[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Krsqk]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

[Fyron]

From what I understand of radioisotope dating, it rarely comes out with the correct date on samples of known age. We assume it works on samples of unknown age. There are dozens of examples of horrendously inaccurate dates published in scientific journals. Even parts from the Mt. St. Helens ordeal have been dated in the low millions.

The thing about that is a few million years of innaccuracy don't matter for dating things that are hundreds of millions of years old.

Radioisotope dating is not supposed to be relatively accurate for "newer" objects, only for "older" ones. It is never meant as an absolute indicator. People that use it as such are indeed using it incorrectly.

Without question, regardless of the original denotation and connotation, myth has a negative meaning now. It is indelibly linked with "fairy tale" in the minds of English speakers. Maybe we should develop a new word here and try to get it into the OED.

Only to people that think that the dictionary definition is the absolute authority. Dictionary definitions often do not address complex terms very well, and also tend to use (sometimes wrong) connotations as denotations. They also often completely miss some uses of more complex terms (most often literary terms- such as mythology).

[Chronon]

This would be another example of people putting words in my mouth. My Posts did not imply any such triviality.

Please bear in mind that any communication relies on both the sender and receiver to work. You may not have intented triviality when you used the term mythology, but we have seen here that it has those connotations for many readers.

So, I really don't think anyone is putting words in your mouth; they were simply interpreted differently than you intended. Please try not to take it personally; I think about 90% of all communication has this problem. In my pessimistic moments (like when I'm listening to the latest news on Iraq for example) I wonder if it is possible for us to truly communicate with one another, or if we're all just wasting our breath.

[Fyron]

The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The problem is that some of these "interpretations" are wildly different from what the Posts actually say, even with accurate connotations taken into account.

My point was more specifically about our mythology discussion, where it was more about an interpretation than a misreading. But, I won't deny that sometimes Posts are misread as well.

I guess what I was trying to say (perhaps not directly enough) is that if you really want to convince someone of your point of view, taking the reader to task is usually counter-productive. Why not simply rephrase you argument, and try again?

[ March 14, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Chronon]

Back on the science versus the church theme...

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science. I personally do not believe this is necessarily true, but I did at one time(mostly because of the creation/evolution/big bang controversy). So, what do you think?

[dogscoff]

I'm curious how many of you believe there is a fundamental conflict between religion and science.

Not at all. Given the amount of religiously devout scientists now and throughout history (many of whom have been listed in this thread) I don't think you can argue that the two are mutually exclusive in any way.

IMHO the spiritual side of humans (including "God") is derived from human consciousness- it comes from within individuals. it is as individual as each person is, so I find the idea of an external institution (ie a church/ religion/ holy book) handing out "ready-made" spirituality to the masses laughable.
Despite this I think religion can still lead to spiritual awareness, but only as a tool for encouraging self-improvement, self-understanding and mental discipline. Maybe this is how religion was originally intended. However it's use through the ages as a tool for manipulating the masses has reduced its usefulness in this respect, and imo for most people religion actually blocks their spiritual development, because they believe they have nothing to contribute to it- they are told that someone else has already figured it all out and written it down in a book for them.

To wrap this up, I'm not really sure what I believe- it's easier to say what I don't believe (see footnote)- but I do believe this:
In time, scientists studying all those tiny sub-atomic thingummies and time/space and wierd forces and energies will eventually find themselves coming to conclusions about consciousness that have been known to spiritualists and so on for thousands of years.

Footnote. For the record, I do NOT believe in any of the following:
-Any god or pantheon.
-ghosts, angels or leprechauns.
-re-incarnation and remote viewing,
-Crystal healing & astrology
-Roswell aliens.