The spirit of science is refrain from belief.
posted by Kannan Shah @ 16:29
k-dimensions
About Me
- Name: Kannan Shah
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
I'm a doctoral candidate at Drexel University. I work in the Data Fusion Laboratory under Dr. Moshe Kam. My current research is in detection, estimation, and optimization theory theory.
Previous Posts
- The only freedom is that from desire, and this so...
- Heart-melting
- When one asks the question, "Is there any goodnes...
- The covetted distractions
- Pleasure
- Bobby Jindal
- Bobby Jindal
- Purpose
- Measuring Humans
- Probability Disambiguation
5 Comments:
Much like the head of an Ostrich buried in the sand, a flightless bird, that now ,cannot see. All due to an irrational self-induced fear.
Belief is what occludes sight. Belief is what provides the sense of security that calms self-induced fear.
It in the midst of comforting evidence, it takes courage to acknowledge that evidence comes from uncertain and ephemeral sources: our senses, emotions, and imperfect inductive cognition. It takes courage to question the solidarity of these sources upon whom we base the whole of our behaviour.
Do you enjoy contradicting your self or do you truly not understand the english language? to "refrain" from something : means to stay away ,or keep distance , or to keep from doing,feeling ,or indulging in something. In which case ,the spirit of science does not have belief or conviction of the truth of some statement or reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. Then you reply to my comment with "belief is what occludes sight" . Now do you mean to say ,by using the word "occlude" ,that "belief comes together with sight" ,or do you mean to say that ,"belief blocks off sight". In which case, you are either trying to reinforce your previous comment or you are contradicting the syntactic unit that follows it. Now here is another question ,do you mean to use the word "proof" or "belief"? In which case both your previous comment and your current statement contradicts its-self. Then you go on expressing the praises of "belief" ,as if, it is a certainty of something that should provide security and calm, but is totally dependent on uncertain and ephemeral sources. Yet,you state that it is "refrain" from science. The statement " It in the midst of comforting evidence," What "it" are you referring to? How dose belief occlude sight ,if in fact, sight should only re-inforce belief ,and vice-a-verse? "beliving is seeing" Now the second part of the second half of the second comment has some merit ,but now are you making a reference to "faith". So now ,lets put the correct , phraseology together----"The spirit of science is refrain from Faith" or is the correct phrasing " The Spirit of Cognitive Science is refrain from Faith",but in either of the two statements they are still gravely deficient.
Question; What "belief" are you stating ,that, the spirit of science is refraining from ? If it is just "belief" -in general -that the spirit of science is refraining from ,then how would it operate as anything ,since it would take "belief" to have a purpose, much less "belief" in itself as anything ? Then one might properly conclude that the "Spirit" of science itself dose not exist, based upon the refrainment from "belief" it maintains.
Seems there's been a misunderstanding here.
I am not advocating belief, but, indeed, the opposite.
The sense of security provided by belief is courageously left unprovided in the scientific mind.
Belief is based on evidence that comes from ephemeral and uncertain sources, and acknowledgment of this takes courage.
I praise the scientific mind, who remains skeptical of modes of experience even so basic as our senses and inductive cognition, who refrains from belief.
The "It" about which you are unclear, in my previous response, was a typographical error: It should have been removed, and the sentence should have started with the "In" that immediately follows it.
Didn't mean to anger you. I don't know anyone who enjoys contradicting themselves; though deliberate self-contradiction is a valuable mode of comprehensive enquiry, that is separate discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home