You can easily build a bridge, if you would take into account that facts are man made. All the moral talk gets in the way to build bridges.
Science is not bullet proof, it's state of the arts, not a tool for truth seeking as mistakingly seen. Science could be mistaken already in the past and still acts upon false premises. Science does in the rarest case deliver a "law", like for gravitation or other absolutes. It can err. Theory after theory could be build on already false or partly wrong scientific premises.
What science indeed cannot do is to be not analytical. But outside of it there is more to life than analyses. The soft sciences, so called, probably for the reason they are on the opposite spectrum of materialism, is psychology and sociology. I actually do not count them to the sciences for the parts which cannot be analyzed precisely.
... How earnest is it for you to really build this bridge? I hoped to inspire you through the sources I posted or where I comment on you. Would you read Alfred North Whitehead or Heinz von Förster or other figures like Margret Mead or Gregory Bateson? They were called "systemisists" or other names, which I often found not very helpful. But their works speak a lot for them. In particular I also would like to recommend C. G. Jung, where he speaks about the "persona" and the roles the individual takes up in his life.
Can you consider that totally other reasons for millions of people do count to have a very different perspective from yours? And is that not reason enough to build those bridges for each other? From what I sense (I can be wrong), there is still too much will on your side to convince your readers of the moral aspect of the issue (and maybe you could feedback the same thing to me, not quite sure, though). But when I talk to you from person to person I find it a much better experience.
Great read! Thanks for sharing this.
You can easily build a bridge, if you would take into account that facts are man made. All the moral talk gets in the way to build bridges.
Science is not bullet proof, it's state of the arts, not a tool for truth seeking as mistakingly seen. Science could be mistaken already in the past and still acts upon false premises. Science does in the rarest case deliver a "law", like for gravitation or other absolutes. It can err. Theory after theory could be build on already false or partly wrong scientific premises.
What science indeed cannot do is to be not analytical. But outside of it there is more to life than analyses. The soft sciences, so called, probably for the reason they are on the opposite spectrum of materialism, is psychology and sociology. I actually do not count them to the sciences for the parts which cannot be analyzed precisely.
... How earnest is it for you to really build this bridge? I hoped to inspire you through the sources I posted or where I comment on you. Would you read Alfred North Whitehead or Heinz von Förster or other figures like Margret Mead or Gregory Bateson? They were called "systemisists" or other names, which I often found not very helpful. But their works speak a lot for them. In particular I also would like to recommend C. G. Jung, where he speaks about the "persona" and the roles the individual takes up in his life.
Can you consider that totally other reasons for millions of people do count to have a very different perspective from yours? And is that not reason enough to build those bridges for each other? From what I sense (I can be wrong), there is still too much will on your side to convince your readers of the moral aspect of the issue (and maybe you could feedback the same thing to me, not quite sure, though). But when I talk to you from person to person I find it a much better experience.
How can we learn to converse instead of debate?