I understand the difference between accuracy and precision. I am not talking about either. I am talking about language.
You claimed that measurement is standardized. I was illustrating how it is standardized in differenet circumstances to meet realtive criteria, namely the criteria of the person doing the measuring
OK, so? Are you trying to tell me that because I round off the measurement of say, the distance from Earth to Pluto to the nearest millimeter, instead of with an precision of plus or minus .00000001mm, that every judgement or prediction related to this measurement should be ignored? I think you are millimental. The precision isn't standardized for all circumstances, but the unit is.
Measurement is a description of a relationship, it is inherently abstract. Absolute precision isn't necessary to describe relationships (truths), at most scales.
so to get back to your statement .... “ The perception of humans is suspect, that is why science eliminates this variable in favor of measurement. .... the relationship is ultimately human (ie it doesn't escape the weaknesses inherant to sense perception)
Total agreement. I enjoy most threads on this site until people like lightgigantic come into them. They never seem to add to a discussion, but rather prefer to end them by being annoying. Great posts by Spidergoat in this thread. Quite the read. Unfortunately, the great posters like Spidergoat are soon dismayed and leave the forum because of people like lightgigantic. This forum would be tops if there was more diligent moderation, not just for ad hominems, but for derailers and trolls.
Maybe you should just converse through PM's if you don't want to run the risk of having different views that could unsettle or challenge your values, interests and concerns - especially if you are an atheist of fragile sensibilities that insists on hanging out on a religion debate forum thread Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps some of us moved him to apostacy and his hard drive was confiscated by the religious police in some theocracy like Saudi Arabia and he was beheaded. Also, the religion subforum (of a science forum) isn't strictly a "religion debate forum." It's also a place for the science-minded to share information about religion, discuss religious matters -particularly as they relate to science, share information and discuss how science is affected by religious belief, and even discuss religion in a scientific way (something that the religious often claim cannot be done). It need not always be about debate.
If you insist on replying to posts as indicated in your opening paragraph (condescending misrepresentation of precepts) it will be increasingly difficult to nurture the atmosphere you idealize in your closing paragraph (a level playing field for the examination of precepts)
The purpose of life is to live. However the individual chooses to live, whatever they set as thier goal, that is thier purpose. We create our own destinies. In the biological sense the function of life is to survive and propagate itself in order to continue the existence of the species.
How many people consciously begin their activities or reflect over them with the view "I certainly have helped continued the existence of our species" It becomes difficult to see the activities of a person working for the benefit of animals in such a context
what a totally inane response to hapsburgs post, where in his post did he suggest or imply, the above, you replied just to cause arguement, not debate. you are a troll, I agree with pavlos. you post on all threads it seems, to take it of topic and argue instead of debate. Boring. every debate that you frequent, and thats every debate, ends up about the same thing, your slant on religion.
Am I the only one that would find no planned purpose to life more interesting, mysterious and even more appealing than some sort of brain fart in gods head? Certainly I find no idea of god put forward by believers more appealing than reality.
The purpose of life is to simply animate most organic and to some extent inorganic molecules, assuming life is a natural phenomena occuring all over the universe. Once life is established it appears to become more complex if given enough time. Life's goal at this moment seems to be creating a creature intelligent enough to ask, what is the purpose of life? Where life is heading from here is anybody's guess.
Please provide proof of any purpose of life. Then please show me where I have signed up to it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is no evidence for any "purpose" to life. Even those who argue that the purpose of life is merely propagation, increasing the gene pool or any other non-theistic "purpose" is doing nothing but putting forward their own personal "purpose" for existence. As far as the evidence goes, there is NO purpose to life - life just is. If you think that propagation of genes is the purpose of life - do those that decide not to have children FAIL in the very purpose of life? Of course not. If life has a purpose it is to obey the laws of the Universe unswervingly. And so far life is doing a very good job of fulfilling its purpose. Purpose of life... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"I like what I know and I know what I like" is hardly the best platform for initiating debate or discussion
