Finding Meaning & Delivering Confessions

likitisplit

https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp

The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.

The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.

you can disagree with it, but you can't act like i'm a fool for suggesting it. i'm actually surpised that you could have gone through that much schooling without the subject ever coming up or it simply occuring to you on your own.

Anthropology and sociology, yeah. Absolutely.

Psychology works to get inside the black box of how our brains respond to the world. Psychologists test this in labs with controlled experiments that alter single variables.

Someone cited https://mises.org/ :drinker:

Wish more people spent time on there. The Austrian School of ECON will be making a comeback someday.

Oooh. Forgot to include Economics as another "not a science"

MrTolerable

smh - but that is not Christianity then.

You paint the entire world with a monochromatic palette and then complain about what a dull and lifeless portrait it makes, and pat yourself on the back for your incisive critique.

What confuses is me why you're being so thoroughly humored by these people.

Because I was young and dumb and loved Rand at one point too.
I also basically had a nervous breakdown while traveling for work.

Even if he is actually interested in the topic - rather than just messing with you - I contend that it is impossible for you to broaden his horizons. If the dichotomous logic of youth was something that could simply be talked away, our universities would produce much more well-rounded, mindful, and productive people.

Instead, we get Jersey Shore here arguing God's gender.

:noway: wow. what an @$$h0le.

Thanks for shedding so much light on all the topics we discussed here yourself. You remind me of CS Lewis - grand accusations, grand statements - but nothing refuting your grand claims.

Awww. Once upon a time I loved the Screwtape Letters too.

Tolkien always thought that Lewis was a bit wack.

:drinker: I still love them both. So entertaining and passion - even if it is wrong is still catchy

I think Lewis was so sincere, and incredibly brilliant - didn't mean to smack him down so hard.

I think Tolkien got frustrated because he influenced Lewis into becoming a believer and then Lewis decided to be the spokesman of Christianity and ended up getting pummeled in some debates.

I'm sure Lewis will survive the pissant attempt.

stay classy :grumble:

MrTolerable

https://mises.org/mmmp/mmmp1.asp

The social sciences in general and economics in particular cannot be based on experience in the sense in which this term is used by the natural sciences. Social experience is historical experience. Of course every experience is the experience of something passed. But what distinguishes social experience from that which forms the basis of the natural sciences is that it is always the experience of a complexity of phenomena. The experience to which the natural sciences owe all their success is the experience of the experiment. In the experiments the different elements of change are observed in isolation. The control of the conditions of change provides the experimenter with the means of assigning to each effect its sufficient cause. Without regard to the philosophical problem involved he proceeds to amass "facts." These facts are the bricks which the scientist uses in constructing his theories. They constitute the only material at his disposal. His theory must not be in contradiction with these facts. They are the ultimate things.

The social sciences cannot make use of experiments. The experience with which they have to deal is the experience of complex phenomena. They are in the same position as acoustics would be if the only material of the scientist were the hearing of a concerto or the noise of a waterfall. It is nowadays fashionable to style the statistical bureaus laboratories. This is misleading. The material which statistics provides is historical, that means the outcome of a complexity of forces. The social sciences never enjoy the advantage of observing the consequences of a change in one element only, other conditions being equal.

you can disagree with it, but you can't act like i'm a fool for suggesting it. i'm actually surpised that you could have gone through that much schooling without the subject ever coming up or it simply occuring to you on your own.

Anthropology and sociology, yeah. Absolutely.

Psychology works to get inside the black box of how our brains respond to the world. Psychologists test this in labs with controlled experiments that alter single variables.

Someone cited https://mises.org/ :drinker:

Wish more people spent time on there. The Austrian School of ECON will be making a comeback someday.

Oooh. Forgot to include Economics as another "not a science"

It is an art.

likitisplit

likitisplit

likitisplit

likitisplit

MrTolerable

:laugh:

Later MFP :drinker:

likitisplit

You said that pages and pages ago.

branflakes1980

Cleary I am not smart enough because 20 pages later and still..

likitisplit

Cleary I am not smart enough because 20 pages later and still..

It's not because you aren't smart

branflakes1980

Cleary I am not smart enough because 20 pages later and still..

It's not because you aren't smart

:flowerforyou: Thanks.

kimberlyblindsey

I think it is important for you to understand that the Bible itself tells you that divine revelation is needed to fully understand it. Jesus' disciples were constantly scratching their heads to understand what Jesus said. When he walked down the road with two of them after his ressurection, he "opened up the scriptures," to them. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but I can tell you from personal experience that I've read certain scriptures dozens of times, having a certain understanding, then, suddenly, I get a deeper understanding, another "big question" answered. God has revealed himself hidden in plain sight. Awesome.

And, not sure if you really considered my personal history. Those were real and actual miracles. I was prayed for in Jesus' name then immediately healed of a very painful disease. What you are looking at intellectually is not intellectually percievable, but is rather relational and experiencial. You learn about love by loving and being loved, not by reading about neurological processes and chemicals. You experience God by faith, not by sight.

^And there it is. Thank you
And might I add--it's not Religion--to me religion reads like traditions. . . . going through the motions, you know like going to church on Sunday, or reading your Bible on a Wed. night I would think no relationship would survive if it was just a series of tasks you perform--but a deep spiritual connection, whereby you grow in that relationship and try to follow the path of Christ in his righteousness, so that your deeds--actions are an outward sign of the Holy spirit within. At least that's how I see it.
Furthermore, anyone can pull quotes out of the bible and take them out of context. God put the smack-down on lots of wayward people in the Old Testament--but you have to know the historical background(like Canaanites sacrificing their children) in order to get a more in depth understanding. As Christians, we know that most of the Old Testament (although the Mosaic law is still important to Christians except-tithing) is more descriptive versus prescriptive, and the NT-particularly the gospels is prescriptive, because Jesus flipped the script, so that we now may be saved by grace, not works.

kimberlyblindsey

Meanwhile, what I said was virtually ignored (not to mention a post disappeared). Can you call out to existentialism/nihilism/atheism to save you when you fear you will drown? Or will they heal your eyes or your gallbladder when the doctors suggest invasive surgery? Will it heal your broken heart, or cleanse a guilty conscience? Can your money buy these things? Or can you debate enough to create these things?

Like being sincere though - I don't think there is a God. Christianity is 100% confirmed hoax -so it def would not be that God, as I had said I spent more time researching theology then I have researching anything else. I previously gave a few points making the case, but I don't think it is healthy for Christians to read or be made aware of because then they are going to experience an existential crisis and may fall into existential depression.

What if they've already gone through the existential crisis and then realized years later how much sense the Bible made?

This was me in my 20s, although I never completely lost my faith--just lost touch for a long while, particularly at the university. . . .. lucky for me the internet did not exist.

kimberlyblindsey

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

The problem isn't where you choose to live and work. The problem is you painting all "gifted" people with a broad brush based on where you live and work.

One of the major life lessons English majors should learn is critical thinking and you seem to be lacking in it. I don't think, taking away the variables, that highly intelligent people are less athletically-inclined (imagine the mental stamina needed for the highest levels of such things) or less socially skilled than less intelligent people.

Some are, some aren't. But you will find that in both populations.

But it is my worldview. . . . based on my career and experience as a teacher(I'm speaking about my experience) and you cannot separate that from a person. This has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills, but a culture in which I am thoroughly immersed and entrenched.
Case in point: Sometimes I go to AP seminars where most often the instructors are from private schools or schools from other geographical locations with larger populations of caucasian and asian students; they have totally different perceptions and strategies of how to teach students and assumptions are made, why you ask because that is the culture in which they are immersed, not because they lack critical thinking skills.
As an AP teacher with a totally different demo of students I have to scaffold and tweak things to make them work for me or do something totally different. Some of these more affluent schools see nothing wrong with assigning 12-15 books for the school year--I tried 12 year one--my students drowned.

So where do you teach again?

rml_16

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

The problem isn't where you choose to live and work. The problem is you painting all "gifted" people with a broad brush based on where you live and work.

One of the major life lessons English majors should learn is critical thinking and you seem to be lacking in it. I don't think, taking away the variables, that highly intelligent people are less athletically-inclined (imagine the mental stamina needed for the highest levels of such things) or less socially skilled than less intelligent people.

Some are, some aren't. But you will find that in both populations.

But it is my worldview. . . . based on my career and experience as a teacher(I'm speaking about my experience) and you cannot separate that from a person. This has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills, but a culture in which I am thoroughly immersed and entrenched.
Case in point: Sometimes I go to AP seminars where most often the instructors are from private schools or schools from other geographical locations with larger populations of caucasian and asian students; they have totally different perceptions and strategies of how to teach students and assumptions are made, why you ask because that is the culture in which they are immersed, not because they lack critical thinking skills.
As an AP teacher with a totally different demo of students I have to scaffold and tweak things to make them work for me or do something totally different. Some of these more affluent schools see nothing wrong with assigning 12-15 books for the school year--I tried 12 year one--my students drowned.

So where do you teach again?

You made a sweeping, broad generalization about people who are gifted based solely on the children you teach in the environment in which you teach. I may not have the experience you have, but I know enough about the world outside of my little bubble to know that those factors play a part in your experience and that it is different elsewhere.

I'm not saying you haven't experienced what you say. I don't doubt that's the case at all. What I'm saying is that declaring that all gifted people are bad at sports and lack social skills is a ridiculous statement and shows an extreme lack of any understanding that there is an entire world outside of your little bubble. I don't have to be a teacher to know that and as a teacher yourself, it's sad that you think that way.

Now you say you have met with other teachers from other environments who have had a different experience, yet you still made that statement earlier in the thread. So you know this exists, yet dismissed and ignored it.

As I said, you lack critical thinking skills.

rml_16

The Bible is full of parables - but it informs you it is a parable prior to giving the parable - not just blasting off stories like its fact.

If all you are thinking is it is parables then you don't believe it anyway - its just parables.

Let me explain a specific Catholic belief along these lines, having to do with evolution and why Catholics believe that evolution and the creation story are not mutually exclusive:

In the Catholic Church, the belief if that God tells these stories in the simplest terms in order for humans to understand them in a way they wouldn't be able to if He tried to teach them at a higher level. So, the church teaches that Adam and Eve represent mankind at the moment of evolution when we became homo sapiens, and while in the Bible they are two people only, they actually represent the entire human race. So to the Catholics, Genesis is the story of evolution as a parable.

The Old Testament (the Torah) is all parable while in the New Testament, the writers are relaying events and in the course of those events, parables are told and introduced as such.

Not all Christians believe this, but some sects do. And since the nature of religion is that one cannot KNOW, but only have faith, you cannot prove God's existence nor His non-existence. So you either believe or you don't.

That you don't believe and so you interpret extremely circumstantial evidence as "proof" doesn't actually prove anything.

^interesting and I know this- I wasn't referring to Catholics I was referring to Christians, Catholics pervert Christianity just like Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses- all the bat ****. My point in arguing was to those that actually believe the Bible, and if you can only believe parts - why believe in it at all? The BIBLE ITSELF says it is accurate and the WORD OF GOD - you can't just say the text it is based on can be wrong and then the religion can still be right. - the Catholics are a cult - they do not believe the Bible. The baptist, southern baptist, pentecostal - they believe in the literal bible - and that is what I disproved someone who is not cherry picking what parts of the bible they want to believe in to meet their world view.

I think you had a very negative experience with religion as a child and it is informing your current attitude. You have strong emotions about this and they color your arguments, which prove nothing at all.

Thankfully, I have not had negative experiences with religion and while I don't believe in any of the existing organized religions personally, I also am not emotional about whether they are real or a farce. What I do know is enough about religion and philosophy that I can unequivocally state that nothing you have posted here and nothing you CAN post (because it doesn't exist) will prove any religion a farce. You don't have to practice or believe in them. But you cannot prove your position any more than the people who believe can prove theirs.

So stop being so angry about it and live your life.

No - you have not answered my point. The TEXT says it is 100% accurate, God-Breathed, Perfect, God's 'love message' on how to find him. Christianity is based on this text. Real Christianity. - I have proved the text wrong. The text is wrong. Christianity is wrong.

I'm not angry, I am angry at the lack of debate. - no refuting my points, no arguments what-so-ever rather you concede the text is wrong and attempt to excuse it by mentioning off-shoot cults that don't take it all literally as someone Christianity still potentially being true.

No the text says it is all true - the text is not true - the religion based on the text is not true then.

like what da faq? I'm not hostile to Christianity, I'm frustrated about how you can't see my point.

You accused me earlier of not having read the Bible. I assure you, not only have I read it, I have also sat in a secular classroom with a college professor and other students and analyzed it piece by piece and written papers on it.

Nowhere does it say what you claim it says. Not in the words you're using, and that's key. The religious leaders interpret it as such.

You also have to understand that the original text was not written in English. The original Torah was in a language that didn't use punctuation, capital letters or spaces between words. Both New and Old Testaments have been translated through several languages (some dead languages now) by people putting their own spin on them. So you don't even know what the original text actually was, yet you're making statements of absolutes because some scholars have pointed out inconsistencies and in-fighting.

I have refuted your claim over and over. You still don't get that your disbelief and some scholarly statements do not prove it is a farce.

kimberlyblindsey

Yes, my worldview would be based on my experience and many of the schools in Southern California qualify as Title one(from San Diego to L.A. and would have similar demos; benefits of living on the border. So yes I could move out of state or try to teach in a more affluent area-there are pockets here and there, but that comes with a whole different set of issues. For me, I've given it much thought and decided it's more rewarding to work with the underprivileged.

The problem isn't where you choose to live and work. The problem is you painting all "gifted" people with a broad brush based on where you live and work.

One of the major life lessons English majors should learn is critical thinking and you seem to be lacking in it. I don't think, taking away the variables, that highly intelligent people are less athletically-inclined (imagine the mental stamina needed for the highest levels of such things) or less socially skilled than less intelligent people.

Some are, some aren't. But you will find that in both populations.

But it is my worldview. . . . based on my career and experience as a teacher(I'm speaking about my experience) and you cannot separate that from a person. This has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills, but a culture in which I am thoroughly immersed and entrenched.
Case in point: Sometimes I go to AP seminars where most often the instructors are from private schools or schools from other geographical locations with larger populations of caucasian and asian students; they have totally different perceptions and strategies of how to teach students and assumptions are made, why you ask because that is the culture in which they are immersed, not because they lack critical thinking skills.
As an AP teacher with a totally different demo of students I have to scaffold and tweak things to make them work for me or do something totally different. Some of these more affluent schools see nothing wrong with assigning 12-15 books for the school year--I tried 12 year one--my students drowned.

So where do you teach again?

You made a sweeping, broad generalization about people who are gifted based solely on the children you teach in the environment in which you teach. I may not have the experience you have, but I know enough about the world outside of my little bubble to know that those factors play a part in your experience and that it is different elsewhere.

I'm not saying you haven't experienced what you say. I don't doubt that's the case at all. What I'm saying is that declaring that all gifted people are bad at sports and lack social skills is a ridiculous statement and shows an extreme lack of any understanding that there is an entire world outside of your little bubble. I don't have to be a teacher to know that and as a teacher yourself, it's sad that you think that way.

Now you say you have met with other teachers from other environments who have had a different experience, yet you still made that statement earlier in the thread. So you know this exists, yet dismissed and ignored it.

As I said, you lack critical thinking skills.

What's sad is how much time I've wasted here. . . .the adult world beckons, Adieu, adieu

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Alluminati

Jesuschristonacracker roll







Rollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!

SunofaBeach14

buh bye

delicious_cocktail

Glad we all shared this chat and stuff and it was so cool and I really think that if the world knew a little more about all the cool stuff we just talked about there'd be less wars and stuff
but I gotta go before the dining facility shuts down after breakfast and then I'll see you guys later on the quad!

EvgeniZyntx