Jump to content

Reasoning and elevated thought is the domain of the white man?

Recommended Posts


This sounds contradictory to me. You object to the "Western" style of just learning facts (which I don't think is a realistic assessment) but think that the same thing is OK in China and Japan. Double standards?


As a teacher of 18 years, I know that we are teaching a whole load of scientific facts and hoping that students apply those to the Science exams. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Science syllabi (syllabuses?) and the examinations. I wish it was different and that we could teach a practical heavy syllabus which properly gives time for students to learn research and reasoning skills to a high level. Unfortunately, we have to leave that task to Universities. Chinese and Japanese students apparently use rote learning, I don't actually know this but reacted to the post. They are quite successful due to well developed memory skills and Universities want to test recall in final examinations. I am not applying double standards but tried to make the point that testing memory is an Oxford/Cambridge structure that may not be suitable for all students. There are alternatives where deep knowledge can be achieved and not the type of superficial knowledge that I have obtained personally.




Of course there are paradigm shifts in medicine: Because it is based on science. You don't get paradigm shifts in "traditional" or made up alternative medicine. (Although you may get fashion trends - because there is no evidence for any of it.)


Yes, you are right. But the paradigm shift came when the people studying neural plasticity looked for a paradigm where any sensory information (pressure, sound etc...) would be interpreted by as yet unknown parts of the brain. The body behaving like an energy transducer and allowing blind people to see with their tongues is a pretty bloody big paradigm shift. It came from looking at Medicine in a more Eastern holistic manner. It was a shift from the deductive to the inductive.


Of course. But without some attempt at a rational quantitative (i.e. scientific) approach you are relying on guesswork and wishful thinking.


Unfortunately true with chi, prana and other Eastern methods of reasoning which Science cannot reconcile with the act of measurement and quantification - a pity really. The world is bigger and probably more interesting than our sensate information lets on.....

So the Arabs and their culture was based on mysticism? I don't think so, in fact until Europeans adopted the idea of experimenting and gathering evidence which they got from arab culture european culture was back water of mysticism. Then when islam dived back down the rathole of religion, which is just mysticism, and lost the lead they had gained though methodological naturalism..


As i have already stated western civilization was also based in mysticism and they didn't prosper until mysticism was largely abandoned. Just because some people successfully use irrational means to come to power and hold it doesn't mean it is anything but nonsense...


I do not write off chi and prana energies because they are not well characterised I write them off because no one has demonstrated they work..


Did Eastern philosophy and medicine wipe out smallpox.? No. However religion and Science were completely intertwined by the Arabs when they investigated natural phenomena and made a huge contribution to Science as a consequence, including contribution to the scientific method of observation, due to what you term mysticism.


The Golden Age” was based on several factors (5)[/size]⇓[/size] . Muslims following the guidelines of the Prophet studied and searched for knowledge (1[/size]⇓[/size] , 5[/size]⇓[/size] , 6)[/size]⇓[/size] . The Quran is clear: “The scholar’s ink is more sacred than the blood of martyrs”, while the Prophet promoted medical research preaching that “For every disease, Allah has given a cure.” (5)[/size]⇓[/size]



Moontanman, although I respect and admire you (although you are a bloody frustrating friend...), you got this wrong in my opinion.



Islam of the time wasn't as likely to suppress knowledge like it is today, Christianity has done the opposite and gone from suppressing knowledge to being more supportive after it was gelded by the enlightenment..

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguements that make sense are considered reasonable. Logic is different from reasoning. Reasoning may be the domain of the White Man, logic is not.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguements that make sense are considered reasonable. Logic is different from reasoning. Reasoning may be the domain of the White Man, logic is not.

What can we imply from this illogical, poorly reasoned post?


A person who is paranoid may reason that they need to kill anyone who comes close to them. I claim that is unreasonable, but it may make sense to a someone who is paranoid. Thus, your statement is illogical and not reasonable.

Edited by EdEarl

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.