The split between religion and science does not exist

[JewishPhysics]

Someone blogged this The split between religion and science is over.

I approve of this!

Then the long legged scissor man is going to cut off your thumbs:

[Somnambulist]

haha!  hey, just so you know, it's nothing personal - I like the cut of your jib!

[scourge]

Here we go again with tendencies.

Religion: composite (gain) -> particulars (loss), top down
Science: particulars (gain) -> composite (loss), bottom up

[Cargést]

This would suggest that extroverts are natural scientists, whereas introverts are natural theologists, and both could be philosophers.  Then again, it's highly likely that certain roles to which certain types are suited are generally performed by other types who are less suited to their roles.

[scourge]

Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.

[nether]

Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.

Too specific?  I find them just as vague as the alternatives you posed.

Where does 'tradition' start/ end?  What is 'modern'?

I think your chart (for lack of better descriptor) above is thoughtful and accurate.  But, make anything vague enough and it will have the appearance of being universally applicable.

[Caffeine]

This would suggest that extroverts are natural scientists, whereas introverts are natural theologists, and both could be philosophers.  Then again, it's highly likely that certain roles to which certain types are suited are generally performed by other types who are less suited to their roles.

You have eN, iN, Ti, Te, J, and P to account for as well.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

Replace religion with traditional and science with modern. The former terms are too specific.

Too specific?  I find them just as vague as the alternatives you posed.

Where does 'tradition' start/ end?  What is 'modern'?

I think your chart (for lack of better descriptor) above is thoughtful and accurate.  But, make anything vague enough and it will have the appearance of being universally applicable.

He doesn't mean 'specific' as in 'clear,' he means it as in 'narrow.'  So it may be vague, but you're misunderstanding him.  Perhaps learning about 'tradition' VS. 'modern' all by yourself could be a really fun experience.  Then you can answer your own question.  Have a good one!

[nether]

He doesn't mean 'specific' as in 'clear,' he means it as in 'narrow.'  So it may be vague, but you're misunderstanding him.  Perhaps learning about 'tradition' VS. 'modern' all by yourself could be a really fun experience.  Then you can answer your own question.  Have a good one!

Revised:

Traditional: composite (gain) -> particulars (loss), top down
Modern: particulars (gain) -> composite (loss), bottom up

Perhaps I was too quick to criticize, but I found it interesting and thought it merited some discussion which might have begun with an explanation.  Having looked at it myself, though, it makes perfect sense.

'Modern' is of the moment (thus pertinent), but often irrelevant in the grand scheme.  'Tradition' is established (thus valid), but often general.

[scourge]

Good stuff.

See also deconstruction and a constructivist.

[nether]

Deconstruction provides in-depth analysis, but it often misses (or intentionally overlooks/ misconstrues) the matter at hand.
 
Through constructivism we find value, but we run the risk of valuing the wrong things.

EDIT:  That lecture on Evola is excellent.

[zebra bodine]

servant to things that don't exist because of an underlying fear of purposelessness.

After reading all this, I honestly found this the most sensible thing that was said.

[Jim Necroslaughter]

servant to things that don't exist because of an underlying fear of purposelessness.

strawman

[wacked666]

the connection between spirit and science is narrowing, so assume there is no spirit because science cannot prove it yet to me is small minded.
the chinese had mapped the acupuncture points of the body 3000 years before science proved the exact same thing. watch "what the bleep do we know" it's a great movie. they explain about quantum physics, and it seems to reach into this feild more than any other science that i know of..

[scourge]

The deconstruction side looks for something tangible that it can isolate and categorize with a set of metrics. I would say this is what limits deconstruction. But the constructivist side can bridge the gap by giving us relationships between entities and a better sense of scope.

It is like the difference between expertise gotten from a butterfly stored in a glass container when it isn't under a microscope and a survey of a meadow surrounded by forest with all its living things as a whole ecosystem. Some of the living things are butterflies that move pollen around and serve as food for certain birds.

The deconstruction side may remain unaware of, and indeed deny, the meadow, pollen, or birds unless the isolated butterfly itself had measurable clues about these things on its body.