Does quoting another person, that is saying the same thing as you, make you correct? Or is that just an assumption that if more people say un-founded things they become founded(or truthful) simply because lots of people say them. What if it is a person that did something great, like oh I don't know...wrote in the Bible? If that assumption is true, then when the entire world said the world was flat, they were all correct, because lots of very smart people said it was flat?
Quoting an authority in the field in which you are commenting certainly will add weight to what you say. However, it is up to the reader to judge the credibility of the person you are citing.
If you cite the Bible, this will not make your statements more believable to me personally, because, in my opinion, the Bible can be used for or against any argument under the sun. It is all a matter of selecting one citation versus another.
Every branch of science works within a paradigm. Most research is done within the constrictions of that paradigm. It takes a revolutionary such as Copernicus or Einstein to force a paradigm shift. Scientific statements can only be judged within the paradigm in which they were voiced.
I'm using the word as used by Thomas Kuhn in his terrific book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". A paradigm is more than a course that directs thought, it's the very foundation and scaffolding on which scientific theories are hung. For example, Newton, with his laws, created a paradigm. Scientific theories that were expressed within the terms of that paradigm and proven within it have a certain scientific validity. We still use Newton's laws in mechanics, for example, and within that context they are "true". However, Einstein came in with his concept of Relativity. This blew apart Newton's view of the universe. We don't need to bring relativity into the picture when dealing with classical mechanics, however it provides explanations for other phenomena that could not be explained by Newtonian thought patterns. To move from the Newtonian to the Einsteinian paradigm requires a massive expansion of the way in which we conceive things. We've adapted to this, however another new paradigm is probably lurking in wait for us...
And yet, people of all denominations use "It says so in the Bible" as irrefutable proof. Any logical, rational thought, or new idea, is deemed instantaneously as proven wrong because "it says so in the Bible". It isn't as if they were quoting proof from the Bible disputing the new idea, they are simply quoting the people in the Bibles unfounded belief from 2000 years ago. Since the writers of the Bible believed it 2000 years ago, the people today believe that makes it irrefutable. This collusion is being put out there as if it were irrefutable proof. That is the point I was trying to make.
I think every word we use is all made up in efforts to have us think we know what we are talking about. I don't think anyone knows what is going on or what belief is right all with the idea that our own belief is right. I think we are all insane in the fact that we all push our belief as the right belief or look for anothers belief to be dependent on. I don't think anyone's belief is an absolute belief for everyone.
I sooo agree with you. There is no correct answer for every situation. Each situation will have a different correct answer. What is absolutely right to me may only be kinda right for you. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just makes us a different flavor.
Does quoting another person, that said something BEFORE you, make THEM correct? Or does it just mean you agree with what they said; therefore, adding weight to their original quote (or weight to your point - if the "quoter" is considered an expert or in high regard)? I think being correct is almost always subject to modification at a later time. Thanks for waking up my brain this morning, Mikel!
I think you've answered your own question here. The views of the majority are often followed, but that doesn't make their words or their decisions the correct ones.
The deeper question is one that you didn't ask: how do we judge right from wrong. That question is the basis of discovering fact and truth. According to the philosophers of today, right is what we believe is best for each of us as individuals. The more individuals or organizations that agree with you, the better. After all, majority agreement would prove your belief correct, right. Of course, from your question, we know this to be false.
So how do we know what's right? That is the question underlying yours, and one that is much harder to answer.
Yes, and that is becasue Right action changes within every action. The individual circumstances to every situation dictate the correct course of action. What is right, good and true in one situation will or may not be good, right and true in the next.
You've hit the nail on the head here Mikel. Right and wrong are axiomatic. They are dependent on the context, domain, or rules of the system in question. They are sometimes called "systemic". When right and wrong cannot be applied to a problem because there is no pre-existing domain or rule, then we can only make a decision based on what is rational and irrational.
or you can form a new word out of a word usually when there is new discovery of something or an item, like when we will discover bullet travel where I would like to go to your place and I will jut shut off, I will call it atom travel, LOL
lol, That was hardly an answer to the question. Many people think the same on some things, not all things. I think the individual owns the initial thought until they allow another to own it. Do you not think any thoughts are new?
I find it really interesting to go back in time. For example, scholars at the library of ancient Alexandria made the following discoveries:
Aristarchus was the first person to state that the earth revolves around the sun, a full 1800 years before Copernicus; Eratosthenes proved that the earth was spherical and calculated its circumference with amazing accuracy, 1700 years before Columbus sailed on his epic voyage Hipparchus established the first atlas of the stars and calculated the length of the solar year accurately to within 6.5 minutes Herophylus identified the brain as the controlling organ of the body
Fast-forwarding a little, I did my PhD in the long gone era of the 1970s. I was looking at a particular aspect of autoimmunity (when the body makes an immune response against itself). I spent a wonderful few days in the stackroom of my university library. Looking at the writings of the founders of immunology, Ehrlich and Metchnikoff in the late 19th to early 20th century, I found hints in their writings that autoimmunity could happen, although the concept of autoimmunity was developed only in the 1960s.
This is what the paradigm stuff about which I've been burbling is all about. Until a revolution in ideas occurs, the world is simply not ready for some ideas, but it does not mean that they have never been voiced up to that point. I remember listening at conferences to someone proposing a viewpoint in the 1970s which made him reviled by all fellow immunologists. It is possible that he was simply ahead of his time. Can't comment further on the validity or otherwise because I've lost touch with the field.
The theory of evolution is in an immense danger to be discarded by everyone, whether doing science or not. What is the next paradigm to solve the mystery of the origin of man?http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho18.htm
When quoting from the Bible to clarify a point, or to prove a point, why is it considered DUPLICATING someone else's work? All writers that use the Bible MUST quote from the Bible, to make and prove their point!I MUST...
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are...
I wrote down a list of everything I hated In my work to help me figure what I did want in my everyday job. Than wrote a list of what I wanted and looked at it everyday for 3 months and watched the change...