a belief, the RC church refused to accept Capearnicus and Galileo's concepts. That is an example of something being a belief and a theory.

One thing I'd like to point out, though, is that beliefs can be proven wrong just as easily as a theory and theories are not always willingly dropped upon being 'proven' wrong. Aside from the solar system model belief/theoreis, I cannot currently think of an example. I'm suffering from sleep deprivation right now and should probably be in bed asleep, thus I'm thinking even less straight than usual. We may not totally agree on the "difference/similarity" of 'belief' and 'theory,' but we do mostly agree, just view it in different perspectives.

If any of this makes sense, let me know; I'll then try to make it make less sense.

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Actually, we agree, we're just saying it in different ways.
</STRONG>

I will not read the rest of your post, this part its OK and a fabulous end.

Kidding, I read the rest. And I agree too. Especially the part that we agree more than disagree, and the part of to take a long and peacefull sleep.

[leedogg]

WOW! so much information! You guys constantly amaze me at your knowledge. I think art and porn are seperate but some porn could be considered art! Thank goodness for Playboy!!

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by leedogg:
<STRONG>WOW! so much information! You guys constantly amaze me at your knowledge. </STRONG>

They just copy it all from on-line databases

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>They just copy it all from on-line databases </STRONG>

Shhh! You weren't supposed to tell'em!

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Shhh! You weren't supposed to tell'em! </STRONG>

I never signed any secrecy acts, you can't silence me, the voice of the Sleepy will be heard

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Theory is a belief. It is something you believe to be true(unless you are against the theory) based on what you know. Really, Theory is the "scientific" version of belief. Since apply science to everything and apply everything to science, the terms "belief" and "theory" are, for me, interchangeable.

</STRONG>

SS, do you mean the word "theory" as used in normal language, or do mean "theory" as "scientific theory"?

In case of the former, I agree with you that they are highly interchangeble. In case of the latter I don't agree - there are some similarities, but there are also some crucial differences.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>SS, do you mean the word "theory" as used in normal language, or do mean "theory" as "scientific theory"?

In case of the former, I agree with you that they are highly interchangeble. In case of the latter I don't agree - there are some similarities, but there are also some crucial differences.</STRONG>

I mean it as both. Yes, there are crucial differences. I did not mean to say that they are 100% identical. As mentioned before, a theory is a scientific version of belief.

For me, they are mostly interchangeable in everything because I apply science to everything and everything to science. It's probably just part of how my brain works. Don't try to figure out how my brain works. Last psychologist who tried that nearly went insane.(no joke...)

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>As mentioned before, a theory is a scientific version of belief.

</STRONG>

Saying that a theory is a scientific version of a belief, sound to me just like another way of saying there is a difference between science and belief. What is the difference in your opinion?

<STRONG>For me, they are mostly interchangeable in everything because I apply science to everything and everything to science. It's probably just part of how my brain works. Don't try to figure out how my brain works. Last psychologist who tried that nearly went insane.(no joke...) </STRONG>

Applying scientific reasoning to our lives is not the same thing as making scientific theories out of our personal lives, experiences and observations. Which of it is you consider yourself doing?

If you apply science to everything and everything to science, you will face the same problems as we discussed regarding art - if everything is art, nothing is. If you make too broad definitions, a concept looses its meaning.

Making testable predictions and carry out empiric experiments about every single thing in your everyday life would be a very frustrating life style, especially since one would have to replicate everything.
How boring

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Applying scientific reasoning to our lives is not the same thing as making scientific theories out of our personal lives, experiences and observations. Which of it is you consider yourself doing? </STRONG>

Both. The way I do it varies, of course. I am rather chaotic after all.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>If you apply science to everything and everything to science, you will face the same problems as we discussed regarding art - if everything is art, nothing is. If you make too broad definitions, a concept looses its meaning.

Making testable predictions and carry out empiric experiments about every single thing in your everyday life would be a very frustrating life style, especially since one would have to replicate everything.
How boring </STRONG>

Not all of science is experimentation. Sometimes it is merely observation. This may seem sad, or scary, but doing this stuff actually makes my life less boring.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Both. The way I do it varies, of course. I am rather chaotic after all.

Not all of science is experimentation. Sometimes it is merely observation. This may seem sad, or scary, but doing this stuff actually makes my life less boring. [/QB]

Sure science is a lot more than the experimental part, but the "making testable prediction" part can't be excluded - then it's not defined as science.

Observing the world around us can never be sad or scary IMO - on the contrary I think it's very important for our happiness and life quality to observe and try to understand both ourselves and the world around us. This can be done in many fashions - science as well as religion or other personal life philosophies can play a big role in this context.

I still don't understand how you mean that belief and "scientific theory" are interchangable. Or how you mean Perhaps it boils down to a semantic question. How do you define science? What is the differences between science and other ways to gain knowledge or collect information? How do you define "scientific theory"? How do you define belief?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Sure science is a lot more than the experimental part, but the "making testable prediction" part can't be excluded - then it's not defined as science.

Observing the world around us can never be sad or scary IMO - on the contrary I think it's very important for our happiness and life quality to observe and try to understand both ourselves and the world around us. This can be done in many fashions - science as well as religion or other personal life philosophies can play a big role in this context.

I still don't understand how you mean that belief and "scientific theory" are interchangable. Or how you mean Perhaps it boils down to a semantic question. How do you define science? What is the differences between science and other ways to gain knowledge or collect information? How do you define "scientific theory"? How do you define belief?</STRONG>

Bah, too many questions, not enough Dr. Pepper!

I can't answer those questions as I don't have the words, despite my large vocabulary. A lot of it does have to do with how I think, which is different from virtually everyone else. Don't ask me to explain how my thinking is different because I can't. It just is.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I can't answer those questions as I don't have the words, despite my large vocabulary. A lot of it does have to do with how I think, which is different from virtually everyone else. Don't ask me to explain how my thinking is different because I can't. It just is.</STRONG>

If you can't explain how you think - how do you know it's different from everyone else?

In any case, my conclusion is that belief and scientific theory is not interchangeble, they are far too different for that. If you think they are interchangable, it is most likely because you use the words differently from how they are usually defined.

A belief can be a personal opinion, it can be subjective and based on personal experience. It can be founded on inner conviction or choice.

A scientific theory must fulfil certain requirements, it must have internal constistency, it must make testable predictions, it must be falsifyible (in the sense Popper meant) and it must provide the strongest explanatory power to observed phenomena of the current alternatives.

If one of more of these criterion is not fulfilled, it isn't a scientific theory, it's something else.

I'll continue on this later - must catch some sleep now. Get a load of dr Pepper

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>If you can't explain how you think - how do you know it's different from everyone else?

In any case, my conclusion is that belief and scientific theory is not interchangeble, they are far too different for that. If you think they are interchangable, it is most likely because you use the words differently from how they are usually defined.

A belief can be a personal opinion, it can be subjective and based on personal experience. It can be founded on inner conviction or choice.

A scientific theory must fulfil certain requirements, it must have internal constistency, it must make testable predictions, it must be falsifyible (in the sense Popper meant) and it must provide the strongest explanatory power to observed phenomena of the current alternatives.

If one of more of these criterion is not fulfilled, it isn't a scientific theory, it's something else.

I'll continue on this later - must catch some sleep now. Get a load of dr Pepper </STRONG>

Let me summarize what I'm trying to say, or at least attempt to.


All theories are beliefs, but not all beliefs are theories.


Now to desummarize.

A Theories is meaningless if no one believes it. And, until it becomes a fact/law(whichever term you choose to use here), it is merely something that is believed to be true, thus it is a belief. Yes, it does have to follow certain criteria, which is why not all beliefs are theories.

Does this make any sense? I honestly would not be surprised if it doesn't, but I tried my best.