=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Lying for Columbine
Log In to post a reply
91 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 20:20
"erm.. yeah. They are equivalents. A system is a system, and none are perfect. A system is correct within it's own terms of reference, as it's method of analysis of a given set of observations creates its functionality."

I get the existential argument you're making here -- any given "system of thought" is internally logical if you accept the assumptions.

"The science/religion argument is kinda childish though. Especially when you look at quantum physics, remember, even the particles are theoretical constructs based on observation, not definite as in these-are-particles-ok? . So, as I said, there is only approximations within the range of an acceptable tolerance. We do however change our levels of tolerance, our acceptable levels of accuracy, religion --> science."

Quantum theory is a model for describing the "behavior" of things we label "particles." Check. It's a very accurate model compared to previous models, and as we get better at measuring stuff the models will continue to get more accurate. It doesn't matter if there's a "real particle" in there, it's all models. The map is not the territory.

And of course this is all very rational and non-magical. It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around. A magical model explains everything for all times, and contradictions are explained away ("de devil done it.") A scientific model can be disproven and replaced -- scientific/rational analysis evolves over time to get more accurate.

"But fundamentally nowts changed in terms of understanding."

"Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand."

"I mean, as Science now talks about a field of probability at the root of creation they may as well be talking about a god tbh."

What does "probability" have to do with a deity? One is a model, the other a "mechanism."

"Also, this was a discussion of somebodies cod philosophical theories on political polemics. Which is very different to the road you're taking this. But I see where and why based on what I said. Analysis, abstraction, nothing definite, blah, blah, how did what you posted in reply challenge this?"

I already said it would have been a better article if he stuck to the "philosophy" and left his political positions out of it. Although I do think you can draw political conclusions from "philosophy" (people do it all the time, including you I'm sure.)

In fact I'm only just starting to "challenge" anything here. You're the one who posted 3 replies to my initial vague comment with a bunch of sarcastic twat-shit. You fucker! (That was a joke btw.)

;-)


"R u Grufty Jim btw ? Just wondering."

Don't know who that is.
In reply to:
Re: Lying for Columbine (stray)		 Replies:
Re: Lying for Columbine (Toni Torino)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index