Weekend Assignment #147: Make a Warning Sign For Everyday Life. Because life needs warning signs sometimes.That was John Scalzi's most recent weekend assignment, posted last Thursday afternoon. I created the warning signs at the site to which he linked, but I didn't get a chance to actually write an entry to go with them until now. A little late, but here it is.
Extra credit: Ever ignored a warning sign you should have paid attention to?
At first I was kind of at a loss over what to do with these. I'm pretty sure I've used this generator before, but I couldn't find that entry (if, in fact, I ever wrote one), and nothing clever was coming to mind. At some point over the weekend I was perusing my text file crammed with some of my favourite quotations, and it occurred to me that many of them would work here.
So, below you will find three general purpose warning signs encouraging you to take a skeptical view on life. Do any of you recognise any of the quotations?
And one more, not so much a skeptical quote, but a good rule of thumb for everyday life:
Did you recognise any of the quotes? I'll identify them tomorrow.
15 comments:
# 1 is Thomas Paine and #2 is Richard Feynman... who was not really a skeptic at all Paul.
be well,
Dawn
And oh yeah, the comet one is Jonathan Swift. I do like to read!
be well,
Dawn
Feynman wasn't a skeptic? He was a nobel award winning theoretical physicist, a vigorous denouncer of bad science and pseudoscience, and a good friend of James Randi. He was most decidedly a skeptic. His quote that I have reproduced above could be a one sentence instruction manual for skepticism.
Several years ago Alan Alda gave a commencement address at Caltech in which he mentioned Feynman. Said Alda: "But Feynman was comfortable with not knowing. He enjoyed it. He would proceed for a while with an idea as if he believed it was the answer. But that was only a temporary belief in order to allow himself to follow it wherever it led. Then, a little while later, he would vigorously attack the idea to see if it could stand up to every test he could think of. If it couldn't stand up, then he simply decided he just didn't know. 'Not knowing,' he said, 'is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.'"
Sounds a lot like a skeptic to me...
-Paul
Maybe... to me he was just a first class scientist who understood that the answers are always changing. That you cannot 'believe' or 'not believe' in something just because, and that you always need to reevaluate retest, and change your methods and means of evaluating and testing. And, sometimes, you change your mind and grow. Did you ever read Feynman's Rainbow?
be well,
Dawn
Dawn,
That's pretty much the textbook definition of a skeptic. It's just about impossible to be a good scientist without being a skeptic. No, I have not read any of his work. I am currently reading The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, and I think it is the first non-fiction book I have read since I left school, going on twenty years ago.
-Paul
Yes, but when you speak of 'skepticism' Paul, it takes on a different type of spin whether you care to see that or not.
I like Dawkins too...
be well,
Dawn
ps... Read Brian Green, The Elegant Universe... great book, very accessible physics read on his and other new theories.
Oh and was I right on the other quotes?
be well,
Dawn
"Yes, but when you speak of 'skepticism' Paul, it takes on a different type of spin whether you care to see that or not."
Only to those who refuse to practice it. Those who prefer to go through life wearing rose coloured glasses will always hate those who would attempt to show them the world as it really is.
-Paul
And, maybe your glasses have their own color too, Paul. All I am saying...
be well,
Dawn
Because, I don't believe that your vision of the world is 'how the world really is' either. That was a very presumptuous statment, and a bit insulting.
be well,
Dawn
The difference, Dawn, is that my vision of the world is evidence based. I can show you concrete evidence to back up the things I accept as factual. Your vision of the world includes belief in things for which evidence cannot be presented.
Do you believe God exists?
Do you believe psychic abilities exist?
Do you believe leprechauns exist?
Do you believe unicorns exist?
Do you believe that there is a very small china teapot orbiting the sun partway between the Earth and Mars?
You can answer yes to all of the above, or no to all of the above, and I drop this immediately. If, however, you want to accept some of those things, and reject others, you're going to have some pretty in-depth explaining to do.
-Paul
No, it is because I accept different parameters of evidence than you do.
be well,
Dawn
Ps... you know this is a moot point for us to continue going on and on about...so the end for me...
Dawn, you didn't answer my five, simple, yes-or-no questions...
-Paul
Fun banter :). I saw this, Paul -
"Only to those who refuse to practice it. Those who prefer to go through life wearing rose coloured glasses will always hate those who would attempt to show them the world as it really is.
-Paul"
Just wanted to highlight your message here for a few quick points: first, faith in God (or leprauchans for that matter) is not equivalent with wearing rose colored glasses. For many, the world is a more challenging, difficult place to accept as 'real' because of their faith - hardly a rose colored glasses scenario. Similarly, skeptics may find the same anguish in their attempt to question and answer the world's phsyical intangibles (as we know them today). Also, a skeptic's view of the world and a X's (insert religion here) view of the world don't neccessarily result in hatred or incompatability. For one, my faith encourages doubt and questions - it encourages me to debate, to discern, to uncover reality. Those principles are shared between us, even if we look at the same floating tea pot from different perspectives.
You and I both know that one's view of reality is defined and influenced by many other things beyond faith or skepticism. Cultural origin, personal experience, socio-economic status all influence what is 'real' or 'truth' for others. Mind-mattering maps, power-mapping, and language webs all show this to be true in philosophy.
Interesting discussion!
Charley
Wow, Charley... you rock. You should be teaching theology!
be well,
Dawn
Post a Comment