Chomsky’s views on humanism, religion, and state-sanctioned fear. Part 2: www.youtube.com … noam chomsky humanism religion racism
On January 16, 2010, In Jewish News, by admin
Chomsky’s views on humanism, religion, and state-sanctioned fear. Part 2: www.youtube.com … noam chomsky humanism religion racism
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
The limits we have on science are simply the tools and reserach methods we have at our disposal. That simple, really.
Yes. I recommend a healthy of psilocybin magic mushrooms.
@dearyou1994
I think we have to start talking about what it means for something to be “real.”
I think most philosophers (I’m not one) would agree that the planet neptune “exists” – but its the nature of that existence that is ineffable.
Am I talking crap?
What are the limits of science?
Are there any inherent limits? Or is it just a matter of time before science sheds some light on things like free will or creativity?
Interested to hear what other people think.
surly , if you were to doubt the credibility of the photographer , there is one path of actually learning the logistics of making a telescope , which with the internet today shouldnt be to hard , and actually verify then for your self , and see it for your self. if you wanted to take it to that extent , just on principals and to prove a point , i would say yes and it would still be your senses
Absolutely. But you need to trust whoever took the picture if you’re going to treat it as fact. And I’m assuming you’ve never met the photographer. To believe that what you’re seeing is true, your using something besides the five senses, because you’re looking at something you’ve never experienced yourself. You’re choosing to believe it. If you’re religious, you can call this faith. But even if you’re not religious, trust is something all of us use every day.
@canadarox14 well you can see the planets with the satiltie pics to reaffirm your belief that its there right?
@andyx1205 sarcasim is hard to show online ,
I can’t believe the thumbs down on various comments. Why are people so negative???? Fear?
Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelt Graeco-Buddhism, refers to the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE
How come my comment is voted -5?
MY COMMENT WAS SARCASTIC, didn’t anyone notice that? I’m actually a die hard Chomsky fan, and have 5 of his books.
Yes, anyone who’s smart can get into MIT. It’s something resembling a meritocracy, unlike say HARVARD, where Bush went.
You’re an idiot.
True. Questioning the reality of reality has little point outside of philosophy. If what I see in front of me isn’t real, so what? As interesting as it is, it’s not something that is productive to dwell on.
Forgive me if this isn’t at all what you are talking about. I’m reading what you said completely out of context.
But some fact isn’t observable. If you can’t see or hear or touch a planet thousands of miles away, does that mean it isn’t there? The five senses are very limiting. If we restrict fact to the senses, we’re missing a lot.
@jjmhamir I cant agree more!
Noam Chomsky is an idiot. So what if he teaches at MIT, anyone can get into MIT.
And no one cares about linguistics, it’s a useless subject.
Also, how dare he defend Humanism.
Conservatism is leaps ahead of Humanism, Conservatism is the adherance to the old and tried, according to Abraham Lincoln, which is exactly what our society needs.
/ends sarcasm
Thanks! I’m watching it now
Without speculation you couldn’t come up with a theory to test. The act of observation isn’t science. The ability to take observed “facts” and answer questions of who,what,why,where,&how. First comes speculation… then comes the test of the speculation(theory)…. which in turn, leads to answers to one or all of the 5 questions. That is Science in a nutshell.
Umm…the only speculation you have to have is to believe that observable reality is…well, real. The axioms of science are set down in absolute 100% observable facts.
There’s also a great two part BBC documentary about some of Ramachandran’s cases, which is on youtube. I just watched it and was quite fascinated.
Well I as I wrote that I realized that I respond to idiots more than anyone else and I should take my own advice.
But people who say things like what we were talking about can literally know nothing about psychology or linguistics and are clearly just people who disagree with his political views.
Well I enjoy it… there’s a reason
Everybody’s wrong about a few things. People who say he contributed nothing obviously know nothing about linguistics or psychology so there’s no point in responding to them.
He may be a clever linguist, but:
7:28-7:32.
Hahaha. Classic.
The interviewer sounds like Mort Goldman from “Family Guy”.