Jonesboy said:
How do you realize a wonder.
Jonesboy said:
You said that only scientists realize that all things are wonders?
I never said that scientists "realize a wonder". That's you putting words in my mouth--which any philosopher should know is a very, very bad thing. I mean, even if you don't believe in an objective reality (which you apparently don't, given your other posts) you should at least acknowledge the difference between "he said" and "I said"--they're inherent in the way this forum works, for one thing. And if you're confused by the phrase "realize that all things are wonders" you've officially stopped trying to understand basic English. As an aside, this is why you should avoid the convoluted writing style you seem to love: when you write in convoluted ways and fail to grasp basic, common conversational patterns you come off looking like someone who only pretends to be smart.
Scientists generally have a better understanding of the complexity of what are considered mundane things than the average person. In part, it's because they associate with people who work on them. Ever talk to a geologist about rocks in their rock garden? Or a physicist about ink-jet printing? Scientists tend to associate with scientists, who are all intensely interested in their field of work. It's infectous; you pick up on the wonder and awe of the things your colleagues feel wonder and awe when working on. And in part it's because people who become scientists are the type who find reality to be facinating anyway, so they're more likely to look for the wonder inherent in the mundane.
To a non-scientist, a black hole is a wonder and a wooden table is merely something they set their plates on when they eat. To a scientist, both represent wonders: the black hole because of the massive preasures and physical forces involved, the wooden table because of the complex chemistry, eons of evolutionary history, and fairly interesting Newtonian forces involved.
Is that what a scientist does? Realize a wonder?
I'm forced to ask: have you ever DONE anything in science? You said that you worked on "creating new methods for making novel aromatic compounds." However, you constantly talk about science the way someone who'd only learned of it through reading Creationist websites and post-modernist philosophy would speak of it. It's like you're trying to describe a continent you've never seen, but you've read a couple of travel guides.
