Respectfully, you’re missing the point. A solid answer like that is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things- unless you need to use condensation for something, it doesn’t matter exactly how it works; which is why people are content with metaphor. You’ve really got to not be so closed to other ways of seeing reality… I like science as much as the next guy, but my experience of reality is a work of art (creative commons attribution license, tee hee).
Either someone cares how condensation works or they don’t. If they care, then you should explain how it works. If they don’t you should talk about something else. Neither option involves making up bad metaphors for phenomena. Under what circumstances would you share extremely bad explanations?
I like avante garde art, sensory deprivation chambers, and MDMA as much as the next guy but I don’t propagate deceptive non-explanations.
An explanation using myth is only “bad” from a rationalists’ perspective. Devoid of “ism” it’s as good as any… Maybe I only care about how condensation works far enough to make a painting of it, or write a song about it. As stated above, no one has the slightest idea what’s going on… even if you can explain exactly how every phenomenon works and how it happens, tell me “why” it happens and I’ll give you a virtua-lolipop. If I have a reality where I experience “ghosts” “god” “fairies” and “giant pyramid craft hovering over the kremlin” (hold on...) then I have a reality where those things happen to me. maybe evolutionary biology rules out fairies- that doesn’t change the fact that they sometimes happen to people. If that experience can have meaning attached to it, in what sense is it not “real”? I mean, my dreams are “real”. “reality” is very ambiguously defined.
Respectfully, you’re missing the point. A solid answer like that is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things- unless you need to use condensation for something, it doesn’t matter exactly how it works; which is why people are content with metaphor. You’ve really got to not be so closed to other ways of seeing reality… I like science as much as the next guy, but my experience of reality is a work of art (creative commons attribution license, tee hee).
Also, it was a really crappy metaphor.
Either someone cares how condensation works or they don’t. If they care, then you should explain how it works. If they don’t you should talk about something else. Neither option involves making up bad metaphors for phenomena. Under what circumstances would you share extremely bad explanations?
I like avante garde art, sensory deprivation chambers, and MDMA as much as the next guy but I don’t propagate deceptive non-explanations.
An explanation using myth is only “bad” from a rationalists’ perspective. Devoid of “ism” it’s as good as any… Maybe I only care about how condensation works far enough to make a painting of it, or write a song about it. As stated above, no one has the slightest idea what’s going on… even if you can explain exactly how every phenomenon works and how it happens, tell me “why” it happens and I’ll give you a virtua-lolipop. If I have a reality where I experience “ghosts” “god” “fairies” and “giant pyramid craft hovering over the kremlin” (hold on...) then I have a reality where those things happen to me. maybe evolutionary biology rules out fairies- that doesn’t change the fact that they sometimes happen to people. If that experience can have meaning attached to it, in what sense is it not “real”? I mean, my dreams are “real”. “reality” is very ambiguously defined.
I’m willing to agree with you on this, but this is a community devoted to rationality. Please no basketball on the tennis court. Thus the downvotes.
All your comments get harshly downvoted. You should take a hint and stop posting for a while.