Maybe this post can be used as a reflections of how you deal with logic and faith (unlogic). After that, let people know what you think. Just see how you react to this post.If you're very religious people (almost fanatic) then I guess your reaction will be very different to those who think more logical in response to various occurrence in these universe or even to your daily life. Take an example on a plane crash. Logical approach would yield the answer that lead to "human error" or "engine failure" and then find ideas to fix it. Religious approach will yield the answer that lead to "God wills (fate)". Or... perhaps you are in between them which it called moderate.
Can you compare or even combine the two of the flowchart above? If you can, then I will say you are being in best efforts. Why? Because... even sophisticated computer was run based on the combination of two signals namely positive and negative. What distinguishes human from robot is a human have the ability to trust in things beyond logic which it called instinct / beliefs / feelings. What distinguishes human from animal is a human have the ability to think logically to overcome the wild instinct / beliefs / feelings.
That is why the Yin & Yang symbol came from. Never ignored both positive and negative. Never ignored both daylight and night. Never ignored that you have brain and heart. Just combine them in one unity in your soul and body and I calls it the perfect combination ever. This post does not intend to steer you to certain beliefs, but only to stimulate your mind to reach the
equilibrium degree. How according to you?
Image taken from:
* http://www.blackironprison.com/index.php?title=Image:Science-vs-religion.jpg#filehistory
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yin_and_Yang.svg
As an R&D professional, I will add a few variations based on experience to the Science chart. First, between "Get Idea" and "Perform Experiment", more than 99% of the time there is a break because of the inability to perform the experiment. How many people do you know who repeated the big bang in their back yard?! Then the "Perform Experiment" also has a huge failure rate as anyone in a college chemistry lab knows, but they are given well designed experiments to repeat using adequate equipment. In general 99% of the experiments also result in anomalies of some sort, whether it is a poorly designed experiment that gives something useless, or perhaps the data is too complex to digest, or something isn't right, or ... Sometimes a bad experiment accidentally gives a result that is similar to the theory, which can either be purely accidental or deliberate ... ! A recent example of this is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955142,00.html
There are also a horde of other potential problems. The theory may have numerous facets of which only one or two are amenable to experiments, leading to unwarranted confidence. The end result is not nearly so neat as the chart on the left implies!
Harold Kroto, who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, talks about scientific uncertainty in the August 28 edition of Science News:
ReplyDelete"I have a four-out-of-five rule for scientific method. Here it is: If you make an observation, develop a theory you think can explain it. Then design some further experiments to test the validity of that theory. If four observations out of five fit, the theory is almost, and I stress almost, certainly right. If only one out of five fits, the theory is almost, almost certainly wrong. We can never say it was wrong. But we can say it’s almost certainly wrong. We must leave the way open for that element of doubt...."
That's the problem with talking about global warming...the consensus of scientists is that it is happening and the effects may be severe. But they can't predict with certainty exactly what will happen.
I personally don't think intuition and logic are at odds. In solving creative problems one always generates new ideas using intuition. Then if one is sensible one checks those ideas against facts.
I wrote a long comment but it has disappeared!
ReplyDeleteA tantalizing post and a very useful comment by Looney. It's great to combine science and faith. It's great as well to use one's irrational intuition, imagination and creativity to bring about change. As long as one recognizes that faith, intuition, imagination are not necessarily based on facts.
ReplyDeleteHumans do indeed have the 'ability' "to trust in things beyond logic which it called instinct / beliefs / feelings". But I would like to add that unfortunately it sometimes also means that humans trust myths, Fata Morganas and even self deception are facts.
Man I’m impressed with this informative blog, and in fact you have a genius mind. keep up the good work.
ReplyDeletethanks for the post.
@ Looney,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to a very interesting story. Really a shameful fraud to science.
@ Cheerful Monk,
That is shows either science or religion are same, complex.
About global warming ... I follow the consensus of scientists as well as the religious consensus who said it's a sign that doomsday will come. I think both of them has shouted the good thing to encourages human to care about the environment, no matter whether the predictions are still vague than not doing anything. ;)
I don't know why your previous comment was automatically considered as spam by www.blogspot.com in my blog. Blogspot has made an improvement to its commenting system. I found your comment in spam moderation and immediately approved it as soon as I found it
@ Colson,
The ability to believe the myth is also an evidence that humans are different from robot and animal. What's interesting is how very religious people react to science to answer a classic question: Is God exists?
@ Stela James,
Thanks for your compliment. I really hope you are willing to join to our discussion.
Tikno, you never fail to amaze me. A philosopher yet! Great post. Hope to see more.
ReplyDeleteI think, on the Faith chart, they do not always strictly keep the idea forever. For instance, in the medieval times, when geocentricism was still the main idea of the solar system and when eventually Galileo Galilei rejected the idea by embracing Copernican theory of heliocentricism, the Roman Catholic church decried Galileo's works. But as our scientific instruments improved and the heliocentricism's physical proof became evident and the church eventually realised that there's no more room to keep geocentricism, they finally recognised heliocentricism.
ReplyDeleteOf course, they did not rewrite anything on the holy book but the best thing they could do was to let people do free interpretations on the ideas from the holy book to meet new physical evidence in modern sciences. Of course, occurrences like this above can take place at any religions not only at RC church.
@ Rummuser,
ReplyDeleteOh dear, you flatter me too much. I'm just an ordinary man who found a place to release my mind into digital world as it was written on the blog's header.
@ Yari NK,
Whether not rewrite anything can be said just keep the idea forever in the holy book? :)
Gosh, luckily science still can not prove scientifically that God exists. ha...ha...
Hi Tikno,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post.
Have a nice day.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@ H. Nizam,
ReplyDeleteThank you for stopping by.
@ Tomjay,
Sorry to remove your comments. I'm not interested on any affiliate marketing, except Google AdSense.
Thanks Tikno, A very important debate a good post and some quality comment. Science is superior, despite the criminal element (nice link Looney) because it asks questions and admits it's answers can be wrong. Religions however are based on wilful lies made by dishonest people who know they can get rich manipulating ordinary people, often on behalf of dictators who do NOT want a populace to respect honest enquiry - about anything.
ReplyDeleteCorfubob,
ReplyDeleteI can feel your mind is more inclined towards logical thinking (science). Why you are so skeptical against religion?