aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Scientist vs Monks Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of EJB 3 in Action this week in the EJB and other Java EE Technologies forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Scientist vs Monks" Watch "Scientist vs Monks" New topic
Author

Scientist vs Monks

Seetharaman Venkatasamy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 28, 2008
Posts: 5575

what is the difference folks ?
Hebert Coelho
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 14, 2010
Posts: 754

Monks can hurt you with wind punches! O.o


[uaiHebert.com] [Full WebApplication JSF EJB JPA JAAS with source code to download] One Table Per SubClass [Web/JSF]
Bear Bibeault
Author and ninkuma
Marshal

Joined: Jan 10, 2002
Posts: 60041
    
  65

The hair-dos!

Scientist:


Monk:


[Asking smart questions] [Bear's FrontMan] [About Bear] [Books by Bear]
Paul Clapham
Bartender

Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 18109
    
    8

Scientists look for evidence. Monks aren't interested in evidence.
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

As per i see each one follow a different path of the truth(dharma,Intellectual).<that's all i know>
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

Paul Clapham wrote:Scientists look for evidence. Monks aren't interested in evidence.

I don't agree with this (to certain degree) monks to see the evidence there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 10905
    
  12

Scientists don't know the answer, but try and find new evidence to explain it.

Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

fred rosenberger wrote:
Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation

you must be Joking !!
Tim Moores
Rancher

Joined: Sep 21, 2011
Posts: 2408
Arun Giridharan wrote:there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .

I'm not sure what to make of this: complete proof of what - that someone named Buddha lived and worked? If we were to assume a certain similarity to Jesus Christ, would this proof be an equivalent of the bible?

Arun Giridharan wrote:you must be Joking !!

Care to explain that sentiment?
Randall Twede
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 21, 2000
Posts: 4339
    
    2

i've been accused of being cynical before but i agree with fred.
Scientists don't know the answer, but try and find new evidence to explain it.

Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation

i like the hairdo explanation best though


SCJP
Visit my download page
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

Tim Moores wrote:
Arun Giridharan wrote:there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .

I'm not sure what to make of this: complete proof of what - that someone named Buddha lived and worked? If we were to assume a certain similarity to Jesus Christ, would this proof be an equivalent of the bible?

Arun Giridharan wrote:you must be Joking !!

Care to explain that sentiment?

The Thing i want to say is you can't comment about anything (religion) if you don't know it . for example <Hinduism or Buddhism>.
Tim Moores
Rancher

Joined: Sep 21, 2011
Posts: 2408
Arun Giridharan wrote:The Thing i want to say is you can't comment about anything (religion) if you don't know it.

Not sure what you mean by "know it", but the premise seems flawed - it would imply that I can't comment on taking opium just because I don't happen to indulge in it myself, no matter how much I know about it. (Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion; feel free to substitute any other concept for "taking opium" - like communism, capitalism, atheism, ...)
Arun Giridharan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 30, 2010
Posts: 290

Tim Moores wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "know it", but the premise seems flawed - it would imply that I can't comment on taking opium just because I don't happen to indulge in it myself, no matter how much I know about it. (Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion; feel free to substitute any other concept for "taking opium" - like communism, capitalism, atheism, ...)

You can comment on anything as long it won't overrule the form rule,bye.
Tim Moores
Rancher

Joined: Sep 21, 2011
Posts: 2408
I understand that even less.
Joanne Neal
Rancher

Joined: Aug 05, 2005
Posts: 3153
    
  10
Tim Moores wrote:Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion

Why not ? After all, religion is the opium of the people.


Joanne
Karthik Shiraly
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 04, 2009
Posts: 475
    
    3
Scientists install this. Monks install this
Tim Moores
Rancher

Joined: Sep 21, 2011
Posts: 2408
Joanne Neal wrote:Why not ? After all, religion is the opium of the people.

In order to keep the tone civil, I wasn't going to compare a criminal offence with religion. But Marx was obviously on my mind when I wrote that.
Ralph Lepine
Greenhorn

Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 2
Hmm. If we ignore the tired stereotypes, there are actually a lot of similarities.

Contemplation and discovery of the unknowns.

The good ones know that the more they know, the more they don't know.
(Search for: Unskilled and UnAware Of It)

Many monks (and priests, religious, etc) were scientists.
Many scientists are actually quite religious.

Blows your paradigms? Read:

False Conflict by Rodney Stark
Or, search for:
monks who were scientists (and other variations)

BTW - Love the hairdo joke!

 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Scientist vs Monks