dye

History involves science.  Many branch of philosophy has already been put into science.

Whatever subject involves careful observation, it will inevitably involves science.

Here are some subjects that will involve science: Economic, pyschology, politics, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, anthropology, socialogy, criminalogy ...

--------------------
The reason for grasshopper to become a locust is because of overcrowding.  A decreasing food supply will cause a locust swamp to form!  

Don't be silly, locust swamp IS part of nature.  Massive death IS the backbone of nature.  If it is nature that you want, please be prepare for high mortality.

Then again, we live in affluent society, what do we know about famine?  Protecting the grasshoppers instead of the starving child from the devastated area of Africa? Hmm...

------------
For evolution of human, the abnormality need to occur on sperm cell or egg cell.  Having a cancer cell on skin or lung probably has no effect on evolving anything.  

If we save the damnned person, he/she may have offspring and diversify our gene pool with cancer-causing genetic material, for example, certain kind of breast cancer.  And hence, hastening the evolution of human.

On the compassion ground, when a person has cancer (or any other life threatening disease), nature wants him/her dead.  Are we prepare to be cold-blooded about this and just let him/her suffer and die?

Nature is a neutral character.  For her, a world with or without life is the same.  For us, It is kind of different.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-24 10:42 編輯 ]

dye

When the pagans are eliminated in Europe, is there no one to balance the Christian?
When the Buddhist are elminated in India, is there no one to balance Islam?
When the belief of Zeus is eliminated, is there no one to balance the belief of Thor?

When the Christian belief is elminated, why can't rational people be united to balance Islam?

Just because we no longer has dinosaurs, did not mean our eco-system is out of balance.  The cycle of destruction and creation is all part of nature (symbolized by the pagan's pheonix)



By Buddhist as :



By Hinduist as the God of Creation (Brahma), God of Perservation(Vishnu), and the God of Destruction(Shiva, the most popular in India).

As Buddhist would have told you, nature is a constant flux.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-24 12:43 編輯 ]

dye

人死後會到哪裡去，已有一個挺科學的答案。

————
"平常人，聽到"Hello，你好"會覺得對方很有禮貌，聽到對方用粗言問候會發怒，這算不算是科學？"

算。從生物學可知。

dye

「不過，有些人聽到"Hello，你好"就會起雞皮疙瘩，不知如何是好；聽到別人粗口問候，反而會沉靜面對，甚至感到親切。難道他們是不平常的人？不見得吧。」

所以你不懂生物學。

————
地球是球形也是唯一答案。你一定要說跟宗教上的排他性不也很相似我也沒法。

所以你不懂科學。

dye

For psychology, please refer to wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

See especially the part about history of psychology.

For even better look at it, see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/psychology/what_is_psychology.shtml

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-24 21:39 編輯 ]

dye

Can't see about testable implication in the wiki.

But psychology do have lab experiment performed on their human subject.

dye

No wonder someone is going to  lay a pile of shit and claim it is as good a art as Michelangelo's art.   If the others see it as a pile of shit, it is not his/her responsiblility to let others understand his/her meaning of the pile.

Or when someone complain about the noise of construction, I suppose contractor can claim it is musical work.  It is not the contractor's responsibility to let other understand the contractor's meaning of the music.

dye

I am not an expert in music but it is obvious that there are people who would spend their life time studying music.  It is as much sense to say any sound is music as any editable item is cuisine.

Just because the chef think his dish is a cuisine, did not make it so at all!

dye

"to be or not to be,that is the question"
<<哈姆雷特>> 《王子復仇記》

本來只是說該
a) to be 慢慢等命運殺死
b) not to be 和命運奮戰至死

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-27 18:16 編輯 ]

dye

在股巿上

a) to be 慢慢等命運（通脹）殺死
b) not to be 和命運奮戰（入市）蝕死

----

According research on Wall Street.  The most important quote for those stock brokers is actually:

知之為知之,不知為不知,是知也

Not Hamlet's quote.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-27 18:34 編輯 ]

dye

The third painting is from Agnolo di Cosimo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnolo_Bronzino

The second painting is from Andrea Mantegna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantegna

The first is from Jacopo Bassano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacopo_Bassano

Sherman seems to have a taste for Italian painting, eh?

-----------------
If you read Hamlet where the quote come from, you would know that
a) "To be" is inaction and let destiny takes over.
b) "Not to be" is action and face the self-made tragedy.

The orginal 2 options

"To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them."

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-28 12:50 編輯 ]

dye

Instaed of the Protestant period painting Sherman present, may I present the humanist period painting as a comparision?

Please note the expression on people's face.  It is one of the thing missing in Christianity period - emotion.  Look at the Italian painting again and see how "rigid" they are compare to the one below.



Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio



Peter Paul Rubens

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-9-28 13:07 編輯 ]

dye

My personal favorite painting from Romancism.  

If you see it from Paris, you will see the woman nearly "walk" out of the picture.

The characteristics of the paining is the emotional, the lively, the irrational part of human nature.