If only . » Forum Post by DodgyDude

ah, the myth of the heroic scientist. unfortunately, many historians of science consider it a myth. most discoveries occur as the result of an accumulation of knowledge reaching a kind of critical mass. the individual isn't too important to the equation (the reason calculus was developed twice and why quantum field theory doesn't have a single founder the way relativity does). don't get me wrong. Einstein, Curie, Darwin, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo (I'd even include Marx, Smith and Locke): they were certainly geniuses. and some discoveries are definately a matter of luck.

What type of myth are you saying it is? Is it because someone else will prolly discover it later? That may be well and good if this is what your talking about but still it is about individual contributions too. Luck is something you can also make... its not always something that is thrust apon you.

I think if you were to name these many historians they would show socialistic sympathies. Socialists tend to make indiviuality a bad thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But the way the apple is use is considered myth...

oh really? maybe it didn't hit his head while he dozed off to sleep, but there's a firt-hand account that his initial suppositions on gravity were formulated involving an apple: at the very least, Newton used an apple as an example in his initial hypothesis.

A contemporary writer, William Stukeley, recorded in his Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's Life a conversation with Newton in Kensington on 15 April 1726, in which Newton recalled "when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasioned by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself. Why should it not go sideways or upwards, but constantly to the earth's centre." In similar terms, Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Epic Poetry (1727), "Sir Isaac Newton walking in his gardens, had the first thought of his system of gravitation, upon seeing an apple falling from a tree." These accounts are probably exaggerations of Newton's own tale about sitting by a window in his home (Woolsthorpe Manor) and watching an apple fall from a tree.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But the way the apple is use is considered myth...

oh really? maybe it didn't hit his head while he dozed off to sleep, but there's a firt-hand account that his initial suppositions on gravity were formulated involving an apple: at the very least, Newton used an apple as an example in his initial hypothesis.

A contemporary writer, William Stukeley, recorded in his Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's Life a conversation with Newton in Kensington on 15 April 1726, in which Newton recalled "when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasioned by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself. Why should it not go sideways or upwards, but constantly to the earth's centre." In similar terms, Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Epic Poetry (1727), "Sir Isaac Newton walking in his gardens, had the first thought of his system of gravitation, upon seeing an apple falling from a tree." These accounts are probably exaggerations of Newton's own tale about sitting by a window in his home (Woolsthorpe Manor) and watching an apple fall from a tree.

Yep you even quoted what I am talking about its an exaggeration... hence a myth.

Newton himself was most likely using the apple as an example and was prolly not his only reason to question it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yep you even quoted what I am talking about its an exaggeration... hence a myth.

Newton himself was most likely using the apple as an example and was prolly not his only reason to question it.

i agree. all i originally meant to point out is that it took some time before Newton's original inspiration turned into a well-defined theory; does anything about the mythical accretions discount that idea?

Is it because someone else will prolly discover it later? That may be well and good if this is what your talking about but still it is about individual contributions too. Luck is something you can also make... its not always something that is thrust apon you.

i think you're taking my words to an extreme i didn't intend, and i don't think genius was thrust upon any of them (in fact, some of them had mostly frustrated careers). it absolutely does require individual choice and work. i was pointing out that discovery doesn't happen in a vacuum or by exceptional genius alone. like other iconic figures, people can sometimes grant geniuses a mythic status like that of the Buddha or (dare i say) Christ. this isn't a bad thing; we still need role models, and we still need examples of exceptional humans to inspire us. but as far as the nature and progression of scientific discovery is concerned (natural science at least), over enough time the individuals are more or less interchangable (with other geniuses anyway) - their only claim to fame is being first (also an oversimplification, since many of them were also active statesmen or political ideologues). there was a very specific context i had in mind with my original statement.

I think if you were to name these many historians they would show socialistic sympathies. Socialists tend to make indiviuality a bad thing.

i certainly can't speak for all socialists, but i think individuality is a wonderful and vibrant part of human life, and societies throughout history have valued it to some extent. my sense is that socialists and social scientists don't object to inviduality, but individualism.

in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty –noun, plural -ties.
1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.

in·di·vid·u·al·ism –noun
1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
2. the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.
3. the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism.
4. individual character; individuality.
5. an individual peculiarity.
6. Philosophy. a. the doctrine that only individual things are real.
b. the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.

as you can see there's some abiguity in the usage of the latter term, but in general those definitions that emphasize a belief or ideology in the -ism are dominant. finally, i thought i'd leave just a small expert from the wiki article to hint at some of the problems social scientists see in individualism, which isn't to say i expect you to agree with it. i'm just clarifying.

Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book Democracy in America was translated in English in 1840 (published in French in 1835) used the term as well. Tocqueville described Americans as highly individualistic and believed that this individualism was inseparable from the new American concept of egalitarian democracy. He wrote, "Not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but also clouds their view of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries, Each man is forever thrown back upon himself, and there is danger that he may shut up in the solitude of his own heart." And, "Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart. Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but immediately it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.

(footnote symbols omitted).

Successfully updated karma reason!

the Aztecs had wheels, they just never used them for anything buy toys. they had a working model that did roll across the ground with relatively good effiency for its size,

hard to use the wheel without beasts of burden

other than all of that i have not learned how to make the blind see

Successfully updated karma reason!

the Aztecs had wheels, they just never used them for anything buy toys. they had a working model that did roll across the ground with relatively good effiency for its size,

hard to use the wheel without beasts of burden
other than all of that i have not learned how to make the blind see

i made the statement you quoted in a different thread, God gave us thought. i will respond to it there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i agree. all i originally meant to point out is that it took some time before Newton's original inspiration turned into a well-defined theory; does anything about the mythical accretions discount that idea?

As a pagan I got nothing against myths, but you often sound like your against other peoples myths so I figured that it was alright to show you one of your own. We all have myths and its ok.

like other iconic figures, people can sometimes grant geniuses a mythic status like that of the Buddha or (dare i say) Christ.

Budda prolly doesnt care what you say about him and poor old Jesus has been the pin cushion of the left for so long that its defenatly not a dare. Now if you dared to say that about Mohommad THAT would be daring.

this isn't a bad thing; we still need role models, and we still need examples of exceptional humans to inspire us. but as far as the nature and progression of scientific discovery is concerned (natural science at least), over enough time the individuals are more or less interchangable (with other geniuses anyway) - their only claim to fame is being first (also an oversimplification, since many of them were also active statesmen or political ideologues). there was a very specific context i had in mind with my original statement.

While yes someone else may later invent or create new theory its often better to get it sooner than later, or even worse there is nothing that says we WILL discover something just that there is a good POSSIBLITY that we will.

my sense is that socialists and social scientists don't object to inviduality, but individualism.

in·di·vid·u·al·i·ty –noun, plural -ties.
1. the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature: a person of marked individuality.
2. individualities, individual characteristics.
3. a person or thing of individual or distinctive character.
4. state or quality of being individual; existence as a distinct individual.
5. the interests of the individual as distinguished from the interests of the community.
6. Archaic. state or quality of being indivisible or inseparable.
in·di·vid·u·al·ism –noun
1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual.
2. the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.
3. the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism.
4. individual character; individuality.
5. an individual peculiarity.
6. Philosophy. a. the doctrine that only individual things are real.
b. the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.

as you can see there's some abiguity in the usage of the latter term, but in general those definitions that emphasize a belief or ideology in the -ism are dominant. finally, i thought i'd leave just a small expert from the wiki article to hint at some of the problems social scientists see in individualism, which isn't to say i expect you to agree with it. i'm just clarifying.

yeah I guess you could call me a person who believes in individualism. For I don t believe that there is such thing as an unselfish act. Not that you can t do "good" acts but in the end it is still you who wants to do them.

Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book Democracy in America was translated in English in 1840 (published in French in 1835) used the term as well. Tocqueville described Americans as highly individualistic and believed that this individualism was inseparable from the new American concept of egalitarian democracy. He wrote, "Not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but also clouds their view of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries, Each man is forever thrown back upon himself, and there is danger that he may shut up in the solitude of his own heart." And, "Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart. Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but immediately it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.

ahh a socialists attack on my system of government how poeticly... boring. Tocqueville and his ilk only knew how to break apart a system not create one. Why should I try for this PERFECTION that the socialists want, whats in it for me, to be nice? No thanks, I ve played the nice guy it doesn t pay well... Now being able to help others get what they want when I get my way THAT works.

Oh and this American is an ancestor worshipper by the way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alexis de Tocqueville, whose book Democracy in America was translated in English in 1840 (published in French in 1835) used the term as well. Tocqueville described Americans as highly individualistic and believed that this individualism was inseparable from the new American concept of egalitarian democracy. He wrote, "Not only does democracy make men forget their ancestors, but also clouds their view of their descendants and isolates them from their contemporaries, Each man is forever thrown back upon himself, and there is danger that he may shut up in the solitude of his own heart." And, "Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart. Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but immediately it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness.

ahh a socialists attack on my system of government how poeticly... boring. Tocqueville and his ilk only knew how to break apart a system not create one. Why should I try for this PERFECTION that the socialists want, whats in it for me, to be nice? No thanks, I ve played the nice guy it doesn t pay well... Now being able to help others get what they want when I get my way THAT works.

oops Tocquville may not be a socialist... But he did influence many socialist after him. He really just didn t understand how Americans bond amongs ourselves by helping each other in the persuit of our indivual happinesses.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If only i could die and come back to tell the tale of death, to see if god is real, if only i could live to whatch the death of the human species and tell it to everyone...

if only i could know everything, to comprehend the uncomprhensable, if only, if only....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mystikmind

Join Date 06/2004

+20

hard to use the wheel without beasts of burden

Do you know what a 'rickshaw' is?

If only i could die and come back to tell the tale of death, to see if god is real, if only i could live to whatch the death of the human species and tell it to everyone...

Well, even if you did do that, so what? you would come back to Earth and then have to stand in line behind all the other people who have already done that and no one believes them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you often sound like your against other peoples myths so I figured that it was alright to show you one of your own. We all have myths and its ok.

absolutely, and i thank you for it. the way i often sound isn't because i dispise myth. what irks me is when persons hold one myth criticize other myths without understanding those myths/beliefs/ideas on their own terms. when that manifests as hipocrisy in my eyes, i am indeed prone to directly criticizing others' beliefs. my motivation for this, as best i can tell, is to try and show another person acting in such a way that s/he's no different than the Others s/he's criticizing. i don't expect you to approve of this; i'm merely explaining myself as best i can. if i've managed to deeply offend you, or you feel like i'm just BSing, then you have my deepest apologies.

if you want to understand my in terms of my own historical/mythic role model, think of socrates. from wikiP:

"...perhaps the most historically accurate of Socrates' offences to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of immorality within his region, Socrates worked to undermine the collective notion of "might makes right" so common to Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the gadfly of the state, insofar as he irritated the establishment with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness. His attempts to improve the Athenian's allegiance to justice may have been the source of his execution."

oops Tocquville may not be a socialist... But he did influence many socialist after him. He really just didn t understand how Americans bond amongs ourselves by helping each other in the persuit of our indivual happinesses.

hehe. and actually, he was the last of an feudal-aristocratic family with a good deal of experience in statecraft - just no capitalist democracies. his social milieu (the French aristocracy) left him with a particular bias for sure: one thing he claims is that America's individualistic conception of equality does little more than leave us equally weak.

the weakness to which he referred was political power, but he never realized that perhaps the average american joe isn't in search of power. one idea i hope to develop in my own future academic life is that power is the opposite of freedom--not that they are mutually exclusive, but that increasing one strongly tends to decrease the other. and i don't mean freedom in some paltry consumeristic sense, like the freedom to chose between almost identical, predetermined choices like pepsi or coke, democrats or republicans.

by freedom i'm thinking of something more along the lines of the south asian concept of moksha, or liberation. this concept might bear some similarity to christian salvation. i wonder, do you have a similar concept in your belief system, chad? i've tried not to pry, but i am really curious about some of the minutiae of your beliefs. i think i kind of remember you mentioning that you follow something akin to Nordic beliefs...? (if that's the case, do you refer to your belief system as Asatru?)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Do you know what a 'rickshaw' is?

yes i have they are good for about a mile or two at a time.

at most you can carry two people not much heavy cargo so a rickshaw or a handcart is not useful for running an empire with

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mystikmind

Join Date 06/2004

+20

yes i have they are good for about a mile or two at a time.

at most you can carry two people not much heavy cargo so a rickshaw or a handcart is not useful for running an empire with

Unless you have plenty of slaves to whip! lol,,, now i am reminded of that Simpsons episode about Burn's teddy bear and in the last scene there are apes on charriots being pulled along by dozens of Homers,,, what a classic! lol

Successfully updated karma reason!

...one thing he claims is that America's individualistic conception of equality does little more than leave us equally weak.

I'd like to add my own comment on individualism here. The big thing that socialists miss, IMO, is the effect of population size. I completely agree that individualism fails when we're talking about thousands of people. No strength, no power, no unity of purpose, everyone equally weak.

The reason why individualism works as well as it does is that it's spread over hundreds of millions of individuals. When you have that many it isn't the selfish desire of each individual that is important, but the total aggregate of all selfish desires. A natural selflessness emerges; a proportioned response to issues; an application of power whenever needed. No single concentration of power could never hope to orchestrate such a thing.

It's like a complex fractal or an autonomous computer system; it's so cool to watch it in motion.

Successfully updated karma reason!