heart / mind

[china]

 

[hermanntrude]

sorry china... I think you double-deleted too

 

[china]

Yeap ,I sure have.Here we go again :
When one gives one’s heart, it is a total action. And when you give your mind, it is a fragmentary action. And most of us give our minds to so many things. That is why we live a fragmentary life ,thinking one thing and doing another; and we are torn, contradictory. To understand something, one must give not only one’s mind but one’s heart to it

 

[hermanntrude]

I wonder if this applies to science?

It's common to find a scientist who is a bad scientist because he applies emotion. He wishes for a certain result and bends the results to fit his theories. Is it because he is using emotion or because he is using it wrongly

int he above paragraph i have substituted "emotion" for "heart" as we all know the heart is an organ for pumping blood

 

[china]

hermanntrude :
I wonder if this applies to science?
It's common to find a scientist who is a bad scientist because he applies emotion. He wishes for a certain result and bends the results to fit his theories. Is it because he is using emotion or because he is using it wrongly
int he above paragraph i have substituted "emotion" for "heart" as we all know the heart is an organ for pumping blood------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No hermanntrude,This applies to life though you might understand life as being a"science project".

.....it's common to find a scientist......Well ,I know few scientists ,they are just people ,with emotions,feelings etc. They are happy in what they are doing and they are not bad scientists.

nt he above paragraph i have substituted "emotion" for "heart" as we all know the heart is an organ for pumping blood

...I know what you mean.It reminds me of the great hit of the 60's ...."I left my blood pumping organ in San Francisco.

 

[s_lone]

I wonder if this applies to science?



int he above paragraph i have substituted "emotion" for "heart" as we all know the heart is an organ for pumping blood

But you know very well China used the word "heart" to represent something much more subtle and powerful than the blood pumping organ.

To "put your heart" into something speaks more about will than emotions I believe. Putting our hearts into something implies we know deep within ourselves why we are doing it or at least what we seek by doing it. This is as much a mental process then an emotional process.

 

[china]

s_lone you are no.1

 

[L Gilbert]

Yeap ,I sure have.Here we go again :
When one gives one’s heart, it is a total action. And when you give your mind, it is a fragmentary action. And most of us give our minds to so many things. That is why we live a fragmentary life ,thinking one thing and doing another; and we are torn, contradictory. To understand something, one must give not only one’s mind but one’s heart to it

Oh, brother. disgust :roll: I ain't giving my pump to anyone. I can commit me in varying degrees to various chores or to help people, but I ain't giving up my parts till I'm dead.

 

[L Gilbert]

I wonder if this applies to science?

It's common to find a scientist who is a bad scientist because he applies emotion. He wishes for a certain result and bends the results to fit his theories. Is it because he is using emotion or because he is using it wrongly

int he above paragraph i have substituted "emotion" for "heart" as we all know the heart is an organ for pumping blood

It's not an organ, it's a muscle.

 

[L Gilbert]

But you know very well China used the word "heart" to represent something much more subtle and powerful than the blood pumping organ.

To "put your heart" into something speaks more about will than emotions I believe. Putting our hearts into something implies we know deep within ourselves why we are doing it or at least what we seek by doing it. This is as much a mental process then an emotional process.

The explanation doesn't make the term any less ridiculous. "I put my heart into being a butcher". :roll: "I fully apply myself in my trade as a butcher." makes more sense.

 

[s_lone]

The explanation doesn't make the term any less ridiculous. "I put my heart into being a butcher". :roll: "I fully apply myself in my trade as a butcher." makes more sense.

Words can be used in many contexts and "putting your heart into something" is a commonly used expression which is understood by pretty much all English speakers. Nothing ridiculous about that.

 

[hermanntrude]

well rather than be pedantic about my substitution of emotion for heart (which was purely intended for simplification of the debate, and yes i do know what china meant, i was just clarifying that it's ALSO part of the mind, and maybe lymbic system too), I still think it's valid to say that either of the following statements is true:

1) "heart" is something which cannot be employed in science, as it misleads scientists and makes them distort their results to reach their "heart's" desire.

2) "heart" CAN be employed in the field of science, but must be done so carefully, with full awareness of the bias it can cause. It can even be beneficial, as it helps a scientist to enjoy his/her work and hence motivate him/her.

I am a fan of option 2. Many whom i have met believe firmly in option 1.

this was my original point, which most of you ignored and went on to mess about with my semantics.

 

[Sparrow]

well rather than be pedantic about my substitution of emotion for heart (which was purely intended for simplification of the debate, and yes i do know what china meant, i was just clarifying that it's ALSO part of the mind, and maybe lymbic system too), I still think it's valid to say that either of the following statements is true:

1) "heart" is something which cannot be employed in science, as it misleads scientists and makes them distort their results to reach their "heart's" desire.

2) "heart" CAN be employed in the field of science, but must be done so carefully, with full awareness of the bias it can cause. It can even be beneficial, as it helps a scientist to enjoy his/her work and hence motivate him/her.

I am a fan of option 2. Many whom i have met believe firmly in option 1.

this was my original point, which most of you ignored and went on to mess about with my semantics.

I agree with you No. 1
Scientists who put their heart in their work do a good job because they want to help and do an honnest job, or course there is always an exception to the rule. However the ones that distort their work results are not putting their heart in their work, they are putting their EGO (some mistake their zeal for heart) into play causing them to alter their results to make a name for themselves and keep the money coming in order to keep their jobs.

However, I also agree emotion must be controlled but if you put your heart in the job you will control your emotions so as not to jeopardize the end results.

 

[hermanntrude]

I am an emotional scientist. When something works it's not uncommon to see me dance around the lab for an hour or two, pinching people's bums and pretending to be a cow. But when things go wrong it can send me into a depression. I am aware that this can make me biased toward a positive result, but i think i compensate for that

 

[L Gilbert]

well rather than be pedantic about my substitution of emotion for heart (which was purely intended for simplification of the debate, and yes i do know what china meant, i was just clarifying that it's ALSO part of the mind, and maybe lymbic system too), I still think it's valid to say that either of the following statements is true:

1) "heart" is something which cannot be employed in science, as it misleads scientists and makes them distort their results to reach their "heart's" desire.

2) "heart" CAN be employed in the field of science, but must be done so carefully, with full awareness of the bias it can cause. It can even be beneficial, as it helps a scientist to enjoy his/her work and hence motivate him/her.

I am a fan of option 2. Many whom i have met believe firmly in option 1.

this was my original point, which most of you ignored and went on to mess about with my semantics.

That's me, pedantic.

 

[L Gilbert]

I am an emotional scientist. When something works it's not uncommon to see me dance around the lab for an hour or two, pinching people's bums and pretending to be a cow. But when things go wrong it can send me into a depression. I am aware that this can make me biased toward a positive result, but i think i compensate for that

OK, Mr. Cleese. I'll take yer werd fer it.