Thread: Arriving At One's Stop

As an atheist (or metaphysical naturalist to be specific) I've arrived at my philosophy/ideology by analysing me and the world around me. More than often I've questioned many things in my enviroment, even miniscule things, so that I may reach the conclusion most satisfactory (satisfactory in the sense of most accurate according to evidence and logic).

I care passionately about the truth, perhaps even too passionately, and I do at times reach conclusions I don't like because of this, even though I end up ignoring my feelings on the matter and attempt to stay as realistic as possible.

There are certain dogmas I still hold which I have yet to explore more fully to be certain of, but I do know that my way of seeing the world was ultimately the road to my atheism. Yet I wonder if that is true. If I question, explore and evolve my belief system to a certain point, isn't it reasonable to assume others do as well? Are there faiths which in my eyes are ridiculous which has been arrived at through the same method as myself?

Basically I have come to doubt if any arrival I make will be an accurate one, and it is only lately that I've realized that the price for truth is uncertainty. What that means is that I can't arrive at anything, because there'll always be a certain probability involved; nothing is 100% certain. Yet even upon realizing this I remain in my position of metaphysical naturalism. It seems I have come to the conclusion that this is the most probable "truth" out there.

It's an endless human endevour to seek truth; to end up in a place of mental satisfaction; to reach a conclusion. The end of the line, or one's stop.

Are we all wrong in walking out of the train at the station one finds most satisfactory? Are all beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, etc inherently of the same character? Are all, some, none or only one of them correct?

They all hold their place in the human world, but they are certainly not all true. I've always maintained stuborn separating fact from ficiton, reality from fantasy. We all rationalize our beliefs, but do any of us rationalize our rationalizations? I know I do, because I keep riding the train uncertain if I even want to stop anywhere.

---------------------
Thread questions:

What is the catalyst for which you arrive at your stop? What are your reasons?

How do you view your own rationalizations, and how do you view other rationalizations?

Do you trust your own conclusions?

Have you reached your conclusions based upon what you feel, based upon evidence and logic or perhaps a mixture of both?

Are feelings holding you back from making other conclusions? How do you rationalize this?

---------------------

Not sure if this belongs more in the Philosophy forum, but it does basically address faith and reason. Things that have been discussed ruthlessly here for ages. The purpose of this thread is basically to make everyone doubt themselves.

Give word if something needs clarification. My mind tends to wander off a bit sometimes.

Faith and reason have little to do with religion, which is more faith and dogma. Yes, this does belong in philosophy.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Basically I have come to doubt if any arrival I make will be an accurate one, and it is only lately that I've realized that the price for truth is uncertainty. What that means is that I can't arrive at anything, because there'll always be a certain probability involved; nothing is 100% certain. Yet even upon realizing this I remain in my position of metaphysical naturalism. It seems I have come to the conclusion that this is the most probable "truth" out there.

Compare certainty with uncertainty and ask yourself which is a more accurate reflection of the nature of life? Life isn't just about objective observation and certainty. It is about an assertion of self over and against the world and that is an act of creativity because even being yourself is an act of creativity because life is a creative process. If you sit back and expect the world to tell you who you are then you are really a non-entity.

Originally Posted by Obviously

It's an endless human endevour to seek truth; to end up in a place of mental satisfaction; to reach a conclusion. The end of the line, or one's stop.

How can you stop unless you are looking for a place to hide from life? Otherwise each conclusion is simply a basis for asking more questions and is thus a waypoint on a longer journey. That is the obvious nature of science as well as life in general. This actually creates a bias in science, because it means that the scientists will tend to be uninterested in answers that lead nowhere. I have the same attitude towards philosophical and relgious inquiries as well. Answers that put you in a dead end - a stop as you call it - are answers that I find uninteresting and hardly worth my time.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Are we all wrong in walking out of the train at the station one finds most satisfactory? Are all beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, etc inherently of the same character? Are all, some, none or only one of them correct?

I am not really sure that it is a matter of correct or incorrect. Consider the process of evolution and how different species have taken different paths in the process. Can you really say that the bird is incorrect while the cockroach is correct, or visa versa? Yet on the other hand, I think we CAN say that all choices are not equal, for we can say yes I would rather be a bird than a cockroach. The question is... what do you want to be?

Originally Posted by Obviously

They all hold their place in the human world, but they are certainly not all true. I've always maintained stuborn separating fact from ficiton, reality from fantasy. We all rationalize our beliefs, but do any of us rationalize our rationalizations? I know I do, because I keep riding the train uncertain if I even want to stop anywhere.
...
How do you view your own rationalizations, and how do you view other rationalizations?

My rationalization of my rationalizations is that such rationalizing is not only natural and unavoidable but serves the important function of helping us to understand the implication of our beliefs and to seek after the ideal of rational consistency. Rationalization is part of the process by which we explore the meaning of our choices and beliefs. It is the pretence that some people make that they arrive at their beliefs by pure reason that I consider to be the most disturbing sort of self-delusion.

Originally Posted by Obviously

What is the catalyst for which you arrive at your stop? What are your reasons?

I guess the ideas I learned from existentialist literature played one of the earliest critical roles in this for me. But that like everything else has not been a stop but a waypoint in a continuing journey. Perhaps another critical waypoint was the realization the question of whether life was worth living was a question that could never be answered by any amount of pure reason or objective observation.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Do you trust your own conclusions?

Of course. To do anything else is to lie down on the ground and stop breathing. But trusting and having faith in your conclusions simply means being willing to jump into life with both feet and to give it a chance. It does not mean that you have to close off your eyes and ears in order to protect your conclusions from the realities of the world.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Have you reached your conclusions based upon what you feel, based upon evidence and logic or perhaps a mixture of both?

I feel that deliberately closing yourself off to some aspect of the experience of human existence is to that degree a rejection of life, and so I embrace it all. I will not pretend that some of it not real or illusory in order to get a simpler or more comfortable answer.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Are feelings holding you back from making other conclusions? How do you rationalize this?

No, feelings are not a handicap but part of the data. It is ignoring them that I would consider an indugence in self deception. Rationalization is the means by which you make all the various components of life fit together into a consistent and coherent whole.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Not sure if this belongs more in the Philosophy forum, but it does basically address faith and reason. Things that have been discussed ruthlessly here for ages. The purpose of this thread is basically to make everyone doubt themselves.

This can be in either forum. It all depends on what kind of discussion you want to pursue. If you specifically want to challenge the religious participants to think about these issues then perhaps the religion section is best, but if you just want a more objective discussion, more in the tradition of philosophical dialog then the philosophy section is where you want it.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Give word if something needs clarification. My mind tends to wander off a bit sometimes.

On the contrary. I don't think you have ever been quite so crystal clear.

I personaly like the view from the train.. plus if you look at my clock and your clock, it seems I will be living a few seconds longer

there is no reason to decide, having to decide is anxiety, a lack of vitamin B, oxygen, water, omegas, or sleep.... or too much fats, sugars, caffiene, nicotine, pepper, hot peppers, cocain or other stimulants

faith is not based on the past, it is based on an openness to the future, it is not a decision, but if it was it would be the only decision you could make because you must first decide to have faith in a decision before deciding.

asking questions and expecting nothing are both acts of faith

Originally Posted by Obviously

---------------------
Thread questions:

What is the catalyst for which you arrive at your stop? What are your reasons?

How do you view your own rationalizations, and how do you view other rationalizations?

Do you trust your own conclusions?

Have you reached your conclusions based upon what you feel, based upon evidence and logic or perhaps a mixture of both?

Are feelings holding you back from making other conclusions? How do you rationalize this?

---------------------

The goal I put in front of myself is the catalyst. Reason is because i desire so.

My own rationalizations are what I think is correct rationalizations. What other rationalizations are there besides my own?

It is based on what I think is right, whether it is by feelings, evidence or both.

newnothing: you can learn more about Cabala from it's origins in Taoism.

You must first think your thoughts are right before you can think an idea is right.

Right-Wrong thought is a catalyst and it's reason is to protect the ego from an indifferent reality

I believe Hume was the first philosopher to talk about this much. He basically pointed out that you can't every be really sure of anything - it's always just a matter of assigning a value greater than 0 and less than 100% to how likely you think something is. Even if you're talking about something like mathematics, where you can make seemingly-logical proofs, you can't be 100% sure that there isn't some flaw in your reasoning that your imperfect human intellect isn't catching.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I feel that deliberately closing yourself off to some aspect of the experience of human existence is to that degree a rejection of life, and so I embrace it all. I will not pretend that some of it not real or illusory in order to get a simpler or more comfortable answer.

---

No, feelings are not a handicap but part of the data. It is ignoring them that I would consider an indugence in self deception. Rationalization is the means by which you make all the various components of life fit together into a consistent and coherent whole.

Still, I find that some of the data should be recognized for what it is and one should separate fact from fiction to avoid distortion due to flawed and selfish human emotions. I don't completely shut them out, I just maintain a certain amount of control over them. I think I'm still a part of the human experience, but perhaps only more carefully.

It should be recognized that emotions are necessary. Without them everything basically becomes meaningless. I've always held the belief that one should avoid extremes, like for example in the movie "Equilibirum".

Now the topic basically addresses the end-line, in my case atheism. There's simply no way I can go back even if I try. For me there's a certain awareness that everything in the belief in God is lies and self-deception. I can still remember analyzing people of belief as a child. There was an obvious cloak of "happy-hypocrisy" over all of them. Well, some of them anyway. Some friends of mine kind of grew out of all the God stuff.

All in all I wonder (arrogantly) why some still remain stuck in this belief and why they haven't moved on. Have they gone through the same process as me of rationalizing my rationalization (on God, etc), or have they simply skipped it in ignorance or fear? Perhaps they've never really thought about it? Just suppressed it every now and then when doubt emerges?

Even so, taking you as an example, you've said you came to your belief by yourself (in perhaps a similar process as myself). I wonder how and why.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I personaly like the view from the train.. plus if you look at my clock and your clock, it seems I will be living a few seconds longer

there is no reason to decide, having to decide is anxiety, a lack of vitamin B, oxygen, water, omegas, or sleep.... or too much fats, sugars, caffiene, nicotine, pepper, hot peppers, cocain or other stimulants

faith is not based on the past, it is based on an openness to the future, it is not a decision, but if it was it would be the only decision you could make because you must first decide to have faith in a decision before deciding.

asking questions and expecting nothing are both acts of faith

Faith is defined (by me at least) to be belief in the absense of evidence. When I make a decision it is not merely faith at work, because I could have several reasons for that particular decision. When I make a choice on a matter it is mostly based upon evidence and logic (and of course a little bias which is almost unavoidable) coupled together with what choice is deemed to be the best choice of action. There's no need for faith. A little confidence perhaps, but it is not done without something to back it up with.

Originally Posted by newnothing

The goal I put in front of myself is the catalyst. Reason is because i desire so.

My own rationalizations are what I think is correct rationalizations. What other rationalizations are there besides my own?

It is based on what I think is right, whether it is by feelings, evidence or both.

You haven't really answered anything. This looks more like a template for responding; like a giant deflection from the real issue at hand. :?

Anyhow, there are other rationalizations than your own. Don't forget the rationalization of others. :wink:

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

newnothing: you can learn more about Cabala from it's origins in Taoism.

You must first think your thoughts are right before you can think an idea is right.

Right-Wrong thought is a catalyst and it's reason is to protect the ego from an indifferent reality

If you reach the conclusion that something is right, how can you be sure it is correct? There's a need for a methodology to avoid bias and mistakes which might lead you in the wrong direction. I've found the scientific method to be quite effective.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

believe Hume was the first philosopher to talk about this much. He basically pointed out that you can't every be really sure of anything - it's always just a matter of assigning a value greater than 0 and less than 100% to how likely you think something is. Even if you're talking about something like mathematics, where you can make seemingly-logical proofs, you can't be 100% sure that there isn't some flaw in your reasoning that your imperfect human intellect isn't catching.

If you create a methodology to step around the problem of human bias and mistake there shouldn't really be a problem, right? I'm just curious as to what methodology is used to reach other "stops" than naturalism. I'm doubting my position due to the fact that other people have stopped at different stations, and what it all basically boils down to is the methodology (I think).

All humans seem to have an axiom of rationalization, and most likely all these axioms will have some sort of flaw. How does one overstep a problem caused by a solution (the solution being the methodology)? A combination of different methodologies, the discovery of the correct methodology (a flawless axiom of thought) or a methodology for methodologies? One should try and avoid an infinite regression of methodologies I would hope.

I might be unclear here. Let me know if I need to elaborate.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Still, I find that some of the data should be recognized for what it is and one should separate fact from fiction to avoid distortion due to flawed and selfish human emotions. I don't completely shut them out, I just maintain a certain amount of control over them. I think I'm still a part of the human experience, but perhaps only more carefully.

Yes, of course, science and objective observation is the same way. Sometimes first impressions are wrong. Sometimes the evidence DOES mislead us, and a further gathering of evidence reveals a completely different picture. We must not be naive and we must be ready to revise.

Originally Posted by Obviously

It should be recognized that emotions are necessary. Without them everything basically becomes meaningless.

Yet I think this two box categorization of everything into objective observation which is reliable and "emotions" which are unreliable is a symptom of dismissal. I mean take a step back, for goodness sake. Everything which is not objective observation is not automatically emotions.

Originally Posted by Obviously

I've always held the belief that one should avoid extremes, like for example in the movie "Equilibirum".

Ah yes. I saw the film when it first came out on DVD so it has been quite a while. But I do remember that this was the theme of this film as it is the theme of MANY SF films and you may want to ask yourself why this is the case? Could it be that we detect and fear trends of history that seek to stamp out the "human" side of life because we fail to understand its importance. I think so. I think it is implicit in the whole scientific revolution and the trend to become so enamoured of science that we think that this methodology of objective observation is the be all and end all of life, when the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Now the topic basically addresses the end-line, in my case atheism. There's simply no way I can go back even if I try. For me there's a certain awareness that everything in the belief in God is lies and self-deception. I can still remember analyzing people of belief as a child. There was an obvious cloak of "happy-hypocrisy" over all of them. Well, some of them anyway. Some friends of mine kind of grew out of all the God stuff.

But I think you will find that there are also people coming to an awareness that dogmas of atheism and naturalism are just as full of lies and self-deception -- and full of its own kind of hypocrisy. So what does that prove? That God exists? No. It simply means that there is a healthy dynamism here that is all about finding a balance amidst a human tendency to extremes. In the end it is values and not dogmas that are important.

Originally Posted by Obviously

All in all I wonder (arrogantly) why some still remain stuck in this belief and why they haven't moved on. Have they gone through the same process as me of rationalizing my rationalization (on God, etc), or have they simply skipped it in ignorance or fear? Perhaps they've never really thought about it? Just suppressed it every now and then when doubt emerges?

Yes some certainly have. But I think there are atheists who have done the same. I do believe that casting off the chains of religion for the liberation of atheism represents a step up for those that do so, but I also believe that others experience something similar in going in the opposite direction. This is because it is all really about life. Finding out what life really means and seeking to embrace it - to be more alive/aware and living life to the fullest.

This may be a oversimplification but perhaps it is instructive anyway: perhaps this back and forth comes from seeking a balance between emptyness and bondage. In seeking an answer to emptiness we find meaning but when that meaning becomes routine the resulting dogma is more like bondage, from which we need liberation, but then in liberation we find emptiness. Perhaps the greatest factor in making this an endless cycle is our impulse to impart our answers to our own children when they really need to find their own answers to this sort of thing.

I think that the process of life itself exists in a similar kind of balancing between the deaths of stagnation and disolution. To be alive we have to maintain our identity in defiance of environmental change, but if we go to the extreme of the complete invulnerability and insensitivity of a stone then there is no life. Likewise, to be alive we must be sensitive to the environment, but if we go to the extreme where the environment dominates us then we cease to have the integrity of an organism and there is no life there either. In the boundarly between these extremes is an infinite complexity like the Mandelbrot set, where living organisms can simultaneously achieve greater independence from the environment and greater sensitivity to the environment.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Even so, taking you as an example, you've said you came to your belief by yourself (in perhaps a similar process as myself). I wonder how and why.

I think it means that we are overwhelmed by distractions -- things that seem important but are really superficialities that distract us from the underlying truths. But by looking at and accepting our diversity it might be possible to abstract out the distractions and find some of these underlying truths. The word "God" with such a long history of use and abuse may be one of the biggest distractions of them all.

Originally Posted by Obviously

As an atheist (or metaphysical naturalist to be specific) I've arrived at my philosophy/ideology by analysing me and the world around me. More than often I've questioned many things in my enviroment, even miniscule things, so that I may reach the conclusion most satisfactory (satisfactory in the sense of most accurate according to evidence and logic).

I think thats the best thing to do. But even though I look at everything in the same light, analysing my own philosophies and ideologies I still remember that even my own are relative and subjective to somebody elses and more importantly, to my past and future selves. But that keeps the unique-ness of all people on Earth alive. Like later when you describe being on the train. I think even though the train is you as a person, you move forwards on the train inside it, until you reach the drivers seat and choose the places you want to go...

Originally Posted by Obviously

I care passionately about the truth, perhaps even too passionately, and I do at times reach conclusions I don't like because of this, even though I end up ignoring my feelings on the matter and attempt to stay as realistic as possible.

Perhaps that is best. Truth must prevail no matter what, its needed to progess humanity, even if people will not accept those truths. And even they are relative and subjective to some future and past truths. Time is going to be a very tricky thing to learn its truth, but when we do I see a lot of educational benefits coming from that.

Originally Posted by Obviously

There are certain dogmas I still hold which I have yet to explore more fully to be certain of, but I do know that my way of seeing the world was ultimately the road to my atheism. Yet I wonder if that is true. If I question, explore and evolve my belief system to a certain point, isn't it reasonable to assume others do as well? Are there faiths which in my eyes are ridiculous which has been arrived at through the same method as myself?

Igornance I feel is what kept us in a shell of doubt and disbelief at the real world beyond the so called 'God'. If when being theist for instance, I would place everything on God and His work, and His ways, and His wants. Not anymore, I saw the shackles in that belief and have since left. Of course into a world of doubt and the unknown as you did Obviously. You are ahead of me. So perhaps looking at me now might be of some inspiration to you.

I do also assume people may have done the same methods to reach more or less the same conclusions you have but with different beliefs. Thats just human nature. We all see the same truths but try to explain them in different ways that won't hurt us. And obviously some people are going to hurt more than others. Thus accept and believe different truths and make different truths.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Basically I have come to doubt if any arrival I make will be an accurate one, and it is only lately that I've realized that the price for truth is uncertainty. What that means is that I can't arrive at anything, because there'll always be a certain probability involved; nothing is 100% certain. Yet even upon realizing this I remain in my position of metaphysical naturalism. It seems I have come to the conclusion that this is the most probable "truth" out there.

No stop will be accurate, as the stops change. As do any train stations in our real life here. Some train stations get knocked down, more are built where an open field used to be that you once passed through and would not have thought twice about stopping in. Uncertainty is chaos, yet to be with order that we seek still comes with the chaos of the journey.

As you dub 'Metaphysical naturalism' (which I think is brilliant that just being labelled atheist because of religious beliefs or lack of, there are so much more capabilites that atheists are able to think of). As you dub metaphysical naturalism, I think you have mastered 'Knowing you know nothing is true wisdom' Or something like that. I also hold personally its the best way to go. Better go on knowing chaos is needed to keep the thirst and quest for truth alive, because if we lose that then we might as well never have boarded the train. I suppose you could say that your train is running on 'truth'. But certain terrains will require more truths (fuels) to get by. Some which might make the train cough and splutter. But can only be found at certain stops (accepting truths for a while).

Originally Posted by Obviously

It's an endless human endevour to seek truth; to end up in a place of mental satisfaction; to reach a conclusion. The end of the line, or one's stop.

Are we all wrong in walking out of the train at the station one finds most satisfactory? Are all beliefs, philosophies, ideologies, etc inherently of the same character? Are all, some, none or only one of them correct?

People will always look for an end or a means to an end. Its the way of humanity, to end that which is painful. A long and struggling quest for survival but yet, at the same time a quest for deeper meaning and an answer to that meaning. We as a species have come a long way, and have a long way to go. And people like you Obviously are the driving force for this quest. Without people such as you, were stuck and doomed to repeat past mistakes and to remain in out arhchaiec beliefs that no longer apply.

I try not to look at it in terms of right and wrong, but rather the chaos and order that approaching these stops comes with. We as people can be chaos or order. Very few people are both, but thats the journey, to understand both and the balance that is needed for the quest to stay alive. Yes I believe beliefs, philosophies and ideoligies etc are the same character. We all look out the windows of our trains, but we see what we want to see and what we want to believe. They are the same, but viewed differently due to the uniuqness of human beings.

Are all, some, none or only one of them correct?

Only an all knowing, eternal, omnciscent super intelligent being could answer that. Or someone who has travelled the train a very long time. They wisdom of both must be parallel. You are starting to emerge chaos and order together, and you'll see the world in a different light. I have just recently and it is magnificent. But then again, this is me of this time and of this part of the train at this stop, chilling out and enjoying the sun eating a new kind of ice cream flavour. I'll get back on the train sooner or later.

It sounds to me as if you are just about to arrive at a new stop. Have a good time at it for a time.

Originally Posted by Obviously

They all hold their place in the human world, but they are certainly not all true. I've always maintained stuborn separating fact from ficiton, reality from fantasy. We all rationalize our beliefs, but do any of us rationalize our rationalizations? I know I do, because I keep riding the train uncertain if I even want to stop anywhere.

I too rationalize my rationalizations (even though I should spell it, rationalisation... see how brilliant it all is?).

Stop now and again, but always remember that that stop will go eventually and so will the train and it will be a long time until it comes by again, perhaps when the train station is long gone.

Remember this one thing... Is the train moving across the world of the uncertain? Or is the uncertain world moving around the uncertain train?

---------------------

Originally Posted by Obviously

Thread questions:

What is the catalyst for which you arrive at your stop? What are your reasons?

Sometimes I stop because I just need a break and time to clear my head (ready for some new truths and to let go of old ones). Mostly to get some fresh air... and some sunshine...

Originally Posted by Obviously

How do you view your own rationalizations, and how do you view other rationalizations?

I view them as relative and subjective to the time I'm in at the train stations and the world I pass. Others rationalisations are the same to me as well. But most people don't ever get on the train we're on. Which is a shame.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Do you trust your own conclusions?

Never. By not trusting them, it serves as a catlyst to learn some new ones.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Have you reached your conclusions based upon what you feel, based upon evidence and logic or perhaps a mixture of both?

A mixture of all of those things, sometimes of one or more of them in all combinations. What I do know, is that with religion. I had none of those and thus could never draw any conclusions. Evidence and logic are subjective and relative, but feel is what justifies them both. And its the feeling that drives you on beyond them and onto new evidence and new logic.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Are feelings holding you back from making other conclusions? How do you rationalize this?

Yes they do sometimes. But I have learned that sometimes, as evidence and logic can be wrong. So can feeling. I try not to led them hold me back and cotton on when I am trying to believe something but find my self denying that conclusion. Which I will one day anyway, but keeping it for a while is important. I rationalize it by remembering that there are past versions of myself and future versions of myself that do the same thing, every conclusion they reach. Knowing that I know that conclusions are wrong relative and subjective to past and future but right relative and subjective to the present (which ironically scientifically does not exist).

But then it comes back to my own conclusion from all of this. I say I try not to think of it in terms of right and wrong. So from this I gather my own conclusion to say: Sometimes dogmas can attach themselves to us that are hard to be rid of, but by rationalzing a rationalization, we see them and can rid them so that truth becomes within our reach... Even if that truth changes in time... and even if ones truth is anothers falsehood. So you see, perhaps truth is another dogma? Who knows? I'm not at that point on the train yet and not near the stop when I may or may not learn that....truth...

---------------------
PS

Originally Posted by Obviously

Give word if something needs clarification. My mind tends to wander off a bit sometimes.

I'm glad it does... Wandering and wondering... the train and you...

A lot of interesting things here which I'll try and get back to as soon as possible.

In order to find the correct stop one would require the correct methodology. How does one determine a methodology to be a correct one? Does one require another methodology for that? And what about that methodology?

As mentioned earlier in another response:

Originally Posted by Obviously

All humans seem to have an axiom of rationalization, and most likely all these axioms will have some sort of flaw. How does one overstep a problem caused by a solution (the solution being the methodology)? A combination of different methodologies, the discovery of the correct methodology (a flawless axiom of thought) or a methodology for methodologies?

I'm interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on that.

I think the best methodology is found by seeing if that methodology adequatley explains the universe around us better than any other methodology. For instance one methodology may be very good at explaining 99.9% of everything. But the 0.01% is needed to be explained by another methodology.

For instance, when you imagine relativity. There is much supporting the evidence that the universe revolves around the Earth, but that is relative to what we understood years ago. When we learned other methodologies such as the laws of motion, gravity and Einsteins relativity we finally understood how the universe works so that we had the methodologies which were 0.01% now are 99.9%. See how quickly they can swap.

I suppose what I'm saying here is, methodologies are only as good as they last, until a new and better one comes along. Compare that methodology against as many current methodogies as possible against all kinds of phenomena. The one that is the best and explains most phenomena should be the one that is favoured but in every new phenomena still must be treated as if it could easily go from being 99.9% to 0.01%.

The concept to keeping this is to maintain a concept of time, and relativity. Both of these will interact with each other and change and vary but even though they change. Nothing in reality is change at all, because everything is relative and time so nothing is reality to everything in the universe relative to itself or a multitude variety of things...

So what I am saying is that methodologies are only relatively useful or 'correct' when they are used where they apply and are most appropriate. There is no 'best' methodology in the same way that there is no universal 'time clock' like Newton suggested. It's the same scenario. It's relativity...

Originally Posted by Bad Wolf

I think the best methodology is found by seeing if that methodology adequatley explains the universe around us better than any other methodology. For instance one methodology may be very good at explaining 99.9% of everything. But the 0.01% is needed to be explained by another methodology.

For instance, when you imagine relativity. There is much supporting the evidence that the universe revolves around the Earth, but that is relative to what we understood years ago. When we learned other methodologies such as the laws of motion, gravity and Einsteins relativity we finally understood how the universe works so that we had the methodologies which were 0.01% now are 99.9%. See how quickly they can swap.

I suppose what I'm saying here is, methodologies are only as good as they last, until a new and better one comes along. Compare that methodology against as many current methodogies as possible against all kinds of phenomena. The one that is the best and explains most phenomena should be the one that is favoured but in every new phenomena still must be treated as if it could easily go from being 99.9% to 0.01%.

The concept to keeping this is to maintain a concept of time, and relativity. Both of these will interact with each other and change and vary but even though they change. Nothing in reality is change at all, because everything is relative and time so nothing is reality to everything in the universe relative to itself or a multitude variety of things...

So what I am saying is that methodologies are only relatively useful or 'correct' when they are used where they apply and are most appropriate. There is no 'best' methodology in the same way that there is no universal 'time clock' like Newton suggested. It's the same scenario. It's relativity...

Basically one art to measure the performance of a methodology by its success in practice. Agreed.

It seems this topic was a bit of a waste. The influence of making one's stop is a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity. I maintain the belief that the methodology of subjectivity is flawed due to its direct relation to our personal credulity. This is why objectivity seems to be the only true achiever of revealing truths. It seems my stop was reached a long time before I even realized it.

It seems my stop was reached a long time before I even realized it.

Thats called falling asleep on the train.

EDIT:

We all fall asleep. Its because we are tired. Maybe you should take a break at this stop and go and get some sleep. The train will always be waiting for you when you are ready to board it again... :wink: