SomaliNet Forums

Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.

Alphanumeric wrote:Progressive evolution, technologically elongated life, extraterrestrial communication, reanimation, immortality.

Let's do this.

Eff Descartes.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

ToughGong wrote:

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Apparently not when Picard is in the equation

Empty wrote:Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.

InaSamaale wrote:Hargaysaay, did you read the opening post till the end or you quit at philosophical ideas?

There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed .

Empty wrote:Just as a poem plants emotions in us using words, certain philosophical or scientific ideas can achieve the same thing. This, naturally, changes the way we interact with such ideas. For example, reductionist or materialist ideas that make humans to be puppets or Cartesian automata send a chill down the spine, making you feel powerless or fearful. In a similar way achieving a deep understanding of a topic might make one feel powerful and confident.

Although this shouldn't be a problem to the continued dominance of experimental science based on observation and evidence, it does appear to be a problem for the individual who must then interact with the ideas generated from evidence. This is because, as suggested, the individual does not have a dispassionate response to scientific ideas – no matter how much of a scientist they consider themselves.

This poses a particular problem when thinking at the frontiers of science; those areas of science which are still misty and unclear. For it is within those misty areas that ones gut feelings, flashes of inspiration, beliefs and hunches come in to play. It is in those misty areas that people become most passionate and most dogmatic, because of the emotion stirred by the uncertainty.

Consider that the heliocentric universe that we all accept dispassionately caused a great deal of debate, to put it lightly, when the idea was contemporary. There is now a great deal of good psychological evidence showing our emotions and individual interactions with ideas change how we think about them. If it seems likely that emotion and passion runs highest in the areas of science where reason and a detached view are most needed, then perhaps this deserves some consideration.