[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Helm

Objective discussion as in disparate, academic and completely useless to anyone trying to do anything sure.

In my opinion, you just described humanity's impression of philosophy in general. I somewhat share this opinion, as some of my favorite philosophical discourse involved moderate to extreme intoxication at parties with lots of humanities majors. Which, isn't to say that it's useless, rather just to say one can fuck for procreation OR for pleasure.

Might want to introduce the basic dichoctomy between Faith as absolute, and belief as finite and temporary and mutable. That I hold the belief that gravity will continue to function as it has so far does not constitute me having Faith in it. Faith in it would require my unrelenting convition that gravity will indeed forever function as it does, as it had, as it should. There are demands, in having Faith. There are none (or not so many?) in believing stuff.

I'd argue that it is within the realm of possibility that gravity, being understood only as an effect, and not causal (we don't know what makes mass attract mass) could have properties that we've never seen. It's not so much that I have Faith, rather that I have a sort of anti-faith. I'm willing at any moment to throw away cherished beliefs should new and compelling evidence present itself. If a scientist discovers a method of generating an "anti-gravity field" or some such other thing we now consider science fiction, it won't wreck my Faith in the science of Newton. Scientists like Einstien would be bothered by this though. Quantum physics pissed off a lot of classical physicists when it was first discovered because it clashed with their Faith in classical physics.

So in that sense, their unwillingness to accept new discoveries was a barrier to learning. So perhaps this disparate discourse is not completely without use, if it serves to unclench a closed mind. But I'll freely admit I have no such noble illusions when I engage in it. I do it all for Eris.