Art, Math, Science, Engineering, Religion are different fields with different ways of knowing things

[bananas]

Poll question: Art, Math, Science, Engineering, Religion are different fields with different ways of knowing things

[trotsky]

1. The first and last fields you list...

define the words "knowing" and "things" differently than the middle 3.

[Tesha]

3. Seconded! (NT)

[LAGC]

2. Some of those fields have proven more useful than others.

And not all have produced useful knowledge.

[bananas]

7. 83% for "other" - it isn't as black-and-white as you would like to think.

If things were completely black-and-white, I wouldn't have a problem with that, it would make life a lot simpler.
But empirical evidence shows us that life is not black-and-white, worse, it's not even shades-of-gray, it's a whole freaking spectrum of hue, intensity, and saturation.

edit to add: and then there are the dog-whistles that we can't even hear...but which are extremely useful...

[LAGC]

8. FYI, I voted "Other" myself.

As did most others, I suspect, because they didn't agree with your false dichotomy of a poll question.

As for dog-whistles, the effects can be studied and explained scientifically with instruments that can measure and show us what the effect is... art and religion, not so much, they are purely subjective, not objective measures of truths.

You really ought to read "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True" by Richard Dawkins. It might just blow your mind.

[bananas]

11. It's not my false dichotomy

but it is a problem for those of us who know it's a false dichotomy,
how do we explain it to those who don't know: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=315570&mesg_id=315570

[LAGC]

13. So THAT'S what this thread is about.

You may be right, he may have been thinking too narrowly.

Which begs the question: why not respond to that thread and tell him so yourself, instead of starting a whole new thread as a continuation of another discussion? (Which is against forum rules, I might add.)

[bananas]

15. Well...

For one thing, you can't post a poll as a reply,
and more importantly, this isn't just a response to his thread.

[LAGC]

17. Fair enough.

Carry on then.

I just hope you aren't too surprised by the responses so far...

[MarkCharles]

21. In other words: Appeal to Popularity ? Do you really think a poll establishes facts?

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

"This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question."

See link for common fallacious appeals to popularity, Cast in Point: George Bush's war or terror and suspension of citizen's rights in the name of said war.

[bananas]

26. I'm just gauging people's perspectives. nt

[MarkCharles]

51. No, you are push-polling, with a biased question and limited options for answers.

I got a call the other night from "citizens for fair something".

They wanted to know if I favored lower taxes than Obama has proposed.

They wanted to know if I thought my taxes were too high.

They wanted to know if I would vote for a President who promised to lower my taxes.

Thank you very much. End of call.

They did NOT specify that my taxes were lower under Obama than under Bush.
They did NOT specify that Herman Cain's 999 plan would triple my taxes.

If you structure your questions in a limited way, you get limited data, of little or no use, whatsoever.

[bananas]

82. Nope. Limited options? It's a true-false question and I gave four options.

Current results are split between true, false, and other.

Poll result (26 votes)
True (9 votes, 35%)
False (10 votes, 38%)
Yes and No (0 votes, 0%)
Other (7 votes, 27%)

[bananas]

88. 29 votes: 38%-38%-0%-24%

Poll result (29 votes)
True (11 votes, 38%)
False (11 votes, 38%)
Yes and No (0 votes, 0%)
Other (7 votes, 24%)

[cleanhippie]

16. You could have just produced a single bit of knolwedge that came from some "other way of knowing"

in that thread, but since you want to start your own, post it right here.

Go on. Just one.

:popcorn:

[bananas]

18. How did you vote?

Poll question: Art, Math, Science, Engineering, Religion are different fields with different ways of knowing things

Poll result (7 votes)
True (0 votes, 0%) Vote
False (1 votes, 14%) Vote
Yes and No (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Other (6 votes, 86%) Vote

[cleanhippie]

19. Oh lookie....more obfuscation.

Just one example. Come on, just one.

:popcorn:

[MarkCharles]

22. I've been waiting for weeks, it seems, for JUST ONE EXAMPLE!

So far, I haven't found one on this forum. Have you?

[bananas]

84. Many examples have been given, and the current poll results are 37-37-0-26%

which completely invalidates your irrational premise.

Poll result (27 votes)
True (10 votes, 37%)
False (10 votes, 37%)
Yes and No (0 votes, 0%)
Other (7 votes, 26%)

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

85. Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt! nt

[cleanhippie]

95. Are you talking to yourself?

[RC]

4. Art, Math, Science, Engineering are all related.

Religion is what you want it to be.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. There it is

Beautifully stated.

[GliderGuider]

6. Art is not "what you want it to be"?

Really?

Picasso's Guernica vs. Thomas Kinkade's little cottages vs. Piss Christ vs. Anne Geddes.

[RC]

10. Good art can be reduced to numbers.

Designs that are pleasing to the eye.

And no, I am not talking about paint by number pictures.

[bananas]

12. What kind of numbers?

Whole numbers?
Rational numbers?
Irrational numbers?
Real numbers?
Imaginary numbers?
Hyperreal numbers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number

[RC]

20. Start your education here. "math in art"

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=9&gs_id=1e&xhr=t&q=math+in+art&qe=bWF0aCBpbiBh&qesig=WIzZmnwAyzQ-3uMDHXvV-Q&pkc=AFgZ2tnRcmdPCLUBbae6zeDByEpxiGEHyCY7uWNJEK2AizLHuJRFNVVS3JWxuAzElwyTXbalZLZaAkUnHzsv09rgvjbCC9a5Iw&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&biw=1333&bih=940&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=math+in+a&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=5ee03872464f82ab

[GliderGuider]

14. What are the numbers for Piss Christ or Jackson Pollock? Both of which I consider to be art, BTW.

I think the idea that we can "reduce art to numbers" in any meaningful way is a Cartesian conceit.

And this is coming from a guy who heard the ghost of Glenn Gould playing Goldberg Variation Number Five "live" on a Yamaha Disklavier Pro grand piano a couple of years ago - complete with his humming. It gave me shivers.

Yes we can digitize existing art, but I don't think this is what you meant. Maybe you could expand on the idea a bit?

[tama]

41. Platonic realism

if so and all creativity can be reduced to number theory, then what creative process is number theory?

[rrneck]

46. Actually, no.

Good art gives a deeper insight into the human condition, which includes a lot of stuff that cannot be measured or quantified by the scientific method. Thus, numbers won't work.

[GliderGuider]

9. How about this view:

Art and religion are both about meaning, and have experiential, subjective "ways of knowing".

Science, engineering and math are about objective, fact-based "ways of knowing". Math is a bit different, because it relies on proofs and consistency more than experimental data, but it's still objective and analytical.

Art and religion both use intuition, emotion, analogy and synthesis to create their frameworks. In contrast, science, engineering and math use of logic, reason and analysis.

Which approach you prefer depends in large measure on where and how you find value in life.

[MarkCharles]

23. Math is actually more the language by which humans communicate

relationships from the physical world, in a non-ambiguous framework.

Math can be as complex as the description of atomic or chemical structures, space travel, blood counts, or as relatively simple as the transaction of commerce between human beings, using a system of currencies.

[GliderGuider]

24. I always thought that was linguistics.

What is the math underlying a mystical experience, the math that the mystic uses to communicate it unambiguously to those who haven't had one?

Ideas such as "The self is an illusion" or "All suffering springs from attachment" or even "Thou art God" - I see lots of poetry, linguistics and stlry-telling, but precious little math.

If 93% of all communication isn't even verbal, how can it possibly be mathematical?

[MarkCharles]

25. Linguistics is the study of languages. Math is a language describing relationships within the

physical world. You use math to locate yourself in relation to your neighbor, or in relation to where the line is between your property and his, or when you say you are 93 million miles from the sun, 240,000 miles from the moon, and only 100 feet from your neighbor's property boundary line.

E= M*C squared is the mathematical expression of the relationship of energy to mass. It is precise, it establishes a relationship existing in the physical world, and is universally true as an understanding of the physical world among human beings, no matter what cultural group or "tongue" you speak in.

[bananas]

27. No, "math" as a field generally refers to pure math, which has nothing to do with the physical world

"Higher math" refers to work from junior year of college and beyond.
Freshman and sophomore math deal with calculus etc which describe the physical world.
After that, it is on a level of abstraction independent of the physical world.

[GliderGuider]

29. Oh god, I'd finally managed to block all my memories of ring and group theory...

Now they're all back.

Thanks, bananas.
Thanks a bunch...

[bananas]

31. heh heh heh ... nt!

[MarkCharles]

30. I think one might want to talk to a mathematician before one makes such a

blatantly uninformed and fallacious statement.

With these words, "it is on a level of abstraction independent of the physical world".

Is one claiming that higher level mathematics is like a religion then,(independent of the physical world)?

Why not try a little research before venturing an answer here?

"Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of quantity, space, structure, and change.] Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, which are arguments sufficient to convince other mathematicians of their validity"

Mathematics: The Science of Patterns: The Search for Order in Life, Mind and the Universe (Scientific American Paperback Library) 1996

by Keith J. Devlin (Hull, England, 16 March 1947) is a British mathematician and popular science writer. He has lived in the USA since 1987 and has dual American-British citizenship.

[bananas]

32. rofl. nt

[GliderGuider]

28. Math is "a" language, yes.

That's better than saying it's "the" language, as you did before.

It's not the only language we use though, and that - as far as I can tell - is one of the points of the thread.

Or, to put it in poetically mathematical terms:

The integral z-squared dz
From one to the cube root of three
Times the cosine
of three pi over nine
Equals log of the cube root of e

[MarkCharles]

34. Don't leave out half the wording, or half the meaning of what I stated please.

precise language, relating to relationships in the physical world.

Very important words. NOT a language like French or Italian or English, or any other, which are more ambiguous when describing things like "truth" or "knowledge" or "knowing" or "proof", and all of those languages have varying weaknesses in the amount of precision or ambiguity when describing concepts and the unknown or un-provable.

[GliderGuider]

36. You originally said it weas "the" language. That may have been a simple misstatement on your part.

What it does, mathematics does extremely well.

Ambiguity has never bothered me, so I'll continue to speak English, French, photography, poetry and prose fiction, though.

I'm in fact such a fan of ambiguity that I think the more we can hold both sides of a paradox to be true at the same time, the more we can clarify the meaning of our own existence.

(I am real; I am an illusion)
(1 == 1; 1 != 1)
(Evil is necessary in order for good to exist)

Stuff like that.

[MarkCharles]

38. Yes, THE LANGUAGE by which humans communicate without ambiguity!

Regarding the physical world, and precise relationships within that world.

All the other languages have ambiguity as part of their character and/or history.

[GliderGuider]

39. OK, in that case I have to ask

what your point is.

Mathematics allows us to communicate very precisely about some areas of human experience. Other languages communicate with various lesser degrees of precision about other areas of the human experience.

I agree with that. Do we have a dispute?

[GliderGuider]

40. Hold on, I see where I went off the rails originally.

It was because of an ambiguity in your communication ;-)

You put the phrase "Math is actually more the language by which humans communicate" in the subject line of your post, and then modified it in the body of the message. My brain took the subject phrase as a whole sentence (it interpolated a period at the end), and didn't make the link to the qualifier in the body of the post.

Sorry, I think get your point now.

[MarkCharles]

45. You are very gracious, and I sometimes use modifiers in sentences in...

slightly ambiguous ways. LOL

Now, on to how "other ways of knowing" without "proof" of what cannot be "known", and thus cannot be "knowledge".

Self-knowledge is entirely subjective. There is no proof that the knowledge is factual, accurate, nor even close to truth.

Newt Gingrich thinks his Ph.D. in history makes him qualified to be President, and he "knows" what is best for the nation, more than Obama and all the expert government employees do. Given his biography, we can be fairly certain that he doesn't know how to select a life mate, or did not the first two times he selected one. Talk about "self knowledge".

To make this a relevant comment on a religious thread, Newt also converted to Catholicism when he married his third wife, Calista. What kind of contender for world leadership subscribes to Catholic doctrine and dogma about the role of women in the church, the invalidity of a gay or lesbian lifestyle, or the ruling out of abortion under any circumstance?

Herman Cain "knows" what kind of a leader he would be, but he knows hardly anything about the deliberations nor the strategy involved in recent US/NATO limited interventions in Libya. He feels free to call Nancy Pelosi a "princess", but "knows" he never does anything offensive to women.

Creationists "know" their god created them in his image, and that their god didn't develop them from monkeys, nor prior mammals or even more primitive life forms. They "know" this from the Bible, not from solid academic principles and the discipline of scientific discovery. They just "know" it.

Returning to the topic of mathematics, evolution has lots of mathematical models, and actual systems one uses to examine, for instance radio-carbon decay rates over the milenia, and rates of DNA genetic modification over hundreds of generations.
There's lots of mathematics in the study of evolution. The math areas used in evolution are called upon in several areas of mathematical study, probability and statistics as well as the quantum calculus of change being just a few of them.

[GliderGuider]

53. I think my comment below addresses this as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=317165&mesg_id=317373

We've got a problem of unacknowledged semantic and epistemological differences going on here.

[tama]

42. By many ways.

What do you mean by "communication" - and what temporal and spatial meanings and presuppositions do you attach to that meaning? Those are math per se - and they can be described both as geometry and number theory, which are differing languages for same ideas.

How do you know that mathematical self-awareness is not one of the myriad paths to enlightenment? Or especially cosmological path?

[rrneck]

47. +1 nt

[GliderGuider]

33. Here's something derived from a "different way of knowing" - not sure if it meets your criteria

Many people who have meditated have discovered two things through their meditation:

The "self" as we normally understand it is not real, but an illusion.
There is no difference between the observer, the observed and the act of observing.

People who have encountered these ideas during meditation "know" them to be true. These are certainly not objectively derivable truths, but they form part of the knowledge base of people who investigate subjective reality through deep meditation. This knowledge cuts across cultural, racial, gender, age, political and socio-economic lines, so it has at least some degree of universality.

What sayest thou?

[MarkCharles]

35. Thanks, I was getting hungry, and ..

I think I have enough now for a big baloney sandwich.

"There is no difference between the observer, the observed and the act of observing."

The most "unscientific" statement, even non-scientists would agree, unless one is in a kum bayah world were we are all part of one big universe, and we are equal to the entire universe at the same time.

Nope.

Lunchtime for me now!

[GliderGuider]

37. Too bad, we could have had a nice chat. Enjoy your lunch.

n/t

[tama]

43. What is the meaning of "is"? ;)

Of course there are just as many differences as you care to notice. But if you take science seriously, the questions about observer and observed and observation events do indeed become deeply mystical. That which philosophical speculation is centered on. New age "fluffy bunny language included - as more like experimental inclusive social science, at least in many aspects.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. I would argue against this universality...

Indeed, if your premise was correct, there would only be one religion in the world, one denomination, and one agreed upon belief. Even those who claim to arrive to conclusions through "deep meditation" dispute with each other about what is true or not.

You are arguing about knowledge for which there is no proof. You may think the self is an illusion, others will disagree. The same for the second statement, which itself seems to be self contradicting.

Science arrives at consensus, religion and other beliefs lead to division. This lends credence to the idea that those beliefs are not factually based, but subjective instead, and removed from reality.

[GliderGuider]

52. I did say "a *degree* of universality"

These perceptions are by no means absolutely universal, but they are widely shared and are not culture-specific, which is really what I was driving at.

I agree that most organized religions tend to lead to division, since they serve a major role as culturally normative institutions. As such they define in-groups and out-groups, and are inherently dualistic.

The kind of "knowledge" I was talking is philosophical rather than scientific or religious. It is shared by Zen and Madhyamika Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Jnana yoga etc., none of which are "religions".

This whole discussion seems to have run up on the reefs of semantics and value systems. "Knowledge" has many dictionary definitions:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

Wikipedia has this to say about it:

Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include information, facts, descriptions, and/or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology, and the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed upon definition of knowledge, and there are numerous theories to explain it.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.

Now, if your system only admits as "knowledge" those concepts that can be objectively verified, then that's an assumption that must be stated at the outset. Otherwise we get into bollixes like this, where I talk about things like the illusion of the self and you talk about things like the proof for the parallelism of lines. Just using the word "knowledge" doesn't really narrow the field very much - my "perception of the illusion of the self" qualifies as knowledge under all the definitions above except for #1.

There is no requirement for universal agreement or objective verifiability in order for a stipulation to qualify as "knowledge" in the general use of that term. Under your specific use, there may be such requirements. However, unless you make it abundantly clear from the beginning that you are narrowing the definition that way, you could legitimately be accused of rigging the discussion and laying traps for unwary souls who assume you're speaking in general, colloquial terms.

Again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with telling everyone you wish to confine the epistemological boundaries to knowledge that can be obtained and independently validated by objective means. Science makes that restriction abundantly clear. But to then apply the restriction to "knowledge" in general and then shitcan religion and philosophy for not meeting it makes for fairly limited discussions.

[qazplm]

61. quantum mechanics called

and they left a message saying it's pretty clear that the act of observing has an impact on the observed.

Your "knowing" through meditation is explicitly contradicted by about 80 years of direct scientific evidence and knowledge to the contrary. There is a difference between the observer and the observed, and that's ignoring day-to-day mundane evidence that everything I observe is different from me, from a single atom to another human being to a galaxy.

So, unless one purports to assert that there is no knowledge, or that all knowledge is equally true (I know white unicorns enter my stomach and turn my food into poop, surely you'd not agree that "knowledge" is valid), then one must admit and agree that some knowledge is based on reality/truth, and some "knowledge" is false, deluded or not real.

Thus, unless you disagree with that proposition, in which case one wonders how you would function in any manner whatsoever, then when you balance about 80 years of scientific testing and experimentation with the subjective experience of folks who meditate and discover "no different between the observer and the observed and the act of observing" it would appear to me that one side is really heavy and the other side is a bit light.

[GliderGuider]

62. It's worse than that

As mentioned in the other thread on this topic, the concept of "knowledge" is much slipperier than most people assume. So are the concepts of "reality" and "truth". All of these go quite fuzzy around the edges when they are examined rigorously. It's easy to toss such words around on the internet and pretend that they are absolutes, but it's another thing entirely to try and get this messy objective/subjective/Newtonian/quantum/discrete/holistic/independent/interdependent whatever-it-is we're living in to stay inside those nice neat lines.

Luckily there's lots of room for different interpretations. Take theoretical physicist David Bohm, for example:

"In the enfolded order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders."

"The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement. This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow". According to Bohm, a vivid image of this sense of analysis of the whole is afforded by vortex structures in a flowing stream. Such vortices can be relatively stable patterns within a continuous flow, but such an analysis does not imply that the flow patterns have any sharp division, or that they are literally separate and independently existent entities; rather, they are most fundamentally undivided. Thus, according to Bohm’s view, the whole is in continuous flux, and hence is referred to as the holomovement (movement of the whole)."

As far as I can tell, "the unity of observer, observed and observation" is, to torture a phrase, an obvious implication of the concept of implicate order. Is the "implicate order" knowledge? Well, Bohm thought so.

[qazplm]

63. and those concepts also arent as fuzzy

and slippery as others want to assume.
And Bohm? So what? You found someone with loopy ideas AND a PH.D in something. Awesome.

No one is doubting that folks can come up with different interpretations, but again not all of those interpretations are correct, so you must have some manner of sifting out right from wrong, or even more right from less right.

[GliderGuider]

64. Actually, I don't do much sifting any more.

I used to be a big sifter, but in the last few years I've come to care less about whether an idea is right or wrong, true or false, and more about what value it holds for me. This attitude even extends to belief. I'm practicing treating my beliefs like I treat my clothing - putting on what's appropriate for the situation, rather than forcing myself to wear one suit or defend a single position forever. I find that giving myself the freedom to adopt opposing beliefs increases the insights I can gain from life. It's quite liberating. I heartily recommend it, so long as you don't need to take yourself too seriously.

[qazplm]

65. I have no doubt

that you are more comforted when you can make reality be whatever you want it to be in your mind, ignorance is often bliss.

[GliderGuider]

66. You really don't know me very well, do you? nt

[qazplm]

68. well if you intend something

to be meant other than the plain meaning of your words then feel free to expand on it.

[GliderGuider]

69. No, the plain meaning works fine.

I will just point out that my plain word was "freedom". "Comfort" is your re-interpretation of of what I said. Oh, and I'm not altering "reality" in my mind - I'm altering my beliefs. There's a plain difference.

What aspect of my position represents "ignorance" to you?

[qazplm]

70. the aspect that says

"I've come to care less about whether an idea is right or wrong, true or false, and more about what value it holds for me."

The plain meaning of that is you prefer the value of an idea to you rather than whether it is true or false. The plain of your post is that you don't bother actually trying to find truth anymore, as you are not a big "sifter."

That's the definition of intentional ignorance.

Most folks find value in an idea when it's more likely to be true, or right. I find little value in false ideas or ideas that are wrong. The only time those ideas have much value is when they lead you to truth.

And you are "altering your beliefs" with a stated lack of care as to whether your beliefs have been altered based on truth or falsity, but simply how "valuable" that belief is to you.

[GliderGuider]

71. I found that clinging to beliefs was actually hurting me.

I spent a lot of years believing that I was holding only "right" beliefs and rejecting "wrong" ones. The sense of self-justification and personal pride that came from that was enormous, and sustained me for a long time.

Then I noticed that I was spending a lot of intellectual and emotional energy defending my "right" beliefs and attacking the "wrong" beliefs of others. More than that, I noticed that under the pride I had in my own beliefs and the self-righteousness I felt in setting others straight, I didn't actually feel all that good about my behaviour. Every time I got into an exchange like that I ended up feeling distant, disconnected and alienated. So I looked into why I felt compelled to "attack and defend" rather than "listen and share". After all, I rarely changed anyone else's mind, so my behaviour obviously had more to do with me than with them.

What I discovered was that I defined myself through my belief system - I was attached to my beliefs at a very deep psychological level because I felt they formed the core of my Self. As a result I perceived anything that called my beliefs into question as a threat to my sense of self. The reason I reacted so strongly was not because other people held the wrong beliefs, but because I was attached to my own beliefs.

So I experimented with allowing others to express their beliefs without trying to shut them down or change them. I discovered that whenever I did that I felt better about myself, and that I learned unexpected things from the encounters. The more I was able to accept that my beliefs did not constitute "Me", the less distress I felt around the beliefs of others.

It's an ongoing learning process, of course, with some major surprises along the way. I certainly didn't expect to arrive at a point where I actually want to give up all attachment to beliefs, or to be able to select beliefs at will like choosing filters to put in front of a camera lens. However, this is where my personal growth has brought me after 60 years of wrestling with the concept of belief.

Your own growth will probably take you in different directions - variety is, after all, one of the great qualities of life. What I wish is that we might all grow consciously and with authenticity, and along the way resolve some of the fears that keep all of us from realizing our full potential as human beings. Best of luck on the journey.

[qazplm]

72. patronizing and quite frankly silly

you select beliefs at will? How utterly random and senseless and not worthy of the clear moral superiority you seem to now "cling to."

You spent years believing you were holding only right beliefs? Again, just as silly. Most folks who are seeking right and truth know they don't possess it all or they wouldn't be seeking more of it.
Most folks engaging in sussing out fact from fiction are more than willing to change their beliefs not based on will or what makes them feel good, or what makes them connect with others but simply on what makes more logical sense, what the evidence at the time shows, or some other system of separating truth from false.

I feel little "distress" around others, that's your own thing. So much of that post is woo.

[Silent3]

75. You've made personal comfort the metric for truth

Or, perhaps more precisely, an excuse for lack of concern for truth.

That you readily admit to changing beliefs like you change clothing leads me to view anything your say about truth and belief as having about as much depth as a fashion magazine. You try to make this sound very noble, a way to be "open" and non-judgmental, but it's actually very self centered, making the reduction of your own inner turmoil the highest goal.

Maybe that's an effective way for some people to be happier, but it's a shallow philosophy, and I see little difference between that kind of thinking and using drugs to make yourself comfortably numb.

[GliderGuider]

76. No, I've discarded the notion of using "Truth" as a universal metric for acceptability.

IMO the concept of "Truth" is way more asymptotic and context-dependent than people realize. I also think that most people don't really use "truth" as a metric for their beliefs - even those who think they do. What they see as truth is largely the result of post-hoc rationalizations for unconscious decisions.

It's not happiness I'm after in this endeavour, but maximum value. Much of that value seems to be hidden in very uncomfortable places, psychologically speaking.

The reduction of inner turmoil isn't my highest goal. Calming the mind is an intermediate step that enables me to investigate the deeper reaches of myself with less interference and resistance from my protective ego-structures. The reduction in turmoil is in service of my highest goal, which is direct experience of the numinous.

It's the same goal held by most Eastern philosophies and the mystic branches of traditional Western religions. Given your probable background in Western materialism and your antipathy toward religions constructs in general, it's not surprising that you might reject the idea. No problem - I'm not urging you to become a Bodhisattva. I'm just trying to describe why this path has value for me personally.

[Silent3]

77. Do you fancy yourself a Bodhisattva? Perhaps a Bodhisattva in training?

That seems less a matter of getting ego out of the way, more a matter of transforming ego into a different form. There you are, bravely escaping your prejudices, casting off the terrible limits of "Western materialism", embarking on your bold journey of enlightenment.



Little doubt you have some very humble sounding reply ready to go for occasions like this.

[GliderGuider]

78. Nothing so exalted. I'm just a guy trying to get through life the best way I can.

Enlightenment is a mirage. Better that we pay attention to our footsteps as we take them. Keeping one's eye on distant goals is a sure way to guarantee a stumble. ;-)

[qazplm]

79. lol

so instead of risking a stumble, better to look down blindly moving forward in whatever direction you happen to be traveling, that's a brilliant way to go.

[bananas]

87. Ain't that the truth!

People always try to turn Joe Average into a f*cking Messiah!

[qazplm]

80. pretty sure

most eastern philosophies values truth as well...so your assertion is fairly baseless.

You confuse the value of truth and seeking truth with the fact that one cannot know the absolute complete truth and that folks don't always find the truth as they are searching for it or don't recognize it, two completely different things.

[GliderGuider]

81. Where did I say there was no value in seeking truth?

Seeking truth is a wonderful thing to do, so long as we don't expect our search to uncover it. Truth is kind of like enlightenment that way. Learning to recognize "the things you know that ain't so" (in the words of Mark Twain) is essential for personal growth.

[qazplm]

91. it feels like

much like you change your beliefs on a whim, that you change minds on a whim and thus one cannot trust the actual plain meaning of what you write because you will just say you don't really mean that soon after.

[GliderGuider]

92. If that's what you feel, you should trust your feelings.

I'm not selling anything here. If what I write isn't acceptable to you - for whatever reason - just ignore it. From your POV I'm just a construct of electrons and coloured light anyway. How hard can it be to ignore that?

[darkstar3]

44. Other: push poll.

They are different fields, but engineering is just applied science, and applied science uses a whole lot of math, and I wouldn't say those three fields have any "different ways of knowing". As for art and religion, they can provide interesting and different perspectives, but to call those "different ways of knowing" is to dissemble on the idea of knowledge.

When you can truly discern between inspiration, thought, and knowledge, you will approach the ability to rationally discuss the concept of "different ways of knowing".

[GliderGuider]

54. Be careful. You're assuming boundaries on the word "knowledge" that may not be justified.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=317165&mesg_id=317373

[darkstar3]

56. Be careful yourself, as you assume a fluidity to language that is unwarranted.

[GliderGuider]

57. Most people seriously underestimate the fluidity of language, especially in colloquial usage

That seems to be where most arguments start from.

[darkstar3]

58. I disagree.

Most endless arguments in this forum are due to the fact that some people treat language as more flexible than silly putty in order to fulfill their own sophomoric ends.

[GliderGuider]

60. Cool. That's how I see it too.

Though I suspect we'd disagree (endlessly) on who those people might be.

[bananas]

73. No, engineering is not "just applied science"

For example, Gliderguilder mentioned rings and groups, these are mathematical objects used in engineering.
Cell phones, disk drives, and dvd players use error-correcting codes based on polynomial rings, and to make sure they get it right, they will call in a mathematician, not a "scientist".

Wikipedia describes engineering as going way beyond "just applied science",
specifically including "mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize improvements to the lives of people.

"Design, so construed, is the core of all professional training; it is the principal mark that distinguishes the professions from the sciences."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

In The Sciences of the Artificial by polymath Herbert Simon the author asserts design to be a meta-discipline of all professions. "Engineers are not the only professional designers. Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. The intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state. Design, so construed, is the core of all professional training; it is the principal mark that distinguishes the professions from the sciences. Schools of engineering, as well as schools of architecture, business, education, law, and medicine, are all centrally concerned with the process of design."<29>

Different philosophical approaches lead to much different implementations, for example the differences between mac and pc, iphone and android, etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_engineering

Engineering is the profession charged by society with modifying the natural environment, through the design and manufacture of artifacts. It might then be contrasted with science, the aim of which is to understand nature. The philosophy of engineering is then the consideration of philosophical issues as they apply to engineering. Such issues might include the objectivity of experiments, the ethics of engineering activity in the workplace and in society, the aesthetics of engineered artifacts, etc.

<snip>

Ethics
Main article: Engineering ethics

What distinguishes engineering design from artistic design is the requirement for the engineer to make quantitative predictions of the behavior and effect of the artifact prior to its manufacture. Such predictions may be more or less accurate but should include the effects on individuals and society. In this sense, engineering must be considered a social as well a technological discipline and judged not just by whether its artifacts work, in a narrow sense, but also by how they influence and serve social values. What engineers do is always subject to moral evaluation.<1>

<snip>

Science deals with simplified approximations to the real world in controlled experiments,
engineering deals directly with the real world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

In the book What Engineers Know and How They Know It,<29> Walter Vincenti asserts that engineering research has a character different from that of scientific research. First, it often deals with areas in which the basic physics and/or chemistry are well understood, but the problems themselves are too complex to solve in an exact manner.

Examples are the use of numerical approximations to the Navier-Stokes equations to describe aerodynamic flow over an aircraft, or the use of Miner's rule to calculate fatigue damage. Second, engineering research employs many semi-empirical methods that are foreign to pure scientific research, one example being the method of parameter variation.

<snip>

Although engineering solutions make use of scientific principles, engineers must also take into account safety, efficiency, economy, reliability and constructibility or ease of fabrication, as well as legal considerations such as patent infringement or liability in the case of failure of the solution.

<snip>

There are connections between engineering and art;<40> they are direct in some fields, for example, architecture, landscape architecture and industrial design (even to the extent that these disciplines may sometimes be included in a University's Faculty of Engineering); and indirect in others.<40><41><42><43>

<snip>

Among famous historical figures Leonardo Da Vinci is a well known Renaissance artist and engineer, and a prime example of the nexus between art and engineering.<31><47>

<snip>

[darkstar3]

74. I have a BSME. Don't tell me my business.

As the old saying goes...

"X is really Y, Y is really Z, Z is really math, and math is really hard."

EX: Biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really math...

Take the transition far enough and it all comes down to math.

[bananas]

86. I guess there's not much room for aesthetics in mechanicle engineering

but I'm glad you say "it all comes down to math",
because that furthers my point.

[darkstar3]

93. Actually, it shoots your point in the foot, since math is in no way "a different way of knowing".

But seeing as how you're trying, above, to use the results of this poll (a completely unscientific one, at that) as support of the idea that different ways of knowing exist, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. I can't believe you don't understand how such a claim is laughable in debate, in logic, in math, in science, in life.

[bananas]

96. Mathematical proofs are qualitatively different from scientific proofs.

And the knowledge gained from a mathematical proof is qualitatively different from the knowledge gained from a scientific proof.

For one thing, mathematical proofs are exact, while scientific proofs can only be accurate to within experimental error.

Example: The recent OPERA results confirm prior MINOS results showing neutrino velocity >c, yet many scientists still don't believe that neutrinos go faster than light. Lubos Motls has even stated that he won't believe it if the results are replicated by other labs.

[rrneck]

49. Mind if I fool around with your subject line?

Art, Math, Science, Engineering, Religion are different fields with different ways of knowing different things.

I'm a little surprised that with all this talk of knowledge, nobody has consulted a dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge
obsolete : cognizance
2
a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
3
archaic : sexual intercourse
4
a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

[GliderGuider]

55. Ah. That's better :-)

There's lots of loosey-goosey self-serving semantics in this thread. God created dictionaries for a reason... :evilgrin:

[MarkCharles]

50. Let's go even further than our friend, Darkstar's push poll

Expeiencing, appreciating, being inspired by, connecting the dots, even remembering, laughing at, being amazed by,


Those are not "knowledge" and "knowing" is the ability to learn and retain "knowledge"

We all "learned" the 50 state capitals in school. But few of us "know" all 50 now. But there is "knowledge" and "facts" that 50 states all have capitals, and we can re-learn them.

We can see a film, a play, a concert and be inspired, amused, brought to tears, entertained. That is part of the experience of life, but it is not "knowledge" of the event, film, play, concert. It is an experience in our mind that we "know" some things about, that we remember. Likewise for books, journal articles, even religious events or services, or religious readings. We can EXPERIENCE those, and they can give us pause, but we don't learn "knowledge" from them. We merely experience them, and might or might not be moved, motivated, challenged, amused, befuddled, confused, restored, or many other human reactions to them. But we don't "know" them, and we don't gain "knowledge" from them. They are merely ways of experiencing. Knowledge, they are NOT!

[rrneck]

59. Please see post #49. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. Only science/maths helps you know things.

The only valid source of factual knowledge is science, or things compatible with science.

Philosophy is a way of understanding things, not of answering factual questions. It's very valuable, but what it provides isn't usually knowledge.
Religion is a way of misunderstanding things, and promoting wrong answers to factual questions with extreme confidence. It's worthless and harmful.

Art can provide insights into things, but need not and usually doesn't.

[spin]

83. Science and math often deceive us into believing that we understand something ...

when in fact we don't. The more we learn the more we realize just how little we actually know. Quantum physics is an example.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

Sometime in the far future we may learn just how right Einstein was.

[skepticscott]

97. You have no clue

of the irony involved in your claiming that we don't understand anything about quantum physics as you type on a computer, do you?

And sometime in the far future, we may have no more reason to think Einstein was right by declaration than we do now.

[Demstud]

89. Math, Science, important to Engineering, and usually interrelate... even art and religion to a point

Math and Science are part of art and religion on some level too, at least if you start looking at it from a perspective of why do humans produce art and worship deities or nature. You start looking at how the brain physically functions, genetics, and so on. Religion can be looked at as a way to fill gaps in scientific knowledge too, as it's mostly concerned with questions such as how we got here, what happens to our consciousness when we die, and so on. Early religions were likely often started as attempts to answer questions that we now answer with scientific study, like "What is the big glowing ball in the sky?" and built up from there.

[MarkCharles]

90. Different methodologies, techniques, and disciplines, perhaps, but certainly NOT

leading to separate and distinct bodies of what is "known", now what is "knowledge", nor goes beyond examination from each and every one of the other methodologies and techniques.