TOME 10 PART 149; A DEBATE BETWEEN AN ANCIENT ROMAN SCIENTIST AND A MODERN SCIENTIST
(Two men, a modern scientist and an ancient roman scientist have a conversation about beliefs).
Modern Scientist: I believe in only what I can see! Nothing else makes sense. Gods and demons are superstition but the law of cause and effect exists. Everyone is rewarded for their own actions or punished as such. Never mind that religious mumbo jumbo!
Roman Scientist: You make sense my good man. You know there's a long span of time between my age and yours right?
Modern scientist: Of course. You set the basis for modern tech but my tech is far more advanced than yours.
Roman Scientist: Your tech works but your logic is flawed yet like you, I also believe only in what I can see. Yet, I work to discover what I haven't seen yet. Stop trying to rip off my science.
Modern scientist: What do you mean?
Roman Scientist: You say, one plus one is two right? In my days, we counted it I+I=II. But if you believe only in what you can see, then your math dictates that 1+1=11, which you call eleven. In my numeric representations, that would be XI.
Modern Scientist: (Chuckles) Your mind is as shallow as the age you lived in. Instead of misusing and writing things lengthily, we use 2 to symbolize a simple sum of two ones. Now, tell me how many Ls, Ms, Vs, Cs and Is and Xs you need to write to represent 650, 976,000.
Roman Scientist: So each number in that figure is a symbol of our lengthy Roman numerals huh?
Modern Scientist: You admit you have no argument.
Roman Scientist: Well at least we were straightforward and honest in trying to show our figures almost exactly as they were.
Modern Scientist: I wonder why you had to make your work so difficult.
Roman Scientist: So 2+2=4, 3+3=6 and so on huh? That's a lot of symbols for one who only believes in what he can see. If I asked you to prove the validity of your claim, can you show me how the symbols 1 and 1 become 2 and not 11; 2+2 become 4 and not 22?
Modern scientist: These are our basic numbers. It's necessary to memorize counting numbers to understand.
Roman Scientist: Yeah, I understand memorization but I can't understand how the addition of two different, or even same symbols give you another unique symbol.
Modern Scientist: Well if you take one apple from the kitchen and add to a barrel containing one other apple, you'll have two apples. Can you at least understand that?
Roman Scientist: What if the apples had been bitten once?
Modern Scientist: They may not be whole apples but they're two distinct apples nonetheless.
Roman Scientist: No, they become infinite if the bites face away. After all, your mathematical symbol for infinity resembles two apples bitten once with the bites facing the opposite direction.
Modern scientist: And if the bites face the same direction?
Roman Scientist: Double closed brackets.
Modern scientist: Well then, we've reached the point I find it pointless and baseless to argue with you any longer.
Roman Scientist: How ironic that you who believes only what you can see depend mostly on symbols in your scientific work and we who worked to discover what we couldn't see represent things as closely as possible to how we perceive them.
Modern Scientist: Truth is a relative concept. Stick to your truth, I'll stick to mine.
Roman scientist: And if our truths are relatively lies, what then? If truth is relative, science is pointless. What do we have to use then as a basis to measure the validity of our scientific claims? If our truth is relative, there can't exist any ideal figure after all, can there? In which case, no matter how far science advances, curing a disease will mean creating new ones, seeking evolution would mean further degradation. Meaning the problems of our time are not significantly greater than the problems of your time. In our time, simple diseases could kill us. In yours, you have cures but have created even more advanced diseases. In that case, 2/1 =4/2 =8/4 =100/50 =1000/500 in your scientific language. The numbers have increased but the ratio of solved problems is practically unchanged.
Modern Scientist: I see your point, but you have your language of science, and I have mine.
Moral lesson: As long as there be a concept of relative truth, there will also exist a reality of an impossible utopia
-By Emma Colette. (Shalalalalalalalalalalalala!)
(Somehow, I feel 50 years from now, this drama will be used as a reference and grouped under articles.)