Its very easy. Avoid unsubstantiated claims about reality, and clearly state when you are speculating.

I have known a great many very intelligent, reality-oriented, well educated, 'skeptics' who would gleefully and honestly examine a wide variety of truly outlandish propositions. Reality-oriented people, as a whole, are not crippled in their ability to engage in conjecture. Many of them simply find it unpleasant/undesirable for themselves (or others) to overstate the case.

*** Thank you for your pseudo-intellectual comment! However, I fail to see how is it related to my personal reaction to the Abra's thought? I mean, I haven't intended postulating any rules of interconnectedness -- if your good in either science or philosophy, your guaranteed to be a good person -- or anything of the sort...
You, probably, overanalyzed my statement, and twisted it into some kind of a cause (science/philosophy mastery) and effect (becomming a good person) -- I made No such generalization, sorry!

I agree. I enjoy speculative thought. I enjoy far reaching creative thinking. I value any honest opinion no matter how "out of the box" it might be. However, I have no use for BS being pushed as fact, especially scientific fact or opinion being pushed as scientific fact.

Like this?

<SPECULATION>

The nature of reality is dependent on the observer and all that you see touch, taste, hear, and smell are vibrations of light and sound. Therefore, a holographic model of reality is likely.

</SPECULATION>

we have plastic models of real things. clay figurines that model real people. we have holograms that model real things. i see no conflict here.

Jane, it was just an observation and no twisting or generalization meant . It was the heat of the debate..... ..

Oh, in that case -- "It was the heat of the debate..." -- your absolutely right:


Often, the same happens to me (when I have "heat")!

If you are asking if this is an example of what I meant, above, then no, its not... though I see that I didn't express myself very well.

You statements may be valid on its own terms, and I'm not intending to criticize, and I wouldn't make the following comments except that you seem be asking me if this statement by you, above, is an example of what I meant in my earlier statements.

This sentence...

"The nature of reality is dependent on the observer and all that you see touch, taste, hear, and smell are vibrations of light and sound."

...is phrased as a declaration of fact. It might be true, but the word choice and phrasing suggest the speaker is not posing a question or examining a possibility, they are stating something they consider definitely true. This is very unlike the way my very intelligent and open minded acquaintences would present something, when they are engaged in speculation.

"Therefore, a holographic model of reality is likely. "

This sentence structure and word choice imply the speaker believes they are making a logical proof. The aforementioned acquaintances, while skilled at logic, were cautious about what they would consider strong chain of logical reasoning, and would only use such language with extreme care. Further, you state a conclusion in very definitive terms. True, you say 'likely' rather than 'definite', buts its definite that you consider it likely.

It is not only by overtly stating that they were speculating that those people made it clear they were speculating - they also made it clear by every aspect of their phrasing.

I have made it a habit to state things in a positive manner as if they were a fact when I really don't know for sure. Perhaps it is a bad habit and one that I should change, but I find that there are so many 'unsure' people in the world who lack any confidence in what they do and believe that sometimes it is nice to express confidence in your convictions even if they might be wrong, and it is nice to be around someone who seems confident and positive about things and situations.

I have felt I was right many times, when I was very wrong.

If you believe something, and you want someone else to believe it or consider it, and you state your belief in a way that does not show confidence, you will probably not convince anyone or inspire much confidence.

Some people in dire straits might say "Everything is going to be alright." when they don't have a clue if everything will be alright or not, they just want to give comfort to someone and say something positive. And sometimes it is nice to hear a positive statement like that than someone screaming, "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!"

Belief itself is a powerful force in this reality and if you can get someone to believe something, it can sometimes manifest that thing into actuality. This is one of the powerful tools used in a negative way called advertising and even propaganda. But if this was not a powerful tool, they would not use it.

So if people use this tool for advertising and propaganda, you can be sure that it is used by a lot of people in their daily lives. You can instill doubt or you can build confidence. You can express your doubts or you can express confidence.

True confidence is a rare thing and very few people have that. They need confidence and I think when they practice expressing a more confident thought that they can instill belief in themselves and actually begin to gain more confidence.

We all know where our doubts and fears lie. Does that mean we should express them all the time?

Does a man who is courting a woman express to her all his doubts and fears about their life together? No, he attempts to convince her how wonderful it will be. Just think if she were to ask, "Will we be happy together?" and he would say: "I'm skeptical." or "the odds are against that."

Back to "Science vs. Philosophy" I have to admit that I have doubts if I even know what philosophy is.

Frankly, comming from You, that's a surprise... After all, you've been doing fine all along! -- just speaking your mind out (educating the unenlightened)!

Don't let the momentary "down period" spoil your cheerful outlook!!!

(besides, you gotta take care of all of the unenlightened...)

Yes. After all, the ants can't have their godess doubting herself.

Well I used to think I knew what it was, but with all these scientific types making rules about logic and proof etc. I'm getting confused about what philosophy is exactly.

I know what you mean. I think of it as the difference between agreement ("what is it?") and imagination ("what could it be?"). In that sense, science and logic start with philosophy.

Beware of people who think they own the patent rights on logic. They can become quite arrogant and immature about it.

I've never seen you say anything that is illogical. I understand logic quite well, and I'm fully aware that logic depends on the underlying premises that a philosopher begins with.

Since I understand your underlying premises I have no problem following your logic.

I think the people who are being unrealistic are those people who demand that we all start out with the premise that the world is entirely physical and everything must be explained via physics.

It's no wonder their logic is going to differ from yours. It's based on an entirely different assumption.

They've assumed a physical foundation for a world that gives rise to conciousness.

You assume a conscious foundation for a world that give rise to physicality.

Therefore your basis for conciousness is necessarily "spiritual" or "etheral" which is something that they have flately reject by unproven premise.

They have no basis for that unproven premises. Their only argument there is that they aren't intelligent enough to imagine anything better.

You have an ability to out-imagine them. So they weep, and complain that they can't comprehend your views. They try to pretend that you are being 'illogical' simply because they can't comprehend you way of thinking.

Don't allow such inferior thinkers to bring you down.

It's their limitation. It doesn't need to be yours.

“Illogical Captain”

The “mechanical” application of logic – famously championed by the half-Vulcan Mr. Spock from the television series Star Trek – appears alien to some, to others a sign of distinctively human rationality.




Even Spock was known to be wrong at times. Good old Captain Kirk has shown it in a few episodes.