i find science forums are quite hopeless... there are too many people who don't know the facts yet argue their cases with all the time they have spent on this planet... the people who know their stuff are sick of arguing with them... newbie to the forum think that those who are wrong are right... the correct one tries to stop them but the wrong one would engage in personal attacks to draw the new ppl to their side. the correct one is so pissed that he leaves, leading the newbies to think that he is wrong...
So, everyone. Forums are the WORST source of information. if you want to progress in life, get books that your teachers recommend. they are recommended for a very good reason. and they are certainly worth the cost. C'mon, you get what you pay for. Study from a forum and you'll be wasting the time of your life.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
updates:
RI got grand slam in NUS physics open house competition. Sent 2 quiz teams and 1 projectile team. Got 1st and 2nd in quiz and 1st in projectile... w00t.
I got into NSC. hurray. more mugging. but i get to go on tv. The stuff there seems more fun and creative than other science challenges, but a crucial element of luck required. questions are... weird.
Quote:
"ahem... mee-mee-mee-meef-arf-arf -arf.... BARK!"- Odie, in the Garfield comic strip.
This quote teaches us its easier to gain an upper hand when u catch ppl by surprise. Dunno how to apply it in life though.
Quote:
"All under heaven see beauty as beauty only because they also see ugliness.
All announce that good is good only because they also denounce what is bad.
Therefore, something and nothing give birth to one another.
Difficult and easy complete one another.
Long and short fashion one another.
High and low arise from one another.
Notes and tones harmonize with one another.
Front and back follow one another.
Thus, the True Person acts without striving and teaches without words.
Deny nothing to the ten thousand things.
Nourish them without claiming authority,
Benefit them without demanding gratitude,
Do the work, then move on.
And, the fruits of your labour will last forever." - Verse 2, Tao Te Ching by Lao Zi.
RI got grand slam in NUS physics open house competition. Sent 2 quiz teams and 1 projectile team. Got 1st and 2nd in quiz and 1st in projectile... w00t.
I got into NSC. hurray. more mugging. but i get to go on tv. The stuff there seems more fun and creative than other science challenges, but a crucial element of luck required. questions are... weird.
Quote:
"ahem... mee-mee-mee-meef-arf-arf -arf.... BARK!"- Odie, in the Garfield comic strip.
This quote teaches us its easier to gain an upper hand when u catch ppl by surprise. Dunno how to apply it in life though.
Quote:
"All under heaven see beauty as beauty only because they also see ugliness.
All announce that good is good only because they also denounce what is bad.
Therefore, something and nothing give birth to one another.
Difficult and easy complete one another.
Long and short fashion one another.
High and low arise from one another.
Notes and tones harmonize with one another.
Front and back follow one another.
Thus, the True Person acts without striving and teaches without words.
Deny nothing to the ten thousand things.
Nourish them without claiming authority,
Benefit them without demanding gratitude,
Do the work, then move on.
And, the fruits of your labour will last forever." - Verse 2, Tao Te Ching by Lao Zi.
Your wise quote is: "Reality bites with a
variety of sizes of teeth"(-Tony Follari)
As a person, you think life is just plain
painful, horrible and everything else you don't
like. Happy people confuse you. Alot. I mean,
why are they so happy anyway? You are depressed
and perhaps utterly alone and live life rather
montone. You feel there is no reason to really
be here and feel helpless.
What wise quote fits you?(pics) UPDATED
brought to you by Quizilla
Friday, June 03, 2005
some dude at the bishan mrt thought that my suspicious-looking bag was a bomb or sth. i was helping ali carry his metallic water bottle (which read: "fuel bottle" with a corrosive, flammable danger signs on it) inside, then i decided to go to the toilet, leaving the bag at a very inconspicious corner. When i came out, it was gone. after a short while we checked with the station control centre and they told me that an auntie brought it to them thinking it was a bomb or sth.
"May we have your attention please. Please do not leave your belongings unattended. If you see any suspicious articles, please inform our staff or call 999."
hmm. i thought posters at the mrt station said that if you see any suspicious articles, DO NOT TOUCH IT. keep people away from it and inform the staff immediately, or call the police.
nvm. i thank the cleaner auntie for being vigilant. now i feel safer in the bishan mrt station knowing that there is such an observant auntie. i'm serious.
"May we have your attention please. Please do not leave your belongings unattended. If you see any suspicious articles, please inform our staff or call 999."
hmm. i thought posters at the mrt station said that if you see any suspicious articles, DO NOT TOUCH IT. keep people away from it and inform the staff immediately, or call the police.
nvm. i thank the cleaner auntie for being vigilant. now i feel safer in the bishan mrt station knowing that there is such an observant auntie. i'm serious.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Alas! I have found the ultimate truth of the universe! And I shall share my insight with all you guys!
A = B
Hah! No one can disprove it!
I also hereby disallow people to redefine A or B, in methods such as A!= C, C = B. This is plain wrong, because i have already defined A=B, and it is always true, so that claim must therefore be false!
Everything else is uncertain! Only A=B is the ultimate truth! Live your life to the fullest with A=B, and you'll always be on the right track!
A = B
Hah! No one can disprove it!
I also hereby disallow people to redefine A or B, in methods such as A!= C, C = B. This is plain wrong, because i have already defined A=B, and it is always true, so that claim must therefore be false!
Everything else is uncertain! Only A=B is the ultimate truth! Live your life to the fullest with A=B, and you'll always be on the right track!
Sunday, April 24, 2005
After some thought, I feel that Alwyn is right, as he has previously stated that he feels that "the most noble aspiration is to uncover the objective truth", and I would agree that science would be the best way.
However, if one knows me enough, you'll know that I am no religious person, and I personally do not believe in the presence of an omnipotent being, but then I would not totally reject it if it can be proven. Or rather, shall I say, the anthropic principle in the boundary conditions of the beginning of the universe can well be interpreted into a "proof" for an divine creator, but then again, I personally think thats a load of crap, even though i have nothing to prove it.
I have noticed how some evangelists jump on anything that seems scientific and seems to prove that god exists, but reject everything in science that clearly goes against their religious text.
For example, someone has commented that using the equation for the overall upward force on an aerofoil, a bee should not be able to fly. Some people immediately jumped on it and said, "Ha, so science is wrong, and hence religion must be right!" Come on, do the wings of a bee even look like an aerofoil? But that is a stupid example, i daresay 99.95% of the people, and even evangelists who heard it will doubt that that is the case.
The thing is that science is really more powerful than some think. Even though it seems that with science we cannot even predict the motion of three stars, it is not the case. Astronomy has the variables, physics has the equation, but maths hold the solution, so please, don't just bugger the scientists. Bugger the mathematicians or astronomers as well. (But then again, it is pointless to argue with astronomers. "look! my telescope shows something different!" "Ahh, i see. thats just &^$^$*^$%(*&%$%$#&*&*. The hubble space telescope is better because it has this $%&^$&* fuction that prevents &^%*$*^, and this (&^%(&$( function.....)
But then again, these are not proof against an omnipotent being. These are just some examples to show that many of the problems with religion to seemingly clash with science is due to ignorance. I'm not a religious person, so pardon me if i do not seem to be offering a balanced argument, but i really cannot think of any examples where science is wrong and religion is right.
I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with the people who have a religion, but it would be better to adopt something that is not based on something we cannot prove. If you don't want to change, its alright, but do keep an open mind.
(Sorry, the only philosophies i've heard a bit about is confucianism and legalism, the rest i have absolutely not idea what it is about, so pardon me if i am wrong) It seems to me that Confucianism works even though they do not preach on what happens to you after you die if you do something wrong, because they drill into you that humans are supposed to help humans, and they also tell you what would happen to you when you are still alive. It IS effective, and it does not hinder science.
My viewpoint for myself: Religion is effective, but I'll prefer secular humanism. Religion is not supposed to explain things, science is. Confucianism promotes loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, potileness, righteousness, humility and sense of shame (zhong ziao ren ai li yi lian chi) and does not assume anything about the world around us, except the love of mankind intrinsic in everyone. So, i feel religion is not for me. But I dunno about the rest. I personally can't think of any utilitarian reasons to believe that people can only adopt this certain religion, if there is something like confucianism.
However, if one knows me enough, you'll know that I am no religious person, and I personally do not believe in the presence of an omnipotent being, but then I would not totally reject it if it can be proven. Or rather, shall I say, the anthropic principle in the boundary conditions of the beginning of the universe can well be interpreted into a "proof" for an divine creator, but then again, I personally think thats a load of crap, even though i have nothing to prove it.
I have noticed how some evangelists jump on anything that seems scientific and seems to prove that god exists, but reject everything in science that clearly goes against their religious text.
For example, someone has commented that using the equation for the overall upward force on an aerofoil, a bee should not be able to fly. Some people immediately jumped on it and said, "Ha, so science is wrong, and hence religion must be right!" Come on, do the wings of a bee even look like an aerofoil? But that is a stupid example, i daresay 99.95% of the people, and even evangelists who heard it will doubt that that is the case.
The thing is that science is really more powerful than some think. Even though it seems that with science we cannot even predict the motion of three stars, it is not the case. Astronomy has the variables, physics has the equation, but maths hold the solution, so please, don't just bugger the scientists. Bugger the mathematicians or astronomers as well. (But then again, it is pointless to argue with astronomers. "look! my telescope shows something different!" "Ahh, i see. thats just &^$^$*^$%(*&%$%$#&*&*. The hubble space telescope is better because it has this $%&^$&* fuction that prevents &^%*$*^, and this (&^%(&$( function.....)
But then again, these are not proof against an omnipotent being. These are just some examples to show that many of the problems with religion to seemingly clash with science is due to ignorance. I'm not a religious person, so pardon me if i do not seem to be offering a balanced argument, but i really cannot think of any examples where science is wrong and religion is right.
I personally feel that there is nothing wrong with the people who have a religion, but it would be better to adopt something that is not based on something we cannot prove. If you don't want to change, its alright, but do keep an open mind.
(Sorry, the only philosophies i've heard a bit about is confucianism and legalism, the rest i have absolutely not idea what it is about, so pardon me if i am wrong) It seems to me that Confucianism works even though they do not preach on what happens to you after you die if you do something wrong, because they drill into you that humans are supposed to help humans, and they also tell you what would happen to you when you are still alive. It IS effective, and it does not hinder science.
My viewpoint for myself: Religion is effective, but I'll prefer secular humanism. Religion is not supposed to explain things, science is. Confucianism promotes loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, potileness, righteousness, humility and sense of shame (zhong ziao ren ai li yi lian chi) and does not assume anything about the world around us, except the love of mankind intrinsic in everyone. So, i feel religion is not for me. But I dunno about the rest. I personally can't think of any utilitarian reasons to believe that people can only adopt this certain religion, if there is something like confucianism.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
This is in response to alwyn's response to my response to his response to my response to his blog.
Firstly, I am confident of the human race. I believe(and in a sense, assume) that there are no stupid people in the world. There are careless people, there are ignorant people, there are stubborn people, there are unthinking people, but there are no stupid people.
If people read up, spend some time thinking, take note of their actions, and keep an open mind, then we will not have a problem with stupidity, but rather, propaganda. Religious conflicts are caused and maintained by propaganda. (interesting read: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/strife.php)
If the cause of one religion is to stamp out another, it would not be possible to bring so many religions and philosophies in Singapore without a massive conflict. People are clever enough to think for themselves what they want out of a religion. Example: tudung issue. Many muslims are willing to sacrifice some of the beliefs which they feel is not that vital to the goal of islam, and are willing to follow the government's policies on "equality and harmony" in education, for the greater good. It is not correct to say that religion cause people to care more for their god than mankind.
The reason why Singapore and Malaysia is able to bring about racial harmony, I feel that it is not that Singapore and Malaysia have different religions from those in the places where "interreligious" conflicts occur, rather, there difference is that the different religions are exposed to different sources of information. The Singapore government would not tolerate it if Mediacorp's news content in suria is drastically different from channel 8, and the society is generally intolerant to racist acts.
In summary, the 'members' of religions can think for themselves if what they are doing is correct; religions do not turn people into unthinking soldiers and resistance against science, but propaganda can.
In Singapore, we are rather lucky that we are shown "the two sides of the coin" when we look at an international conflict (not involving our countries interest), but do notice that our media also portrays Singapore is right and Malaysia is wrong during the water issue, and that China is right and Taiwan is wrong in the taiwan independence issue. On my on stand, I would not make any conclusions, as i admit that it is much easier for me to strong points in the arguments that the media wants to put forward, and i am unlikely to make an unbiased judgement. Nevertheless, the judgement that the government wants us to make would be in the interests of the country, if the government is a good one, and i would like to believe so.
With regard to the issue that there is no basis for religion, i beg to differ.
Consider the following argument:
Careless student says:
a=1. b=2 therefore a+b=3. hmm...and a+4=6(oops)
what a minute. does a even exist? How do you know it does? you are only assuming that there is something called a, can you prove it exists? If you can't prove it exists, it does not. Look: my equation shows that a=3 and i have concrete proof, so you are wrong, a does not exist. you don't even need a or b to solve the equation, 1+2= works fine too. and haha look, a+4=6...wtf man a is illogical! 1+4 is fucking 5, not 6! and also, in primary school we can score 100% with arithmethic, but we can only score 80+% in alegebra! therefore, a does not exist, it does not need to exist, its existence only causes trouble and confusion, and we should stick to arithmetic.
We don't need to believe in the presence of an omni-potent being to keep us moving. But some people prefer to do things this way.
We don't need algebra, but some people prefer doing things this way.
The fact that some people misunderstand other religions and use that as a justification to murder does not mean that religion is a fundamentally flawed concept.
The fact that some people make mistakes in their algebraic problems and hence are unable to get correct results for their experiments does not justify that algebra is fundamentally flawed.
That said, I summarise the points in my above analogy:
The fact that something cannot to proven to exist does not mean it does not exist.
Something does not need to be proven to exist for it to work.
The fact that something can cause problems if in the wrong hands does not mean it is a fundamentally flawed concept.
The fact that people can use something to prevent another more noble cause from being fulfilled does not mean that that thing causes nothing but harm.
The fact that there is an alternative to something does not mean that that thing is redundant.
Therefore, religion cannot be said to be a fundamentally flawed concept just because what they base their beliefs on cannot be proven to exist.
I am not against science, but I feel that science should not be considered a gauge of the development of human race. Just because science is the correct way to explain things, science does not come first, because science cannot make things work; we need the infrastructure first.
I am also not saying that we all need a religion, i am just saying that there is nothing wrong with any religion. Religions do not cause problems, they help in maintaining social cohesion, and just because blindly following a religion can prevent a certain aspect of science to be recognised does not mean there cannot be religion if one wants science.
Science and religions are not mutually exclusive. There will come a time when people use science to dismiss certain parts in religions, and religions do nothing more than their desired purpose. Despite the Inquisition, we now know that the earth goes around the sun, and many of us have heard of the theory of evolution. People can think, if it is within reason they will eventually accept it. That is why science has triumphed.
Religions cannot hinder people from thinking for themselves, that is why we have so many Christian, Jewish, Muslim and (alright alwyn,) Hindu scientists. If religion and science is mutually exclusive, then the human race would not have progressed till now. Interests that are mutually exclusive always lead to a conflict solvable only by annihilation of one of them, but currently i do not see an unresolvable "Scientific Ideal" vs "Religious Ideal" conflict. If it is resolvable by understanding, then it means that they are not mutually exclusive, but instead the conflict is caused by misunderstanding in the first place. It did not take the annihilation of the Roman Catholic Church to have Catholics believe that the earth goes around the sun. It just shows that the people controlling it misunderstand either the religion or the science to think that they are mutually exclusive and hence oppress Galileo's works.
Scienific progress and religion have coexisted for a long time in human history, and they can continue to do so. However, the root cause of the "conflicts" between different religions and science is ignorance, and large scale ignorance caused by propaganda leads to large scale conflicts. These "conflicts" can be solved by understanding of each other on both sides.
Firstly, I am confident of the human race. I believe(and in a sense, assume) that there are no stupid people in the world. There are careless people, there are ignorant people, there are stubborn people, there are unthinking people, but there are no stupid people.
If people read up, spend some time thinking, take note of their actions, and keep an open mind, then we will not have a problem with stupidity, but rather, propaganda. Religious conflicts are caused and maintained by propaganda. (interesting read: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/strife.php)
If the cause of one religion is to stamp out another, it would not be possible to bring so many religions and philosophies in Singapore without a massive conflict. People are clever enough to think for themselves what they want out of a religion. Example: tudung issue. Many muslims are willing to sacrifice some of the beliefs which they feel is not that vital to the goal of islam, and are willing to follow the government's policies on "equality and harmony" in education, for the greater good. It is not correct to say that religion cause people to care more for their god than mankind.
The reason why Singapore and Malaysia is able to bring about racial harmony, I feel that it is not that Singapore and Malaysia have different religions from those in the places where "interreligious" conflicts occur, rather, there difference is that the different religions are exposed to different sources of information. The Singapore government would not tolerate it if Mediacorp's news content in suria is drastically different from channel 8, and the society is generally intolerant to racist acts.
In summary, the 'members' of religions can think for themselves if what they are doing is correct; religions do not turn people into unthinking soldiers and resistance against science, but propaganda can.
In Singapore, we are rather lucky that we are shown "the two sides of the coin" when we look at an international conflict (not involving our countries interest), but do notice that our media also portrays Singapore is right and Malaysia is wrong during the water issue, and that China is right and Taiwan is wrong in the taiwan independence issue. On my on stand, I would not make any conclusions, as i admit that it is much easier for me to strong points in the arguments that the media wants to put forward, and i am unlikely to make an unbiased judgement. Nevertheless, the judgement that the government wants us to make would be in the interests of the country, if the government is a good one, and i would like to believe so.
With regard to the issue that there is no basis for religion, i beg to differ.
Consider the following argument:
Careless student says:
a=1. b=2 therefore a+b=3. hmm...and a+4=6(oops)
what a minute. does a even exist? How do you know it does? you are only assuming that there is something called a, can you prove it exists? If you can't prove it exists, it does not. Look: my equation shows that a=3 and i have concrete proof, so you are wrong, a does not exist. you don't even need a or b to solve the equation, 1+2= works fine too. and haha look, a+4=6...wtf man a is illogical! 1+4 is fucking 5, not 6! and also, in primary school we can score 100% with arithmethic, but we can only score 80+% in alegebra! therefore, a does not exist, it does not need to exist, its existence only causes trouble and confusion, and we should stick to arithmetic.
We don't need to believe in the presence of an omni-potent being to keep us moving. But some people prefer to do things this way.
We don't need algebra, but some people prefer doing things this way.
The fact that some people misunderstand other religions and use that as a justification to murder does not mean that religion is a fundamentally flawed concept.
The fact that some people make mistakes in their algebraic problems and hence are unable to get correct results for their experiments does not justify that algebra is fundamentally flawed.
That said, I summarise the points in my above analogy:
The fact that something cannot to proven to exist does not mean it does not exist.
Something does not need to be proven to exist for it to work.
The fact that something can cause problems if in the wrong hands does not mean it is a fundamentally flawed concept.
The fact that people can use something to prevent another more noble cause from being fulfilled does not mean that that thing causes nothing but harm.
The fact that there is an alternative to something does not mean that that thing is redundant.
Therefore, religion cannot be said to be a fundamentally flawed concept just because what they base their beliefs on cannot be proven to exist.
I am not against science, but I feel that science should not be considered a gauge of the development of human race. Just because science is the correct way to explain things, science does not come first, because science cannot make things work; we need the infrastructure first.
I am also not saying that we all need a religion, i am just saying that there is nothing wrong with any religion. Religions do not cause problems, they help in maintaining social cohesion, and just because blindly following a religion can prevent a certain aspect of science to be recognised does not mean there cannot be religion if one wants science.
Science and religions are not mutually exclusive. There will come a time when people use science to dismiss certain parts in religions, and religions do nothing more than their desired purpose. Despite the Inquisition, we now know that the earth goes around the sun, and many of us have heard of the theory of evolution. People can think, if it is within reason they will eventually accept it. That is why science has triumphed.
Religions cannot hinder people from thinking for themselves, that is why we have so many Christian, Jewish, Muslim and (alright alwyn,) Hindu scientists. If religion and science is mutually exclusive, then the human race would not have progressed till now. Interests that are mutually exclusive always lead to a conflict solvable only by annihilation of one of them, but currently i do not see an unresolvable "Scientific Ideal" vs "Religious Ideal" conflict. If it is resolvable by understanding, then it means that they are not mutually exclusive, but instead the conflict is caused by misunderstanding in the first place. It did not take the annihilation of the Roman Catholic Church to have Catholics believe that the earth goes around the sun. It just shows that the people controlling it misunderstand either the religion or the science to think that they are mutually exclusive and hence oppress Galileo's works.
Scienific progress and religion have coexisted for a long time in human history, and they can continue to do so. However, the root cause of the "conflicts" between different religions and science is ignorance, and large scale ignorance caused by propaganda leads to large scale conflicts. These "conflicts" can be solved by understanding of each other on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)