|
A "property" of wisdom
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| Yes, strage title indeed. But I've noticed a recurring pattern for many wise saying and wisdom in general. Wisdom, for the most part if not entirely, seems to be very 'inductive' in nature as opposed to deductive... which also explains why most rationalists entirely lack it and / or have no understanding of many concept and traditions in the human experience that don't exhibit a well defined rigid approach like deduction. Thoughts? |
|
|
| Krypton |
Religion = inductive
Science = deductive
Quantum physics = inductive
STRANGE...:eek: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Religion = inductive |
? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Religion = inductive
Science = deductive
Quantum physics = inductive
STRANGE...:eek: |
It's interesting that you should say that, because I was pretty much an athiest (more like agnostic though) until I started studying physics way back in high school, and I'm not even talking about quantum physics or string theory... but stuff as simple as newtonian physics. I still don't understand the creationist argument though... I can see how one might see the balance, extremely intricate, [sacred or otherwise] geometry, or several other mathematical correspondences in the finer aspects of nature as a 'sign' of God... but to call that a science is just pure unadultrated bull. Interestingly enough, I find something like that a lot easier to 'see' or appreciate if you're a "scientist" who's studied advanced mathematical and scientific disciplines. The strongest 'argument' for faith for me personally didn't exist until I studied logic formally.
I'm deviating on a tangent here though, as the reference was to wisdom in general and not widom that can be found specifically in 'religious' texts. That doesn't require a belief in God. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ? |
None of those are forms of reasoning. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
It's interesting that you should say that, because I was pretty much an athiest (more like agnostic though) until I started studying physics way back in high school, and I'm not even talking about quantum physics or string theory... but stuff as simple as newtonian physics. I still don't understand the creationist argument though... I can see how one might see the balance, extremely intricate, [sacred or otherwise] geometry, or several other mathematical correspondences in the finer aspects of nature as a 'sign' of God... but to call that a science is just pure unadultrated bull. Interestingly enough, I find something like that a lot easier to 'see' or appreciate unless you're a "scientist" who's studied advanced mathematical and scientific disciplines. The strongest 'argument' for faith for me personally didn't exist until I studied logic formally.
I'm deviating on a tangent here though, as the reference was to wisdom in general and not widom that can be found specifically in 'religious' texts. That doesn't require a belief in God. |
To me, creationism is misinformed. But there is also no doubt in my mind where the order of the universe comes from. It sure didn't pop up out of nothing. The creationist argument though is not based on an empirical method of deducing facts. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
? maybe you meant to use "counter-productive" "creative" or "destructive" ? |
Do you speak spanish :p (two question marks surrounding the question)?
EDIT: Whoops, I meant to say "¿Hablas español?" :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
None of those are forms of reasoning. |
precisely! ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
(two question marks surrounding the question)? |
haha, that was actually 2 sentences in my lazy-type ;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha, that was actually 2 sentences in my lazy-type ;) |
and that type is????????? ;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
precisely! ;) |
I get your point...but religion clearly uses inductive reasoning to explain questions such as..."Where does physical and mathematical order come from?" |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Wisdom, for the most part if not entirely, seems to be very 'inductive' in nature as opposed to deductive... |
But isn't wisdom created from gained past experience (whether your own or someone else's) hence being deductive? :conf: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
But isn't wisdom created from gained past experience (whether your own or someone else's) hence being deductive? :conf: |
Well, it is almost a function of experience but the logic is not A -> B where we know A is true. But instead we notice a pattern of B's where A is mostly true but not always. At the discretion of the person considering the statement, the applicability of it depends on the circumstances and situations rather than being a "universal constant" which makes it very hard for someone who can't think in a non-linear fashion to understand. Deduction is a simple process intelligible to anyone but inductive reasoning and recursive structures are generally far more sophisticated requiring a lot more caution and an advanced understanding for them to make any sense to most people. |
|
|
|
|
