It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sparrowstail
Good thread OP!
I like the belief system of genetic diversity. All those racist closed minded views about purity and what not are counter intuitive in that a genetically diverse organism is stronger, healthier, and probably smarter than one from a smaller gene pool. When this one catches on in the future the world will be a golden brown better place to be.
The belief system of ownership and amassing wealth and a multitude of possessions is one we could do without. This kind of belief system makes us so much more of a destructive force and consumptive; like a virus. The "needs" versus "wants" debate mucks up the waters for many of the less advantaged folk on the earth.
Just look at Star Trek. They have addressed many of these philosophical beliefs you mentioned.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn, is an analysis of the history of science. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and it triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in — and beyond — those scholarly communities. In this work, Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Scientific progress had been seen primarily as a continuous increase in a set of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science. For example, Kuhn’s analysis of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future. Kuhn called the core concepts of an ascendant revolution its “paradigms” and thereby launched this word into widespread analogical use in the second half of the 20th century. Kuhn’s insistence that a paradigm shift was a mélange of sociology, enthusiasm and scientific promise, but not a logically determinate procedure, caused an uproar in reaction to his work. Kuhn addressed concerns in the 1969 postscript to the second edition. For some commentators it introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements.
Originally posted by Pokoia
About believe systems and their life -cycle.
I had some thoughts about the power of believe systems.
Thinking about justice, government power, religion and the value of money., democracy etc etc.
These are all institutions that can only function if if a major part of the people believes in them.
They usually believe these institutions to be ; the best, inevitable, at the basis of society and such.
First question: how many of the systems exist? Which ones can you add to my short list?
How many of these systems were faded out during history and was this an active process or passive?
What is the best way to get rid of a no longer functioning believe system? Revolution is usually very messy so I prefer milder methods.
If you want to git rid of one of the believe systems that we have now, what would you like to be put in place.
Originally posted by survivaloftheslickest
Every system out there is a social covenant, no matter how complex it seems. At its very core, it all boils down to consensus. The question is: how many people are actually aware of the latter? I'd wager - not that many. You need to have a certain level of acumen to see through the charade. Or even attempt to.