This doesn't make much of a statement. I see no evidence. What did sewing machine mechanism have to do with never a thought before?
Atheism & Theism...A Common Denominator
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
This doesn't make much of a statement. I see no evidence. What did sewing machine mechanism have to do with never a thought before?
Dywyddyr,
Here is the final nail in the joker's coffin. You played the joker.
Technological evolution is the name of a science and technology studies theory describing technology development, developed by Czech philosopher Radovan Richta.
Theory of technological evolution
According to Richta and later Bloomfield, technology (which Richta defines as "a material entity created by the application of mental and physical effort to nature in order to achieve some value") evolves in three stages: tools, machine, automation. This evolution, he says, follows two trends: the replacement of physical labour with more efficient mental labour, and the resulting greater degree of control over one's natural environment, including an ability to transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products.
Bye, Bye Joker :wave:
Here is the final nail in the joker's coffin. You played the joker.
Technological evolution is the name of a science and technology studies theory describing technology development, developed by Czech philosopher Radovan Richta.
Theory of technological evolution
According to Richta and later Bloomfield, technology (which Richta defines as "a material entity created by the application of mental and physical effort to nature in order to achieve some value") evolves in three stages: tools, machine, automation. This evolution, he says, follows two trends: the replacement of physical labour with more efficient mental labour, and the resulting greater degree of control over one's natural environment, including an ability to transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products.
Bye, Bye Joker :wave:
Because the mechanism of a sewing machine hadn't been seen before.
Ah yes, the final nail.Dywyddyr,
Here is the final nail in the joker's coffin. You played the joker.
Technological evolution is the name of a science and technology studies theory describing technology development, developed by Czech philosopher Radovan Richta.
A theory by two guys that is supported by... whom?
And already contradicted by my linked article.
Because the mechanism of a sewing machine hadn't been seen before.
Ah yes, the final nail.
A theory by two guys that is supported by... whom?
And already contradicted by my linked article.
A joker you are and I guess a joker you will remain.
333.……How about the “spring out of nowhere” 100% new for us to view?…….333
Technologly evolves and a theory exist.
Noting is going to spring out of nowhere in technology.
Thats strike three and you're out.
Actually I owe you an apology: my link doesn't directly contradict your Wiki link.
But then again the theory named in your link takes an overall view of technology as a whole, not individual sections of it.
In other words it says nothing whatsoever about, for example, sewing machine mechanisms, not actually being evolved, merely that since knitting machines had simplified the job of knitting then a sewing machine as complete item was part of the evolution of removing drudgery.
Strike three?
Pfft you can't count either.
I note how you consistently ignore completely the article I linked to.
What else would I expect from someone who can't even be bothered to look at the other links?
Congratulations. :wave:
But then again the theory named in your link takes an overall view of technology as a whole, not individual sections of it.
In other words it says nothing whatsoever about, for example, sewing machine mechanisms, not actually being evolved, merely that since knitting machines had simplified the job of knitting then a sewing machine as complete item was part of the evolution of removing drudgery.
Strike three?
Pfft you can't count either.
I note how you consistently ignore completely the article I linked to.
What else would I expect from someone who can't even be bothered to look at the other links?
Congratulations. :wave:
When thinking about the overall view. I like a well written theory that proves out. Darwins "natural selection" will do fine as an example.
The joker game makes things rememberable without having think much. Funny how that works.
How do you know that you won't fall up if you jump off a cliff? Gravity is an unexplained force. The only reason we trust gravity is through experience. So my question to you is explain exactly why you KNOW that you won't fall up when you step off a cliff.
To answer your question, it is what I believe through personal observation/experience as well as other factors that have influenced my belief of this. This tenet is also held in the Christian Bible, and I imagine other philosophies/religions.
Last edited:
It's most likely the other way round, the tenets are held in the bible and you've been indoctrinated into that cult. Simple really.
Teaching and indoctrinating are two different things. And, I would agree indoctrination is the "learning" (cough) process concerning religion.
Indoctrinating someone is forcing them to believe something regardless of whether or not it is true. There is no actual "thinking" process with indoctrination.
Okay, I can go along with your thinking. I question where the material used to indoctrinate came from and was this material used as a teaching tool?
edit: Indoctrinate:
1. To instruct in, or imbue with, doctrines, theories, or beliefs, as of a sect
2. To instruct; teach
Ref: New World Dictionary, second college editon
Last edited:
My thinking? What are you talking about? Do you not know the difference between indoctrination and teaching?
The material is the bible or any other scriptures you might bring to the table. They aren't "teaching tools" either, they are statements about the world that have no basis in fact or reality. Mindless drivel from those too ignorant to wipe their asses with anything other than their hands.
You conveniently left out "uncritically" in that definition. However, the term "imbue" should help you out in the understanding.
Not really. They are totally different in regards to process and results.
Teaching involves thinking critically, asking questions and finding evidence.
Indoctrination is simply stating something is the truth without thinking, asking questions or finding evidence.
Big difference.