July 18th, 2008, 01:09 PM
If we are to assume that at its core evolution stands for change... than no one can argue it... everything changes over time... why is it so hard to imagine biology changing over time...
Civilization is a complex formation like a biological system... and it changes.. in fact certain people could say that social systems are similar to biological systems... kinda like cell division.
I don't think you're going to get any arguments from anyone on these boards that evolution does not occur. Even the modern religious thinkers have thrown away the thought that it doesn't occur at all and accept that it does only on small scales. It's a debate of Religion vs. Macro-evolution of which I provided an example of in a previous post. (Though I can't find it now.)
Oh! Well then my job here is done.... = )
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt"
That is bloody right.
damn! that makes me the zenith of stupidity! (or should that be the nadir?)
Hmm. I'm really not at all sure about that. 8)Originally Posted by Dlrow
LOLHmm. I'm really not at all sure about that. 8)
Yep, the problem with this is the same as with all excessively simple statements. The intellegent are more aware of the complexities of the world, and this issue is no exception. The intellegent have plenty of things about which they are certain, but because they insist on some rational consistency and are aware of complexities that others do not see, they are not only more likely to see ambiguities in your questions but will insist on assuring themselves that their answer to your question is consistent with all the things that they are sure about.
The "stupid" (shallow?) are really certain of fewer things as they are aware of fewer things and can respond to a question with much less deliberation or uncertainty not only because they do not see the ambiguities in the question but also require whatever consistency they do require, with fewer things that they are certain about.
LOL
The intelligent usually like people to know they are. :P
You can't call somebody stupid becasue they don't know much, I agree with that. But at the same time, intelligent people should never think they are better than the 'stupid', or a better set of word(s), the yet to be intelligent. If of course intelligence in entirely required to be the entire population.
Mmmm.?..?.. Actually I think people often get this impression more than it is really true. Often they simply cannot help revealing their intellegence if they want to participate in a discussion at all. Of course the reactions of some people often make them learn to simply keep their mouth shut and this is why it is wise not to assume that the quiet one is quiet because he does not know what to say. It is the perversity of human social groups that they do not always welcome or encourage intellegence.
The truly intellegent really have no need at all to prove it. So the truth is that the people who most likely want others to believe that they are intellegent are those who are actually only moderately intellegent. Having been the smartest in some small group and gaining a position of dominance because of it, they ever afterwards seek to prove their intellegence in order to regain past glory.
However there is another type. This is someone who regardless of his intellegence is either not smart enough or doesn't want it enough (possibly emotionally handicapped for some reason) to gain social acceptance and then reacts to the rejection of others by rejecting them until this becomes a habitual rejection and dismissal of everyone. For those like this who are intellegent, intellegence can become the excuse they use for dismissing people. Needless to say these people can be quite dangerous.
Working in the teaching profession is often a good cure for this, for you certainly cannot be a good teacher with such an attitude. This, of course does not mean that there aren't any teachers who are like this, since there are of course bad teachers. However this is not the only kind bad teacher, for there are teachers who only knowledeable rather than intellegent and then feel insecure when intellegent students quickly surpass them.
Since intellegence is not the same as knowledeable, "yet to be intellegent" really isn't an appropriate description of anyone. You can say that it is unwise to judge the intellegence of those you encounter too quickly because intellegence rests on a large number of aptitudes some of which you may not see immediately. This is why the best teachers constantly try different methods in order to find the ways to bring the varied aptitudes of their students into play.
Eh? Excuse me? Could you rephrase that?
| « Is faith and science reconcilable? | islam and science » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
