I could go on like this for a while, because there's really no end to it. Each component is made up of parts which is made up of different areas which are evaluated based on certain criteria because of arguable FACT. There IS a true/false in everything, there just can be quite a few, and in different places.
This is all fine from and individual point of view, but what happens when two applications of this meet? Say, you make a valid reason for why rare meat is the best, and i for why well-done meat is the best. If both are supported with valid points, and the evidence for each side is correct, how can we determine which is true?
To set up truth and falseness as being mutually exclusive and opposite to each other is dine at a philosophical or metaphysical level, but it has no place in being applied to a tangible reality because the real world doesn't simplify down into a simple "either/or" supposition.
Let's say you have two judges in charge of a contest, to determine which singer is best among three. Judge One decides that Singer A gets first place, Singer B gets second, and Singer C gets third. Judge Two aggrees that Singer A should get first, but digresses in that Singer C should get second and Singer B third.
To take a holistic approach in which one judge must be entirely right, and the other entirely wrong, we arrive at a nice conumdrum. If Judge One is correct in his choices, than Judge Two must be wrong... Except that the the fate of Singer A recieving first is both right and wrong because it exists simultaneously in both set ups: Singer A should win because Judge One said so, but should not win because Judge Two was deemed wrong.
Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place. Setting up false dichtomies to govern the individual when they can negate themselves is ridiculous.
Reality isn't something mutable by opinion and belief.
Define reality. And while you're at it, true and false. Because you keep using those words, and I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
As you said, it's impractical. We don't know the answer to everyone, or have any way to say conclusively what is better than another. Hence where opinions come into play. An opinion is valid as long as it has some kind of reasoning behind it, because no one can 'rove' that something is 'better' than another when it comes to a preference.
Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place
I wouldn't try to, but this is going far beyond what Mage was saying.
Something either exists or it doesn't. There's no in-between. Something either causes something or it doesn't. Even if we're wrong about what that result is, reality is irrelevant to our belief. It's still happening.
What is and is not, either is or isn't. And that's as simple as it gets. Our personal beliefs do not matter.
So we came from HAARP to arguing semantics on what is and isn't absolute fact.
While I myself contributed to the problem by pointing out that Science must be countered by Science, we gotta make sure to also dispute for or against HAARP as well.
It is an existing research station, no doubt on that; there's the facility, the "open doors"-day, the webcams, etc.
The problem is that it is incapable of doing what conspiracists say it does; or looking at it from another angle, independent of its capacities, it isn't that strong anymore; several radio stations including the BBC send out signals at least as energetical, if not more, than the HAARP. Simply it is broadcast all over the world, while the HAARP does specific research.
So if you're afraid of the HAARP, be very afraid of radio stations...
First of all, I'm not afraid of HAARP. I am not afraid of anything of man. What I fear is that these men might hurt people, which some believe they have already.
Congratulations on cherry picking that Hihaha said you're afraid of HAARP and ignoring the much greater point he made:
The problem is that it is incapable of doing what conspiracists say it does; or looking at it from another angle, independent of its capacities, it isn't that strong anymore; several radio stations including the BBC send out signals at least as energetical, if not more, than the HAARP. Simply it is broadcast all over the world, while the HAARP does specific research.
There, I've repeated it for you, since you thought you could so easily ignore it.
[I'm no physics major, so feel free to beat the crap out of this if it's way off] Spin has no effect on gravity itself, but it would slightly alter the weight (not the mass) of objects. However, more spin would counter the effects of gravity on the object due the centrifugal force, not assist it. Kind of like how if you spin around holding a string with a ball on the other end and try to reel it in, it feels heavier than if you were not spinning.
