Intellect needs to be believed in. Would any natured omniscence including a God posses special wisdom that can only be believed in such as supreme nature. If my nature were passive of mind and I saw a midi-chlorian you could only believe in my word.
He had bought a large map representing the sea, Without the least vestige of land: And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be A map they could all understand.
Midi-chlorian is a fictitious STAR WARS / George Lucas intentional corruption of the actual biology term 'mitochondrian'. Whereas mitochondria are distinguished by having DNA that is separate from nuclear DNA and that is supplied exclusively by the mother in humans, and mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell whereas midichlorians are the powerhouse of the FORCE, your OP appears to be a mixture of science fiction and faith, not science. I can't decide whether the thread belongs in science fiction or religion, but it certainly fails to qualify for inclusion in 'science and society'.
Intellect requires faith. It requires faith that the information being learn, is true, valid and maybe useful. I remember starting college and questioning many things I was taught, because I did not have faith that what I was being taught made sense. My lack of faith, created a lot of extra work, since I found it necessary to research things for myself to prove it with my own eyes. As the semester went on and there were many parties and outside activities to enjoy, I realized I needed more time so I decided to have blind faith in the professors. I would just learn and accept without questioning, having faith, all was well. Faith made learning faster.
You must have gone to a Christian school, I guess. If you had stayed with college or gone to areal college, you would have found that in science there were labs where you proved the things you were learning and did NOT just accepted them. Based on your posts you clearly never graduated or if you did, none of what you learned 'stuck'.
Would a Unicorn have been a better 'example'? The variety of intellect you seem to be describing is about as functional as a world full of schizophrenics. I for one don't view intellect like that to be anything useful or desirable. Knowing how to spell 'unicorn', understanding the differences between rhinoceros, horses, and narwhals, knowing the number of actual unicorns in the world right now to be zero or nearly so, is functional. Praying to unicorns or devoting a religious holiday or annual celebration of them would not be an example of the force of intellect, nor would launching an entire defense initiative based on George Lucas' fiction, even if in some fantasy intellects imagination this resulted in the collapse of global communism as if ordained by some invisible deity. Don't encourage 'intellect' like that. We could all do better with less of it, not more. SDI never produced a workable defense against a weapon as versatile as a drone. Wishing centrifuges simply weren't there is about as bright as making an arms deal for the release of hostages, or praying to unicorns, or using the force. Or voting for someone like them or even worse as our leader. The only thing worse would be to do nothing to oppose such an application of intellect.
The definition of faith is; the belief in things not seen. I have never seen an electron, personally, have you? I have never seen the Big Bang nor can I look in the sky and see energy wavelengths outside the visible. I have faith that the data and inferences suggest these to be true. Science goes through great trouble to be credible and a platform for faith. There is a level of detachment when your eyes do not see, directly. You need to depend on faith in the infallible of authority. With faith, you are blind and a seeing eye dog. After a while you trust that the seeing eye dog will lead you safely, while remaining blind to direct data experience. Most people learn science by rote; memorize, without understanding, since understanding goes beyond just faith and requires you experience the phenomena. When I entered college, if someone in physics said clocks slow in space, I did not have blind faith in the prestige of authority. I would have preferred to see for myself by being part of an experiment. This approach allows one to understand beyond faith. Most of the status quo critics in this site appear to have faith driven education, where they don't understand well enough to get beyond defending dogma. The faith based science approach is easier than an understanding approach. It saved me a lot of time. Those who understand can extrapolate easier, and those who learn by rote and faith, can't seem to get past needing the same old ducks in the row, they memorized with faith. The defensiveness and lack go open minds reflects a detachment from actual sensory experience.
Typical. So only physically seeing something means that it is real? For someone like you who really does not understand math and science I can see how the experimentation to define electrons would too difficult. The experimentation and observations go way beyond suggesting electrons exist. I am sorry that you seem so interested in science and yet can not follow the logic of experimentations and evidence to see these things are real and must instead rely on some sort of faith. You really have a hang up on seeing things to make them real for you. Is it faith that you need to believe that you breath oxygen? This explains why you seem to not understand much if any of the current science. That only occurs in grade school as far as I know. When I went to college we did the math and looked at the evidence for the postulates of SR. There was no need to accept time dilation on faith. You must have taken a very basic low level physics if you were expected to take time dilation on faith! You have not demonstrated that you understand much physics at all. Because of your lack of understanding you have said things like, if 2 rockets collide you can tell which one was 'really' moving for instance, which is absurd. Luckily no reputable college would take such a horrible and ignorant approach. Again with the sensory dependence. You seem to think 'seeing is believing', which is actually the worst possible way to do science. Your way would mean that any good slight of hand magician would make you believe that it is possible to make a silver dollar just disappear.
Fascinating. A topic on Intellect and Faith wherein 2 members manage, as usual, to rely heavily on the latter while displaying very little of the former. I note that, as usual, Wellwisher relies on assertion (unsupported) and hearsay all the while promulgating an insidiously poisonous stance against anyone who disagrees with him. "Science is a platform for faith" my arse. If Glaucon were still here this thread would have been consigned to the Cesspool where it rightly belongs: there's certainly no attempt at Philosophy evident in the OP.
Seriously? Humans "do(ing) science" without any "dependence" on their senses? That, I would have to "see to believe"...
Objectivity depends on subordinating your own senses to those of your peers. That's why "did you see that?" is such a common phrase.
You only need to feel the force flowing through you, Luke. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds Unicorns, Jedi, Sith, and midichlorians together. Here is your father's light saber. He wanted you to have it when you were old enough. He used it to indiscriminately kill a large number of very young Jedi children and sand people. He would have killed you and your twin sister if the Emperor had told him to. He brought balance to the number of Jedi vs the number of Sith. And the moral of Obi Wan's story was...? Hint; 'intellect is necessary to faith' wasn't quite it. "Hating is bad; worse, even, than lying". Would be a little closer. That, and perhaps the idea that if someone like Lucas makes a story with a plot that is too convoluted, lesser intellects might not be able to follow, and faith alone may not prove sufficient to fill in any gaps in understanding. This is a wise moral. It happens with sacred scripture quite a lot, actually, and this is not a failure of intellect.
I guess I should not be surprised that you didn't understand the point (I realize you did understand you are just being youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Yes, you still need to use your senses to read and record the data.
"I guess" ...? First, you claim that you "should not be surprised" that I "didn't understand the point" - then you follow that "claim" with the Statement : " (I realize you did understand you are just being youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) "!! No, origin, I DID NOT "understand" - I personally believe that all of Real Science (indeed, any LEARNING!!) is predicated on the precise application and focused attention of our Senses. Apply Real Science, origin, you should have that ability...it is called "Intellect". Or, you can "guess", if you have "Faith" in your ability to "guess".
I am sorry to hear that, I guess I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt. So then you must agree with Wellwisher, that since you cannot see an electron, our science education requires that you accept electrons on faith. Or DID YOU NOT understand what he was saying? Besides, I was addressing Wellwisher and I don't think he needs anyone's help. Ha-ha just kidding....
So...you are "just kidding"? That seems rather puerile...but this is Sciforums.com...so... At any rate, I'll leave you to your...usual...games ...