this is brilliant

[jah_yout]

someone posted online...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Srila Prabhupada gives the example of the frog in the bottom of a well. The frog observes the universe through the hole in the top of his well and he has made so many theories and thinks he has such a great understanding of the universe. But what can he see? Only the opening at the top of the well. Sometimes it is dark, sometimes it is blue, sometimes it is white, maybe he or his grandfather has once seen the moon or the sun when it happened to be directly above his well. He sometimes hears the sound of the farmers tractor when he is cultivating the fields and of course he has a scientific explanation for this sound… But what can he understand actually about the world outside his well? Nothing really. So our scientists are just like the frog in the well. They can see so little, they understand so little, and the reality is very different from their theories and speculations</span>.</div></div>

[johnnycakes]

Re: this is brilliant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">someone posted online...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">gives the example of the frog in the bottom of a well. The frog observes the universe through the hole in the top of his well and he has made so many theories and thinks he has such a great understanding of the universe. But what can he see? Only the opening at the top of the well. Sometimes it is dark, sometimes it is blue, sometimes it is white, maybe he or his grandfather has once seen the moon or the sun when it happened to be directly above his well. He sometimes hears the sound of the farmers tractor when he is cultivating the fields and of course he has a scientific explanation for this sound… But what can he understand actually about the world outside his well? Nothing really. So our scientists are just like the frog in the well. They can see so little, they understand so little, and the reality is very different from their theories and speculations</span>.</div></div>
</div></div>


jah_yout,

The difference is that that frog remains mired in its ignorance at the bottom of that well.

Science reaches out in all directions and as said by wise people, the beginning of wisdom is understanding just how little one knows.

Knowledge builds upon knowledge.
It is said we stand on the shoulders of giants: those who have come before us and given us the knowledge of things up to their level.
We go on to greater heights from that higher starting point.
Those who come after us will start from the heights WE achieve.

Irie ite's?

Srila Prabhupada's cute story seems to be a call to ignorance: to ignore knowledge.
At first glance it might seem profound but to me it seems lost in religious prejudice and arcane ways of thinking as befits religion-based reasoning
Science is not just based on the immediate observation but on verifiable testing of what is observed. Science is hard fact or it is not science.




Do check out KurzweilAI.net for the latest on the &quot;ignorance&quot; of science/technology.

It is a newsletter that fills you in on the latest technological/medical developments that you would otherwise not be aware of.
It does make Srila Prabhupada seem to be talking out of his hat/turban


You can get their newsletter free by subscribing on-line.
No obligations or funny business. These are honorable and dedicated people

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: this is brilliant 'not'

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">someone posted online...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Srila Prabhupada gives the example of the frog in the bottom of a well. The frog observes the universe through the hole in the top of his well and he has made so many theories and thinks he has such a great understanding of the universe. But what can he see? Only the opening at the top of the well. Sometimes it is dark, sometimes it is blue, sometimes it is white, maybe he or his grandfather has once seen the moon or the sun when it happened to be directly above his well. He sometimes hears the sound of the farmers tractor when he is cultivating the fields and of course he has a scientific explanation for this sound… But what can he understand actually about the world outside his well? Nothing really. So our scientists are just like the frog in the well. They can see so little, they understand so little, and the reality is very different from their theories and speculations</span>.</div></div>
</div></div>
The author does not understand the principles of science.
What he is describing is more in the realm of religion.
Or blind speculation.
Science is based on provable facts,anything else is speculation at best.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: this is brilliant

I get it that you don't trust or believe scientists very much... do you distrust all academics?

Do you will you allow your children to be vaccinated?

[MsPeaches]

Re: this is brilliant



jah_yout,

I'm with you and whoever posted the piece online!

The chief feature of peolple who put all their trust and faith and belief in Science and think that Science is so great and responsible for everything good or bad is.......

their incredible and all-abiding.......
ARROGANCE!!

They think that Science is the be-all and end-all and explains everything....

What can I say - except that they are truly like the frog in the bottom of the well?!

There is a Wall that seperates them from REALITY and they will probably never see beyond the sides of it.

Tunnel vision - river blindness - who even knows what to call it?!

It comes off as plain Arrogance.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: this is brilliant

How Do you explain religion if you font blindly accept information And ideas That have no provable support?
The people who have the most mistrust of evidence are tgr ones who have never been physically involved in or in most cases no personal knowledge of What science really is.
they get their ideas of science by listening to idiots who themselves know absolutely nothing about the principles of science.
What is your definition of science.
Since much if What people call science is not really science, Just speculation.

[MsPeaches]

Re: this is brilliant



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How Do you explain religion if you font blindly accept information And ideas That have no provable support?</div></div>

Dr. Dudd.....

I think you know that I have always had the greatest respect for you. I still do, in fact.

But since this appears to be <span style="font-weight: bold">your</span> definition of <span style="font-weight: bold">'Religion'</span>. I believe we have nothing to discuss.

Wheel and come again, Boss! Don't stop being my Hero now, mi beg yuh!

[jah_yout]

Re: this is brilliant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I get it that you don't trust or believe scientists very much... do you distrust all academics? </div></div>

how do you get something that is not true? that is absurd...
distrust academics? that is insane...
i am a great believer in education &amp; research...i am also a firm believer- scratch that- knower -- that there is much in the universe that we do not- at this time- fully understand


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you will you allow your children to be vaccinated? </div></div>

some vaccines are required by the schools &amp; i allow it...others i don't

[jah_yout]

Re: this is brilliant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that that frog remains mired in its ignorance at the bottom of that well.</div></div>

how do you conclude this from the story? the frog is trying to understand &amp; explain the world around it...we have been doing this from our existence began &amp; we are still searching for the answers of many mysteries

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Science reaches out in all directions and as said by wise people, the beginning of wisdom is understanding <span style="font-weight: bold">just how little one knows</span>.</div></div>

you should read the bolded part again

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Knowledge builds upon knowledge.
It is said we stand on the shoulders of giants: those who have come before us and given us the knowledge of things up to their level.
We go on to greater heights from that higher starting point.
Those who come after us will start from the heights WE achieve.

Irie ite's?</div></div>

this is evident...a baby can only learn from it's parents &amp; ones who were here before, seen?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Srila Prabhupada's cute story seems to be a call to ignorance: to ignore knowledge</div></div>.

that's not what i get from it at all...it is simply pointing out the arrogance of assuming you know everything when in fact your knowledge can be limited based on your perspective or position within the scope of things...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At first glance it might seem profound but to me it seems lost in religious prejudice and arcane ways of thinking as befits religion-based reasoning
Science is not just based on the immediate observation but on verifiable testing of what is observed. Science is hard fact or it is not science.</div></div>

if his story was a call to ignorance yours is a call to arrogance...
just remember that science has not solved or answered everything in this world or any other up to this point...things that were at one time considered irrefutable scientific fact have been modified or re-thought...even totally discredited, based on greater knowledge at a later time; fact is fact, regardless of how it is discovered--that is taking nothing away from science-- it is merely stating simple fact

[jah_yout]

Re: this is brilliant 'not'

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">someone posted online...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt">Srila Prabhupada gives the example of the frog in the bottom of a well. The frog observes the universe through the hole in the top of his well and he has made so many theories and thinks he has such a great understanding of the universe. But what can he see? Only the opening at the top of the well. Sometimes it is dark, sometimes it is blue, sometimes it is white, maybe he or his grandfather has once seen the moon or the sun when it happened to be directly above his well. He sometimes hears the sound of the farmers tractor when he is cultivating the fields and of course he has a scientific explanation for this sound… But what can he understand actually about the world outside his well? Nothing really. So our scientists are just like the frog in the well. They can see so little, they understand so little, and the reality is very different from their theories and speculations</span>.</div></div>
</div></div>
The author does not understand the principles of science.
What he is describing is more in the realm of religion.
Or blind speculation.
Science is based on provable facts,anything else is speculation at best. </div></div>

yet with all your scientific big talk you have no clue how life began or how to make it...you just think you do;
or perhaps you are honest &amp; know you don't

[jah_yout]

Re: this is brilliant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How Do you explain religion if you font blindly accept information And ideas That have no provable support?
The people who have the most mistrust of evidence are tgr ones who have never been physically involved in or in most cases no personal knowledge of What science really is.
they get their ideas of science by listening to idiots who themselves know absolutely nothing about the principles of science.
What is your definition of science.
Since much if What people call science is not really science, Just speculation. </div></div>

ok good doctor;
please enlighten the world on what resides in the outer limits of the universe &amp; the exact origin of this force we call <span style="font-style: italic">life</span>

[jah_yout]

Re: this is brilliant

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MsPeaches</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

jah_yout,

I'm with you and whoever posted the piece online!

The chief feature of peolple who put all their trust and faith and belief in Science and think that Science is so great and responsible for everything good or bad is.......

their incredible and all-abiding.......
ARROGANCE!!

They think that Science is the be-all and end-all and explains everything....

What can I say - except that they are truly like the frog in the bottom of the well?!

There is a Wall that seperates them from REALITY and they will probably never see beyond the sides of it.

Tunnel vision - river blindness - who even knows what to call it?!

It comes off as plain Arrogance.

</div></div>

bless-ed love I sistrin;
knowledge is to be sought in all things, but where is the crime in admitting there is much we do not know?

[johnnycakes]

Re: this is brilliant

'..things that were at one time considered irrefutable scientific fact have been modified or re-thought...even totally discredited, based on greater knowledge at a later time; fact is fact, regardless of how it is discovered--that is taking nothing away from science-- it is merely stating simple fact.&quot;

Not exactly.
The world was thought to be flat based on nothing. The Sun was thought to revolve around the Earth based on nothing or religious faith. The world was thought to be 5000 years old based on religious ignorance.

It is when science and fact were brought into the picture that this nonsense went away.

Anything that has had the scientific method used to determine its validity still stands as true.

Anything based on something else like faith or ignorance will usually not hold up over time.

And of course there are always common sense ideas that will hold up prior to and after scientific evidence is found for their validity.


That we do not know everything does not in any way belittle the fact that we know many things and as said we build on that knowledge we already have every day.

A few hundred years ago thanks to educational progress and the printing press it was possible for one person to know just about everything that humanity had learned since its beginning.

Today we know so much more that it is impossible for one person to know all there is to know about just one subject like the human body or art or the cosmos.

We now have specialists on kidney function, on modern art, on Mars who deal only with that one subject and who learn more every day as the vast storehouse of human knowledge increases exponentially.

Wisdom does begin with the admission of just how much we don't know but that does not mean that we are not learning and gaining information and intelligence at what is soon to become an unprecedented pace.

Progress in AI is what is making all the difference in the change from that slow over-the-centuries pace of accruing knowledge with which any person could keep pace to today's incredible rate with which no human can keep up .

We know infinitely more even since that frog analogy was written and I doubt that a man caught up in the minutiae of his particular religion looks very far into scientific and AI 's exponential growth deeply enough to see how flawed his analogy is and how close and how rapidly we are coming to what will seem to many to be a God-like omniscience.

I'll bet he hasn't read &quot;The Singularity is Near&quot;

[rudemonk]

Re: this is brilliant

this is a cute story. but it's a variation on a tried and true logical fallacy.

what has the frog done to understand it's world, beyond weak observations? has it tested? made falsifiable hypotheses?

the story could go on, if it were meant to actually represent scientific inquiry and not simply be a means of making people who are fearful to engage with science feel better about not engaging and remaining in their cocoons.

i don't see why the initial premise needs be granted. if it were true, we would know nothing.