thank you so much for everything, and no pink power in the world can make it less perfect than it already is. you know who you are, and again, i appreciate it.
willy and the priest
Willy, a prisoner convicted of bank robbing was asked by a priest, "Why do you rob banks?" Willy replied, "Because that's where the money is".
that is the willy sutton case on questioning. this partly, maybe entirely sums up what's going on between science and religion. the priest's question came with a purpose, an intent, a predisposition. willy's answer, which is simply logical, answers the priest's question, even though the purpose of the question has not been served. the priest was asking "why do you rob banks when it is the wrong thing to do".....that was the purpose, to show that it was the wrong. but willy answered the question from a different angle, be it a tangent.......he answered the question "why do you rob banks rather than, say drug stores?" even though the answer did not meet the purpose of the question, willy answered the priest...that is all that there is to it.
this is the problem today, even when science can answer, not just preach nor convince, but ANSWER questions from religious people, it's not the answer that they want to hear. i've seen this for myself, and im only 17....which means this country is a terrible place to live in. i've seen how religious people question everything science has to say with bias. just because the answer did not lean towards the biased perception, it doesnt mean its wrong. no matter how you look at it, 1+1=2.....2 is the answer, whether you can accept it or not.
suffering from writer's block, so i'll stop here.
that is the willy sutton case on questioning. this partly, maybe entirely sums up what's going on between science and religion. the priest's question came with a purpose, an intent, a predisposition. willy's answer, which is simply logical, answers the priest's question, even though the purpose of the question has not been served. the priest was asking "why do you rob banks when it is the wrong thing to do".....that was the purpose, to show that it was the wrong. but willy answered the question from a different angle, be it a tangent.......he answered the question "why do you rob banks rather than, say drug stores?" even though the answer did not meet the purpose of the question, willy answered the priest...that is all that there is to it.
this is the problem today, even when science can answer, not just preach nor convince, but ANSWER questions from religious people, it's not the answer that they want to hear. i've seen this for myself, and im only 17....which means this country is a terrible place to live in. i've seen how religious people question everything science has to say with bias. just because the answer did not lean towards the biased perception, it doesnt mean its wrong. no matter how you look at it, 1+1=2.....2 is the answer, whether you can accept it or not.
suffering from writer's block, so i'll stop here.
the same headline, again
i thought i was going to post something about the gaza stuff after the ceasefire, so that the topic won't be so sensitive by then, but as im typing all these down, the attacks are still on-going, and probably wont stop until someone do something about it.
but who?
before i get to that, i just want to say a few things. in times of war, is there ever a right or wrong? and is a losing war considered a genocide? and make no mistake, this is war. just because one side is being damaged more than the other, regardless of the magnitude, doesnt mean that we can forget the fact that they still exchange fire....EXCHANGE.
i'd like to use umapagan's concept of neighbours. If your neighbour were to start throwing bricks at your home, would you want the authorities to send just one policeman, or deploy every resource at their disposal? Wouldn't you want them to do everything within their power to make it stop? How important is your security? What about that of your family?
looking at this, it does make sense to me. israel did not start attacking for nothing.....even, even if they are waiting to give the deathblow. hamas have, one way or the other, has given israel a reason, or perhaps an excuse to do so. but of course, this is just another chicken-or-egg question. who started what, who started first.......all that is the past, and remain insignificant to the present. the damage is done, and the clock cant be unwind. what happened ages ago, is far too difficult to be solved.........and even if it can, would it justify the loss of lives? it doesnt matter whether a palestinian child has been killed or an israeli trooper been shot, nationality does not make one life more equal than the other.
i really hate it when i see how most people take sides so easily.....and hell yes, we know who's getting the popular vote. and my hatred grows everytime i see how the world see everything only in one way, one pathethic way. stop being so judgemental on who's wrong or right, this is war, and like any other war in history, dont expect kindness and mercy.
and the boycott incident just proved how naive we all can be. boycott? what is there to boycott? cookies? ford? music? for what? as if not buying any american products can help save a life or two. that is just making a statement for yourself, and perhaps, making a fool of oneself as well. i know that people are expressing how they are feeling towards this tragedy, but i rather channel my energy elsewhere than standing in front of the embassy with a banner. i'd rather walk all the way to our government and ask them to do something about it....stop it. im sure israel are ignoring our voices, be it collectively, because theres nothing much we can do about it. but im sure too, that our own goverment wont do the same thing, because if they do, we'll give them a taste of sweet revenge in the next election. that's what all of us should do.
getting back to the question of who up there, im talking about obama. why is the rest of the world depending on him to do something? he's pretty busy handling america and its economy right now, and im very confident, one more war, and america is really falling apart. when that happens, say hello to the great depression 2.0. why are we conveniently expecting someone else to do our part?
this has been going on for far too long, and it must end. how soon, no one can tell....will it be a happy ending? that's up to all of us.
but who?
before i get to that, i just want to say a few things. in times of war, is there ever a right or wrong? and is a losing war considered a genocide? and make no mistake, this is war. just because one side is being damaged more than the other, regardless of the magnitude, doesnt mean that we can forget the fact that they still exchange fire....EXCHANGE.
i'd like to use umapagan's concept of neighbours. If your neighbour were to start throwing bricks at your home, would you want the authorities to send just one policeman, or deploy every resource at their disposal? Wouldn't you want them to do everything within their power to make it stop? How important is your security? What about that of your family?
looking at this, it does make sense to me. israel did not start attacking for nothing.....even, even if they are waiting to give the deathblow. hamas have, one way or the other, has given israel a reason, or perhaps an excuse to do so. but of course, this is just another chicken-or-egg question. who started what, who started first.......all that is the past, and remain insignificant to the present. the damage is done, and the clock cant be unwind. what happened ages ago, is far too difficult to be solved.........and even if it can, would it justify the loss of lives? it doesnt matter whether a palestinian child has been killed or an israeli trooper been shot, nationality does not make one life more equal than the other.
i really hate it when i see how most people take sides so easily.....and hell yes, we know who's getting the popular vote. and my hatred grows everytime i see how the world see everything only in one way, one pathethic way. stop being so judgemental on who's wrong or right, this is war, and like any other war in history, dont expect kindness and mercy.
and the boycott incident just proved how naive we all can be. boycott? what is there to boycott? cookies? ford? music? for what? as if not buying any american products can help save a life or two. that is just making a statement for yourself, and perhaps, making a fool of oneself as well. i know that people are expressing how they are feeling towards this tragedy, but i rather channel my energy elsewhere than standing in front of the embassy with a banner. i'd rather walk all the way to our government and ask them to do something about it....stop it. im sure israel are ignoring our voices, be it collectively, because theres nothing much we can do about it. but im sure too, that our own goverment wont do the same thing, because if they do, we'll give them a taste of sweet revenge in the next election. that's what all of us should do.
getting back to the question of who up there, im talking about obama. why is the rest of the world depending on him to do something? he's pretty busy handling america and its economy right now, and im very confident, one more war, and america is really falling apart. when that happens, say hello to the great depression 2.0. why are we conveniently expecting someone else to do our part?
this has been going on for far too long, and it must end. how soon, no one can tell....will it be a happy ending? that's up to all of us.
signs of extreme boredom
i've been reading some philosophical stuff and.............
what is belief, truth and knowledge?
i'll make it short and simplify them. belief is accepting a statement to be true. truth is the reality on which the statement is based on. knowledge is the justification of one's belief of the truth.
here's an example which i copied from wikipedia;
"if someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true but may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, a man thinks that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and he attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that the man believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he might be justified in subsequently holding that he knew the bridge had been safe enough for his passage, at least at that particular time. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true."
this makes perfect sense, until we come to the Gettier problem and his example which contradicts the earlier statement.
Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true in virtue of luck.
now, this is what i think. knowledge about anything means to understand that particular matter in every possible way in that particular time. which means that knowledge has an expiry date, a period of validity. and that validity only lasts as long as the knowledge is true to the reality of that particular time. within that period of validity, we can do something else based on the knowledge, we can predict.
let's look again at the bridge example. the man knew that the bridge can support him, but 5 years later, he cross the bridge again and predicted that it will still support him. if the bridge collapses, then the knowledge is no longer valid and a new one must be made....if not, then it's still valid.
to answer the gettier problem, we use predictability and trial and error method. we repeat the similar scenario several times and use smith knowledge over and over again. should his knowledge be true by luck, then his prediction would be wrong and his knowledge would be invalid until proven otherwise. but if the same thing were to happen over and over again, then, though without a logical explanation and by coincidence, his knowledge is valid as long as it is not proven otherwise.
and that's supporting the idea of fallibilism, which is a philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. it is possible for knowledge to be invalid, but only after proven so. fallibilism is also coherent with chaos theory. as there can be no perfect knowledge, there can also be no perfect prediction.
this is how chaos theory works. it is impossible to have complete certainty of any knowledge as there are certain things that we do not know at all, things that we overlook, or things we fail to notice, things beyond our minds' ability. so, we have an imperfect knowledge, which we then apply in making a prediction, an imperfect one with slight, maybe unnoticeable changes due to the gap of knowledge. that changes may vary greatly over a long period of time, and cause abnormalities in predictions. that abnormality is the sign that the knowledge is no longer valid. if that man predicted the bridge can support him for another 5 years but it collapses after 2 years, then it would be chaos, the prediction would be wrong, and the knowledge would be invalid.
ok, shit, im seriously lost now.
what is belief, truth and knowledge?
i'll make it short and simplify them. belief is accepting a statement to be true. truth is the reality on which the statement is based on. knowledge is the justification of one's belief of the truth.
here's an example which i copied from wikipedia;
"if someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true but may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, a man thinks that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and he attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that the man believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he might be justified in subsequently holding that he knew the bridge had been safe enough for his passage, at least at that particular time. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true."
this makes perfect sense, until we come to the Gettier problem and his example which contradicts the earlier statement.
Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job." These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true in virtue of luck.
now, this is what i think. knowledge about anything means to understand that particular matter in every possible way in that particular time. which means that knowledge has an expiry date, a period of validity. and that validity only lasts as long as the knowledge is true to the reality of that particular time. within that period of validity, we can do something else based on the knowledge, we can predict.
let's look again at the bridge example. the man knew that the bridge can support him, but 5 years later, he cross the bridge again and predicted that it will still support him. if the bridge collapses, then the knowledge is no longer valid and a new one must be made....if not, then it's still valid.
to answer the gettier problem, we use predictability and trial and error method. we repeat the similar scenario several times and use smith knowledge over and over again. should his knowledge be true by luck, then his prediction would be wrong and his knowledge would be invalid until proven otherwise. but if the same thing were to happen over and over again, then, though without a logical explanation and by coincidence, his knowledge is valid as long as it is not proven otherwise.
and that's supporting the idea of fallibilism, which is a philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. it is possible for knowledge to be invalid, but only after proven so. fallibilism is also coherent with chaos theory. as there can be no perfect knowledge, there can also be no perfect prediction.
this is how chaos theory works. it is impossible to have complete certainty of any knowledge as there are certain things that we do not know at all, things that we overlook, or things we fail to notice, things beyond our minds' ability. so, we have an imperfect knowledge, which we then apply in making a prediction, an imperfect one with slight, maybe unnoticeable changes due to the gap of knowledge. that changes may vary greatly over a long period of time, and cause abnormalities in predictions. that abnormality is the sign that the knowledge is no longer valid. if that man predicted the bridge can support him for another 5 years but it collapses after 2 years, then it would be chaos, the prediction would be wrong, and the knowledge would be invalid.
ok, shit, im seriously lost now.
1/2
it's funny how math and truth differs from each other, at least in one way. it's in how half matters. in math, if im correct, we round up half as one. but why? it stands right between zero and one, nothing more, and nothing less, and yet, when rounded, it is considered as one. why can't it stay just in the middle? so, it is correct to say that half is considered as one when rounded off, isn't it? and that's ok in math.
then, that does not apply to statements. under any condition, half of a statement can never be considered as a whole, or so i thought. same goes to truth. half a truth is worst than a complete lie. why? it's simple. take any sentence, and cut it into half......and it wouldn't have the same meaning as before. in fact, a missing word, just one, can do the same thing. problem is, people often consider half statements as a whole, they often accept half truths as a whole.
statement : a glass half full of milk.
i can say that the glass has milk in it, and it wouldnt be a lie. but is it true? in ordinary situations, yes, that's true. but then, why is the fact that only half the glass has milk in it is ignored and taken out from the true statement? why is it imporant anyway? why is half a statement be treated as a whole? where did the other half came from?
simple....it came from us and our assumptions. and that is how we jump to conclusions.
statement : i cant find anything wrong with my keyboard.
assumption : there is nothing wrong with the keyboard (which is not wrong, just not true either)
truth : there is no fault in my keyboard that i can find, should there be one, or my keyboard is really fine.
that assumption is half a statement of the truth. surely it wasnt wrong, but as i said, half the truth is worst than a lie. in a lie, only the speaker can be held liable for his wrongdoings. in half truth, you are partly at fault as you're the one that made the assumption.
lying requires one to convince the other to accept a statement completely. half the truth guides a person to make that same statement himself.
i can say " i was last in class......." and before i can finish my sentence, you'd think im dumb, but then, i continue saying "starting backwards". the point is, we assume too much. we, ok, sorry for the generalization, are predictable in our thoughts. and that's where we can be tricked to believing lies and deception.
im short on words now, so i'll end it there.
then, that does not apply to statements. under any condition, half of a statement can never be considered as a whole, or so i thought. same goes to truth. half a truth is worst than a complete lie. why? it's simple. take any sentence, and cut it into half......and it wouldn't have the same meaning as before. in fact, a missing word, just one, can do the same thing. problem is, people often consider half statements as a whole, they often accept half truths as a whole.
statement : a glass half full of milk.
i can say that the glass has milk in it, and it wouldnt be a lie. but is it true? in ordinary situations, yes, that's true. but then, why is the fact that only half the glass has milk in it is ignored and taken out from the true statement? why is it imporant anyway? why is half a statement be treated as a whole? where did the other half came from?
simple....it came from us and our assumptions. and that is how we jump to conclusions.
statement : i cant find anything wrong with my keyboard.
assumption : there is nothing wrong with the keyboard (which is not wrong, just not true either)
truth : there is no fault in my keyboard that i can find, should there be one, or my keyboard is really fine.
that assumption is half a statement of the truth. surely it wasnt wrong, but as i said, half the truth is worst than a lie. in a lie, only the speaker can be held liable for his wrongdoings. in half truth, you are partly at fault as you're the one that made the assumption.
lying requires one to convince the other to accept a statement completely. half the truth guides a person to make that same statement himself.
i can say " i was last in class......." and before i can finish my sentence, you'd think im dumb, but then, i continue saying "starting backwards". the point is, we assume too much. we, ok, sorry for the generalization, are predictable in our thoughts. and that's where we can be tricked to believing lies and deception.
im short on words now, so i'll end it there.
sum of 2008
all this while, i've been trying to look for an answer for everything. i thought there is nothing that cant be figured out, or reasoned with. i needed certainty, that any answer or reason i came up with, can be applied for the next 100 years, i needed to be sure, i needed an absolute and final answer so that i will never have to set foot into such confusion again. i thought i can prove everything the way i see fit, i thought i can convince people to accept my views. i thought i can sort everything out in a simple and direct manner. i thought i can put life in an equation with a definite answer.
and i wasn't wrong......i believe, somehow, all that is possible, maybe not by me, but at least, someone can make all that happen.
but then i realise, i dont need it. i dont need any of that to just live a life. no one does. life isn't about having it all figured out and having the answers for all the things in the world........then, what's the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?
for once, i just don't care.
and i wasn't wrong......i believe, somehow, all that is possible, maybe not by me, but at least, someone can make all that happen.
but then i realise, i dont need it. i dont need any of that to just live a life. no one does. life isn't about having it all figured out and having the answers for all the things in the world........then, what's the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?
for once, i just don't care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)