17th April 2005, 10:27 PM
And do you have evidence of this? Look, as I pointed out, the native americans actually learned, even though they had no idea of the processes beforehand, how to build and operate fire arms. They eventually were able to figure it out.
The idea that a culture, simply due to preconceptions, is simply incapable of changing at all no matter the data is to say that humans are not capable of change. That's simply not true. Over the course of a century, my great grandmother has gone from a childhood of complete ignorance of anything close to a computer to playing computer solitaire when bored.
Lots of people in the past in today's world have grown up believing in one thing, having no idea of the possibilities otherwise, but presented with the right information, they have managed to completely and totally change their mindsets. Take the layperson who has dedicated their future success to the daily lottery, who eventually is able to learn the truth about odds and accept that it is foolish and actually completely change their life outlook. The advancement of technology is irrelevent in this case. The point is humans CAN change. Keep in mind I'm aware that MOST obsessed gamblers will not change their viewpoint, but it IS possible.
Sure, people back then would have a hard time understanding it. It is likely that during the witch hunt eras you would simply be burned at the stake. However, there are certainly some people, as there always are (or we wouldn't progress) that would willingly look for a logical explanation. A baby is not truly an "empty vessel". You suggest that at a certain age we become "immutible", completely unchangeble. I submit this is NOT the case as people, even those reaching 50 or so years of age, can and have completely changed their views on life.
Further, science and logic are not bound by culture, because the universe, despite views, is the same as ever. Certain things observed by both are going to be the same, so there is a workable framework at all times. Both today and then, one will notice that a rock is hard, and that things fall. From there it's only repetition and testing away from showing what is and is not true. Culture is irrelevent.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...ality.html
And in the end, I must say this last thing. Explanations and such aside, that's not proof. I still need some sort of reference. Who is "clarK" and why should I care? When did he prove this, and by what methods? What on earth does "indistinguishable from magic" even really MEAN aside from sounding poetic?
The idea that a culture, simply due to preconceptions, is simply incapable of changing at all no matter the data is to say that humans are not capable of change. That's simply not true. Over the course of a century, my great grandmother has gone from a childhood of complete ignorance of anything close to a computer to playing computer solitaire when bored.
Lots of people in the past in today's world have grown up believing in one thing, having no idea of the possibilities otherwise, but presented with the right information, they have managed to completely and totally change their mindsets. Take the layperson who has dedicated their future success to the daily lottery, who eventually is able to learn the truth about odds and accept that it is foolish and actually completely change their life outlook. The advancement of technology is irrelevent in this case. The point is humans CAN change. Keep in mind I'm aware that MOST obsessed gamblers will not change their viewpoint, but it IS possible.
Sure, people back then would have a hard time understanding it. It is likely that during the witch hunt eras you would simply be burned at the stake. However, there are certainly some people, as there always are (or we wouldn't progress) that would willingly look for a logical explanation. A baby is not truly an "empty vessel". You suggest that at a certain age we become "immutible", completely unchangeble. I submit this is NOT the case as people, even those reaching 50 or so years of age, can and have completely changed their views on life.
Further, science and logic are not bound by culture, because the universe, despite views, is the same as ever. Certain things observed by both are going to be the same, so there is a workable framework at all times. Both today and then, one will notice that a rock is hard, and that things fall. From there it's only repetition and testing away from showing what is and is not true. Culture is irrelevent.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...ality.html
And in the end, I must say this last thing. Explanations and such aside, that's not proof. I still need some sort of reference. Who is "clarK" and why should I care? When did he prove this, and by what methods? What on earth does "indistinguishable from magic" even really MEAN aside from sounding poetic?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)