[quote]pat wrote:
Do you know why money has any worth?
Hold on…
Wait for it…
It’s coming…
Faith.[/quote]
The one we have now?
Yes.
The one it was derived from?
No wai![/quote]
Yes whey!
If nobody gave a shit about gold, for instance, it would not be worth a damn. Currency holds value because we believe everybody regards it the same. We’ve been programmed to believe money is worth something when objectively it’s just a piece of paper, or metal. [/quote]
Does not have to be gold, could be cigarettes too, or canned mackerel.
Yeah, canned mackerel.
A commodity money is usually durable, easily divisible and WANTED.
Not believed to have value, known to have value for other people.
Now you can go all Buddhist on me and say that all wants are an illusion, that would still not stop anyone from forming theories about what sort of delusional wants other people might have in the future. [/quote]
So fiat money works perfectly under those conditions you’ve described then. I would say the more generally accepted term for smokes and fish as currency would be barter…as skills would be a ‘commodity money’ or barter tool too.[/quote]
It’s doesn’t matter what it is, it’s based on common belief. What’s funny is how much we are willing to do for a stack of paper…Or even more, a number on a computer screen.
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Well, with respect to the “turning science into a philosophy”, he couldn’t be more correct. Science is (sadly) no longer a disinterested, dispassionate search for natural truths - it is seen as some sort of rebuttal to worldviews or philosophies, and the goofballs that have perpetuated this idea - Scientism - have devalued true science as a result.
We have seen it for years even here in the little corner of PWI - those self-described “rationalists” and “followers of reason” who know not a lot of science, but only a little, and basically try and use it as a “meme” to trash talk against religion or philosophy.
This is especially true of the college-sophomore-just-got-out-of-biology-class adolescent nonsense - they think that “science” - or scientific inquiry - is the rebuttal to all things they don’t like in the modern world.
Chesterton was one of the first critics to recognize and warn against this kind of thinking in its current form. And its most pernicious effect is not on religion or philosophy, but on science itself. By pretending that science has some philosophical endgame other than discovering and explaining natural truths, it has distracted from the work of science over the years.[/quote]
There will always be goofballs on both sides of the debate, but that doesn’t make what he said true. I firmly believe that for most people science remains just that - the acquiring and organizing of knowledge about the universe. Sometimes that means the debunking of long held beliefs derived in other arenas, that can’t be helped.
Perhaps the human brain requires a ‘belief’ element be filled and some use ‘science’ instead of religion to fill the void, but I doubt any serious or even semi serious scientist falls into that trap.
[quote]pat wrote:
Do you know why money has any worth?
Hold on…
Wait for it…
It’s coming…
Faith.[/quote]
The one we have now?
Yes.
The one it was derived from?
No wai![/quote]
Yes whey!
If nobody gave a shit about gold, for instance, it would not be worth a damn. Currency holds value because we believe everybody regards it the same. We’ve been programmed to believe money is worth something when objectively it’s just a piece of paper, or metal. [/quote]
Does not have to be gold, could be cigarettes too, or canned mackerel.
Yeah, canned mackerel.
A commodity money is usually durable, easily divisible and WANTED.
Not believed to have value, known to have value for other people.
Now you can go all Buddhist on me and say that all wants are an illusion, that would still not stop anyone from forming theories about what sort of delusional wants other people might have in the future. [/quote]
So fiat money works perfectly under those conditions you’ve described then. I would say the more generally accepted term for smokes and fish as currency would be barter…as skills would be a ‘commodity money’ or barter tool too.[/quote]
It’s doesn’t matter what it is, it’s based on common belief. What’s funny is how much we are willing to do for a stack of paper…Or even more, a number on a computer screen. [/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” Christopher Hitchens
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
[/quote]
If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’.
But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion.
That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
[/quote]
If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’.
But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion.
That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote]
The scientific method is a tool.
If you cannot handle it or use it for things it was not meant to be used on, dont blame the hammer.
Blame yourself for thinking of everything as a nail.
[quote]orion wrote:
I dont care what you believe in, but thanks for driving by.
[/quote]
And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions.
But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
[quote]orion wrote:
I dont care what you believe in, but thanks for driving by.
[/quote]
And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions.
But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
[quote]orion wrote:
I dont care what you believe in, but thanks for driving by.
[/quote]
And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions.
But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
[quote]orion wrote:
I dont care what you believe in, but thanks for driving by.
[/quote]
And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions.
But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote: [quote]atypical1 wrote:And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions. But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
james[/quote]That’s not true. [/quote]You are correct Fletch. I do care what other people believe and listen intently when they speak. For all the abuse I take? Folks sure do seem to care What I believe. I could literally make a 40 hour week out of answering.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote: If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’. But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion. That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote] Chesterton did not buy evolution. I agree. As for the specifics here? I admittedly haven’t read the article in a while, but will again.
EDIT: Neuromancer, could you explain a little more please? I don’t think I’m understanding your point.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that?[/quote]