12
   

Christian discussion

 
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 02:25 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Nothing is so complicated here.

Nullius in verba is simply the motto of the Royal Society.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 03:06 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Nothing is so complicated here.
Nullius in verba is simply the motto of the Royal Society[/url].
I know. But it'snevertheless a shortened sentence of the above quoted work of Horace. And since you asked about understanding this ... well,you certainly need to know the original sentence. And the context of it.

I'd thought, you were asking about this.
But it seems, you don't understand it the motto and the history of the Royal Society. That Nullius in verba had been translated to English by what is known as a "canonical mistranslation".
In its original context, Horace is not saying that he will take no notice of what the various schools of philosophy teach. What he is saying is that he is not going to consider himself bound to any one of them. He is free to pick and choose whatever opinion he judges best.
Thus, St. Thomas was considered by many fellows as the appropriate patron saint of the society instead of St. Andrews ...

To repeat my earlier other quote by Horace: non satis est puris versum perscribere verbis.
[" 'Tis not sufficient to combine
Well-chosen words in a well-ordered line. "
Book I, Satire IV, line 54 (translated by John Conington).]
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 09:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,


You said that "But it seems, you don't understand it the motto and the history of the Royal Society"?

It simply means "Take nobody's word for it".

The current Royal Society website explains the motto as this:

It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Perfect! Have you had difficulty in understanding such simple English, WH? It amuses me that you said that I don't understand it.

I trust the Royal Society's explanation, while yours is confusing and needlessly wordy - because you don't know Latin yet refuse to give it up, which leaves you high and dry.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 09:47 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
It simply means "Take nobody's word for it". ... Have you had difficulty in understanding such simple English, WH?
That motto is Latin, not English.
There are lots of sources - to be seen at the Society's library/archive - about the history of that motto. (At least, the last time I've been there.) I've tried to provide some.

When that motto was coined back in 1663, it was intended to distance science from the methods of the ancient universities, which relied heavily on the personal authority of the scholars. ‘On the word of no one’ highlighted the independent authority that empirical evidence bestowed on science; knowledge about the material universe should be based on appeals to experimental evidence rather than authority.
oristarA wrote:
because you don't know Latin yet refuse to give it up, which leaves you high and dry.
I don't know by what means you know that. I had to read Ovid, Horace et.al. in Latin and write reports in Latin to get the Latinum (something you needed in those days, if you studied law and history [and medicine- I didn't study that]) (Actually, I got the "Great Latinum")

But I'll rest my case, sciolus!
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 10:14 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
. . . Such effrontery . . .
Indeed. . .
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 10:24 am
@Walter Hinteler,
With respect, WH, it is cool that you got the "Great Latinum".

And congrats that you've got the ability to successfully ridicule people with Latin.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 10:53 am
Quote:
Take nobody's word for it.
Quote:
. . . do not believe every inspired statement. . . (1 John 4:1)
0 Replies
 
Cinderellie74
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 10:58 am
@oristarA,
Ok By your logic if we tell our children no don't run in the street and they do it anyway we should praise them for being brave and running into the street? I am not following your logic. GOD told his children not to do something but they did it anyway. They went against their Dad. So it is ok for children to go against their parents and their God? We tell our children not to eat berries, leaves, and various other plants because they are deadly so when God told us not to eat the fruit maybe there was a reason. Just a thought.
Glennn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 12:24 pm
@Cinderellie74,
Quote:
Ok By your logic if we tell our children no don't run in the street and they do it anyway we should praise them for being brave and running into the street?

Of course not. The flaw in your logic is that you are comparing poisonous berries and speeding cars that pose a tangible deadly threat to children to a theoretical and invisible entity.
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 12:39 pm
@Cinderellie74,
You think we would have been better off if Adam and Eve had NOT disobeyed? We would be in that garden now, naked, without the will or the need to progress in any way, wandering aimlessly around in our bliss. Sounds great.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 02:20 pm
@TomTomBinks,
On the contrary. Read Genesis 1:28 where they were told to progress.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 02:53 pm
@TomTomBinks,
And endlessly boring.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 03:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

And endlessly boring.


Heh.
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 04:54 pm
@neologist,
Sure, told to progress. But without the need how far would that go? It's like the idea of Paradise; endless happiness, eternal bliss, no hunger, pain or want. Ridiculous. A person would be insane after a few years. This is not an environment that is even possible, let alone one in which we could thrive.
Of course, considering the source... primitive, simple, stone age tribesmen without a concept of science or the scientific method. They did the best they could imagining what the perfect existence would be.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 04:58 pm
@TomTomBinks,
But they will have the very best insane asylum. ***** 5 stars.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 05:05 pm
@TomTomBinks,
So, you're saying that if you had perfect health and no obstacles, you would just sit around and do nothing?
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2016 06:00 pm
@neologist,
Necessity is the mother of invention. Walls were built to repel invaders, cannons were invented to knock through walls, etc. etc. Without the threat of invasion, walls wouldn't be necessary, and so the correct methods for laying stone would not have been discovered. Hunting methods were developed, improved and perfected because people were HUNGRY. I could go on...
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2016 08:21 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
And finally, Francis Collins, the director of NIH, concluded in the page 96 of his The Language of God:

Quote:
No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology that it is difficult to imagine how one would study life without it.
My dear man, I do not dispute that 'the language of God' is found in biology. Of course God used common mechanisms through all species. That was never in dispute.

When a scientist experiments on a rat, he assumes a similar mechanism is used in humans. But when he does the actual work on the rat, his work is guided by the biological phenomenon right before his eyes. At this point he no longer thinks about evolution or God's common use of biological functions at all. At the conclusion of his work, he will then assume it applied to the human condition he was addressing.

So you see, the neuro scientist is no more focused on evolution during his work than he is of 'God's language of biology'. He is totally immersed in reverse engineering the design, regardless of how it originated.
Leadfoot
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2016 08:33 am
@neologist,
Quote:
So, you're saying that if you had perfect health and no obstacles, you would just sit around and do nothing?
I've always been curious about what YOUR answer to this question would be. What do you most look forward to doing with no obstacles in life and all your needs fulfilled?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2016 06:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
. . . What do you most look forward to doing with no obstacles in life and all your needs fulfilled?

I have a great interest in chemistry but little time to pursue it.
Also art, particularly painting.
Music - not just the harmonica Laughing
Travel
I love gardening.
Home building and decorating
I'd like to really develop my skills in computing and its related technologies.
Other stuff too. . .

Then, there's my family.
I'd kind of like to have conversations with my great grandparents - and their great grandparents as far back as far back goes. Imagine the family picnics! And I'd like the pleasure of seeing my great grandchildren as they develop. Carole and I would never tire of it.

Also, there are more than a few historical figures I would like to meet. Newton, for one. I could provide a long list.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 08:25:12