first what kind of salt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt
Grumble Grumble Grumble
In the context of a 'Modern' educated world, the answer is no. And the reason for this is the practice of education and training. To function in a technological society, the citizens are taught through many years of education to think 'logically' and 'accept' facts and concepts that cannot be gained through personal experience. Take one of the basic concepts of modern science. Can you 'Prove' for a fact that electrons, protons and neutrons actually exist???Originally Posted by Arrianna
Outside the context of a modern educated society, the answer would be yes. Logical thinking is not 'natural' for human beings, it has to be taught. Remembering back to the time of the middle ages, where 'logic' was limited to the few 'learned' men educated by the church. Where the majority of humans alive never traveled more then 25 miles from their place of birth. Where the majority of people could only count up to a 100 because they never had to deal with larger quantities. It's no wonder at all that Columbus, or any of the other great explorers of that time, had so much trouble explaining that there was more out there then the known world...
Okay, so in a modern society "cognitive dissonance" is unusual but everywhere else it is the norm? I'll buy that.
But then why do I seem to meet so many of them?
And why doesn't modern society apply the same standards to religion? Or is there a role reversal in regards to "cognitive dissonance" between modern and non-modern societies where religion is concerned?
Have I asked enough questions?
It just seems so incredulous to me. If I want to know the taste of salt, I'll buy some salt. And if I want to understand why something happened or figure out why someone did what they did, I study it. When I meet someone who doesn't, I'm astounded. Not surprised, anymore... but astounded.
PS. I do believe we're talking about Edible Salt JaNay. I have no idea what kind KnightofNi is talking about. Though in this case it's an allegory.
Grumble Grumble Grumble
I wouldn't go so far as to claim 'congitive dissonance' is unusual in modern society. It's much more common then most people would think. There are limits to what training and education can achieve. People who appear 'Closed minded' usually don't think of themselves as being 'Closed minded'. (But notice that greater 'tolerance' and 'liberal' thinking are usually associated with higher education levels...Also notice that in societies and cultures both past and present, with religious govements, education is tightly controled to prevent teachings against religious authority...).Originally Posted by Arrianna
As for applying the same standards to religion? (which is based on belief, not reason!) The standards probably don't apply. The frameworks of modern Science provides no more valid a solution to understanding the world then one based on gods, spirits, or magic. The only reason that Science is more successful in modern society is that its better at producing products (and weapons) that can be used to generate (or seize) money and power.
I am talking about Sodium Chloride, which is edible salt, the salt you can put on your food, I just wanted to tell people about all the wonderful things about sodium chloride that follows a trend with most chemical salts. Since Sodium Chloride comes mainly as an ionic solid, all solid crystals have a certain type of packing or order that the atoms come in when it is formed. You can also dope most ionic compounds too including silicon to change its conductivity and also when you drop sodium chloride in water, because it dissassociates into ions which are electrically conductive you can produce electricity from the resulting solution, thats all.
Clan orders: Wear the signature of defeat with pride.
Originally Posted by LenMiyataI would respectivly disagree. The entire point is that our understanding is subjective.cognitive dissonance: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously
Love is the same way. We have a thread on the definition of Love with 46 posts and while they weren't all different there were definate differences. The subjective as compared to the difinitive.Originally Posted by BBoyPHoeNiX1337
We understand things by our past experiences including religion. Our beliefs are based not just on what we have been taught but what we have experienced. And yet I have heard people tell someone that they could not have experienced something they remember because it doesn't fit in with that persons world veiw, be it a religious subject or societal.
My husband had a college teacher tell the class that every man is bigoted against women bosses and resents them. When my husband informed him that he had worked for a female that he had a great deal of respect for he was told that he was lying.
What is the difference between what happened to my husband and someone who is told they can't have had a "spiritual" experience (they're dillusional, lying, or simply mistaken) or a situation like my roommate who refused to believe something even though she had two witnesses telling her it was not only possible, it had happened?
I'm not talking about opinion here, I'm talking about experience. Just like the taste of salt, or defining love, it's all based on experience. Even if we use the same words to define it the understanding is based on what we know and that will be different for different people. To tell someone they can't have experienced anything because you haven't or can't imagine it is to invalidate them, their life, and choices. Perhaps that is why people do it.
Silicon isn't an ionic compound, it's an element. In addition there are no ionic silicon-containing compounds. All silicon compounds, like carbon compounds, are covalently bound together.Originally Posted by KnightofNi
The physical properties of salt are interesting, but not relevant to the thread.
Clan? What Clan?
I'm the Master. I need no Clan.