Paradigm Shift

I see either an old woman or a young woman with a slit throat... Anyway, the answer is no. Scientific data, in contrary to theological teachings, does not change depending who looks at it, or how.

JohnR7 said:

A paradigm shift is a change in how we view our world. It is seeing it in a way we have not seen it before. Perspective makes all the difference.

Could the world be both old and new, depending on your perspective and the way you look at it?

Click to expand...

Could you be both a human being and an eggplant, depending on our perspective and the way we look at you?

Mod hat on

Moving to Philosophy

Mod hat off

This is a much better home for this topic.

Certain changes in perspective certainly can cause one to ignore the plain truth- take brainwashing for example. Ideas such as Young Earth Creationism (no offense intended towards those who espouse this belief) can cause one to, for example, ignore science and scientific evidence out of hand, merely because of an idea.

Ideas are powerful.

MrGoodBytes said:

I see either an old woman or a young woman with a slit throat... Anyway, the answer is no. Scientific data, in contrary to theological teachings, does not change depending who looks at it, or how.

Click to expand...

Science is filled with paradigm shifts and perspective changes.


In mathematics, you might change to a Laplacian transform to gain a more easily resolvable perspective. In mechanics you might speak of the laws of thermodynamics yet when looking at the actual molecules in motion, you speak more of basic physics of momentum transfer.


Perspective shifting is much like changing from English to metric units. The truth of what is being seen doesn't change. It is merely a matter of grouping these things into one category instead of grouping those things in one category. It is a part of natural intelligence. As long as the perspectives are not mixed (like mixing science and religion) then everything is fine.

Science and religion are two sides of the exact same mountain. They group things differently, name them differently, measure them differently. But oddly they don't seem to insist on keeping their words different so as to not mislead everyone concerned.

Ask either a lay Christian or a common scientist, "exactly what is a god anyway?" and you will find that almost none can give you a meaningful answer. Yet they fight endlessly about such an existence.

I would think that the scientist would be the first to absolutely insist on a clear and agreed upon definition before any discussion took place at all.

As it turns out, what the spiritual minded is calling God, the scientist merely calls something else. They can't agree because they are not trying to find the mix-up or admit to any potential of error of their own. It has become a battle of childish egos.

It is like watching a son and a daughter fighting over the rights to the inheritance of their father. Sadly making neither really worthy.

JohnR7 said:

Could the world be both old and new, depending on your perspective and the way you look at it?

Click to expand...

Only insofar as the words "old" and "new" require something else with which to compare the thing in question. For instance, the Earth is "new" when compared to the age of the universe (~4.57 billion years compared to ~13.7 billion years), but the Earth is "old" when compared to the age of the Himalayas (~4.57 billion years compared to ~50 million years).

ReluctantProphet said:

As it turns out, what the spiritual minded is calling God, the scientist merely calls something else. They can't agree because they are not trying to find the mix-up or admit to any potential of error of their own. It has become a battle of childish egos.

Click to expand...

Are you a deist by any chance?

moogoob said:

Are you a deist by any chance?

Click to expand...

<br /> (sorry about the length of this)



To be perfectly honest, I recently sought which category or classification I fit into.

I have yet to find a religion or any large philosophical movement throughout history where I cannot fully understand the intent of the originator. But in each and every one, when I look into the remaining gathering, I don't see but a vague residue of the originators.

The classification of "Deist" I thought probably fit me best although even in that, what the gathering represents and what the definition implies are different.

When I come to understand each of the religions, I agree with each (including science). I see that most of their disagreements are merely a language to concept issue, making their debating a bit tiring to watch as they refuse to clear up the real definitions of their words before they begin.

I can easily and honestly say that Buddha was right, Moses was right, Jesus was very right, Mohammad was right, and many others. They simply were emphasizing something that was being left out by the followings from those before and using a different perspective so as to do so.

So in a sense, I am all and none.

I can not say that the proclamations of the formal Deist is exactly right in that the Deist refuses the possibility of some actual real things, but otherwise that label seems to fit fairly well.

I would prefer to fit into what is called Christian, but I see too much lack of understanding in them of their founder. If they would but do exactly as Jesus told them to do and as he himself did, the last 2000 years of conflict would not have ever happened. But even today, if they would come to truly understand him rather than merely attempt to faithfully follow things that they fail to understand, they would almost instantly repair the entire world of its wars and woes.

If I were to try to explain exactly what the Holy Spirit is, its components and exact make to the Christians, I suspect they would totally refuse to listen. But that is exactly why I'm here at this sight - just to see what state Christianity is really in and if they can ever come to really understand Jesus. So far, it isn't looking good.

But in either case, I can easily see that the world has no choice but to follow a well established pattern of growth that is totally governed by what they have been calling the "Holy Spirit".

It would all be much easier and faster if they better understood exactly how and why it works, but such people seldom listen for the same reason that a teenager doesn't listen to his parents. They get caught up in the blindness of their passions, insistent on their righteousness, and willing to bend any understanding to fit the hopes of their heart.

But this too is merely a component of that same Holy Spirit propelling itself forever through every possibility so as to ensure that absolutely nothing throughout the entire universe can prevent it from its course.

Once you come to understand its purpose, all else falls into place rather easily. But understanding that purpose requires seeing through the many clouds of confusion man is so intent on propelling. That means answering endless questions so as to clear the air and give the mind understanding.

But even that intent to cloud is just another part of that same Holy Spirit. It really all fits together. My only question is of the current state of things today and from that if there is any hope that man will listen before he gets himself in over his head once again and then must learn the hard way, once again.

The good news (if you had any reason to believe what I have to say) is that the prophets of old have been pretty much right and these are indeed those long awaited final days when the historical methods of man will be changed forever more.

I could tell you the exact sequence and participants with which it will be brought about and to what end except for identifying exactly where man is on the map today.

So far it appears that man is going to insist on going through another Pharaoh and Moses routine even thought he has gone to serious measures to prevent such.

I'm hoping to find that the Christians are willing to "repent" in a sense so they can step directly to the famed "second coming" and avoid some serious misery and death. The time is right for such. But we'll see just how blind they have chosen to be.

The good thing about the real Holy Spirit is that absolutely every possibility is forever closely examined and weighed. If man can learn more quickly, he will. If he can't, he won't but he will indeed learn regardless of anything he might attempt to do such as to avoid it.

The real Holy Spirit, when you learn of its very real components and make, shows that it absolutely cannot be stopped by literally anything throughout the entire universe.

Science will soon discover what they have been blinded to for so long and will soon testify with perfect clarity exactly what I'm talking about.

I would rather not wait for science to figure out what they overlooked. I would rather the Christians show it to them in a language that science can understand, but so far, the Christians are merely keeping science occupied with senseless argument and the passions for defense of themselves. Such merely keeps both sides blind. If left quietly alone, they could discover their oversights and we could all proceed to a MUCH better day.

So you tell me, where do I really fit... if at all?

MrGoodBytes said:

I see either an old woman or a young woman with a slit throat... Anyway, the answer is no. Scientific data, in contrary to theological teachings, does not change depending who looks at it, or how.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously proposing science is never wrong and never changes in its teachngs?

elman said:

Are you seriously proposing science is never wrong and never changes in its teachngs?

Click to expand...

It changes based on new data.
Not based on opinion, perception, feelings, whim, popular opinion, phase of the moon, or anything else.

Nathan Poe said:

It changes based on new data.
Not based on opinion, perception, feelings, whim, popular opinion, phase of the moon, or anything else.

Click to expand...

Not completely correct. There are many opinions and perceptions and feelings and whims and poplular opinions debated and disagreed upon by scientist. I think you are probably right about the phase of the moon not being involved. The interpretation of the data is a science in itself.

hmm... interesting thread

I like the cartoon demonstration but I'll bet you 10 to 1 that it is impossible to fully comprehend exactly what a paradigm shift is unless you witness your mind undergo one. And that might never happen for some people... it's too hard I guess. I think it depends on what you trust.

Nathan Poe said:

It changes based on new data.
Not based on opinion, perception, feelings, whim, popular opinion, phase of the moon, or anything else.

Click to expand...

Look at, for example, quantum mechanics verses wave physics. They are both viewing the exact same processes but from two perspectives. Neither is substantially in error.

The two fields continue to develop because neither is answering all of the unknowns. They pursue a picture which will make it all very clear and indubitable. This is exactly what they should do. But the point is that they adapt, hence change, their perspective so as to make a clear mental picture. It doesn't change what is true but merely the manner in which it is viewed.

One could (and they tried) to say that indeed the Sun really does travel around the Earth. The only problem is that to view it in that manner requires the equations involved to be so complex that they are too difficult to use, thus the simpler perspective is accepted.

Motion is relative. Neither view is wrong. One is merely simpler than the other (much simpler) and thus more useful.

Wave theory makes many concerns easier to understand and predict, thus it is used often in place of quantum theories. But at times the quantum perspective is easier as a mental tool.

Science has not declared that either is right or wrong. Science is however still holding onto a few foundation misbelieves, but science has within it the ability to correct for its presumptions, although is annoyingly slow about it as people suffer dearly while they arrogantly quibble.


The picture of the young verses old lady is a perfect example. You can easily see both or either. I can easily see science and religion by a similar means. Both are basically correct. It is no more than a perspective/mental language/conceptual paradigm difference between them. Each insists on remaining blind to the other's perspective so as to fight for dominance.

To me it is exactly (very exactly) like 2 people arguing endlessly over whether that picture was really an old lady or a young lady. It is childish, irresponsible non-sense in that people need for the solutions to be found, not endless pettiness in an egocentric attempt to do anything to prove the other one wrong.

ReluctantProphet said:

Look at, for example, quantum mechanics verses wave physics. They are both viewing the exact same processes but from two perspectives. Neither is substantially in error.

The two fields continue to develop because neither is answering all of the unknowns. They pursue a picture which will make it all very clear and indubitable. This is exactly what they should do. But the point is that they adapt, hence change, their perspective so as to make a clear mental picture. It doesn't change what is true but merely the manner in which it is viewed.

One could (and they tried) to say that indeed the Sun really does travel around the Earth. The only problem is that to view it in that manner requires the equations involved to be so complex that they are too difficult to use, thus the simpler perspective is accepted.

Motion is relative. Neither view is wrong. One is merely simpler than the other (much simpler) and thus more useful.

Wave theory makes many concerns easier to understand and predict, thus it is used often in place of quantum theories. But at times the quantum perspective is easier as a mental tool.

Science has not declared that either is right or wrong. Science is however still holding onto a few foundation misbelieves, but science has within it the ability to correct for its presumptions, although is annoyingly slow about it as people suffer dearly while they arrogantly quibble.


The picture of the young verses old lady is a perfect example. You can easily see both or either. I can easily see science and religion by a similar means. Both are basically correct. It is no more than a perspective/mental language/conceptual paradigm difference between them. Each insists on remaining blind to the other's perspective so as to fight for dominance.

To me it is exactly (very exactly) like 2 people arguing endlessly over whether that picture was really an old lady or a young lady. It is childish, irresponsible non-sense in that people need for the solutions to be found, not endless pettiness in an egocentric attempt to do anything to prove the other one wrong.

Click to expand...

I agree completely