|
Political Science v Philosophy
Bahamut.Serj
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2010-11-01 01:29:59
I beat you (albeit with a simpler response) Anye!
サーバ: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4118
By Ramuh.Thunderz 2010-11-01 01:31:29
Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise
So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:32:05
Bahamut.Serj said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic.
Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute.
law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity
these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
Quantum physics says "Hi!" with all of it's paradoxes.
/luck on last I checked (may be wrong) but quantum physics is a theory.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:33:04
Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise
So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor.
yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:34:34
Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Bahamut.Serj
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2010-11-01 01:35:39
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Wat
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-11-01 01:35:59
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion.
You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man.
Ragnarok.Anye
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5449
By Ragnarok.Anye 2010-11-01 01:36:36
Bahamut.Serj said: I beat you (albeit with a simpler response) Anye! Should I add more QQ's to the edited addendum of my post? :<
Carbuncle.Sevourn
サーバ: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9481
By Carbuncle.Sevourn 2010-11-01 01:37:31
Bahamut.Serj said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Wat
exactly.
there isn't some magical system where theories evolve into laws like pokemans
they are different things entirely
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.html
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:39:02
Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion.
You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man. religions are created by people, I'm not blaming anything here, just saying that religion operates solely on blind faith, and that blind faith plagues man-kind. So basically MAN(women too) needs to get rid of religion.
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-11-01 01:41:09
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion. You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man. religions are created by people, I'm not blaming anything here, just saying that religion operates solely on blind faith, and that blind faith plagues man-kind. So basically MAN(women too) needs to get rid of religion.
Religion doesn't cause blind faith, man has blind faith. The action is being done by man. Religion does not grant us the capacity to have blind faith, so religion is not responsible for it. Once again, even without religion you'd still have blind faith and people being closed minded.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:41:39
Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Bahamut.Serj said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Wat
exactly.
there isn't some magical system where theories evolve into laws
they are different things entirely
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.htmlif you can entirely prove a theory it becomes a law, but to do so would require to know more than we know now, and quite frankly it's unlikely. Science is a never ending quest for knowledge, so much fun.
Carbuncle.Sevourn
サーバ: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9481
By Carbuncle.Sevourn 2010-11-01 01:42:37
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Bahamut.Serj said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Wat
exactly.
there isn't some magical system where theories evolve into laws
they are different things entirely
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.htmlif you can entirely prove a theory it becomes a law, but to do so would require to know more than we know now, and quite frankly it's unlikely. Science is a never ending quest for knowledge, so much fun.
no that is a common misconception
read the link
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:42:46
Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion. You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man. religions are created by people, I'm not blaming anything here, just saying that religion operates solely on blind faith, and that blind faith plagues man-kind. So basically MAN(women too) needs to get rid of religion.
Religion doesn't cause blind faith, man has blind faith. The action is being done by man. Religion does not grant us the capacity to have blind faith, so religion is not responsible for it. Once again, even without religion you'd still have blind faith and people being closed minded. ok, we need to get rid of blind faith, but by doing so we'd still get rid of religion (since all it is is organized blind faith). You're splitting hairs.
Bahamut.Serj
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2010-11-01 01:42:55
Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Serj said: I beat you (albeit with a simpler response) Anye! Should I add more QQ's to the edited addendum of my post? :<
I saw them xD you're good =P
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:45:06
Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Bahamut.Serj said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: you can recreate any event that science claims as a fact, science isn't blind faith to say so is *** moronic. Also any part of science where somebody takes the scientific communities word for it, it's not blind faith, because they publish evidence, it's not their fault one may be unable to comprehend it. I really don't know where you're getting this. No scientist ever acknowledges his or her results as fact, just supporting evidence for a theory. You can recreate some experiments depending on the science, but even in a controlled environment, things are never exact, nor absolute. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity these are facts and are testable by scientists and in most cases by "normal" people alike.
I'm not sure you can even use physics to calculate the universe. For example if the universe contains everything then what is it expanding into? We clearly have made a lot of assumptions in science.
that's why those assumptions remain as theories.
Wat
exactly.
there isn't some magical system where theories evolve into laws
they are different things entirely
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.htmlif you can entirely prove a theory it becomes a law, but to do so would require to know more than we know now, and quite frankly it's unlikely. Science is a never ending quest for knowledge, so much fun.
no that is a common misconception
read the link hmm, fair enough.
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-11-01 01:47:08
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion. You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man. religions are created by people, I'm not blaming anything here, just saying that religion operates solely on blind faith, and that blind faith plagues man-kind. So basically MAN(women too) needs to get rid of religion. Religion doesn't cause blind faith, man has blind faith. The action is being done by man. Religion does not grant us the capacity to have blind faith, so religion is not responsible for it. Once again, even without religion you'd still have blind faith and people being closed minded. ok, we need to get rid of blind faith, but by doing so we'd still get rid of religion (since all it is is organized blind faith). You're splitting hairs.
Would we? I wonder what else we'd have to get rid of. Maybe Government, Laws, etc. These are all ideas created by society and standards. Having faith in them is pretty blind isn't it? You're trusting the benevolence of somebody else.
Ragnarok.Anye
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5449
By Ragnarok.Anye 2010-11-01 01:48:27
I dug up a quote I stated a long time ago; just thought I'd add to the discussion and then get to bed.
Ragnarok.Anye said: Given that truth is that which is immutable, irrefutable, and absolute--the consummate representation of all that exists--it is undeniable that we are only aware of but a fraction of truth.
The way I've always seen it, is that faith (in the religious sense) and truth are not mutually exclusive in the way that truth and non-truth are mutually exclusive. Faith is the innate trust that there exists something beyond the physical, mental, and emotional realms--the spiritual.
Regarding different faiths, however, one must keep in mind that while each person is able to comprehend truth and faith at such a minute level, each person is limited to a singular point of view, which is--undeniably--mutable, refutable, and, at times, erroneous.
As a result, science relates to the exploration of tangible truth, while religion the exploration of spiritual truth.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 01:54:53
Ragnarok.Anye said: I dug up a quote I stated a long time ago; just thought I'd add to the discussion and then get to bed.
Ragnarok.Anye said: Given that truth is that which is immutable, irrefutable, and absolute--the consummate representation of all that exists--it is undeniable that we are only aware of but a fraction of truth.
The way I've always seen it, is that faith (in the religious sense) and truth are not mutually exclusive in the way that truth and non-truth are mutually exclusive. Faith is the innate trust that there exists something beyond the physical, mental, and emotional realms--the spiritual.
Regarding different faiths, however, one must keep in mind that while each person is able to comprehend truth and faith at such a minute level, each person is limited to a singular point of view, which is--undeniably--mutable, refutable, and, at times, erroneous.
As a result, science relates to the exploration of tangible truth, while religion the exploration of spiritual truth. isn't this assuming that people actually have spirits?
Ragnarok.Anye
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5449
By Ragnarok.Anye 2010-11-01 02:00:02
Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: I dug up a quote I stated a long time ago; just thought I'd add to the discussion and then get to bed.
Ragnarok.Anye said: Given that truth is that which is immutable, irrefutable, and absolute--the consummate representation of all that exists--it is undeniable that we are only aware of but a fraction of truth.
The way I've always seen it, is that faith (in the religious sense) and truth are not mutually exclusive in the way that truth and non-truth are mutually exclusive. Faith is the innate trust that there exists something beyond the physical, mental, and emotional realms--the spiritual.
Regarding different faiths, however, one must keep in mind that while each person is able to comprehend truth and faith at such a minute level, each person is limited to a singular point of view, which is--undeniably--mutable, refutable, and, at times, erroneous.
As a result, science relates to the exploration of tangible truth, while religion the exploration of spiritual truth. isn't this assuming that people actually have spirits? No; this is assuming that those who read it have the perspective that spirits actually exist.
Otherwise it is complete meaningless blather.
It's alllll about perspective, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that no one perspective has a grasp on absolute truth.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 02:00:59
Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Thunderz said: Science is typically based on evidence but when it goes to things they cant test in a lab they have to revert to theory and hypothesis and the rule is... this is what we think the result should be until proven otherwise So yeah that is that. Back to the OPs question, Start looking into other majors if law does not interest you anymore... you can always take psy as a minor. yeah, the point I should have made was that science makes no major claims they can't back up, unlike religion. You act as if religion is a living breathing and thinking thing. Religion is a noun but it is not a person. To blame religion for anything is stupid because religion is responsible for nothing. If you missuse anything it will have harmful effects. Maybe you should amend your stance to just be stupid people. Stupid people harm society, religion itself is harmless and meaningless. Religion is an idea and humans are the required vehical to put that idea into motion. In fact religion was created by humans so you can't even blame religion for its own creation. The problem comes down to man, not to religion, because religion is a product of man. religions are created by people, I'm not blaming anything here, just saying that religion operates solely on blind faith, and that blind faith plagues man-kind. So basically MAN(women too) needs to get rid of religion. Religion doesn't cause blind faith, man has blind faith. The action is being done by man. Religion does not grant us the capacity to have blind faith, so religion is not responsible for it. Once again, even without religion you'd still have blind faith and people being closed minded. ok, we need to get rid of blind faith, but by doing so we'd still get rid of religion (since all it is is organized blind faith). You're splitting hairs.
Would we? I wonder what else we'd have to get rid of. Maybe Government, Laws, etc. These are all ideas created by society and standards. Having faith in them is pretty blind isn't it? You're trusting the benevolence of somebody else. Negative.
believing in something regardless of the facts is very different than believing in something based upon facts.
Take that I have faith in society to keep doing what they always do, because they've always done it is very different than one believing in let's say the bible, regardless of the facts.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 02:02:18
Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: I dug up a quote I stated a long time ago; just thought I'd add to the discussion and then get to bed.
Ragnarok.Anye said: Given that truth is that which is immutable, irrefutable, and absolute--the consummate representation of all that exists--it is undeniable that we are only aware of but a fraction of truth.
The way I've always seen it, is that faith (in the religious sense) and truth are not mutually exclusive in the way that truth and non-truth are mutually exclusive. Faith is the innate trust that there exists something beyond the physical, mental, and emotional realms--the spiritual.
Regarding different faiths, however, one must keep in mind that while each person is able to comprehend truth and faith at such a minute level, each person is limited to a singular point of view, which is--undeniably--mutable, refutable, and, at times, erroneous.
As a result, science relates to the exploration of tangible truth, while religion the exploration of spiritual truth. isn't this assuming that people actually have spirits? No; this is assuming that those who read it have the perspective that spirits actually exist.
Otherwise it is complete meaningless blather.
It's alllll about perspective, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that no one perspective has a grasp on absolute truth.
Difference is, religions say they do.
Bismarck.Helixx
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 266
By Bismarck.Helixx 2010-11-01 02:03:20
how will society benefit from another political science / philosiphy guy...
Unless you have wealthy parents and good conections to help you find a placement with your majors, start filling out your application to McDonalds.
Not trying to troll, but here in germany, over 60% of all philosopers, after 5 years after graduation have no job.
Less than 1% of engineers don't have a job after 5 years.
[+]
Carbuncle.Sevourn
サーバ: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9481
By Carbuncle.Sevourn 2010-11-01 02:04:33
Bismarck.Helixx said:
how will society benefit from another political science / philosiphy guy...
Unless you have wealthy parents and good conections to help you find a placement with your majors, start filling out your application to McDonalds.
Not trying to troll, but here in germany, over 60% of all philosopers, after 5 years after graduation have no job.
Less than 1% of engineers don't have a job after 5 years.
i like that picture XD
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-11-01 02:07:23
Bismarck.Helixx said: how will society benefit from another political science / philosiphy guy... Unless you have wealthy parents and good conections to help you find a placement with your majors, start filling out your application to McDonalds. Not trying to troll, but here in germany, over 60% of all philosopers, after 5 years after graduation have no job. Less than 1% of engineers don't have a job after 5 years.
I've been thinkin of doing mathmatics or engineering but i dont like how specialized it is. I'd like a degree that knows a decent bit about everything. Right now i study law/politics and in my spare time i teach myself upper level math.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-11-01 02:18:22
Ragnarok.Anye said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ragnarok.Anye said: I dug up a quote I stated a long time ago; just thought I'd add to the discussion and then get to bed.
Ragnarok.Anye said: Given that truth is that which is immutable, irrefutable, and absolute--the consummate representation of all that exists--it is undeniable that we are only aware of but a fraction of truth.
The way I've always seen it, is that faith (in the religious sense) and truth are not mutually exclusive in the way that truth and non-truth are mutually exclusive. Faith is the innate trust that there exists something beyond the physical, mental, and emotional realms--the spiritual.
Regarding different faiths, however, one must keep in mind that while each person is able to comprehend truth and faith at such a minute level, each person is limited to a singular point of view, which is--undeniably--mutable, refutable, and, at times, erroneous.
As a result, science relates to the exploration of tangible truth, while religion the exploration of spiritual truth. isn't this assuming that people actually have spirits? No; this is assuming that those who read it have the perspective that spirits actually exist.
Otherwise it is complete meaningless blather.
It's alllll about perspective, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fact that no one perspective has a grasp on absolute truth. so since I don't have the perspective that spirits actually exist (because there's no reason to) then it's meaning blather, ok.
Working on it, working on it.
Bismarck.Helixx
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 266
By Bismarck.Helixx 2010-11-01 02:38:43
Phoenix.Excelior said: Bismarck.Helixx said: how will society benefit from another political science / philosiphy guy... Unless you have wealthy parents and good conections to help you find a placement with your majors, start filling out your application to McDonalds. Not trying to troll, but here in germany, over 60% of all philosopers, after 5 years after graduation have no job. Less than 1% of engineers don't have a job after 5 years.
I've been thinkin of doing mathmatics or engineering but i dont like how specialized it is. I'd like a degree that knows a decent bit about everything. Right now i study law/politics and in my spare time i teach myself upper level math.
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty - a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture.
Bertrand Russell
last post on this topic by me, but my last words to OP:
ask yourself if you can get a well paid job, stable job, that can support a family of 4. Does that job rely on your ABILITIES or on you getting lucky with 6-7 people that really like you and are by chance milionairs?
Engineering = skill
Philosophy = if you are not a millionair's son, dont do it FFS!
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-11-01 12:47:47
What a lot of people don't understand is that philosophy is math. Math is also philosophy. Philosophy is a verbal form of logic whereas mathmatics is symbolic. Example:
A = B Therefore: B = A (mathmatics)
Noun-A is sometimes Noun-B, therefore: Noun B is sometimes Noun-A
You can break this down into more complex series of philosophical arguments, lets look at a polynomial equation
X(2nd power) + BX+ C= 0 (Mathmatics)
The sum of a number squared and the same number multiplied by a second number and then added to a third number is zero.
You could also use philosophy to simplify any equation:
X=4Y+3
Subject Y is equivilent to 1/4th the value of X and the number 3/4ths added togethor.
That's basic, now lets look at the Quadratic formula:
X is equal to the sum of oposite B squared, added to either the value or oposite value of the square root of B multiplied by itself and added to the number that is the result of 4 times the value of A multiplied by C, all divided by the number that is twice the value of A.
It might take some thinking but you can simply these terms and understand them which is the essence of mathmatics. Mathmatics IS philosophy just in a symbolic language of representation. I think many people don't understand that Math is actually very language intensive.
For you serious math majors I probably butchered the description of the quadratic formula. Enlighten me if you know how to say it better :D
By Lilix 2010-11-01 13:13:39
Currently I'm a political science/Law & Society dual major in college. I'm thinking of changing majors to just philosophy and I'm curious if anyone else has been in this situation:
You enjoy politics but you think politics in general is stupid. The concept of freedom is relative. You think that America might be free compared to some communist states but America is not truly free. Humans are born free from birth and the only thing a law can do is restrain freedom. There is no law saying you can go to school; you can go to school whether the law says you can or not. Laws, however, can stop you from going to school by punishing you. Therefore laws can only limit freedom, never enhance freedom.
Therefore:
When you consider laws like abortion the argument always comes down to a question of morality and constitutionality. This is incredibly weak and a retarded argument to make. Basing anything on the constitution would require you to first agree with the constitution. The constitution is not reality, the consitution is another man-made self restraint of natural freedoms. Therefore; to agree that the constitution is worth upholding would require you to first acknowledge that it was written correctly and that the values in there are moral. If you agree that the constitution is the ultimate source of morality you must then ask yourself why it can be amended. If you can amend the constitution so it says: "All gays must be killed", would you still agree with the constitution? It would be constitutional but you would no longer agree with the morality. Therefore you must then acknowledge that the constitution is flawed because it was created by people who had their own set of values which may or may not be the same as yours. The constiution can be changed to redefine the goals and ideas of society, so arguing whether an issue is constitutional or not is irrelevant. Unfortunately most law is based on the constitution which means that almost all of school involving law is completely subjective and not factual.
TL:DR:
I dont see how u can base a degree off of somebody else's interpretation of reality. Morals, laws, and society in general is man-made and inherently flawed.
Opinions? Do you think philosophy is better degree?
|
|