 |
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
So you dismiss Eastern philosophies' ability to ponder the inponderable?
Gee, seemed to work for ancient Mediterreanian thinkers and seems to be accepted by modern Western Science as "a good start." Double standard, methinks... |
? I am not doubting out of hand. nevertheless the proofs that they provided are not the standard of today. and eastern philosophies ponderings while interesting could not stack up against today's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
todays modern science. forgot end.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
St. Leo et al., allow me to direct your attention to The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. He makes a strong example of my arguement by showing the similarities between modern quatum physics and ancient Taoist, Buddhist, and even Hindu thought.
It's an excellent read, and is what introduced me to Taoism, which I now make attempts to follow. Though, saying that is probably contrary to the philosophy...  |
Yes, but let it be remarked that it is Western investigations of quantum mechanics that lead to the internet 80 years later, while 2,500 years after Zeno, the Eastern "Philosophers" still have yet to use their knowledge to develop a computer - or even to feed themselves, actually.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
JohnT, given the willingness of many Westerners (not all or even most), both religious AND scientific, to dismiss Eastern philosophies as nothing more than mystical rubbish, Godless heathenism, or Satanic worship, instead of acknowledging that EPs were off to the same start as Western thinkers, yes I find it necessary to point it out. For reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread and beyond my ability to discuss based on my acedemic studies, the East didn't flourish in science as readily as the West, despite their early similarities in thought.
There IS a bias in modern Western scientific thought against Eastern philosophies. Only in recent decades has anyone really put that aside to really look into and see past those biases.
Perhaps I rushed a little with the Zeno reference, but it has become an automatic response whenever quantum physics comes up and I see it. It's too easy to forget the East. They may have slowed their advance, but they've understood the underlining concepts just as long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alva
|
 |
Republic of Flanders
Sep 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
Is there a pop-up book that explains some of this stuff?
* alva feels like Homer with these threads..
Last edited by alva on 02-08-2003 at 08:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
If aristotle would of tested his BS he would of been right a lot more often.  |
Look this really pisses me off. How much Aristotle have you actually read? And how much of it in the original language. None, I'll bet.
Most of the things that Aristotle is accused of he never said. I don't believe I've ever come across him making the claim about falling objects that is often attributed to him.
In fact if you read Aristotle you would see that he is quite meticulous about observation, he invented the science of biology and has accounts of all the various sorts of animals and attempts to provide classifications for them.
I'll say this again: you cannot accuse Aristotle and other ancient thinkers of being stupid simply because they differed with contemporary science. None of these guys had access to the technology that has been available since the renaissance. Do you think that Aristotle wouldn't have loved to have had a microscope? These guys didn't have the ability to make such observations, so they were forced to rely on reason
Frankly the scientific revolution of Galileo's time represented a kind of dumbing down of natural philosophy (science) and eventually led to the sceptical problems that beset empiricist theories - it's precisely by ignoring these problems and focusing on practical gains at the expense of theoretical unity that western science made its great advances. For someone like Aristotle, who was trying to fit absolutely everything into one grand unified theory, such slipshod practice would have been unthinkable. But then again, that was the method that his dearth of instruments forced on him - and frankly it made it harder for him.
Aristotle took a more common sense approach, he was a scientific realist - he thought that the mind could apprehend what was really in nature, rather than make speculative guesses on the basis of meagre evidence. That's the under appreciated difference between Greek science and the modern version.
Slagging him off as stupid while being in complete or near complete ignorance of his work is just unfair and totally out of order. There has probably never existed another individual who was as smart as Aristotle - he often manages to say more in a page than most thinkers do in a book. He was the first person to think systematically about science and its methods, logic, aesthetic theory and countless other things. Don't be uncharitable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
From the original quote:
quote:
Lynds' solution to the Achilles and the tortoise paradox, submitted to Philosophy of Science, helped explain the work.
|
quote:
Lynds' solution to all of the paradoxes lay in the realisation of the absence of an instant in time underlying a bodies motion and that its position was constantly changing over time and never determined.
|
After reading something like that, my BSdar brays a shrill buzz.
Solution to the paradoxes?? Did these paradoxes really need a solution? Aren't they solvable within a classical approach (a convergent infinite series, as St Leo pointed out)? In this context, you really start to wonder whether the referee that made the following judgement was right:
quote:
"I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading further, and recommend terminal rejection."
|
Perhaps it would be more correct to speak about Linds' take on the paradoxes within the framework of his concept of time (but not a solution to the paradoxes!). But then, if time is not continuous, it seems that the very formulation of the paradoxes loses its original meaning. Then it's not quite clear what we are talking about.
Anyhow the ideas like Linds' certainly have the right to exist. However, to realize them in a mathematical form, a hell of mathematical apparatus is needed. Did Linds provide at least some preliminary mathematical formulation in his paper? If not, any comparison with Einstein's 1905 paper is not appropriate.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003 07:04
at times. 
|