Faith, Reason or Fear?

One thing always plagued me in all discussions related to any belief or conviction: Is it truly possible to convince someone or change someone's views on anything? Not only religion per se (although it is generally the worst scenario ), but in anything.
Do we really accept propositions because we either think or feel (notice the difference) they are right, or do we simply rationalize either an anchor of security passed down to us, or a desire to oppose said notion? Do we really stop to think or to explore any inner feelings before we pass judgment? This all coming from one definition of "intellectual" once given me as "one who comes totally unarmed of body and mind to a debate, willing and open".

There is a school of thought in Social Sciences that states that people do not change their views; beliefs change mainly because people who believe in them die out, and new generations see things slightly different. I think it is impossible to change a person's basis of reason and logic. Emotions? yes. Reasons? No!

Science is incomplete?

Recently I read article of a religious authority who was asserting the superiority of religions by proving that science is incomplete. I think concept of notions are not clear to many,and it leads towards total ambiguity.

Who said Science is, or is supposed to be complete?

Who said it will ever be?

Let's be clear, and not fall into the trap of wasted time and effort because of the lack of vocabulary and repertoire. Climb onto the shoulders of those before you and stand taller then they did. To wit:
Knowledge is the result of Scientific Process. Only. There may be other means to acquire insight on the world, but they are not knowledge. Knowledge is the final result of acquired and processed data which is sifted and rearranged, interpreted, tested, re-tested and then reviewed.

Science deals with FACT. Not Truth, nor truth (mind the caps, they DO make a difference here). Truth is the pursuit of Philosophy, and truth the pursuit of Logic. Knowledge is about FACTS, not Truth, nor truth, nor anything else. Other forms of knowing and interpreting reality exist, but Knowledge is the exclusive result of the dialect behind the scientific process. Wisdom may result off Philosophy or Religious Thought, etc etc. Different realms. Subtle? Yes. Impossible to differentiate? NO.

Knowledge is itself unlimited, because morsels of it may be combined to form yet newer knowledge. Since the total keeps being accrued, its span is not limited, thus infinite.

Cognitive capability is limited, at least in individuals. Our expanded memory (writing) is at best a depository of symbols, which MAY convey their meaning, provided they are read by the right people with the right training. Seldom done, sadly.

Science is not Morals. It might be Ethical (we can hope), but it does not impinge behaviors onto others. Science is not a religion. Science is not an ideology. Science is not your parents, science is not a shaman, peer, friend, society, nor is it barney-the-purple dinosaur. Science is not chewing gum and it is definitely not nutritious, diet, "light", low-cal, etc.

Science is a method of asserting facts, producing knowledge from data. Period. Anything else, including expectations on Science, are mere rants from the uneducated. It is not some end-it-all panacea for all that ails us. It does not even aim at badgering us like Religion or Philosophy about how we live. It simply puts tools - facts that MAY guide our decisions - at our disposition.To append loaded meanings or purposes to science is to play a veritable fool, and to confess lacking in understanding of what one talks about. Very common, by the way.

Remember, science deals in and delivers FACTS, not axioms, not wise dicta, not admonitions, not premonitions, not prophecies, not injunctions, etc.

Science is definitely NOT Philosophy, nor Religion, nor Abstract Thought, nor Common Sense (least common of them all). To attempt to mix Science with Philosophy is to guarantee a mess-up of the results, or simply to acquiesce to silly concoctions of... nothing. Hot air, really.
Thats the reason there can NEVER be a connection between science and religion. Terms like 'scientific philosophy' or 'scientific religion' mean absolutely nothing. Science is not meant to tell you how to do squat in relation to your parents or sexual partners. It might suggest safe, healthy practices, and even point out that filial piety pays at the end, but it is not meant to lecture anyone.

So, yes, Science IS always incomplete. Always will be, because it does not have a limit drawn, nor can we foresee it. Thankfully, because otherwise the number of theses for PhD dissertations would be limited, thus grad students would despair (already do), and no new scientists would be produced.:-)

Western democracy

Tibet movement is hotting up. Recently I read some new articles cursing communism for violation of human rights in China. There were sharp criticisms of Chinese communism. I am not sure this world would be a better place if all countries had been democratic. I would never want China to be a democratic country. Let's discuss why.

American democracy is nowhere near democracy. I'm against American democracy not just because I'm against representative democracy, but also because the election is a total fraud(same thing for Canadian election as well). It is but a fox hunt for the rich and famous. The power is ALWAYS on the hands of two corporate parties. The People never have someone to speak for them(michael moore doesn't count).

1. Elect a president and forget about making a change for 4 years really doesn't do much.
2. Only TWO parties are capable of running the government. How could American government criticize countries with one party dictatorship? Its like someone with a thread of hair left on his skull, yet he's still mocking a completely bald guy.
3. If I do recall correctly, every single elected president in the US history had more money at his disposal than his opponents during the election campaign. In other words, ALL elected presidents had a financial advantage against his opponents. Coincidence? I don't think so.
4. Mass manipulation is employed on every occasion. Especially in the case of Bush's second term election. For example, a while ago the Republicans tried to get rid of the inheritance tax(or reduce it, i forgot). But it was highly popular at the time(only 25% are against it), so the Republicans came up with an idea to decrease its popularity. What they did was, instead of calling it inheritance tax, they started calling it "death tax". This, an obvious trick of manipulation and intellectual oppression, actually worked. People didn't like the name and thus went against it. What do u think of that? cool, eh? To me, its just disgusting. Democrats use it too.

The point I was trying to make on my last paragraph was that, a government (party) that manipulates instead of informing its citizens does not deserve the title of democracy!

How is a democracy supposed to work when its citizens are not informed?

When they lack the basic facts and information upon which to base their judgments?

How are they going to make the right decision when the parties are trying to manipulate them, deprive them of their rights to know?

How do u inform the People? Give the media to the People, instead of large corporations attempting (and always succeeding) to influence politics! The freedom of media is absent in US! Think about it, do u EVER watch any news channel others than the big ones like Fox?

Guess what, they are under the "discretion" of big corporations attempting to influence politics for their own gains!

"Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system."

Just so u know, I am for:

Local democracy & direct democracy, not representative democracy

Decentralization of power (distributing power to the local population, let them solve their own matters, get them involved)

Freedom of media, break free of corporation domination in media. More perspectives, even the extreme ones(except for fascists, because its offensive).

And last but not the least,communism never existed in china.