[observed, then snipped]: : Who was it that said the observer alters the observed merely by the act of observation?
: Argh!! I am now racking my brain...I am not sure if it had to do with Heisenbergs uncertainty principle or some sort of thing about studying gorillas. Anyways though, I get the meaning.
I thought it was Heisenberg too, so I looked him up on the web and ended up with a lot of rocket science stuff, but nothing about the quote, so I'll go with the gorilla gambit...it was Diane Fossey!
: I agree with you that rationalism and logic in their pure theoretical forms are worthy tools in the process of truth finding, but can they ever be used by mere humans without some sort of corruption? We can minimize the corruption through rigid objectivity, but still...what the hell was I talking about?
: There is always going to be corruption, but then, who is to what is and what is not corrupt.
You and I. It will always be subjective, so the way to clarity is thru strength in numbers. If 1000 people say X is the rational conclusion, then they outweigh the 10 who dissent. Of course, there's that flat earth example to counter that, so it will be the eternal struggle for truth, I'm afraid. Ask Muldaur.
:For instance, Barry considers morality to be merely human constructs that are dictated by the economic/social relations and dialectic materialism (I am getting good at the Marxspeak!) while I believe they are absolutes based upon man's nature.
But it's all really a guess either way, isn't it? Anyway, do we really need to know from whence morality comes? Isn't it enough to say that we are all moral beings capable of making moral choices, and given that, it is incumbent upon us to make the right choices if possible, both independently regarding our own lives, and cooperatively regarding how we as a society wish to function? My friends, if elected, I will be that kind of leader!
:His conclusion is that it is okay to have a bloody revolution and that they are exceptable measures, while my conclusion is that morality will not (should not) change over time.
Moral relatavism -- when is it okay to bash someone's brains out? The answer is not as obvious as it first appears (I mean, believe it or not, the answer may not be, "whenever the feeling moves me."
: Ah well, I'll leave this one up to those with the B.A.s in B.S.
I got my J.D. in N.Y.!
--
McSpotlight: It's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; at the quantum level, the position and momentum of a particle form what is known as a pair of conjugate variables; either one value can be known accurately or the other value can be known accurately; but not both at the same time, because the act of observing a subatomic particle is effectively bombarding it with photons (observing anything involves illuminating it with a stream of photons; each of which have their own momentum). If you see a particle, it's because it has been struck by a photon; which means that the position and/or momentum of the observed particle have been changed by the act of observing it.
