A debate on Buddha head intertwine amongst root.

Jyera

Muse
J
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
736
Consider the following ... Buddha head intertwine amongst root.
pd71493_s.jpg


IF friend assert that this is might be work of nature or special forces.

Questions:
1. How to ascertain that it is human-made?
2. How to go about logically and critically convincing the a friend that it is indeed human-made?

I do not have a friend who asked this question. But I would like to use this example to explore the methods of persuasion, convincing, questioning, analysis and critical thinking.
 
Q1. Where is the rest of the picture? Especially the stuff below the head?
 
Jyera said:
Consider the following ... Buddha head intertwine amongst root.
pd71493_s.jpg


IF friend assert that this is might be work of nature or special forces.

Questions:
1. How to ascertain that it is human-made?
2. How to go about logically and critically convincing the a friend that it is indeed human-made?

I do not have a friend who asked this question. But I would like to use this example to explore the methods of persuasion, convincing, questioning, analysis and critical thinking.
Click to expand...
My answer would be to look VERY carefully at your friend - they would be having major problems with reality if they made such assertions.

Even on such little evidence, clearly it is man-made. No-one, not even the local Thais, seem to be claiming otherwise, and they are quite a deistic and spirit-driven people.
 
At first I thought the Buddha head was part of the tree, like it was made out of wood. But it just seems that the Buddha head is stone, and the tree is just enveloping it; growing around it. So I have to say... so what?
 
The point is, your friend would have to say why he thinks it's not man-made. It's called 'burden of proof' - if he's making an extraordinary claim, he needs to back it up.

On the other hand, if it seemed unclear, look for the obvious things - what's it made of? Can you see tool marks?

How might it have got there artificially? How might it have got there naturally? Which, taking into account what would have to be inferred, is more likely?
 
Then you could try a brief internet search. According to Wikipedia, the tree is about 50 years old.

It's simply a tree with a fast-growing root system which has overgrown a (presumably) stone Buddha in a national historical park in Wat Mahatat in Thailand.
 
S'neat lookin', I'll give it that, but granted that tree roots do grow around stuff, it's no different than a tree root growing around a rock. This rock just happens to have been sculpted by somebody first.

It'd be a neat effect to go for deliberately, but you'd need a really long attention span, or really fast growing roots.
 
This is cooler than the Weeping Mary stain on the freeway underpass though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom