Epistemology: debunking v. open-mindedness
foolsrushin
> On 27 Dec, 10:23, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Dec, 02:53, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:15:50 -0800 (PST), foolsrushin
>
> > > <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On 22 Dec, 23:41, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:51:53 -0600, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > (snip)
>
> > > >I have already explained, Gordie, how our neighbour, a pig-farmer did
> > > >it: he positioned the pig in a frame, then slit its belly from top to
> > > >bottom, collecting the blood in a bath situated underneath, the origin
> > > >of 'blood bath', maybe.'
>
> > > Jon, I may have missed something here, but I don't see how this pig
> > > farmer could place a live, active hog in this kind of frame.
>
> > That's how they did it, though. I was only there for a summer, my
> > parents had fallen out, though later got back together.
> > > The way we and others in the community butchered hogs was to kill them with a
> > > 22 caliber rifle then slit their throat, opening the primary artery to
> > > the brain. The blood was usually drained into a bucket and fed to the
> > > poultry. They liked it and it gave them needed protein.
>
> > > After the hog was bead out, and no longer thrashing around we would
> > > slip the carcass, head first, into a barrel that was half full of very
> > > hot water. This had been prepared in an iron 55 gallon barrel,
> > > supported on rocks with a wood fire under it. When the water was hot
> > > we would dig a small pit beside the fire and maneuver the half barrel
> > > of hot water into this pit and lean the barrel over at about a 45
> > > degree angle.
>
> > > Then we would lift the carcass and slide the nose end into the hot
> > > water and swish it around a bit, then pull it out and switch ends,
> > > inserting the rear quarters into the hot water.
>
> > > After this "scalding" process was complete the carcass was laid on a
> > > flat platform and all the hair scraped off with ordinary butcher
> > > knives. When all the hair had been scraped off we would wash the
> > > carcass thoroughly. This left the carcass in a very clean, smooth
> > > state.
>
> > > Then, the very clean, hairless carcass was ready to open up and remove
> > > the viscera. This, like you describe, entailed slitting the stomach
> > > from throat to anal orifice and removing all the intestines, heart,
> > > lungs, etc.
>
> > > The carcass was then cut into separate pieces and moved into the smoke
> > > house where it was treated with a salt mixture, then smoked until it
> > > was fully cured.
>
> > > Ummmm, just thinking of this makes me get the yummies. That home cured
> > > ham and loin cuts just can't be beat. Gordon
>
> > > >He and his wife then turned the pig into marketable products. The
> > > >other pigs were upset for days. I, too, was upset!
>
> > > I never saw any signs that this upset any of the other pigs. They were
> > > just making grunting sounds and going about their business as usual.
> > > Gordon
>
> > > >This thread is drifting away from the notion that NDEs and OBEs in
> > > >respect of (a) sighted persons and (b) blind persons actually *see* an
> > > >operation or an accident and can veridically recall it, so that we
> > > >might test their apparent perceptions.
>
> > > The drift here was partly caused by my quest for information as to
> > > just how a blind-from-birth person may reassign the part of their
> > > brain that people with normal vision use to process their visual
> > > sensations. If this brain region is re-assigned to handle some other
> > > sensations, such as auditory, tactile and olfactory sensations, this
> > > may explain the "out of body" experiences.
>
> > Gordie, nothing explains them, though they are numerous. Investigation
> > of such matters will of course only convince anybody if we can
> > establish that in the case of NDEs, technically dead (up to 23
> > minutes), they had this or that experience.
>
> > > That is, their tactile or other sensory organs may have been stimulated in
> > > such a way as to give them a "visual" image that they couldn't explain, but
> > > which others
> > > "helped" them put into focus as an out of body experience. Gordon
>
> > Brilliant! I think that is what happens to them!
>
> > > >In the case of (b), there is a anecdotal evidence (the way science
> > > >always begins!), but there have been few studies, apart from one or
> > > >two I have quoted.
>
> > > >The consequences of the truth of (b) for 'materialism' would of course
> > > >mean that bodies were just machines, some better than others, no
> > > >different from computers or lawnmowers!
>
> > I'll post post a bit more evidence shortly: there is no proof.
> > --
> > foolsrushin.
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/pg_4
>
> http://www.near-death.com/atwater/column/archives/2005/2005_02.html
>
> 'The first account proposes that a person's NDE (or OBE) maybe
> inspired by accounts of other people's NDEs that have been widely
> disseminated in various forms of the media. That is, might a blind
> person have heard that people see certain things in a near-death
> encounter and unconsciously generated a fantasy that conformed to this
> belief? The second potential sociocognitive explanation is somewhat
> broader and posits that people, including the blind, learn about what
> to expect in an afterlife from diverse sociocultural sources, and they
> may rely extensively on these expectations in generating a near-death
> fantasy. The expectation that, for example, the afterlife is set in a
> pastoral realm is common in Western culture (Irwin, 1987a). More
> significantly for the nature of NDEs in the blind, it is possible that
> people in the general population are inclined to expect that in the
> afterlife a person will not suffer physical or sensory disabilities
> and will otherwise be in "perfect" form. Indeed, sighted NDErs often
> re port other-worldly encounters with deceased relatives who had died
> at an advanced age but who appeared to be at their physical peak in
> the afterlife (Sabom, 1982, p. 72), and some OBErs have described the
> appearance of their exteriorized self in similarly idealized terms
> (Irwin, 1987b, p. 115). Thus, the blind may commonly have a belief
> that they will suffer no visual affliction in an afterlife, and this
> belief may influence the content of NDEs in the blind. It is not my
> intention to promote these skeptical accounts of the NDE, nor to
> advocate the pursuit of the empirical support that they still require,
> but in the interests of balance Ring and Cooper should certainly have
> given sociocognitive accounts due scrutiny.
>
> A very short note, titled "A Concluding Word", reiterates the proposal
> that while blind NDErs and OBErs may depict their experiences in terms
> of visual impressions, this tendency simply involves the unwitting
> reformulation of an experience of mindsight in terms of constructs
> that the experient herself or himself can comprehend. This concluding
> chapter might better have given more emphasis to the most fundamental
> implication of the project's finding of NDEs in congenitally totally
> blind people, namely, that the perceptual-like impressions in NDEs and
> OBEs evidently are not perceptual at all.
>
> An appendix reports "An Exceptional New Case of an NDE in the Blind"
> recruited by Dr. Tricia McGill. An inserted addendum warns, however,
> that there now are grounds to believe this case is fraudulent. This
> unfortunate situation is one that all researchers of anomalous
> experiences are prone to encounter.
>
> The quality of the book's production is excellent; I noted only one
> typographical error. The book also is very reasonably priced.
>
> In summary, it must be said that Ring and Cooper have neglected
> several substantial issues, but despite its lacunae this book is a
> significant contribution to NDE research in that it reports some
> phenomenological data that an adequate theory of the NDE must be able
> to accommodate. These data serve to reinforce the view that the
> experient's impressions in an NDE are not "perceptual" in the usual
> sense of this term, but the exact nature of the perceptual-like
> impressions requires further clarification. As a novel stimulus to
> such clarification this book is warmly recommended.'
>
> http://www.near-death.com/sitemap.html
>
> The above, Gordie, is a cautious advance in the direction of
> overturning Cartesian dualism. It at least assents with civil leer! He
> noticed only one typographical error!
>
> Wot a prat!, though! Maybe he hopes to get tenure somewhere! Or fears
> he might see it revoked. Bet he goes to church on Sundays, too!
> Stoopid person, yet we have to get him out of the way before we can
> have a serious discussion.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3658603973717116236
>
> Listen to the delightful Stanton Friedman.
>
> [Sheldrake on debunkers:http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-debunkers-and-pseu...
> ]
>
> My mother was a Catholic, my father a studious Atheist, and I was
> brought up by Jews for a third of my youth.
>
> P. M. H. Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.) : 'An in-depth look at the near-
> death phenomenon': I am sorry to have to say it, but she seems to be a
> sort of NDE industry!
>
> http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6789.
>
> IF, however, (and a first cousin, a doctor, on my mother's side claims
> it's true) that doctors often sometimes experience NDE patients, blind
> from birth, who yet seem to see outside their bodies at a critical
> moment, the conventional theory of knowledge is overturned and
> mechanism and materialism are in trouble.
>
> Are they? I don't know!
> --
> foolsrushin.
I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
of anything they want to debunk, then challenge them - humorously.
After all the debunking is done, there will be a residue of persons,
open-minded, who remember that the sun once swung around us and ships
dropped off a flat Earth!
Though I don't necessarily accept his ETH ( an assumption, a bit
groundless, only nuts, no nuts and bolts), Stanton T. Friedman shows
how to treat debunkers - wit and humour! GBS would have loved him!
He'd have been a welcome guest at Ayot St. Lawrence, Shaw's home,
adding extra wit and merriment to the place.
A lot of people here would have given Copernicus a bad time, yet rely
on him now. It would be nice to think that IQ alone guarantees open-
mindeness. It don't!
--
foolsrushin.
Philip Holman
"foolsrushin" <dolo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7eef82da-d993-450c...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Copernicus............what about Aristarchus? Why did it take another
1800+ years to debunk the geocentric model? Select all that apply.....
1/ No one else cared
2/ Religious intervention
3/ Waiting for the invention of the telescope
4/ Waiting for the laws of motion
Phil H
tadchem
> I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
> of anything they want to debunk, then...
Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
There have been a lot of ideas throughout history that have been
successfully "debunked."
They were all wrong.
There have been ideas throughout history that have not been debunked,
despite concentrated efforts.
They either were proven right or are still being tested.
Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
However, all the evidence we have been provided in support of either
consists almost exclusively anecdotal reports, is open to individual
interpretation, and is quite ambiguous in that some non-extraordinary
hypothesis can account for almost every report as well as the
extraordinary hypothesis.
Ockham's Razor rules.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
foolsrushin
> On Dec 27, 6:33 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
> > of anything they want to debunk, then...
> Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
No, scepticism is a completely different matter. Russell's technique,
for example, was to occupy a position with the intention of finding
out what it would mean to believe in it. Debunking relies only on
synthetic a priori assertions or judgements -'new ways for silly
people to say silly things.'
> There have been a lot of ideas throughout history that have been
> successfully "debunked."
> They were all wrong.
> There have been ideas throughout history that have not been debunked,
> despite concentrated efforts.
So, what is the ouput of your process?
(a)
Propositions that are true by definition, such that to deny them would
be to contradict oneself.
(b)
Propositions, to cut to the chase, that hold true unless refuted in
one's experience, for example, the fall in Earth v. moon gravity ( I
suspect we got to the moon, then tried to conceal it!)
(c)
Synthetic a priori propositions. (Kant got it right: maths seems to be
ahead of discovery ... - your view?)
> They either were proven right or are still being tested.
*What! Popper,!?
> Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
> evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
*Airline Pilots report Demons?
I have no definitive opinions on the matter. A triangular craft ... .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)
*Then, why bother?
> Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
> of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=548889554683271774
*See, obvious!
> However, all the evidence we have been provided in support of either
> consists almost exclusively anecdotal reports, is open to individual
> interpretation, and is quite ambiguous in that some non-extraordinary
> hypothesis can account for almost every report as well as the
> extraordinary hypothesis.
You would never contradict yourself.
* Ah yes, the minimax principle
Occham would have persecuted anybody who knew how to use analogue,
never mind digital technology. he would have seen motor-cars as
demonic, quite rightly, too.
> Ockham's Razor rules.
*Nice Man:
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
One might turn this on it's head - if airline pilots are to be
believed, he would need the extraordinary evidence!
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
Tom, thanks for receiving all my BS: Google announces that I have
exceeded my limit of postings! After recent experiences, I wouldn't
trust them with a 20ft pole with a sanitary inspector tied to the end
- even if he was highly qualified!
--
Yrs,
John.
foolsrushin
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1125.htm
That will have to do for triangles. When Google started, I was a fan.
I now think they are, to say the least, unreliable. Yeah, I know,
spare me!
--
foolsrushin.
The Natural Philosopher
> Copernicus............what about Aristarchus? Why did it take another
> 1800+ years to debunk the geocentric model? Select all that apply.....
>
> 1/ No one else cared
> 2/ Religious intervention
> 3/ Waiting for the invention of the telescope
> 4/ Waiting for the laws of motion
>
No, you forget the more releavnt reasons.
Firstly, as the church realised, and Galileo didn't a model is only a
model. All knowledge is relative to core assumptions made a priori about
the nature of the world. The geocentric model is no better and no worse
than a heliocentric model, which is also false as it happens, by the
same tokens used to 'debunk' the geocentric ones.
It merely happens that when mathematics is applied to the heliocentric
one, the mathematics becomes easier. The calculations are simpler.
If Galileo had managed to restrict himself to that truth, he wouldn't
have become persecuted. Instead he claimed absolute knowledge, which was
an is always the sole right of theologists: From Kant onwards through
learned paper after learned paper, the lesson still fails to be
understood: You cannot really have objective factual knowledge about
anything (Kant), and a model is not the reality, and is only as good as
its ability to predict results, and not be shown to have implications
that turn out to be false (cf Popper) and always contains an A priori
assumption that cannot be proved (Godel).
However people require certainties beyond 'the only certain thing is
that there is no certain thing' and hence we have religion to assure us
that all is in fact well. And rational materialists to assure us that
the world we perceive is free of all perspective and assumption about
its nature, and is indeed exactly as we think it is.
Blue pill or red pill?
> Phil H
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
> On Dec 27, 6:33 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
>> of anything they want to debunk, then...
>
> Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
>
> There have been a lot of ideas throughout history that have been
> successfully "debunked."
>
> They were all wrong.
>
> There have been ideas throughout history that have not been debunked,
> despite concentrated efforts.
>
> They either were proven right or are still being tested.
>
ones that work within the correct context of application.
> Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
> evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
>
> Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
> of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
>
Precisely. Not being formulated as proper hypotheses of a refutable
nature, they are not scientific theories a la Popper.
> However, all the evidence we have been provided in support of either
> consists almost exclusively anecdotal reports, is open to individual
> interpretation, and is quite ambiguous in that some non-extraordinary
> hypothesis can account for almost every report as well as the
> extraordinary hypothesis.
>
> Ockham's Razor rules.
>
And the rest. BTW its generally spelt Occam..but Ockham is probably OK,
as that is how the place is spelled today.
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
>
Well not necessarily. It depends if you want people to adopt the hypothesis.
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
Benj
> Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
"debunking' is political propaganda at work. Generally the arguments
provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
"authority" [text books all say this], proof by assertion ["those
ideas are false!"] and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
wear a tinfoil helmet].
The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
"debunking".
> Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
> evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
>
> Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
> of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
And it is VERY interesting that BOTH the above are easily proved to be
"true science" with nothing more than a single example of each. One
crashed UFO is MORE than enough proof for the existence of ETs. Same
goes for one trapped demon. Yet it is any hint of such evidence that
sends "debunkers" off into "tinfoil hat" attacks. Why? It only shows
an agenda must be involved.
> Ockham's Razor rules.
Ockhams Razor is bullshit! As Einstein noted, things should be as
simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
invariably try to make things simpler because sound bites and bumper
stickers make good propaganda. However, they are well below the limit
of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
>
> Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> "debunking' is political propaganda at work. Generally the arguments
> provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
> "authority" [text books all say this], proof by assertion ["those
> ideas are false!"] and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
> wear a tinfoil helmet].
>
> The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
> "debunking".
>
>> Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
>> evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
>>
>> Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
>> of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
>
> Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> And it is VERY interesting that BOTH the above are easily proved to be
> "true science" with nothing more than a single example of each. One
> crashed UFO is MORE than enough proof for the existence of ETs.
Not at all. Its merely a presumed fact that may have many explanations.
Same
> goes for one trapped demon. Yet it is any hint of such evidence that
> sends "debunkers" off into "tinfoil hat" attacks. Why? It only shows
> an agenda must be involved.
>
>> Ockham's Razor rules.
>
>
> Ockhams Razor is bullshit!
No, it isn't. Its a rule that we agree to follow for very precise
reasons: it limits the complexity of, and the speculative nature of
theories. If you want to setp outside that agreement, you are free to do
so, but you also step outside the rules of accepted behaviour in
formulation of SCIENTIFIC hypotheses, when you do.
"E Ts exist" is not a scientific theory. It is if anything a
metaphysical statement.
You are free to make it, but not to get it accepted as a valid
scientific hypothesis.
As Einstein noted, things should be as
> simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
> invariably try to make things simpler because sound bites and bumper
> stickers make good propaganda.
No, thats sounds like you. Occams razor is a tool to be applied as a
yardstick to select simpler and just as effective theories from overly
complex ones. i.e. to select a heliocentric model of the planets over a
geocentric one. It doesn't make either theory true or false, it merely
selects the somewhat simpler one as being more pragmatic.
Rad Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations' for the best basic work
on what constitutes - or should constitute - a scientific theory, and why.
> However, they are well below the limit
> of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
>
The simplest theory one can come up with simply says 'existence is'
It passes Occam's razor perfectly. It says nothing, however about the
quality or quantity of existence; Occam's razor alone is not enough to
define a valid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis.
Read your Popper, there are some other criteria, basically which amount
to 'the theory also has to be potentially refutable', i.e. that there
has to be some way to test it for falsehood, and also it has to 'do
something useful'.
Their is a great tendency today, leapt upon by those who would like us
confused, to claim scientific validity for many theories that are not
scientific. Like 'intelligent design'
It behooves one to work out which side of the fence one is on..the
realms of science, in which such a theory i invalid, or the relms of teh
polictically or faith motivated, in which it can be given pace to flourish.
Sadly it is NOT a requirement for even scientists to have any inkling of
the real philosophical nature of science, let alone the chattering
classes, and hence the problems we have today.
Dawkins is as deluded as those he seeks to attack.
Two delusions do not a truth make, sadly.
The correct answers, such as they are, lie in the realms of philosophy.
>
>
>
tadchem
> On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
>
> Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> "debunking' is political propaganda at work.
You make *seek* to redefine "debunking", but that does not make you
correct. Skepticism is the the questioning of an assertion. Debunking
is the act of communicating one's questions about an assertion.
> Generally the arguments
> provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
> "authority" [text books all say this],
...Al Gore and the IPCC "concensus"...
> proof by assertion ["those
> ideas are false!"]
<not really a proof - just staking out a position>
> and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
> wear a tinfoil helmet].
..."deniers"...
These and many others are all rhetorical devices used (sadly enough)
by *both* sides in an argument to carry on in the effort to persuade
(usually uncommitted) listeners when facts and logic fail. Look up
"fallacies of informal logic" for a good introduction to the elements
of rhetoric:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
> The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
> "debunking".
Actually, empiricism is the *ultimate* in debunking; I refer to such
as Galileo's "debunking" of Aristotle's theory of gravity.
> > Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
> > evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
>
> > Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
> > of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
>
> Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
There is ALWAYS politics behind everything.
> And it is VERY interesting that BOTH the above are easily proved to be
> "true science" with nothing more than a single example of each. One
> crashed UFO is MORE than enough proof for the existence of ETs. Same
> goes for one trapped demon.
A single counterexample is always sufficient to provide disproof, as
Galileo demonstrated. Unfortunately there appear to be no wrecked UFOs
or trapped demons where they can be seen and validated for what they
are.
> Yet it is any hint of such evidence that
> sends "debunkers" off into "tinfoil hat" attacks. Why? It only shows
> an agenda must be involved.
Maybe they need more than a "hint" of evidence. Your unsupported
surmise of a hidden agenda sounds like incipient paranoia to me.
> > Ockham's Razor rules.
>
> Ockhams Razor is bullshit! As Einstein noted, things should be as
> simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
> invariably try to make things simpler
...true...
> because sound bites and bumper
> stickers make good propaganda.
What evidence do you have to support that inference?
> However, they are well below the limit
> of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor :
"The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae
("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities
must not be multiplied beyond necessity". An alternative version
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" translates "plurality
should not be posited without necessity""
The "praeter necessitatem" is equivalent to Einstein's "but not
simpler". All told, Einstein gave an excellent and succinct
translation if the principle.
However, when the requisite parsimony dispenses with someone's pet
hypothesis off-handedly, especially when the hypothesis postulates
unnecessary entities, then they often object - "You are going too
far!" However, if the observations can be accounted for without
recourse to the postulation of novel objects or entities, that
alternative MUST be examined first.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Tim BandTech.com
> Benj wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
> > Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> > "debunking' is political propaganda at work. Generally the arguments
> > provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
> > "authority" [text books all say this], proof by assertion ["those
> > ideas are false!"] and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
> > wear a tinfoil helmet].
> > The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
> > "debunking".
That we are humans performing these feats is relevant, and qualifying
what the human is has been left out of the picture in terms of science
and math; that is the distinctive nature of these subjects. Appeals to
emotion are not allowed, or at least should be shelved in favor of
appeals to reason.
We are social animals. The propagation of ideas through generations is
enforced via existent systems whether they be religious, academic, or
even merely the spoken word of an isolated few primitives. Here we
witness an exciting new form in the usenet and see surprisingly few
established academicians putting in their two cents. These established
types will not stoop so low as to improve the nature of the voluntary
medium, or perhaps they are embarrassed to put their unreviewed work
down here in this form where errancy is acceptable and easily refuted
by others.
The quagmire of mimicry is natural to the human race, but it is
amplified through schooling to the point of the finest mimics rising
to the top, leaving out the lesser mimics, who are likely the superior
synths.
Our freedom to synthesize must be granted and encouraged. Those who
fail to take this freedom fully are not doing justice to themselves,
even in isolation. This is a space where struggle is inherent. How
many variants will be accurate? The issue of parallel theories is
relevant to this conversation I think, but also under the simplicity
concept and Occam versus Einstein do we see modern physics as fitting
this framework? What I see is a collage of bits and pieces tacked and
glued together, some with frail edges and weak spots. It's good to
study it and try to understand it, but I would argue to those who do
not have a full understanding that this lack is not necessarily their
own failing so much as it is the subjects accumulation failing us. Who
will read the modern work in its entirety and understand it all?
Nobody. Thence the specialist sits down and draws some borders and
still struggles to stay atop that body of 'knowledge'. Occam's razor
was lost long ago. The real number itself as constructed pro forma
from discrete integers in the real analysis branch of mathematics, the
real number on which much of physics is built, is a failed concept of
continuum in the terms of Occam. Why would anybody bother spending a
semester to describe a continuum in these terms? Mimicry is the
simplest answer.
Yet these same concepts of construction are what we are discussing.
What is a believable construction? If what you construct is coherent
then it is merely its consequences that are relevant. But here is
where the tacking and gluing starts when we view the modern state.
Dirac's spin construction gets tacked on to a raw charge. I don't wish
to insult Dirac, but I don't grant any of the greats god status
either. They were all humans too you know.
- Tim
tadchem
> tadchem wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 6:33 pm, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
> >> of anything they want to debunk, then...
>
> > Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
>
> > There have been a lot of ideas throughout history that have been
> > successfully "debunked."
>
> > They were all wrong.
>
> > There have been ideas throughout history that have not been debunked,
> > despite concentrated efforts.
>
> > They either were proven right or are still being tested.
>
> NO, they are all still being tested. There are no 'right' ideas. Only
> ones that work within the correct context of application.
In my universe, mathematically proven theorems (even those that are
applicable to physics directly, such as Noether's Theorem or the No-
Hair Theorem of Black Holes) are as deserving of the use opf the
phrase "right idea" as anything else. If the "correct context of
application" is coextensive with the observable universe, as is true
with the Conservation Laws for example, then we lose nothing by
accepting them as 'right'.
> > However, all the evidence we have been provided in support of either
> > consists almost exclusively anecdotal reports, is open to individual
> > interpretation, and is quite ambiguous in that some non-extraordinary
> > hypothesis can account for almost every report as well as the
> > extraordinary hypothesis.
>
> > Ockham's Razor rules.
>
> And the rest. BTW its generally spelt Occam..but Ockham is probably OK,
> as that is how the place is spelled today.
Actually, both spellings are accepted.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=occam&ls=a
http://www.onelook.com/?w=ockham&ls=a
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
gabydewilde
>[dius]
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=548889554683271774
>
> *See, obvious!
>
>[snip]
> Tom, thanks for receiving all my BS: Google announces that I have
> exceeded my limit of postings! After recent experiences, I wouldn't
> trust them with a 20ft pole with a sanitary inspector tied to the end
> - even if he was highly qualified!
>
Click on the link if you want a good laugh foolsrushin.
The most debunked scientist has to be John Keely.
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9712/02/sound.wave.energy/
http://www.macrosonix.com/pdf%20files/Physics%20Today.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5515684.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ASAJ..100.3480L
http://fusionanomaly.net/soundwaveenergy.html
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/sound.htm
In 1872, experimenting with a hydraulic engine John W. Keely
"accidentally" made his discovery of the tremendous and mysterious
energy which he afterwards pronounced to be the etheric force.
http://books.google.com/books?id=O3wZ4mbPb-AC&pg=PA23&dq=john+W+keely&ei=6MFXSZyvM5S6ygSpodSXCA#PPA23,M1
His patent was refused.
Specification describing a new and useful Hydro Vacuo Engine
http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb14.html
The debunkors can talk all the crap they like really.
At one time I had a job grinding plastics for recycling. The the
plastic grinding apparatus made a horrifying sound forcing people to
wear ear plugs and head phone kinda dampeners which didn't help at
all. Next to the device there was this anti-sound apparatus. This
apparatus was switched off, so I asked why. Doesn't seem unreasonable
to ask? Does it? The excuse was that it didn't work. I mentioned anti
sound works all over the globe, I've seen it work, what doesn't work
about it? Why not call some one to service the device? "Get back to
work"; was the excuse. So I ask a long time employee what was up with
it. He said it's not that it doesn't work, it works to well actually.
I'm like "huh what?" holding my hand behind my ear pretending to be
deaf. He said, they replaced the motor 3 times now, the anti sound
burns up the motor. So I'm looking at this small box with thin wires
on a circuit with lots of other devices on it, then I look at this
hunge 380 volt plastic grinder. I ask him, this small box will break
that huge motor over distance? You expect me to believe that? He
laughed lifted his shoulders and said: "well it's all I know". So my
chief comes back and I ask him why he cant switch on the anti sound
again. Asking about the burned up motor. I jokingly said if it can
increase the load it should also be able to decrease the load by
increasing the sound. He then fired me. LOL I didn't have any idea why
I was fired at the time.
But now debunkers attack every word I write the year round I'm
beginning to get an idea.
I'm not Rusi Taleyarkhan kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9ZIqaNTTs
Here is his DEBUNKING:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPZ0H4wZj04
It's one EPIC FAIL if I evah seen one.
gabydewilde
> On Dec 28, 6:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> > Benj wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> > > "debunking' is political propaganda at work. Generally the arguments
> > > provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
> > > "authority" [text books all say this], proof by assertion ["those
> > > ideas are false!"] and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
> > > wear a tinfoil helmet].
> > > The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
> > > "debunking".
>
> That we are humans performing these feats is relevant, and qualifying
> what the human is has been left out of the picture in terms of science
> and math; that is the distinctive nature of these subjects. Appeals to
> emotion are not allowed, or at least should be shelved in favor of
> appeals to reason.
The political game is rather obvious. Just keep attacking the person
from all angles and eventually they will break. From my numerous
investigations I concluded that appeals to emotion indicate that what
is being debunked is equally true as the vulgarity of the speech.
This is perhaps the best write up on the subject.
Or at least the best I know~of :-)
Benj
> Benj wrote:
> > > Ockhams Razor is bullshit!
>
> No, it isn't. Its a rule that we agree to follow for very precise
> reasons: it limits the complexity of, and the speculative nature of
> theories. If you want to setp outside that agreement, you are free to do
> so, but you also step outside the rules of accepted behaviour in
> formulation of SCIENTIFIC hypotheses, when you do.
Perhaps I overstated it a bit. Yes there is somehow a degree of truth
in Ockhams Razor. However, the subject I was addressing was those who
haul it out as "proof" that the simplest theory is "always" correct.
It is easy to show that such is bullshit. And why should we always
choose a simpler theory in this day of computers? Because mankind is
weak and limited? Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
And you are quite correct about stepping "outside the rules of
accepted behaviour" (sic). So the next question must be just WHO is
deciding what is or is not "accepted"? And then WHY are they so
choosing? And the final question has to be just why ANYONE in science
would accept such a choosing. For all true scientists know that the
only criterion for choosing would be agreement with reality, not
agreement with the "establishment".
> "E Ts exist" is not a scientific theory. It is if anything a
> metaphysical statement.
You are picking nits here. "Magnets exist" may also be a metaphysical
statement as well but behind the statement is a body of discovery and
hence "science". Same for the ET statement. Let us agree that we are
not discussing the statement as written but are using it as shorthand
for a larger and more encompassing theory.
> You are free to make it, but not to get it accepted as a valid
> scientific hypothesis.
So why exactly would it NOT be a "valid hypothesis"? I can think of
NO reason that would invalidate it as such. I can think of MANY
reasons why an "establishment" might want such a theory invalidated,
including the fact that they may know it to be true!
> As Einstein noted, things should be as
> > simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
> > invariably try to make things simpler because sound bites and bumper
> > stickers make good propaganda.
>
> No, thats sounds like you. Occams razor is a tool to be applied as a
> yardstick to select simpler and just as effective theories from overly
> complex ones. i.e. to select a heliocentric model of the planets over a
> geocentric one. It doesn't make either theory true or false, it merely
> selects the somewhat simpler one as being more pragmatic.
What you say is true. Ockhams razor actually does NOT prove the
validity of any theory. However, the subject here is "debunkers" and
with them, just as the 'tinfoil helmet" ploy is standard, so is the
use of Ockham's razor as "proof" that establishment views are the only
correct ones. As it turns out, the geocentric theories actually DO
work! A computer easily makes them work. They can even have
advantages in certain applications. And yet there are so many clowns
who will stand up and assert that "the Earth goes around the sun".
Such a fact is NOT known. To know that one would have to know the
relative motion of every body in the entire universe as well as its
relation to some "fixed" point. So saying the Earth goes round the
sun is nonsense. Furthermore, if I use Ockham's razor as "proof" of
validity, I can generate an even simpler theory (God Moves the planets
according to his will) that would now be "proven" correct. As I said
it's all spin and fluff designed to fool the unthinking by simple
repetition of lies.
> Rad Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations' for the best basic work
> on what constitutes - or should constitute - a scientific theory, and why.
>
> > However, they are well below the limit
> > of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
>
> The simplest theory one can come up with simply says 'existence is'
>
> It passes Occam's razor perfectly. It says nothing, however about the
> quality or quantity of existence; Occam's razor alone is not enough to
> define a valid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis.
Yep. And not enough to define even the BEST one! So why do "debunkers"
always haul it out? It's good "showbiz" I presume.
> Their is a great tendency today, leapt upon by those who would like us
> confused, to claim scientific validity for many theories that are not
> scientific. Like 'intelligent design'
A theory that is not refutable may not be useful scientifically but
does it invalidate it as a "theory". I don't see how. I have seen
arguments made for intelligent design that certainly agree with
reality, and I have seen many holes in the Darwinian structure that do
not fit the obvious historical record. So the bottom line here MUST be
why is it necessary to censor certain concepts as being unacceptable
even for discussion? This is very close to European laws that make
even a scholarly discussion of historical facts with regard to the so-
named "holocaust" a major crime.
Probably you need to go read your Thomas Jefferson.
> The correct answers, such as they are, lie in the realms of philosophy.
Just so. And although advanced degrees may still bear the title
Doctor of Philosophy, the days when these persons actually thought
about philosophy seem to be long gone.
Philip Holman
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:12304618...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
Hmmm, I thought science and philosophy parted some time ago! With our
limited perception, all we ever have is a simplified model of reality
which we hope to improve as time marches on.
Phil H
The Natural Philosopher
> On Dec 28, 6:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
>> Benj wrote:
>
>>>> Ockhams Razor is bullshit!
>> No, it isn't. Its a rule that we agree to follow for very precise
>> reasons: it limits the complexity of, and the speculative nature of
>> theories. If you want to setp outside that agreement, you are free to do
>> so, but you also step outside the rules of accepted behaviour in
>> formulation of SCIENTIFIC hypotheses, when you do.
>
> Perhaps I overstated it a bit. Yes there is somehow a degree of truth
> in Ockhams Razor. However, the subject I was addressing was those who
> haul it out as "proof" that the simplest theory is "always" correct.
Occam's razor is not about truth. Its about utility.
> It is easy to show that such is bullshit. And why should we always
> choose a simpler theory in this day of computers? Because mankind is
> weak and limited? Doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
>
Again, you miss the point. Ocams razor is simply an instruction to seek
teh simplest explanati that *does the job*. Or, as we would say to day
'saves teh data;'
There is an ipmlicit assumption in that that theories are not 'correct'
- they are ultimately merely explanations that 'fit the facts' and, if
pursued to their uttermost implications, have not shown themselves to be
demonstrably false.
> And you are quite correct about stepping "outside the rules of
> accepted behaviour" (sic). So the next question must be just WHO is
> deciding what is or is not "accepted"? And then WHY are they so
> choosing? And the final question has to be just why ANYONE in science
> would accept such a choosing. For all true scientists know that the
> only criterion for choosing would be agreement with reality, not
> agreement with the "establishment".
The answers to those questions are all in Karl Poppers writings.
Suffice to say that after careful consideration of what is meant by
science, he came to the conclusion that a *scientific* theory is one
that is amenable to having science practised upon it, as we commonly
understand the term. He then continued to show what many theories are
not scientific, because they are not so amenable.
He also established an important point: science never proves anything to
be correct: It merely comes up with theories that whilst intrinsically
capable of being refuted, have never so been.
Compare the statemenst 'there exist unicorns' with 'there is a unicorn
living at 133B Baker Street, who will be there every day at six-o-clock'
The first statement is irrefutable: no matter how many times you fail to
find one, that does not refute the general proposition.
Whereas the second one merely requires a ticket to london, an A-Z and a
digital watch to refute it. It is scientific, but false.
>
>> "E Ts exist" is not a scientific theory. It is if anything a
>> metaphysical statement.
>
> You are picking nits here. "Magnets exist" may also be a metaphysical
> statement as well but behind the statement is a body of discovery and
> hence "science". Same for the ET statement. Let us agree that we are
> not discussing the statement as written but are using it as shorthand
> for a larger and more encompassing theory.
'Magnets exist' is not a scientific theory either.. It is a statement of
common fact, that, depending on the definition of magnets, may or may
not have some interest. EWe can agree on its truth as a common fact
simply because we have exepereince of phenonena that are broadly
explained by a *theory* of magnetism, which holds with our common
experience. The staement 'magnetism exists' is a far more interesting
one. In the realms of common fact magnetism does *not* exist. Magnets
do. Magnetism is a statement about a realm of ideas and explanations and
theories, which do not exist in the same way that magnets do. Magnetism
can never be said to truly exist in the ultimate sense: it is a theory
that works, and always has worked, in the sense that it provides an
adequate explanation that is quantifiable and predictable.
I.e. in the limit, what we really mean, is that 'the proposition that a
property called magnestism exists, as defined in the following
statements, is consistent with agreed observed fact, and has been tested
many times, and found to allow predictable results in the context of
experiments and machines using what we commonly all magnets'
The trouble is, that even scientists will use the phrase 'magnetism
exists' as a shorthand for the above, without actually realising that it
is in fact just shorthand.
A true scientists acts *AS IF* something called magnetism exists. NOT
because he knows it truly does.
>
>> You are free to make it, but not to get it accepted as a valid
>> scientific hypothesis.
>
> So why exactly would it NOT be a "valid hypothesis"?
In this case, because it is irrefutable.
A statement that is so general as to be untestable and therefore
irrefutable, is outside the remit of science.
Even if you say 'ETs exist as they are the cause of the sun coming up in
the morning' and so give some context to what the ET theory is all
about, then may fail for other reasons. In this case Occams Razor would
be applied to say that whilts this may be a valid explanation it is an
unnecessary one. We already have reasons to explain the sun coming up
that are tried tested accurate and work. We don't need no ET's to
explain that.
Only if the ET theory explains *more* than can be explained by other
means, is it worth considering. E.. relativity replaved newtonian
gravity as a the current accepted theory because it explained more, and
was more accurate.
I can think of
> NO reason that would invalidate it as such. I can think of MANY
> reasons why an "establishment" might want such a theory invalidated,
> including the fact that they may know it to be true!
Well that is because you are evidently not a scientist. Science, for
purely pragmatic reasons, is constrained to introduce simple,
mathematcally based models of the universe, that explain phenomena in
the simplest terms we can arrive at, and that are useful and reliable:
Science is ultimately merely man's best ever tool at *predicting the
future*, even if that future is the outcome of a laboratory experiment.
Statements that do not help to predict the future are empty of
scientific content.
What you have to realise is that science itself is the art of describing
and manipulating a particular worldview based on certain core implicit
assumptions: namely that the world exists in and of itself above and
beyond our perception of it, that it is comprised of stuff we can
measure against the axes of space and time. and other things, and that
everything has a cause, and the complexity of phenomena is an appearance
generated by the interaction of causal laws of nature with the stuff of
nature. And the business of science is to establish these relationships
and generate noumenous entities like 'magnetism' and 'gravity' that have
precise meaning, universal applicability, and exact mathematical
calculability. I.e. by behaving as if these entities existed, in the way
we define them, we arrive at the correct predictions of phenomenal events.
BECAUSE of its success in using this model to date, there is a tendency
to ascribe to its entitities the epithet 'true'. This is a mistake.
Science has no claim on the truth. It simply works, that's all.
When Occam made his famous statement, he was far closer to the
understanding of that than we are today. Today we would say 'don't waste
your time with airy-fairy notion about what might be: come up with
something we can easily use and test, that adds something we didn't have
already, and then we will play around with the notion'
>
>> As Einstein noted, things should be as
>>> simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
>>> invariably try to make things simpler because sound bites and bumper
>>> stickers make good propaganda.
>> No, thats sounds like you. Occams razor is a tool to be applied as a
>> yardstick to select simpler and just as effective theories from overly
>> complex ones. i.e. to select a heliocentric model of the planets over a
>> geocentric one. It doesn't make either theory true or false, it merely
>> selects the somewhat simpler one as being more pragmatic.
>
> What you say is true. Ockhams razor actually does NOT prove the
> validity of any theory.
No theory can *ever* be proved to have validity, let alone be true.
At best Popper, Occam and so on have doe up with a set of guidelines
that allow SCIENTIFIC theories be selected from theories that are
definitely invalid, with respect to those criteria.
Essentially those criteria boil down to 'is useful in the pursuit and
development of science, as we understand the term'.
General statements about the existence of undefined numenous entities
are not useful, and so they are discarded.
> However, the subject here is "debunkers" and
> with them, just as the 'tinfoil helmet" ploy is standard, so is the
> use of Ockham's razor as "proof" that establishment views are the only
> correct ones. As it turns out, the geocentric theories actually DO
> work! A computer easily makes them work. They can even have
> advantages in certain applications. And yet there are so many clowns
> who will stand up and assert that "the Earth goes around the sun".
> Such a fact is NOT known. To know that one would have to know the
> relative motion of every body in the entire universe as well as its
> relation to some "fixed" point. So saying the Earth goes round the
> sun is nonsense. Furthermore, if I use Ockham's razor as "proof" of
> validity, I can generate an even simpler theory (God Moves the planets
> according to his will) that would now be "proven" correct. As I said
> it's all spin and fluff designed to fool the unthinking by simple
> repetition of lies.
Well I have strong sympathies here. Science is not and should not be
about the belief in the ultimate reality of its concepts, and yes, a
geocentric worldview works, and if you convolute the mathematical rules
enough, you do get the right answers. It is merely a question of picking
the simplest co-ordinate set to simplify the mathematics.
And no, the correct response to tin-hat theories is not ad hominem
attacks, but careful explanation of the underlying philosophy of science.
I had a 30 second convestaion with someone who allegedly had studied
philosophy: she appeared not to know who Kant was..my question 'so what
did you learn in philosophy was met with 'I learnt not to argue with
smartasses.'
There is little hope that with attitudes like that, we will ever be able
to discuss things rationally in this world.
What you have to understand is, that for most people life is short, and
busy, and they don't have time to question various internal assumptions
they make. What they want is reasonable certainties, so they can get on
and make decisions without thinking too much.
In that process, a very subtle nd dramatic shift takes place. The
correct term AS IF, gets replaced with IS.
Intead of e.g. Christians and ohers saying 'life is better if you relate
to it AS IF there were a god, of a kindly forgiving character to act as
a guide to your behaviour' they get stuck in literal mode and insist
that GOD DOES EXIST as a guide to our behaviour etc etc.
Likewise scientists forget that what they are really saying is that if
we relate to the world AS IF it was comprised of matter energy and
natural laws of causality, then we can do science, and achieve
remarkable results.
I.e. the difference between a true philosopher and the average man, is
that the philosopher is aware of te fact that he behaves as if stuff
were real: the average man relates to it on the conviction that it is real.
My Usenet name is selected precisely to reflect this point. A natural
philosopher is what we call today a scientist. But scientists today have
forgotten that what they are doing is a branch of philosophy: they think
they are dealing ultimately with reality: They are not. They are dealing
with *ideas about reality*.
When you get to the point of realising that no point of view on the
world is, or ever can, be so all encompassing as to be the 'Truth' you
then end up with a much less contentious and far more pragmatic view of
human thought and ideas: Namely that different points of view can, and
should, coexist as *none provides a complete answer*. They exist for
different reasons in different contexts.
And you may come to appreciate both exactly what science doesn't claim
to answer, and why, as to how spectacularly successful it has been in
answering what it can answer. Name;y the answer to 'how?'. it desnt even
beigin to address'Why?', however.
>
>> Rad Karl Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations' for the best basic work
>> on what constitutes - or should constitute - a scientific theory, and why.
>>
>>> However, they are well below the limit
>>> of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
>> The simplest theory one can come up with simply says 'existence is'
>>
>> It passes Occam's razor perfectly. It says nothing, however about the
>> quality or quantity of existence; Occam's razor alone is not enough to
>> define a valid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis.
>
> Yep. And not enough to define even the BEST one! So why do "debunkers"
> always haul it out? It's good "showbiz" I presume.
That's unfair. Given two explanations of *equivalent predictive power*,
occam's razor merely says 'don't make things more complicated than they
need to be'
In this context if you slip on a banana skin, its probably simpler to
ascribe the event to random chance than go around positing bad karma, or
little green men who have put it there specifically to trip you up..in
any case, ther is almost no 'scientific' explanation to be had, since
the experience is unique and likely unrepeatable. The st science can do
is observe that had you not had your head full of notions about aliens,
you might have seen the bloody banana...so in sense, yes it was the
aliens that did it..;-)
>
>> Their is a great tendency today, leapt upon by those who would like us
>> confused, to claim scientific validity for many theories that are not
>> scientific. Like 'intelligent design'
>
> A theory that is not refutable may not be useful scientifically but
> does it invalidate it as a "theory".
It does invalidate it as a *scientific theory*. This is a very important
point. Because it firmly says that if you want to discuss 'intelligent
design', the correct place to do it is in the philosophy classroom, not
the science one.
> I don't see how.
That is patently obvious ;-)
That's why I have spent several hours trying to explain why.
> I have seen
> arguments made for intelligent design that certainly agree with
> reality, and I have seen many holes in the Darwinian structure that do
> not fit the obvious historical record.
Darwin is at least refutable. ID is not. Which is why it's not
scientific. Darwn says 'how thigs developed' ID attempts to say WHY
things developed..WHY is not a question that science is concerned with.
WHY? already implies that there is a question that needs to be answered,
it implies that there is meaning in life, and purpose. The very QUESTION
implies that there is a God. That's the trick of it.
If you like there are two questions being deliberately confused - very
pursposefully and very adroitley, by the proponents of ID.
One is 'how did we come to be here?' and the answer is 'read the
historical record with te ey of a scientists, and see how one thing led
to another, without *need* to introduce any purpose'
The other is 'why are we here at all?' to which the ID proponents have
the more attractive explanation 'because God wants you to be' whereas
the scientists merely reply 'outside our remit mate: Our scientific
worldview (which works spectularly well) does so at the expense of
making questions like that both unaskable and unanswerable: take it to
the divinity classroom PLEASE'.
I.e science starts with the basic assumption that the world is without
purpose, or at least, its not the business of science to attempt to
discover it. And purpose is a human invention, and not necessarily, or
necessary for, a cosmic explanation of 'How?'
That's why Science and ID are simply not in the same league as
explanations. They are incomparable. They are not even answering the
same question.
So the bottom line here MUST be
> why is it necessary to censor certain concepts as being unacceptable
> even for discussion?
Because you cannot discuss incomparable theories in *the same context*.
There is only one real venue for that, and that is the more nebulous
part of philosophy - metaphysics..the discussion of ideas ABOUT ideas.
And I have tried to indicate in a limited way why this is so.
We are, in essence, talking metaphysics here. Insofar as I understand
the term.
> This is very close to European laws that make
> even a scholarly discussion of historical facts with regard to the so-
> named "holocaust" a major crime.
>
In the sense that there is also a very purposeful and very devious
manipulation of peoples ideas by a minority to divert attention from
historical fact, yes. I am particularly upset that e.g. the Holocaust is
seen as an overwhelmingly Jewish tragedy, whereas the actual facts
indicate that far more civilians of other ethnic persuasion were
'nullified' by the most efficient means devisable, than those of the
Jewish persuasion..
However the main point is that there are those who would deny the facts,
for their own motives. Holocaust deniers and intelligent designers are
both deeply duplicitous, and both need - in my opinion - not denying a
platform, but exposing in their duplicity.
> Probably you need to go read your Thomas Jefferson.
>
I dot have one. He's a particularly US favored an, and I am a European.
>> The correct answers, such as they are, lie in the realms of philosophy.
>
> Just so. And although advanced degrees may still bear the title
> Doctor of Philosophy, the days when these persons actually thought
> about philosophy seem to be long gone.
>
Indeed.
One reason I do spend the time trying to make the subject relevant. Karl
Popper wrote what he wrote with a sense of profound dismay at what he
considered was the rise of pseudo-science. That is more than ever the
case today.
If science has to be taken off te pedestal of the Only Truth There Is'
and instead placed on the lesser pedestal of 'The Best and closest we
have got to truth so far' so be it. Its still better than ' a load of
bunkum that says that because it cant be proved wrong, ergo its exactly
right' which is roughly where you need to leave faith based religion..
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Well, that's a common assumption.
My position is that its high time they reunited.
There are aspects of todays quantum physics that call into question many
of the core implicit assumptions of science, in a way that needs IMHO
deep philosophical analysis. For one thing.
Then there is the assault on science by the religious fringe: that also
raises deep questions that are only answerable IMHO at a philosophical
level.
> With our
> limited perception, all we ever have is a simplified model of reality
> which we hope to improve as time marches on.
>
Yes, and it is the business of philosophy to both make people deeply
aware of that, and help them develop that model along correct lines.
Even if that involves a discussion on what is meant by 'correct'.
> Phil H
>
>
RustyJames
> Philip Holman wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I relish the criticism if their is a legitimate error in my theories I
want to correct myself, I don’t want to be right that’s not the point
I want hard facts of why I'm wrong to take more steps on a concept or
theory that the majority cant find wrong in the logic and mathematics
of why this could be another explanation of what others have fallen
short on explaining.
gabydewilde
> Benj wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 6:41 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> >> Benj wrote:
>
> >>>> Ockhams Razor is bullshit!
>
Ockhams Razor is bullshit.
Mind you: Further explanation is not necessary.
jem
A factually correct* and articulate post - a rarity around here (to say
the least).
* Except I don't know where you see causation ("everything has a cause")
in modern scientific theories.
>>
>>
gabydewilde
> On Dec 28, 6:08 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
>
> > Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> > "debunking' is political propaganda at work.
>
> You make *seek* to redefine "debunking"
Septics are very uninspired people. I have hundreds of interesting
things to look into. Septics do not. Septics know only how to make
things as uninteresting as they can. They have no hobbies, values or
interests.
The personal attack is their main tool. aka Truth by insult. In their
lack of interest they render themselves 100% incapable of doing even
the most basic investigation.
Let me demonstrate:
Tom Davidson is a loon, he doesn't know what he is talking about, he
is dumb and he keeps making his pet assertions that have no basis in
reality. He has his head so far up his ass he things the world is made
out of poop. A real crank.
Debunkers are quite different.
They get deployed specifically to get rid of knowledge. They slander
anyone who dares to bring up a subject but not because they are
ignorant farts but they act specifically to wear out the discussion.
In contrast with septics (who really are minions) the debunkers have a
large array of tricks.
Here you can see some debunkers debunk Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4
They do not address the topic, they attack the person over and over
and over again. Without the debunkers Bush would have been impeached,
the US constitution reinstalled, the mass murder in Iraq would have
ended, starving 90% of the planet could have been reversed and the
total destruction of the US economy could have been prevented.
If you cant link up those facts you are either a nihilist or you have
to much mercury and fluoride in your brain to be able to think
properly.
But lets try some more interesting topics:
Flying saucers: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
Remote viewing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Dowsing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Pyrolysis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Sonofusion: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Permanent magnet motors: What do you know about it? Did you write
any kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Hemp: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Royal Raymond Rife: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* The quack who cured cancer: What do you know about it? Did you write
any kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Mind control: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Hypnosis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Inertial propulsion: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Telekinesis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* NLP: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Vimana's: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Pyramids on mars: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Vietnam genocide: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Bill Clinton's cocaine empire: What do you know about it? Did you
write any kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
If your answer is "no I don't know anything about all of those
subjects". Then you don't have any conclusion but you made your
opinion without data. A debunker would cherry pick a single sentence
out of this posting and call the author a loon and a freak over the
cherry picked sentence. But it says more about you than it could ever
say about me.
This way debunkers avoid the actual subject of discussion carefully. A
skeptic would try brand the topics as-if something to uninteresting to
look into. Both woudn't hesitate to attack a person with a thousand vs
1 without any basic investigation. This is just a disgusting way to
treat people. This stands on it's own just like the rule of thumb not
to investigate the actual subject stands on it's own.
I don't allow my ego to prevent me from learning. People like you with
your little flywheel effort make me laugh. But it's pretty damn sad to
see how your kind is slaughtering billions of people over lies.
Here:
Go tell him how superior you are. We can make energy from nothing and
we can grow hemp all over the globe. We have armies of uninformed
septics and corporate debunkers who didn't investigate either of the
2. In stead they crave to kill the whole topic.
What was that dinner about "the end of all diseases" it was called?
probably not important and most likely crank, loon, stupid etc etc
This is who you want to be?
If the whole world is dead, who will pay for all the houses? Who will
pay for all the food growing everywhere? Some one has to pay for it
right? But who will they work for in order to be able to pay?
Perhaps you are not as smart as you like to think.
__________
http://wind-car.go-here.nl/
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
tadchem
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Like a room, it is of little use
if it is always shut.
As long as there is one person in the universe who disagrees with you,
further explanation is always necessary. It should only be abandoned
if further explanation becomes futile.
"Prepare to be assimilated." - Locutus of Borg (Patrick Stewart)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
...a truly epic post. What you lack in typography you more than msake
up for in accuracy and clarity, sir.
I salute you.
You should consider professionally writing on the topic.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
tadchem
<snip repost>
> Septics are very uninspired people. I have hundreds of interesting
> things to look into. Septics do not. Septics know only how to make
> things as uninteresting as they can. They have no hobbies, values or
> interests.
"Septic" for "skeptic"? Is this a 'Freudian slip' or a deliberate
effort to denigrate others prejudicially and pejoratively?
> The personal attack is their main tool.
You demonstrate great facility with this tool - far beyond my style.
> aka Truth by insult. In their
> lack of interest they render themselves 100% incapable of doing even
> the most basic investigation.
>
> Let me demonstrate:
>
> Tom Davidson is a loon, he doesn't know what he is talking about, he
> is dumb and he keeps making his pet assertions that have no basis in
> reality. He has his head so far up his ass he things the world is made
> out of poop. A real crank.
Ah! The obligatory personal ad hominem appears.
> Debunkers are quite different.
>
> They get deployed specifically to get rid of knowledge. They slander
> anyone who dares to bring up a subject but not because they are
> ignorant farts but they act specifically to wear out the discussion.
>
> In contrast with septics (who really are minions) the debunkers have a
> large array of tricks.
Debunk (verb):
http://onelook.com/?w=debunk&ls=a
21 dictionaries - all the definitions have in common the concept that
the TOPIC being debated is displayed and attention is drawn to the
alleged weakness/errors of the concept.
Skeptic (noun):
http://onelook.com/?w=skeptic&ls=a
27 dictionaries - all the definitions have in common the concept that
the person merely doubts the truth oor value of a certain idea.
A debumnker is a skeptic whose doubt has motivated him to action in
expressing his doubts.
You are simply describing a character assassin, in the manner of naive
partisan politicians. I have seen far too much of this on the US
political scene in the past 15 months or so.
>
> Here you can see some debunkers debunk Ron Paul.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4
...partisan political character assassins. There is very little
"skeptical" or "debunking" about this. Generally office-seekers of
all flavors (and their supporters) share objectives: to gain and weild
power over the masses, much as the medieval churchmen did. The only
people fit to lead are genuine Libertarians, and none of them really
want to do it. If trhey did, they would not be Libertarians.
Catch-22.
You may continue to misuse the word "debunk" all you wish. Be
advised, however, that the semantic gap between you and the rest of
the world can only cause you frustration until you close it yourself.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
foolsrushin
Excellent compilation, Tom! Upshot: America can not meet its debts -
in the long run.
--
foolsrushin.
galathaea
ockham's razor is relative to a language
like all complexity measures
it may be possible to apply to a single person
at a single time
but extending beyond that is not possible
without some additional negotiation
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
gabydewilde
> On Dec 29, 11:02 am, gabydewilde <fotot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip repost>
>
> 21 dictionaries - all the definitions have in common the concept that
> the TOPIC being debated is displayed and attention is drawn to the
> alleged weakness/errors of the concept.
Sure, and when that runs out the debunker will go ad hominam on your
ass. Eliminative journalism and litter postings provide further aid.
> Skeptic (noun):http://onelook.com/?w=skeptic&ls=a
> 27 dictionaries - all the definitions have in common the concept that
> the person merely doubts the truth oor value of a certain idea.
It's guess work in the negative sense. This is why they have such
boring lives. After dishonestly suggesting themselves into non-
investigation they can move on to the next subject they are not
interested in.
> A debumnker is a skeptic whose doubt has motivated him to action in
> expressing his doubts.
>
> You are simply describing a character assassin, in the manner of naive
> partisan politicians.
Not at all, the septic is just boring himself to death, the debunker
kills others by destroying the natural flow of things.
> I have seen far too much of this on the US
> political scene in the past 15 months or so.
pump baby pump, drill baby drill?
> ...partisan political character assassins. There is very little
> "skeptical" or "debunking" about this.
okay, I agree it was a shitty example but I did provide a long list of
other topics didn't I?
Lets wall though the list.
*Flying saucers: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
There is an abundance of debunkers here. The news media is full of it.
Every review is a half baked farce.
*Remote viewing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
Plenty of debunking going on here.
* Permanent magnet motors: What do you know about it? Did you write
any kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Hemp: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
Sure we could call debunking hemp Partisan hackery but what are the
arguments for putting all those millions of people in prison? Is it
septicism or debunking?
* Royal Raymond Rife: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
This is far-out debunking: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife
Heaps of scientific data, but the wikipedia assassin claims even
claims the microscope doesn't exist. This is what I refer to as
debunking:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Royal_Rife
A whole page full of debunking. no no, the microscope doesn't exist
even if you add 100 ref's:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Royal_Rife&diff=next&oldid=248930654
A septic would be far to lazy to even look up the man.
http://www.google.com/search?q=royal+rife
Don't gaze at the search results, middle click some links then bother
to click deeper than the front pages.
* Dowsing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
Lets have an example with this, I assume you know Magic Randi? I'm not
defending Dowsing here, I'm showing you what professional debunking
looks like. Imagine you are in a class taking a test. Would you want
to know your score or would you find it acceptable to hear percentages
for the whole class room?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034#33m
See? No test result was given to any dowser. If there was one who
scored 80% we wouldn't know about it. But lets look at the numbers,
the dowsers all claim to make a living dowsing water.
brass: 0 correct / 26 attempts = 0%
gold: 4 correct / 35 attempts = 12%
water: 11 correct / 50 tries = 22%
So the professional water dowsers actually score 120% higher than
random.
The debunkors final conclusion is that 15 out of 111 attempts equals
12%
but in my book: 15 / 111 = 0.135135135
Magic Randi clearly leaves the truth up for speculation. So lets try.
Putting the water dowsers under stress will also harm the results. How
much is hard to tell but it is obvious it does make it harder.
Try imagine how hard it is to fake this trick. He finds the tube and
he finds the junction. There is not much room for doubt here.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7461912885649996034#4m59s
Look how the video is full of character assassination but at the end
of the day they are Water dowsers and 11 correct out of 50 tries is
well beyond random.
From a scientific point of view 50 tries is pathetic. We need
something like 5000 tries to get a clear picture. 50 000 would be even
better. If they still are at 120% above random with say 10 000 tests
Randi should pay up. But in stead he chose to falsify the data 3
times. This is what I call debunking. I'm not interested in guessing
if dowsing is real or not. This topic is about forging the facts to
fit the agenda.
* The quack who cured cancer: What do you know about it? Did you
write
any kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Mind control: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Hypnosis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Inertial propulsion: What do you know about it? Did you write any
kosher posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Telekinesis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* NLP: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Pyrolysis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Sonofusion: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
* Vimana's: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
posting about it? Did you cover the majority of data?
Are you a debunker Tadchem or are you a lazy septic to lazy to look at
interesting things? Will you cherry pick a sentence again or can you
address the whole post? I promise it are all very interesting
subjects. That should be reason enough.
Remember, lack of interest renders a person 100% incapable of doing
even the most basic investigation.
A boring life.
galathaea
i remember the studies by csicop
on the mars effect
and birth date related effects on athleticism
where they actually tried to hide the data
that their study showed scientifically significant correlation
that is what skepticism is
that is what debunking is
the so-tight desperate hold on a reality
they don't quite understand
but certainly don't want others knowing
of course
recent respectable research
showing time-of-year correlations
on the progress of various developmental mechanisms
in early infant growth
has been popping up more frequently lately
in many quite respectable journals
some have been even making into popular news
that astrological signs may have some meaning
due a very real and physically measurable effect
of weather and temperature on infants
is the type of data skeptics typically cannot handle
spudnik
on Bienveniste's labwork in homeopathy -- he nearly
destroyed the place (in Skeptical Inquirer, I think). anyway,
the Skeptics were just another cult of Delphi, and
most of those groups' names are used as put-downs (viz,
Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans, Gnostics etc.), and
Ochamites should be one of the latter-day ones (see below).
most of your below "debunkees" really are garbage, other than
Rife AFAIK (from KPFK-FM .-) however,
remote-viewing is just a spin-off from MK-ultra, speaking
of mind-control, which is really almost entirely in the realm
of mass-media, strictly passive-aggressive, although
there are certainly all sorts of "patented devices"
that *could* possibly used in an organized fashion, along
with "nonlethal waepons;" if you've ever listened
to purveyors of RV on Art Bell, you know what I'm talkin'about,
along with every-other profit & kook there is,
who can put two audible words together -- reverse speech,
every one?
when you say "inertial propulsion," it's just a gag-order;
what kind of propulsion is non-inertial?... I presumed that
your initial cite of Keeley was that you were "a skeptic" on it;
clearly, the PTO left it "out there," as an IQ test
for other such patentors: if you can state the "principle
of the Keeley microsuck," you win!
now, why did you not include catalyzed or "cold" fusion --
what is so impossible about that?
> *Flying saucers: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> *Remote viewing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> * Permanent magnet motors: What do you know about it? Did you write
> * Hemp: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
> * Dowsing: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> * Mind control: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> * Hypnosis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> * Inertial propulsion: What do you know about it? Did you write any
> * Telekinesis: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
> * NLP: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher posting
> * Sonofusion: What do you know about it? Did you write any kosher
thus quoth re Ockham:
As Machiavelli's The Art of War and his commentaries on Livy, make the
implications of the issues of the Sixteenth and early Seventeenth
European centuries clearer, the Renaissance political and economic
transformation of the character of the modern city and nation-state,
had produced a combined scientific-technical, social, and political
situation, which, in net effect, could not be mastered with any degree
of finality by the so-called "Aristotelean" methods of the late Roman
and Byzantine empires, and as prevalent in most of the times and
places of the post-Charlemagne Middle Ages. This kind of failure of
the so-called Aristotelean doctrine, had been utilized for the rise of
power of a new Venetian faction, one premised on the dogma of William
of Ockham, and led by Paolo Sarpi.
The particular significance of the philosophical liberalism introduced
under Sarpi's leadership of his Venetian faction, has been
encapsulated, for our immediate consideration here, by attention to
the systemic implications of the particular form of Sophistry which
Sarpi and his lackey Galileo Galilei applied to the intent of
outflanking the strategic quality of perceived threat to Venetian
interests which the rise of modern science and technology had
represented for ruining the efforts to continue the Aristotelean form
of medieval feudal tradition of opposition to an actual form of
physical science. This new form of what became a widespread moral
corruption of science and society, was what became known as Anglo-
Dutch Liberalism.
Three Political Options
That aspect of Machiavelli's influence, and the contrasting influence
expressed by Sarpi's and Galileo's adoption of the wild-eyed
irrationalism of the medieval William of Ockham (Latin: Occam), as
catalyzed the division of the principal optional choices of form of
modern nation-state among three principal ranges of types among modern
European models of political-economy: 1.) The American System model
(e.g., Alexander Hamilton's The American System of political-economy),
as reflected, most notably, in the policies of practice of U.S.
Presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D.
Roosevelt; 2.) The European model of a Liberal blending of financier-
aristocracy, from above, and democracy, below, as this arrangement is
typified by the European model of parliamentary systems; and, 3.) The
dictatorial forms of Liberalism, which might be called the Hobbesian
model, in such forms as fascism, adopted by the Liberal system when
Liberal financier-oligarchical control over, and through the
parliamentary system breaks down, or threatens to break down.
spudnik
with one wild Yahoo! (tm); western astrology is the same
as Ptolemy's epicyclic hoax, over 2000yo.
> some have been even making into popular news.
> that astrological signs may have some meaning
thus:
I yam lying what I bean!...
of what possible use is the set of all sets,
whether or not it can eventually include itself,
at the end of the list of elements --
shades of AP-adics?
so, perhaps we can blame Russell
for the Bourbaki New Math, "based upon set theory,
but see what Whitehead had to say about him,
not to say Godel.
thus:
shouldn't it be clear that
photons are an artifact of the idea
of point-particles?... of course, iff
they exist, then they would have to be *the* particles
that actually were zero-dimensional points, but,
since they are waves, as shown by Young, Huyghens et al,
there is really no need for them,
except in the Pauli matrix formalism
of statistical bosons; eh?
Schroedinger's cat is dead --
long-live Schoredinger's cat!
--only 24 hours to impeach Trickier Dick from the N.Admin,
metaphorically typing, or Cheeny & Zbiggy, fo'mo' years;
Good Morning, Afghanistan!
... Good Afternoon, Sudan!
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why?
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- English, not!
galathaea
> ockham's razor is relative to a language
> like all complexity measures
>
> it may be possible to apply to a single person
> at a single time
> but extending beyond that is not possible
> without some additional negotiation
oh yeah
and popper was a hack
he had no understanding
of the origin of linguistic reference in meaning
and resorted to giving a priori status
to a logic that was already known to be incorrect
at least as applied to the real world
what was funniest
when i was receiving my degree in philosophy
was during the philosophy of science class
where the professor used popper's syllogisms
and some reference to evolutionary observations
to claim it had been disproven
lamarck's claims of somatic influence on germ line
this just happened
through some cosmic coincidence
to be the same month i had been reading
lamb and jablonka's book on neolamarckianism
where evidence on just such mechanisms was being found
through protein arrangements on cell membranes
methylation patterns
reverse transcriptase
of course
when analysed
the problem had been one of referent ambiguity
as i had been arguing the entire course
it turned into my senior project
for the philosophy part of my dual degree...
better for the soul would be lakatos
spudnik
being unable to come-up with a rational explanation of:
sodium-vapor streetlights going off,
as you walk underneath them; they think it
to be either a hoax or psycho/visual. also,
cropcircles. also, I forgot.
galathaea
> even Ockham'd slice through that apple & orange,
> with one wild Yahoo! (tm); western astrology is the same
> as Ptolemy's epicyclic hoax, over 2000yo.
>
> > some have been even making into popular news.
> > that astrological signs may have some meaning
month of birth correlated to lifespan
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=30243
correlation with body size
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110482564/abstract
correlation with summer seasonal allergies
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119633341/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
among many others
now
there is no evidence for a segregation into 12 types
as astrology does
usually the studies are either mono- or bi-modal
so typically 4 types may be sufficient
which appears closely related to the seasonal types
however
that's not to say that some more subtle variations
possibly even local variations
like the interaction of bloom seasons
that could delimit a 12-type classification
the point is
science isn't about debunking astrology
as is way too commonly the case
in skeptic communities
it is about providing models for observations
as a means for building language
and providing for prediction
as an input to technology
the modern skeptic would be an affront
to the classic school by the same name
gabydewilde
> the Amuzing Randi is quite a hack, like his attack
> on Bienveniste's labwork in homeopathy -- he nearly
> destroyed the place (in Skeptical Inquirer, I think). anyway,
> the Skeptics were just another cult of Delphi, and
> most of those groups' names are used as put-downs (viz,
> Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans, Gnostics etc.), and
> Ochamites should be one of the latter-day ones (see below).
>
> most of your below "debunkees" really are garbage,
In what way? I claim there are partisan hacks under all of those.
Things don't become credible until officially denied. lol
> other than Rife AFAIK (from KPFK-FM .-) however,
> remote-viewing is just a spin-off from MK-ultra,
Nah, remote viewing is just a kind of dowsing. We have plenty of
oracles and soothsayers though out history. Monks in Tibet have the
far most advanced spies on the globe. lol The CIA remote viewing
program was created after figuring out the Russians where using it.
But you are not suppose to know about this so non of it is real, just
remember that :P
> speaking
> of mind-control, which is really almost entirely in the realm
> of mass-media,
Just gazing at a screen already induces a dream like state.
Just like RV our beloved debunkers will try bury it in doubts.
> strictly passive-aggressive, although
> there are certainly all sorts of "patented devices"
> that *could* possibly used in an organized fashion,
> along with "nonlethal waepons;"
lol, nonlethal is the tax payer terminology. I'm pretty sure they are
working at the zombie soldier while we type. That what is declassified
now is already very scary, the militards cant declassify anything
unless they have something that makes it look ancient.
> if you've ever listened
> to purveyors of RV on Art Bell, you know what I'm talkin'about,
hahaha, a most professional debunking show. Not sure if I remembered
it well but some dude wanted to explain water fueled cars and zero
point energy aka how UFO's fly but his excuse was that he didn't
believe in fusion powered cars until he drove one for at least 10 000
miles.
Quite unreasonable from his position then again the show lives off the
mystery you know. ;)
> along with every-other profit & kook there is,
> who can put two audible words together -- reverse speech,
> every one?
Funny topic, I hear lots of good examples but something prevents me
from wanting to believe in it. I do know there are people who can
double talk backwards on purpose. EVP is also funny. There are some
pretty interesting testimonials but again I have jet to hear the first
reasonable recording and just a recording doesn't make it credible.
> when you say "inertial propulsion," it's just a gag-order;
> what kind of propulsion is non-inertial?
Space propulsion without a rocket. Just a closed box generating
thrust. You cant have one so they lie about it. lol
>... I presumed that
> your initial cite of Keeley was that you were "a skeptic" on it;
nah, way to much debunkers without arguments to be septical about
Keely. His actual work was destroyed, but today there are quite a few
technologies that fit his description. To me that means the rest of
his bizarre claims are worth keeping in mind. Or perhaps we should say
treated sympathetically. To lower ourselves from musical annotation
with all it's features and effects all the way down to hertzian waves
is quite obviously a quantum leap backwards.
> clearly, the PTO left it "out there," as an IQ test
> for other such patentors: if you can state the "principle
> of the Keeley microsuck," you win!
You can have a Keely motor build if you have enough money.
> now, why did you not include catalyzed or "cold" fusion --
> what is so impossible about that?
I just named a few things, there are thousands of examples.
Mythbusters couldn't even build an electrolysis cell. ehm? haha?
This one is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE&feature=channel_page
Here, knock yourself out....
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
And thus became footbal the meaning of life.
ROFL
gabydewilde
Yeah, thats a fun example.
I didn't believe a word of it but people seemed to replace their
saucer propulsion technology research with astrology. Struck me as
more than a little bizarre. They must have at least some character
data that fits the chart. Doesn't prove anything but it does make it
interesting. I guess it's another case of "divide and concur" where
they don't want us to know what star we came from. It was debunked
good, I hear mainstream astrology doesn't even get the star signs
right. In China people try to live up to the horoscopic expectations
which seems some what upside down? That cant be how it originated? Can
it?
UncleEnglish
Phil, amazing stuff: what more can I say? Popper was not just a
logician, though, but invesigated studiously how knowledge grew and
what the obstacles were to its growth.
Haldane, perhaps, got it right:
'The Universe is not only a queerer place than we imagine; it is a
queerer place than we can imagine!'
The Ancient Geeks were excited about what they could not do, whilist
we are excited almost only about what we can do!
--
Yrs,
John.
Benj
> > that astrological signs may have some meaning
> > due a very real and physically measurable effect
> > of weather and temperature on infants
> > is the type of data skeptics typically cannot handle
>
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
>
> Yeah, thats a fun example.
>
> I didn't believe a word of it but people seemed to replace their
> saucer propulsion technology research with astrology. Struck me as
> more than a little bizarre. They must have at least some character
> data that fits the chart. Doesn't prove anything but it does make it
> interesting.
But of course this is ALWAYS the question people want to ask: "Do you
BELIEVE?" That may be a valid question for religion but obviously has
no place in science. In science we ask: "Have you observed the
facts?"
So we are all trained when reading a list of "unapproved" science
topics to start to get defensive and start saying we do not "believe"
in them. We start saying that there is nothing to them. And we also
start saying that time would be better spent filling in the missing
data in obscure handbook tables than investigating one of these off-
limits topics. The implication is that humanity would be better served
in that way. But all our history proves that view wrong. Sure,
accurate handbooks of material properties are nice, but I don't think
they've saved as many lives as say Pasteur's germ theory.
The question therefore is NOT "do you believe", but rather what do we
know about this that is TRUE. And I'm not talking about guesses or a
priori opinions. I mean REAL data. So people wonder about Astrology.
Is it true? As far as I know nobody has really done the research yet
beyond the most elementary and primitive stages. Today with modern
database technology investigations of astrological effects are
straight forward. Not "easy" but straight-forward. Just like the
Dowsing example above, real experiments take LOTS of data. THOUSANDS
of dowsers. Millions of astrologically suspected events. And who has
done the experiment? Nobody. Because the debunkers say there is
nothing there to investigate. How do they know if the experiment
hasn't been done? They can't. It's obviously an agenda of some kind.
This is where the difference between skeptics and debunkers comes in.
The skeptic says "my theory is different from his theory", but both
admit the real theory hasn't been proved. The debunker says, "That
theory is WRONG, and anyone who even investigates it probably wears a
tinfoil hat!". Is that science? Hardly.
David Bernier
I think a devil's advocate system might help. This is where a skeptic
is charged with reviewing the "debunker's" research for
over-extended claims, faults, etc. The devil's advocate's
conclusions should be findable from the "debunker's" paper.
Where alleged phenomena are viewed as pseudo-science or worse,
it's better if the devil's advocate's identity be kept anonymous.
Say I were a devil's advocate for a heretic mathematician.
A mainstream mathematician would debunk the heretic's results.
As a devil's advocate, my role would be to find weaknesses in
the debunker's paper. I could send my report through an anonymous
re-mailer, signed with a cryptographic key, where there would be
an anonymous public key repository. Then, I could be challenged
with math. problems posted on a board, and if I solved one, or
my devil's advocate paper provoked a response, I could send an
answer signed with the same secret key; that way, I would
remain anonymous but try to show a minimum standard of
mathematical competence. Ideally, the inquisitor should
have some assurance that I was the one who answered. For
instance, the query could be enciphered with the devil's
advocate's public key. But I could decipher the message and ask
someone else for help. Or, one could abandon the signing with a
key part, and just have one devil's advocate's report. There's
still a question of who would qualify as a devil's advocate, and
how to try to exclude the less competent. Finally, we might end up
with a Usenet newsgroup, and readers could put unwanted posters
in a kill-file. Any editor is a sort of gate-keeper. But without
an editor, "anybody" can reply. It's complicated.
David Bernier
zookumar yelubandi
> On Dec 28, 6:08 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Debunking is merely skepticism at work.
Not at all. Debunking implies certainty in conviction (if not
certainty in result). Skepticism implies doubt in conviction, and that
is the opposite of certainty in conviction. To wit, debunking requires
the defeat of skepticism and vice versa, i.e. they are mutual excluders.
> > Not so! That is what "debunkers" try to have you believe. The truth is
> > "debunking' is political propaganda at work.
> You make *seek* to redefine "debunking", but that does not make you
> correct. Skepticism is the the questioning of an assertion. Debunking
> is the act of communicating one's questions about an assertion.
Debunking is the genuine exposition of that which is false.
She is pregnant or she is not, as it were. That being said, when
"debunkings" are themselves debunked, as they often are ... well, all
that means is that the original debunking was never, in fact, so, i.e.
there was no pregnancy.
> > Generally the arguments
> > provided have nothing to do with facts but rather appeal to
> > "authority" [text books all say this],
> ....Al Gore and the IPCC "concensus"...
> > proof by assertion ["those
> > ideas are false!"]
> <not really a proof - just staking out a position>
> > and ad hominem attack [you obviously are a kook and
> > wear a tinfoil helmet].
> ...."deniers"...
> These and many others are all rhetorical devices used (sadly enough)
> by *both* sides in an argument to carry on in the effort to persuade
> (usually uncommitted) listeners when facts and logic fail. Look up
> "fallacies of informal logic" for a good introduction to the elements
> of rhetoric:
> http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
> > The measured factual approach of the skeptic is NOT part of the usual
> > "debunking".
> Actually, empiricism is the *ultimate* in debunking; I refer to such
> as Galileo's "debunking" of Aristotle's theory of gravity.
Empiricism is a valid tool for both purposes: debunking and
skepticism.
> > > Right now the evidence in support of ETs is about as strong as the
> > > evidence in support of Satanic demons, and it is of a similar nature.
> > > Unfortunately, neither hypothesis is amenable to disproof, as both are
> > > of the nature of simple assertions of the existence of something.
> > Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> > why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> > must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
> There is ALWAYS politics behind everything.
> > And it is VERY interesting that BOTH the above are easily proved to be
> > "true science" with nothing more than a single example of each. One
> > crashed UFO is MORE than enough proof for the existence of ETs. Same
> > goes for one trapped demon.
>
> A single counterexample is always sufficient to provide disproof, as
> Galileo demonstrated. Unfortunately there appear to be no wrecked UFOs
> or trapped demons where they can be seen and validated for what they
> are.
>
> > Yet it is any hint of such evidence that
> > sends "debunkers" off into "tinfoil hat" attacks. Why? It only shows
> > an agenda must be involved.
>
> Maybe they need more than a "hint" of evidence. Your unsupported
> surmise of a hidden agenda sounds like incipient paranoia to me.
>
> > > Ockham's Razor rules.
> >
> > Ockhams Razor is bullshit! As Einstein noted, things should be as
> > simple as possible but not simpler! Those who invoke Ockham's Razor
> > invariably try to make things simpler
>
> ....true...
>
> > because sound bites and bumper
> > stickers make good propaganda.
>
> What evidence do you have to support that inference?
>
> > However, they are well below the limit
> > of "simple as possible". And usually the "debunkers" know it.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s razor :
> "The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae
> ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt
> multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities
> must not be multiplied beyond necessity". An alternative version
> "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" translates "plurality
> should not be posited without necessity""
> The "praeter necessitatem" is equivalent to Einstein's "but not
> simpler". All told, Einstein gave an excellent and succinct
> translation if the principle.
> However, when the requisite parsimony dispenses with someone's pet
> hypothesis off-handedly, especially when the hypothesis postulates
> unnecessary entities, then they often object - "You are going too
> far!" However, if the observations can be accounted for without
> recourse to the postulation of novel objects or entities, that
> alternative MUST be examined first.
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
Interesting discussion.
Question begs asking: were the events of 9/11/2001 a genuine
attack by Saudi Arabian extremists wielding boxcutters ... or were they
an "inside job" planned and carried out with some degree of complexity?
And how does Einstein's principle of minimum complexity apply here?
-zookumar-
ps: "www.infowars.com"
Sanforized
> On Dec 28, 4:30 am, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>[dius]
>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=548889554683271774
>>
>>*See, obvious!
>>
>>[snip]
>>Tom, thanks for receiving all my BS: Google announces that I have
>>exceeded my limit of postings! After recent experiences, I wouldn't
>>trust them with a 20ft pole with a sanitary inspector tied to the end
>>- even if he was highly qualified!
>>
>
>
> Click on the link if you want a good laugh foolsrushin.
>
> The most debunked scientist has to be John Keely.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9712/02/sound.wave.energy/
> http://www.macrosonix.com/pdf%20files/Physics%20Today.pdf
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5515684.html
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ASAJ..100.3480L
> http://fusionanomaly.net/soundwaveenergy.html
> http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/sound.htm
>
> In 1872, experimenting with a hydraulic engine John W. Keely
> "accidentally" made his discovery of the tremendous and mysterious
> energy which he afterwards pronounced to be the etheric force.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=O3wZ4mbPb-AC&pg=PA23&dq=john+W+keely&ei=6MFXSZyvM5S6ygSpodSXCA#PPA23,M1
>
> His patent was refused.
>
> Specification describing a new and useful Hydro Vacuo Engine
> http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb14.html
>
> The debunkors can talk all the crap they like really.
>
> At one time I had a job grinding plastics for recycling. The the
> plastic grinding apparatus made a horrifying sound forcing people to
> wear ear plugs and head phone kinda dampeners which didn't help at
> all. Next to the device there was this anti-sound apparatus. This
> apparatus was switched off, so I asked why. Doesn't seem unreasonable
> to ask? Does it? The excuse was that it didn't work. I mentioned anti
> sound works all over the globe, I've seen it work, what doesn't work
> about it? Why not call some one to service the device? "Get back to
> work"; was the excuse. So I ask a long time employee what was up with
> it. He said it's not that it doesn't work, it works to well actually.
> I'm like "huh what?" holding my hand behind my ear pretending to be
> deaf. He said, they replaced the motor 3 times now, the anti sound
> burns up the motor. So I'm looking at this small box with thin wires
> on a circuit with lots of other devices on it, then I look at this
> hunge 380 volt plastic grinder.
If this was in the USA then the reason for the motor burning
out is obvious. In any case, plastic grinders aren't known
for longevity. That applies to both the machine, and humans
operating them.
> I ask him, this small box will break
> that huge motor over distance? You expect me to believe that? He
> laughed lifted his shoulders and said: "well it's all I know". So my
> chief comes back and I ask him why he cant switch on the anti sound
> again. Asking about the burned up motor. I jokingly said if it can
> increase the load it should also be able to decrease the load by
> increasing the sound. He then fired me. LOL I didn't have any idea why
> I was fired at the time.
>
> But now debunkers attack every word I write the year round I'm
> beginning to get an idea.
You do manage to attract attention. But of course you
knew that already.
<snip>
Jesse F. Hughes
> And the rest. BTW its generally spelt Occam..but Ockham is probably OK,
> as that is how the place is spelled today.
It's generally spelled a million different ways, with both Occam and
Ockham very popular variants.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Mathematicians don't fit in with a consistent view, unless you accept
that to a strangely large extent they are acting under the influence
of something very powerful, dark, and negative." -- James S. Harris
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
foolsrushin
> On 27 Dec, 15:10, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Dec, 10:23, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 27 Dec, 02:53, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:15:50 -0800 (PST), foolsrushin
>
> > > > <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On 22 Dec, 23:41, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:51:53 -0600, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > (snip)
>
> > > > >I have already explained, Gordie, how our neighbour, a pig-farmer did
> > > > >it: he positioned the pig in a frame, then slit its belly from top to
> > > > >bottom, collecting the blood in a bath situated underneath, the origin
> > > > >of 'blood bath', maybe.'
>
> > > > Jon, I may have missed something here, but I don't see how this pig
> > > > farmer could place a live, active hog in this kind of frame.
>
> > > That's how they did it, though. I was only there for a summer, my
> > > parents had fallen out, though later got back together.
> > > > The way we and others in the community butchered hogs was to kill them with a
> > > > 22 caliber rifle then slit their throat, opening the primary artery to
> > > > the brain. The blood was usually drained into a bucket and fed to the
> > > > poultry. They liked it and it gave them needed protein.
>
> > > > After the hog was bead out, and no longer thrashing around we would
> > > > slip the carcass, head first, into a barrel that was half full of very
> > > > hot water. This had been prepared in an iron 55 gallon barrel,
> > > > supported on rocks with a wood fire under it. When the water was hot
> > > > we would dig a small pit beside the fire and maneuver the half barrel
> > > > of hot water into this pit and lean the barrel over at about a 45
> > > > degree angle.
>
> > > > Then we would lift the carcass and slide the nose end into the hot
> > > > water and swish it around a bit, then pull it out and switch ends,
> > > > inserting the rear quarters into the hot water.
>
> > > > After this "scalding" process was complete the carcass was laid on a
> > > > flat platform and all the hair scraped off with ordinary butcher
> > > > knives. When all the hair had been scraped off we would wash the
> > > > carcass thoroughly. This left the carcass in a very clean, smooth
> > > > state.
>
> > > > Then, the very clean, hairless carcass was ready to open up and remove
> > > > the viscera. This, like you describe, entailed slitting the stomach
> > > > from throat to anal orifice and removing all the intestines, heart,
> > > > lungs, etc.
>
> > > > The carcass was then cut into separate pieces and moved into the smoke
> > > > house where it was treated with a salt mixture, then smoked until it
> > > > was fully cured.
>
> > > > Ummmm, just thinking of this makes me get the yummies. That home cured
> > > > ham and loin cuts just can't be beat. Gordon
>
> > > > >He and his wife then turned the pig into marketable products. The
> > > > >other pigs were upset for days. I, too, was upset!
>
> > > > I never saw any signs that this upset any of the other pigs. They were
> > > > just making grunting sounds and going about their business as usual.
> > > > Gordon
>
> > > > >This thread is drifting away from the notion that NDEs and OBEs in
> > > > >respect of (a) sighted persons and (b) blind persons actually *see* an
> > > > >operation or an accident and can veridically recall it, so that we
> > > > >might test their apparent perceptions.
>
> > > > The drift here was partly caused by my quest for information as to
> > > > just how a blind-from-birth person may reassign the part of their
> > > > brain that people with normal vision use to process their visual
> > > > sensations. If this brain region is re-assigned to handle some other
> > > > sensations, such as auditory, tactile and olfactory sensations, this
> > > > may explain the "out of body" experiences.
>
> > > Gordie, nothing explains them, though they are numerous. Investigation
> > > of such matters will of course only convince anybody if we can
> > > establish that in the case of NDEs, technically dead (up to 23
> > > minutes), they had this or that experience.
>
> > > > That is, their tactile or other sensory organs may have been stimulated in
> > > > such a way as to give them a "visual" image that they couldn't explain, but
> > > > which others
> > > > "helped" them put into focus as an out of body experience. Gordon
>
> > > Brilliant! I think that is what happens to them!
>
> > > > >In the case of (b), there is a anecdotal evidence (the way science
> > > > >always begins!), but there have been few studies, apart from one or
> > > > >two I have quoted.
>
> > > > >The consequences of the truth of (b) for 'materialism' would of course
> > > > >mean that bodies were just machines, some better than others, no
> > > > >different from computers or lawnmowers!
>
> > > I'll post post a bit more evidence shortly: there is no proof.
> > > --
> > > foolsrushin.
>
> >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/pg_4
>
> >http://www.near-death.com/atwater/column/archives/2005/2005_02.html
>
> > 'The first account proposes that a person's NDE (or OBE) maybe
> > inspired by accounts of other people's NDEs that have been widely
> > disseminated in various forms of the media. That is, might a blind
> > person have heard that people see certain things in a near-death
> > encounter and unconsciously generated a fantasy that conformed to this
> > belief? The second potential sociocognitive explanation is somewhat
> > broader and posits that people, including the blind, learn about what
> > to expect in an afterlife from diverse sociocultural sources, and they
> > may rely extensively on these expectations in generating a near-death
> > fantasy. The expectation that, for example, the afterlife is set in a
> > pastoral realm is common in Western culture (Irwin, 1987a). More
> > significantly for the nature of NDEs in the blind, it is possible that
> > people in the general population are inclined to expect that in the
> > afterlife a person will not suffer physical or sensory disabilities
> > and will otherwise be in "perfect" form. Indeed, sighted NDErs often
> > re port other-worldly encounters with deceased relatives who had died
> > at an advanced age but who appeared to be at their physical peak in
> > the afterlife (Sabom, 1982, p. 72), and some OBErs have described the
> > appearance of their exteriorized self in similarly idealized terms
> > (Irwin, 1987b, p. 115). Thus, the blind may commonly have a belief
> > that they will suffer no visual affliction in an afterlife, and this
> > belief may influence the content of NDEs in the blind. It is not my
> > intention to promote these skeptical accounts of the NDE, nor to
> > advocate the pursuit of the empirical support that they still require,
> > but in the interests of balance Ring and Cooper should certainly have
> > given sociocognitive accounts due scrutiny.
>
> > A very short note, titled "A Concluding Word", reiterates the proposal
> > that while blind NDErs and OBErs may depict their experiences in terms
> > of visual impressions, this tendency simply involves the unwitting
> > reformulation of an experience of mindsight in terms of constructs
> > that the experient herself or himself can comprehend. This concluding
> > chapter might better have given more emphasis to the most fundamental
> > implication of the project's finding of NDEs in congenitally totally
> > blind people, namely, that the perceptual-like impressions in NDEs and
> > OBEs evidently are not perceptual at all.
>
> > An appendix reports "An Exceptional New Case of an NDE in the Blind"
> > recruited by Dr. Tricia McGill. An inserted addendum warns, however,
> > that there now are grounds to believe this case is fraudulent. This
> > unfortunate situation is one that all researchers of anomalous
> > experiences are prone to encounter.
>
> > The quality of the book's production is excellent; I noted only one
> > typographical error. The book also is very reasonably priced.
>
> > In summary, it must be said that Ring and Cooper have neglected
> > several substantial issues, but despite its lacunae this book is a
> > significant contribution to NDE research in that it reports some
> > phenomenological data that an adequate theory of the NDE must be able
> > to accommodate. These data serve to reinforce the view that the
> > experient's impressions in an NDE are not "perceptual" in the usual
> > sense of this term, but the exact nature of the perceptual-like
> > impressions requires further clarification. As a novel stimulus to
> > such clarification this book is warmly recommended.'
>
> >http://www.near-death.com/sitemap.html
>
> > The above, Gordie, is a cautious advance in the direction of
> > overturning Cartesian dualism. It at least assents with civil leer! He
> > noticed only one typographical error!
>
> > Wot a prat!, though! Maybe he hopes to get tenure somewhere! Or fears
> > he might see it revoked. Bet he goes to church on Sundays, too!
> > Stoopid person, yet we have to get him out of the way before we can
> > have a serious discussion.
>
> >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3658603973717116236
>
> > Listen to the delightful Stanton Friedman.
>
> > [Sheldrake on debunkers:http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-debunkers-and-pseu...
> > ]
>
> > My mother was a Catholic, my father a studious Atheist, and I was
> > brought up by Jews for a third of my youth.
>
> > P. M. H. Atwater, L.H.D., Ph.D. (Hon.) : 'An in-depth look at the near-
> > death phenomenon': I am sorry to have to say it, but she seems to be a
> > sort of NDE industry!
>
> >http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6789.
>
> > IF, however, (and a first cousin, a doctor, on my mother's side claims
> > it's true) that doctors often sometimes experience NDE patients, blind
> > from birth, who yet seem to see outside their bodies at a critical
> > moment, the conventional theory of knowledge is overturned and
> > mechanism and materialism are in trouble.
>
> > Are they? I don't know!
> > --
> > foolsrushin.
>
> I really think that we should give maximum exposure to the debunkers
> of anything they want to debunk, then ...
>
> read more ............................
Occham was a nominalist, and ought, consitsently with his position, to
have reduced the population of things and people to himself, and then
committed suicide - after, of course, extensive publication of his
works, but destroying the last name, his only remaining possession,
his everything.
Question: Can a solopsist commit suicide? [ He alone can do it? Ed.]
--
foolsrushin.
foolsrushin
> On 27 Dec, 23:33, foolsrushin <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Delete.]
Occham was a nominalist, and ought, consitsently with his position, to
have reduced the population of things and people to himself, and then
committed suicide - after, of course, extensive publication of his
works, but destroying the last name.
Paul Leyland
> On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
Yes one can, in at least two ways.
A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
to have three sides.
A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
and so P can not exist.
Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pc...@gen.cam.ac.uk> | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Dept. of Genetics, Cambridge University | the English way.
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1223-333963 Fax: +44-1223-333992 | Thought I'd something more to say.
tadchem
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes:
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> > why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> > must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
>
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
> Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
> P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
> a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
> Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
> greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
> and so P can not exist.
Excellent counterexamples. I did not respond to this particlular part
of Benj's post in my comments elsewhere in this thread.
I agree with you.
It is clear that you are responding to Benj and not to me, even though
you retained my identity in what little of Benj's post you preserved
for reference in this post.
Tom Davidson (tadchem)
Richmond, VA
Sanforized
> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
>>why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
>>must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
What about a 4 sided figure that can be viewed
at a particular angle where it appears to have
only 3 sides? Which is true/real, the 3 sided view
or the invisible 4 sided one?
The answer is that dual natures can invalidate a
premise taken only at face value.
Figures are artifices with physical manifestations.
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist.
Quit with the definitions already, please.
Essentially a number cannot exist. It is an
solely an artifice. Since a number is not a
real thing to begin with, why argue over
its existance?
Next you'll be giving us a limit on how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin!
snip
galathaea
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes:
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> > why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> > must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
>
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
> Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
> P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
> a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
> Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
> greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
> and so P can not exist.
only if you make certain assumptions
about which deductive system is to be used
this must be negotiated outside the system itself
proof is not an absolute
on which you can base such demonstrations
the negotiation process itself is quite physical
and requires assumptions of physicality
that will not be fully justified
we must always face the inaccuracies of bisimulation
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:de58793f-d4fc-4edd...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 12:53 pm, Paul Leyland <pc...@pugwash.gen.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes:
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> > why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> > must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
>
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
> Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
> P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
> a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
> Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
> greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
> and so P can not exist.
Excellent counterexamples.
===========================================
Not at all. A triangle is not necessarily a trilateral. My quadrilateral
triangle exists because I connect two contiguous segments into one
side and I still have only three angles.
The fourth angle of 180 degrees doesn't count as an angle, and
a tri-angle is defined to have exactly three angles, the sum of which
is 180 degrees.
Proving there is no largest prime requires the assumption that the
set of integers is infinite - which must first be proven. Even
"integer" must be defined precisely and P was not defined
to be an integer.
But of course this is just playing word games with definitions.
The first statement was correct, Tom, whoever wrote it. Nobody
can ever prove that something does NOT exist, and they are not
required to. Burden of proof is upon the claimant, but it has to be
within the accepted limitations of imprecise language - one is
suppose to know what is meant by a "number" or the entire
exercise spirals into an argumentative black hole of deliberately
misunderstood definitions, i.e. lawyer talk.
============================================
The Natural Philosopher
> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes:
>
>> On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
>> why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
>> must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
>
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
> Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
> P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
> a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
> Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
> greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
> and so P can not exist.
>
Semantics. in both cases the anwser is implicit in the definition.
>
> Paul
The Natural Philosopher
Oh, and the other point is, that when considering models of the real
world..i.e. scientific theories, the ONLY test that can be applied is to
prove them wrong.
Failure to be proved wrong constitutes a reliable theory, *if it does
something useful*.
Inability to EVER be proved wrong is not the hallmark of a useful
scientific theory; its generally the hallmark of a bunch of duplicitous
crap. General statements like 'God Exists' are of this class.
If it does nothing useful, and cant be tested, then it isn't a
*scientific* theory. Merely a more or less amusing explanation.
Mathematics is in a different league. Mathematics is a set of self
consistent definitions and deductions of facts, *all of which are
inherent in the definitions*, although this is seldom obvious.
I.e. all the geometrical conclusions about angles, sides and so on are
implicit in the definitions of the primitives like 'straight lines' and
'angles'.
Likewise the prime number issue is implicit in the definition of what
constitutes an integer, and integers are implicitly infinite in number.
marc
>
> Mathematics is in a different league. Mathematics is a set of self
> consistent definitions and deductions of facts, *all of which are
> inherent in the definitions*, although this is seldom obvious.
Fact implies empirical connotation or context in respect of
what is/is not the case (hence contingent) and is not
applicable to the content of formulations from an abstract
construction like mathematics as such other than in a
pedantically trivial way since its derived outputs per se
are devoid of empirical content.
Marc
Androcles
"marc" <li...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K0O6l.104763$en7....@newsfe28.ams2...
in the english exam where peter had had had paul had had had had had had had
had
a negative effect on pauls score
Now with punctuation:
In the English exam, where Peter had had "had", Paul had had "had had"; "had
had"
had had a negative effect on Paul's score.
Your sentence is incomprehensible.
gabydewilde
> that when considering models of the real
> world..i.e. scientific theories, the ONLY test that can be applied is to
> prove them wrong.
This is more complex than you make it sound, lots of scientific
theories have been proven wrong or even worse lack any basis in the
real world. This doesn't prevent schools from pretending the theory is
true.
This use of the word "theory" is an abomination in it self! When
something becomes a fact it stops being a theory. Scientists don't
care at all what non scientists think about subjects. It is walled
gardens and ivory towers with Einsteins castle in the sky floating
above it.
The term "theoretical" is most usefully defined in the dictionary. At
what stage does it become cool to use the term to describe something
different?
A fish is a fish, a theory is a theory. Theories are not reliable by
definition. They are theoretical. Assigning new meanings to words does
not progress towards explanation but away from it.
There is no need for a special language of science unless one wants to
exclude people from understanding.
> Failure to be proved wrong constitutes a reliable theory, *if it does
> something useful*.
>
> Inability to EVER be proved wrong is not the hallmark of a useful
> scientific theory;
I know, you want an example. Well show me a real world negative
quanta. Then show me a real world negative amound of this quanta.
-2 * -2 = 4
Show me proof please?
> its generally the hallmark of a bunch of duplicitous
> crap. General statements like 'God Exists' are of this class.
God is a great example!
Lets say we have a priest write a scripture about the reality of God
and we have it reviewed by the Vatican.
They are going to conclude negative quanta are real... eh.. I mean
that God is real!
> If it does nothing useful, and cant be tested, then it isn't a
> *scientific* theory. Merely a more or less amusing explanation.
Amusing = ridicule
In a conversation 1 vs 1 it can be funny for the moment. But when
thousands of people are amusing themselves at the expense of some one
sharing his idea it becomes something disgusting.
How funny things are has nothing to do with science. We have to be
humble and treat people with respect. I'm not going to break under
such stress but I've seen hundreds of people get crushed by closed
minded attack dogs.
In our society of spoiled man children entertainment seems to have
more weight than actual real world events. People are treated as if
they are Tee Vee programs.
100 years ago all one had was real conversation, one was expected to
respond to everything and all people had the ability to do so. The
topics evolved around the real world events. Discussing things went
well beyond the entertainment of ridicule.
I find it pretty distrubing because the most revolutionary discoveries
did not make it. The more fantastic the discovery the more harsh the
heavier than air debunking gets.
In the well documented effort towards running Pons and Fleishman off
the stage one MIT professor stated cold fusion was not replicated by
any university with a good football team. This was after hundreds of
reproductions around the globe. I have to conclude he thinks it is
pretty funny to starve hundreds of millions of people.
You state it is merely a more or less amusing explanation. But this
follows the assumption opinions are not for sale, all scientists
honest and no one would lie to you.
Oh, feed the starving children. haha! What silly idea! You sure amused
me with that one! Hilarious! HAHAHA!! What funny guy you are!! End the
recession! HAHAHA!! Preposterous!
The Natural Philosopher
Maths is an internally logical set of rules that produce specific
results for any given set of questions.
It's part of the way we draw maps of reality, not reality in itself.
The real question, is whether mathematics, objective consciousness,
space and time and matter, all being other elements required to produce
a tangible perception of reality, lie outside of reality *as it really
is*, or simply are outside our *perception* of it..
;-)
The Natural Philosopher
Sanforized
Insert commas where, when you read the text aloud and run
out of breath, they belong. :-)
Sanforized
Now please rewrite "numbers are not real things" in an even
more loquacious manner.
Sanforized
Same coin. other side.
The Natural Philosopher
you need to be to decide what is real and what is not.
Are ideas real? Are hallucinations real? what really is real? a picture
of the world derived from images on te bag of your retina?
You'll be telling me next that everything on TV is real ;-)
Wittgenstein I think said 'reality is whatever is the case'
After Kant and others had more more less said 'and we can never know
what it really is, or indeed, if there is such a thing'
And anyway, what about Real Numbers. ?
;-)
galathaea
> marc wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> >> Mathematics is in a different league. Mathematics is a set of self
> >> consistent definitions and deductions of facts, *all of which are
> >> inherent in the definitions*, although this is seldom obvious.
>
> > Fact implies empirical connotation or context in respect of what is/is
> > not the case (hence contingent) and is not applicable to the content of
> > formulations from an abstract construction like mathematics as such
> > other than in a pedantically trivial way since its derived outputs per
> > se are devoid of empirical content.
>
> > Marc
>
> well thats basically, with appropriate punctuation, what I said.
>
> Maths is an internally logical set of rules that produce specific
> results for any given set of questions.
how do you prove that?
> It's part of the way we draw maps of reality, not reality in itself.
all words
all symbolic manipulations
occur in reality
how do definitions get passed
if these are somehow external to reality?
if they are passed in reality
how can there be certainty about implied meaning?
quine
among many others
pointed this out quite some time ago...
> The real question, is whether mathematics, objective consciousness,
> space and time and matter, all being other elements required to produce
> a tangible perception of reality, lie outside of reality *as it really
> is*, or simply are outside our *perception* of it..
the "real" question?
seems like begging the question...
Benj
> > On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
> > why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
> > must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>
> Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>
> A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
> to have three sides.
>
> A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
> Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
> P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
> a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
> Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
> greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
> and so P can not exist.
Cute but wrong. We are talking here about SCIENCE "debunking" and not
mathematics. Nothing in math is "real". All of math is simply human-
invented self-consistent systems. What you are saying is that in YOUR
system of mathematics four-sided triangles do not exist. However *I*
have the option of inventing my OWN mathematical self-consistent
system based upon four-sided triangles. Hence in math if one can
conceive of it, it can exist.
Question for philosophers: "Give me an example of something you can't
conceive of". :)
Science on the other hand is restricted by reality. And so far as
anybody knows "reality" is an open-ended system (nobody has been
demonstrated to be omniscient). That means that proving a non-
existence isn't possible. Because to do that you'd have to be
omniscient (aware of all possiblities in reality). And nobody is,
except for "God" whose communication skills with us have not proved up
to the job of answering these questions.
Sanforized
> On Dec 30, 12:53 pm, Paul Leyland <pc...@pugwash.gen.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes:
>>
>>>On Dec 27, 8:50 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Quite so. Nobody can ever "prove" that something does NOT exist! So
>>>why all the "debunking" if the question is out of bounds? Ah, there
>>>must be some POLITICS behind it, no?
>>
>>Yes one can, in at least two ways.
>>
>>A four-sided triangle can not exist. Proof: a triangle is *defined*
>>to have three sides.
>>
>>A numerically largest prime number can not exist. Proof (after
>>Euclid): assume that such a number exists and call it P. The number
>>P!+1 has no integer factors less than or equal to P because it yields
>>a remainder of 1 when divided by all integers less than or equal to P.
>>Therefore either P!+1 is prime or it is divisible by an integer
>>greater than P. In either case, P can not be the largest prime number
>>and so P can not exist.
>
>
> Cute but wrong. We are talking here about SCIENCE "debunking" and not
> mathematics. Nothing in math is "real".
Nothing in "science" is real. Everything is models, a
mere shadow, at best, of the reality it attempts to
understand and represent.
> All of math is simply human-
> invented self-consistent systems.
And so is "science."
Giaccomo
news:1230751865.18714.0@proxy01.
>
> Wittgenstein I think said 'reality is whatever is the case'
No. Not even in his worthless later years was Wittgenstein *that* stupid.
You are thinking, if that is the word, of the book he once began with the
sentence 'The world is everything that is the case'.
You know, I really, really do despair of Usenet. And Cambridge. And the
smug, semi-educated idiots that both of them collect.
G.
Sanforized
Thank you. Fortunately occasionally we manage
to find better minds in r.o.m.
spudnik
or some thing like that, of psychic crappola that
is known under other names, clairvoyance e.g.,
whether or not there was a British or SU psyops/
counter-intel. promotion of it.
you example of dowsing is totally apposite, since
this is clearly just a method to follow one's intuitions
re subtle landscaping features, to find water --
nothing to do in particular with the coat-hanger.
all of these things come under explicable, or
just pure sophistry a la Keeley. iff Keeley
ever had some kind of explicable principle
for his "patent drawings,"
you'd probably have learnt it, by now.
--only 24 hours to impeach Trickier Dick from the N.Admin,
metaphorically typing, or Cheeny & Zbiggy, fo'mo' years;
Good Morning, Afghanistan!
... Good Afternoon, Sudan!
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why?
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- English, not!
spudnik
"The Fourth Side of a Triangle," which is a general
construction, but I forgot the principle. so,
my challenge is,
construct a fifth side of a tetrahedron,
once someone posts what the 4th edge was!
> Ockham was a nominalist, and ought, consitsently with his
Giaccomo
>
> you example of dowsing is totally apposite, since
> this is clearly just a method to follow one's intuitions
> re subtle landscaping features, to find water --
> nothing to do in particular with the coat-hanger.
Experimental tests show dowsing to be a crock. Grow up.
G.
.
gabydewilde
> "remote viewing" is just the MK-ultra repackaging,
> or some thing like that, of psychic crappola that
> is known under other names, clairvoyance e.g.,
> whether or not there was a British or SU psyops/
> counter-intel. promotion of it.
>
> you example of dowsing is totally apposite, since
> this is clearly just a method to follow one's intuitions
> re subtle landscaping features, to find water --
> nothing to do in particular with the coat-hanger.
>
> all of these things come under explicable, or
> just pure sophistry a la Keeley. iff Keeley
> ever had some kind of explicable principle
> for his "patent drawings,"
> you'd probably have learnt it, by now.
You try to substitute guesswork for research.
The Natural Philosopher
common sense? ;-0)
>
> Science on the other hand is restricted by reality. And so far as
> anybody knows "reality" is an open-ended system (nobody has been
> demonstrated to be omniscient). That means that proving a non-
> existence isn't possible.
That is simply not so.
> Because to do that you'd have to be
> omniscient (aware of all possiblities in reality).
Only if your existence to be refuted is a *generally* specified thing.
If its tied to te location you have knowledge of, then it it either
there, or it aint. Or possibly like schroedingers cat, there and not there.
> And nobody is,
> except for "God" whose communication skills with us have not proved up
> to the job of answering these questions.
>
Don't tell that to a fundamentalist. Its apparently all in the Book, all
true, and thats that.
>
The Natural Philosopher
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1230751865.18714.0@proxy01.
>> Wittgenstein I think said 'reality is whatever is the case'
>
> No. Not even in his worthless later years was Wittgenstein *that* stupid.
>
> You are thinking, if that is the word, of the book he once began with the
> sentence 'The world is everything that is the case'.
>
Well, I don't remember everything 100% accurately. The meaning is pretty
much the same.
> You know, I really, really do despair of Usenet. And Cambridge. And the
> smug, semi-educated idiots that both of them collect.
>
You are forgetting the opinionated pedants, who think that knowing a few
facts *exactly*, makes them superior to everyone who doesn't know those
same facts, despite knowing a whole lot more than the pedants don't even
know that they don't know.
Hanging's too good for 'em IMHO.
> G.
>
>
Paul Leyland
Yes and no. The difference between the two cases is the same
difference as that between an axiom and a theorem.
Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pc...@gen.cam.ac.uk> | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Dept. of Genetics, Cambridge University | the English way.
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1223-333963 Fax: +44-1223-333992 | Thought I'd something more to say.
marc
> marc wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Mathematics is in a different league. Mathematics is a set of self
>>> consistent definitions and deductions of facts, *all of which are
>>> inherent in the definitions*, although this is seldom obvious.
>>
>> Fact implies empirical connotation or context in respect of what is/is
>> not the case (hence contingent) and is not applicable to the content
>> of formulations from an abstract construction like mathematics as such
>> other than in a pedantically trivial way since its derived outputs per
>> se are devoid of empirical content.
>>
>> Marc
> well thats basically, with appropriate punctuation, what I said.
>
delivered facts.
>
> Maths is an internally logical set of rules that produce specific
> results for any given set of questions.
Its proper use produces specific results for suitably
formulated questions but empirical evidence is the arbiter
of whether there is justification for treating the results
as reflecting something beyond the math itself..
>
> It's part of the way we draw maps of reality, not reality in itself.
The relationship of mathematics to reality (notwithstanding
a lifetime of debate about the nature and knowledge of
reality) is not clear although it has proved an
exceptionally useful tool for modelling how the world
appears to function.
>
> The real question, is whether mathematics, objective consciousness,
> space and time and matter, all being other elements required to produce
> a tangible perception of reality, lie outside of reality *as it really
> is*, or simply are outside our *perception* of it..
>
I suspect there are many versions of what constitutes the
'real question' since this is a standard way of herding the
debate into one's preferred intellectual corral. Since it is
not known what reality is (or indeed if that question is in
fact resolvable) speculation about what reality really is
essentially comes down to arbitrary definition, assumption,
interpretation of private experience or interpretation of
mathematically grounded models supported with empirical
evidence. Over millennia we have gone from a variety of
anthropocentric explanations predicated on all manner of
anthropomorphic deities to a human-indifferent objective
understanding of reality. However up to the beginning of the
last century, it was always intuitively assumed that the
basis of reality was resonant and compatible with our innate
modes of understanding but discovery of GR and QM has
revealed that it isn't and hence undermined confidence we
may have about our ability to understand what reality really is.
My preferred corral for thinking about what reality really
is starts with a description of if (as currently understood)
before we came along with an evolved a consciousness
eventually sophisticated enough to generate abstractions
about the reality of our experience. Then the first task is
trying to determine which of those abstractions reflect
external correlates and which are just reifications as we
continually develop better understanding about what we think
reality really is and what this means for our ability to
understand what reality really is.
Marc
spudnik
of "remote viewers?" well, it depends;
the purveyors of it obviously have to resort
to some sort of hidden special knowledge,
as with magicians, to show some "results."
anyway, that's the impression I got
from Ghost to Ghost BC radio;
there's a reason, they're called, Spooks!
> You try to substitute guesswork for research.
thus:
no, no, no;
Fermat's unstated proof was not qualified
as to whether or not it applied to n=4, or
he thought at first that it did; clearly,
he wouldn't have needed to prove that case
with his infinite descent contradiction, if
he had already "had" the unstated proof. but,
isn't it clear that n=4 is very special,
after a while of consideration?
> His proof is valid for n = 4 and any odd number n greater than 2.
thus:
shouldn't it be clear that
photons are an artifact of the idea
of point-particles?... of course, iff
they exist, then they would have to be *the* particles
that actually were zero-dimensional points, but,
since they are waves, as shown by Young, Huyghens et al,
there is really no need for them,
except in the Pauli matrix formalism
of statistical bosons; eh?
Schroedinger's cat is dead --
long-live Schoredinger's cat!
--only 24 hours to impeach Trickier Dick from the N.Admin,
metaphorically typing, or Cheeny & Zbiggy, fo'mo' years;
Good Morning, Afghanistan!
... Good Afternoon, Sudan!
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why?
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- English, not! (see Psalms 46)
gabydewilde
> now, isn't that what the key method
> of "remote viewers?"
Jep, same thing. If you guess heads or tales 1000 times you will find
you got it right to many times.
You even know how it feels.
> well, it depends;
> the purveyors of it obviously have to resort
> to some sort of hidden special knowledge,
The special knowledge is that if you tell a lie often enough people
will believe it.
To keep giving examples:
Chinese herbal medicine is 5000 years old. It was most obviously
dismissed by people who didn't study it. The lie is quite obvious, a
medical degree doesn't make you an expert on ice skating. But if the
masses think it does such a person can assert hoaxes by divine
insight.
> as with magicians, to show some "results."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary research efforts. Search
the internet web and you may find all kinds of it. (And all kinds of
debunking of course.)
> > You try to substitute guesswork for research.
>
> thus:
> no, no, no;
> Fermat's unstated proof was not qualified
> as to whether or not it applied to n=4, or
> he thought at first that it did; clearly,
> he wouldn't have needed to prove that case
> with his infinite descent contradiction, if
> he had already "had" the unstated proof. but,
> isn't it clear that n=4 is very special,
> after a while of consideration?
>
> > His proof is valid for n = 4 and any odd number n greater than 2.
>
> thus:
> shouldn't it be clear that
> photons are an artifact of the idea
> of point-particles?... of course, iff
> they exist, then they would have to be *the* particles
> that actually were zero-dimensional points, but,
> since they are waves, as shown by Young, Huyghens et al,
> there is really no need for them,
> except in the Pauli matrix formalism
> of statistical bosons; eh?
> Schroedinger's cat is dead --
> long-live Schoredinger's cat!
>
Of course the church of science isn't going to accept such progress.
You are attacking the doctrine! It's called witchcraft, punishable by
death by burning. LOL
Or let me put it this way: If it was on coast to coast, would that
provide the point with any substance? no?
spudnik
why do you do so -- if it is simply clairvoyance?
what in Keeley's patents makes you think,
that he actually has a validatable & new principle?
thus:
you could call *SA* a sort of "survey journal" with almost no math,
whereas Gardner actually does original & survey mathematics, and
carries a dialog with his readership. as for Sir Karl and his cohort
of fundamentalist free-traders:
Mont Pelerin Society and Cato's History
To understand what Cato is, and what it can do, it is necessary to
understand how and why it was formed. The commonly told tale is that
Edward Crane and Charles Koch were active in Libertarian politics in
California, and decided in 1977 that a new organization was needed.
But that leaves out most of the real story, of its creation by the
anti-American System and pro-feudalist Mont Pelerin Society.
For this we take a trip to Mont Pelerin, near Vevey on the far side of
Lake Geneva, Switzerland. In April, 1947, at the Hotel du Parc, a
group of 36 men gathered. They included Friedrich A. von Hayek, the
head of the reductionist Austrian School of Economics; Ludwig von
Mises, another member of the Austrian School; monetarist Milton
Friedman; radical Aristotelian philosopher Karl Popper; and the
slavishly pro-British American "liberal" journalist Walter Lippmann.
Most of the 36 were fanatical ideologues. But representatives of the
higher layers of the wealthy oligarchical families, for whom these
ideologues served as "Leporellos," were there, including Sir John
Clapham, long time official, and official historian of the Bank of
England, who had served as President of Britain's oligarchical power
center, the Royal Society. Not present at the first meeting, but
asserting themselves at subsequent meetings were Otto von Hapsburg,
pretender to the throne of the Hapsburg empire, and Max von Thurn, of
the immensely wealthy, Bavarian-based Thurn und Taxis family. Bankers
of the City of London and Wall Street would soon appear.
> hatchet job on Karl Popper, full of ad hominem and
thus:
as explained in Munk's memoire,
any congruence surd that repeats across the decimal point,
is equal to zero, such as ...9999.9999...; so,
why do you say that 0.349999... is not equal
to 0.350000...?
because, the whole import of Hensel,
was to show that integers have the same properties
as decimals, properly oriented -- except that
he didn't use the commonsense ordering of the digits!
can't you read this in your killfile?
> And we have the Hensel P-adics where ....99999 is -1, and ....99998
> is -2
> Now in Old Reals those old timers believed that
> 0.999.... was equal to 1
> But if that is so, then how do those old timers explain that
> ....9999 is -1 when it should be 0 if 0.9999..... is 1
thus:
now, isn't that what the key method
of "remote viewers?" well, it depends;
the purveyors of it obviously have to resort
to some sort of hidden special knowledge,
as with magicians, to show some "results...."
anyway, that's the impression I got
from Ghost to Ghost BC radio;
there's a reason, they're called, Spooks!
thus:
no, no, no;
Fermat's unstated proof was not qualified
as to whether or not it applied to n=4, or
he thought at first that it did; clearly,
he wouldn't have needed to prove that case
with his infinite descent contradiction, if
he had already "had" the unstated proof. but,
isn't it clear that n=4 is very special,
after a while of consideration?
> His proof is valid for n = 4 and any odd number n greater than 2.
thus:
shouldn't it be clear that
photons are an artifact of the idea
of point-particles?... of course, iff
they exist, then they would have to be *the* particles
that actually were zero-dimensional points, but,
since they are waves, as shown by Young, Huyghens et al,
there is really no need for them,
except in the Pauli matrix formalism
of statistical bosons; eh?
Schroedinger's cat is dead --
long-live Schoredinger's cat!
--only 24 hours to impeach Trickier Dick from the N.Admin,
Giaccomo
> Chinese herbal medicine is 5000 years old. It was most obviously
> dismissed by people who didn't study it.
No. It was 'most obviously dismissed' by the many millions of poor bastards
who, over 50 centuries, *died* ... as a result of the fact that 'Chinese
herbal medicine' *doesn't fucking work*...
G.
gabydewilde
> well, if you believe in remote viewing,
> why do you do so -- if it is simply clairvoyance?
Going by terminology clairvoyance happens instantly.
Why do you ask? For entertainment purposes?
If~so here is one of those over~exited American narrators.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8795770715038929831
You can use a search engine and look up stuff, just ignore the
debunkers.
> what in Keeley's patents makes you think,
> that he actually has a validatable & new principle?
I don't want to spoil your adventure. What makes you think the LHC is
not a waste of money? I have to much different reason to list here.
Lots of his tech is currently in use. For now Keely was the first on
the list of human inventors here:
http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
But my gut says I can find more information in the ancient flying
machines (airships to be specific) and of course in the acoustic
levitation used to build all those ancient buildings. Not all roads
lead to the top of the mountain but if you are afraid to find one that
doesn't go there you will never get there either.
If you feel like debunking (haha) please go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M6S2brhFE
I have jet to hear the first sensible argument out of thousands of
messages. They knew about this in 1800. What prevents you from getting
the point? I've changed the construction and it's presentation often
enough to say it's an oxymoron now. First people are to ignorant to
get the point then after lots of work they will complaint it is to
simple. Scientists will refuse to understand it non-scientists will
say it cant be that special if it is that simple. If you have some new
valid excuse I will debunk it for you. For years I listen to adults
crying like babies about this. Safe to say it will be a cold day in
hell before I take anyone seriously ever again.
To address your talking points:
Points are infinitly small so they do not exist, the universe is made
of things that do not exist. Thus, the things in your mind are just as
real as the things around you. If you imagine a cow you need to
imagine grass with it or it will starve.
If you stick to the "laws" of nature you can even build that what you
imagined in the "real" world. In contrast, building things without
imagining isn't going to work. Like plants can live without humans and
other animals but humans and other animals can not live without
plants.
Ask yourself, what comes first?
It's not a very hard question?
> ... Good Afternoon, Sudan!http://tarpley.net/bush12.htmhttp://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf-- Brits hate Shakes, Why?http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.htmlhttp://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.htmlhttp://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf-- English, not! (see Psalms 46)
galathaea
> "gabydewilde" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:51a58f27-365f-44cc-
ethnobotany has been the single largest source
of the biologically active precursors
in all modern medicine
if you don't believe in the efficacy of culturally evaluated medicines
then you will have a lot of trouble finding solutions
to anything from headaches
to leukemia
Giaccomo
news:2b3d9303-226f-4ccf...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 8:02 pm, "Giaccomo" <Giacc...@work.net> wrote:
> "gabydewilde" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:51a58f27-365f-44cc-
> > Chinese herbal medicine is 5000 years old. It was most obviously
> > dismissed by people who didn't study it.
>
> No. It was 'most obviously dismissed' by the many millions of poor
> bastards
> who, over 50 centuries, *died* ... as a result of the fact that 'Chinese
> herbal medicine' *doesn't fucking work*...
-----
ethnobotany has been the single largest source
of the biologically active precursors
in all modern medicine
-----
I didn't say it wasn't. But until very recent times, no-one had any means of
knowing how much of what agent in what state of purity was being given to
which people as a treatment for which actual condition and working out how
effective or otherwise it was in the short and long term. At heart, it's a
basic question of data: the ancients didn't have any, and wouldn't have been
able to deal with it if they had. You are a statistical and scientific
illiterate if you believe otherwise: "well, they gave stuff to people and
noticed if they got better" just doesn't fucking cut it, simpleton.
-----
If you don't believe in the efficacy of culturally evaluated medicines
then you will have a lot of trouble finding solutions
to anything from headaches
to leukemia
-----
... says the statistical and scientific illiterate who bends the knee to
medical folk-cultures that had no way of telling the difference between a
migraine and a cystic astrocytoma turned malignant. You ignorant pukes are
*pathetic*.
G.
galathaea
> "galathaea" <galath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
you have a lot of hatred in you
and a lot of presumption on my scientific knowledge
you also seem to have an us/them complex
responding to my post as if i am plural
(you must be posting from the mensa group)
just for your knowledge
i have nothing against modern medicine
i was just pointing out
that claims that herbal medicine "doesn't work"
is quite wrong
and that most medicines we have today
are simply refinements of existing herbal medicines
even some of our most powerful drugs
like taxol and vincoblastine
we would not have if it were not for ethnobotany
and we may not have ethnobotany
if it weren't for the work of richard evans schultes
and others even earlier who fought against
certain western superiority complexes
that presumed they "don't fuckin' work"
galathaea
let me clarify that
i do have issues with modern medicine
just not the ones you imply
my issues are with the pushing of branded solutions
to doctors who get most of their information
from the brand holders
tending to create rather myopic bases for prescription
and the tendency to look at local solutions
which may cause global problems at later times
(like the recent publishing that showed
pretreatment with antibiotics did help prevent
certain common hospital infection in preop patients
which didn't consider the well established resistance effect
that could make the existing problems worse in the long run)
i'm not antiscience
as was the implication
in fact
i see the shortsighted "doesn't fucking work"
much more antiscience than anything i have stated
mike3
> Benj wrote:
<snip>
> Darwin is at least refutable. ID is not. Which is why it's not
> scientific. Darwn says 'how thigs developed' ID attempts to say WHY
> things developed..WHY is not a question that science is concerned with.
>
> WHY? already implies that there is a question that needs to be answered,
> it implies that there is meaning in life, and purpose. The very QUESTION
> implies that there is a God. That's the trick of it.
>
> If you like there are two questions being deliberately confused - very
> pursposefully and very adroitley, by the proponents of ID.
>
> One is 'how did we come to be here?' and the answer is 'read the
> historical record with te ey of a scientists, and see how one thing led
> to another, without *need* to introduce any purpose'
>
> The other is 'why are we here at all?' to which the ID proponents have
> the more attractive explanation 'because God wants you to be' whereas
> the scientists merely reply 'outside our remit mate: Our scientific
> worldview (which works spectularly well) does so at the expense of
> making questions like that both unaskable and unanswerable: take it to
> the divinity classroom PLEASE'.
>
> I.e science starts with the basic assumption that the world is without
> purpose, or at least, its not the business of science to attempt to
> discover it. And purpose is a human invention, and not necessarily, or
> necessary for, a cosmic explanation of 'How?'
>
> That's why Science and ID are simply not in the same league as
> explanations. They are incomparable. They are not even answering the
> same question.
>
<snip>
And so then you would be saying that the question of whether or not
God
exists, is beyond the scope of the scientific worldview, right? But
why not
add additional views on top of it, ones that go into realms other than
science,
where the question can be asked and answered? Because, after all, a
truly
comprehensive approach to "knowledge", or as close to that as we can
get,
anyway, should be able to look at those type of "why" questions as
well as the
"how" questions.
mike3
So what if you just toss your hands in the air, and say, "It is
futile, then,
to try and _know_ what reality _really_ is"?
And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
The Natural Philosopher
Yes. Or beneath it. Whatever ;-)
> But
> why not
> add additional views on top of it, ones that go into realms other than
> science,
> where the question can be asked and answered? Because, after all, a
> truly
> comprehensive approach to "knowledge", or as close to that as we can
> get,
> anyway, should be able to look at those type of "why" questions as
> well as the
> "how" questions.
Those layers exist, but they are not science. They are philosophy, if
approached rationally, or theology, if approached with an answer in mind
already ;-)
I.e. God exists as the implicit (anthropomorphic) answer to the
(anthropomorphic) question 'Why?'
"Because God Wills it so" is not a scientific answer, and really
does/says nothing in the rational sphere: It may provide extreme
guidance and comfort in an emotional one, however, which is not to be
sneezed at. That doesn't, however, make it TRUE.
Belief in the untrue may be beneficial for the species: that doesn't
make it true. Any more than the efficacy of quantum physics makes it
(necessarily) true.
The difference being that most of the proponents of quantum physics
would argue that :
'it works'
'it doesn't have to be true to work'
'if you have a better idea, let's hear it'
My distaste for religious proselytizers is because they omit the two
statements from their proselytizing.
The Natural Philosopher
Indeed. That is ultimately the position most philosophers seem to have
arrived at.
> And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
> DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
I would say so, yes.
If he in fact does so.
But I am not convinced that is his actual position.
Nor what definition of God he is using to be so sure.
If you define God tightly enough, the concept is disprovable.
I.e. if God will absolutely definitely strike me dead within 30 seconds
for saying that Baby Jesus as a bastard and a fraud, and nothing
special, the fact I'm still writing is somewhat a refutation of that
particular aspect of God's will..
I.e. the general concept of God is so woolly as to be irrefutable, and
ergo useless in a scientific or rational explanation, other than as the
'God of the Gaps' - a 'Deus ex machina' .."for every other problem,
there is God".
Every worldview, like every mathematical theorem, has its Godelian paradox.
Science, which essentially is the analysis of the world as a totally
causal mechanism, has to either posit cyclicity, or a beginning, a Prime
Cause. So the God of Science's gaps is whatever 'caused' the big bang..
Stated like that, its easy to see that the concept is 'built in' to the
worldview that places causality above everything. Absolute causality
implies a prime cause.
A worldview that takes as its starting point a living intelligence as
the most fundamental thing there is, and then attempts to deduce the
personality of that intelligence from the nature of the world, will also
run into problems. In that large parts of nature seem utterly devoid of
intelligence.
It doesn't matter which way you slice the cake of experience: Always you
return to the problem of the knife, and who exactly is doing the
cutting, and why ;-)
Dawkins chooses to expound a particular slice that DENIES the existence
of god. Pure atheism as the term is currently understood.
I espouse a metaphysic that merely remarks that slicing the cake the way
science HAS to slice, makes God disappear into the knife blade.
It/he/she is not a feature of the *cake so cut*. TRUE a-theism. I.e. in
the absence of any idea of god.
I also note that there are as many ways to slice the cake as there are
people to slice it, and that slicing it this way to day and that way
tomorrow, is not a problem as long as the person slicing it is aware
that once sliced, it is not the whole cake any more, and is necessarily
only a limited view. And so does not become tied to a particular
worldview that has outlasted its sell-by date.
I don't believe in anything. I don't have to believe in anything. I USE
religion if it suits me. I am not bound to it or by it. I USE science
likewise. They are, to me, modes of thought that have relevance to
achieve particular goals.
THE ONLY certain fact I know, is that there are no certain facts. Not in
the absolute sense. Synthetic facts anyway (not implicit in some
definition).
To me the purpose of true religion, is a pragmatic way to live that
encompasses that ultimate uncertainty. Enlightenment, consists in
realising the nature of that uncertainty. Beyond that it has no value
really.
tadchem
>
> - Show quoted text -
FWIW, I once argued to my professor in Logic that the only reasonable
answer to the question "Does God Exist?" is "If you think so."
I had to explain to her that the existence or non-existence of God is
totally idiosyncratic. Each individual posesses a unique "definition"
of the word "God." The question then devolves into the question "Does
your personal definition of 'God' represent anything which you accept
as existing?"
She had expected an answer in either the affirmative of the negative,
followed by a set of statements and defenses representing a reasoned
argument for the chosen position.
She was pissed.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b4384eb3-d803-4938...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
=================================================
--------------------------------------------------^
Tut tut.
=================================================
a unique "definition"
of the word "God." The question then devolves into the question "Does
your personal definition of 'God' represent anything which you accept
as existing?"
She had expected an answer in either the affirmative of the negative,
followed by a set of statements and defenses representing a reasoned
argument for the chosen position.
She was pissed.
==================================================
"On Livia's advice Augustus told the Senate, half-jokingly, that these
poor fellows, while obviously they could not be allowed to worship
the superior deities, Roma and Julius, must not be denied some sort
of God, however humble." -- Robert Graves -- "I, Claudius"
As a superior deity I therefore decree nobody is allowed to worship me.
They can worship you if you like.
Androcles
Giaccomo
> And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
> DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
Dawkins has *never said that*, you stupid wanker.
G.
Giaccomo
>
> Dawkins chooses to expound a particular slice that DENIES the existence of
> god. Pure atheism as the term is currently understood.
>
Boy, are the smug and semi-educated out in force today!
Do feel free to get a fucking clue before you embarrass yourself to a
possibly fatal extent. Perhaps you'd even care to read the chapter that
Dawkins took the trouble to call "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God"...?
Twat.
G.
spudnik
there are such things as points, and
stringtheory (or Kaluza theory) already puts that to rest,
or that b) I forgot; I really dyslike the "netiquette" format,
of jumbles of quoting & reply.
anyway, your preponderance of "water engine" stuff is silly,
since most of it is methods of applying energy
to separate the H2 form the O2;
you still have to get the energy from some other source.
I know a hydraulics engineer who made this same error,
thinking that you can somehow burn water,
which is clearly completely oxidized (or
fossilized; you can't actually burn fossils,
either -- at least not with O2 .-)
if you can suggest one thing that Keely has done,
taht is an effective technology in your opinion,
then do it.
> http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/water-fueled-car/1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
> Points are infinitly small so they do not exist, the universe is made
thus:
any congruence surd that repeats across the decimal point,
is equal to zero, such as ...9999.9999...; so,
why do you say that 0.349999... is not equal
to 0.350000...? because,
the whole import of Hensel,
was to show that integers have the same properties
as decimals, properly oriented -- except that
he didn't use the commonsense ordering of the digits!
thus:
... Good Afternoon, Sudan!
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why?
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- English, not! (see Psalms 46)
spudnik
if you look at the Institute of Medicine's report
on this stuff, you'll see that whoever put it "up,"
went to a deal of trouble to make it look as if
it was entirely positive; whereas,
teh actual text of the report is quite
in line with the "classical" or ethnobotanical studies
of the French (cf. *21st C. Science & Tech. Mag.*,
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt09.html .-)
The Natural Philosopher
Mmm.
I have been thinking about this to see if I could come up with a clearer
picture of how I see it..in case anyone is actually reading, which seems
doubful ;-)
Science depends utterly, IMHO, on the development of an utterly
Monotheistic religion as its a priori condition.
Sounds weird?
Ok. Only beings imbued with the idea of their own (potential) perfection
and special status, and believing themselves to be imbued with a godlike
perspective and the right to use it to form judgements about the world,
could do science..which, since they have available to them a totally
supernatural viewpoint, of a divine Soul, which is held to be capable of
making absolute judgements about an objective world *of which it is not
actually a part* .
That is, implicit in the idea of the objective observer, is the
placement of a conscious entity OUTSIDE the world which it observes.
The scientists says 'I don't see God, in the world' to which the more
astute christian mystic might reply 'thats because god is in you,
looking at the world, dummy'
The two worldviews are in fact complementary.
Of course I don't hold that either of the pair, or indeed the sum, are
correct or true.
I want to be as offensive to Science as to Religion, really. And deny
the ultimate validity of both..there is a Third way to regard this. ;-)
Which is that part of existence reflects (some of) the rest of existence
through a process: And that reflection is a perceivable world.
The mistakes are to think that the perceived world is anything to do
with the reality of existence *as it is*, rather than just a 'model that
works', or that the *fact that reflection takes place* via a process,
implies something supra-natural: In terms of the _perceived_ world, of
course it DOES, as the process is _a priori_ to the reflected
perception, but we can solve that easily by denigrating the world of
perceptions to a construct: This is just a coordinate transformation, in
which the mystery of the world, and its Creator, becomes merely a
mystery of the process of consciousness, which takes the raw data of
experience, and analyses it in terms of axes comprising space, time
matter and energy, in order to produce a linear story of substances and
events with causal connectivity between its elements.
God - the Christian God - then transforms into merely an anthropomorphic
term or 'the way and why our consciousness works'. Or as someone put it
(down), 'mere psychology' ;-)
I.e. the mistake in ascribing supernatural powers to a creator spirit,
arises at exactly the point where we mistake the *perceived* world for
the *real* world. Once this mistake is made, the thing at least partly
responsible for the creation of the *perceived* world - namely our own
psyches - vanishes from our ken. And we are left with the audience
yelling 'it's behind you!' but no matter where we look, it's always out
of sight, yet mysteriously introducing normality, structure and order
into our experience..;-)
The final mistake, in saying that, even so, if there is a reality beyond
our perception, 'that is the case', someone or something must have
*caused* it, is again vanquished by the observation that now we have
disconnected the perceived world, which is interpreted using the
algorithm of causality, from the real world, for which we have no
evidence that causality is a valid concept at all, we have no need for a
moment of creation, an act of creation, or indeed anything.
THIS metaphysic relies on only one a priori position: "Existence
Exists", which is so implicit and trite as to be almost not worth saying.
In short, the world probably is what it is, but it appears the way it
does, because of how you think about it.
The 'science' of modfiying how we think about it, rather than it itself,
is what we call religion, or magick, or psychology. Or Marketing.
Today's equivalent of the blackest witchcraft there has ever been :-)
It's taken All of modern technology and Meejah to make the White queens
injunctions hold true. Now we can indeed believe six impossible things
before breakfast. And equally the Red queen's comment 'that it takes all
the running you can do to stay in the same place' is an apt a
description of modern life as any.
So I would say not that god exists because you think it does, but god is
in fact the process of thinking in the first place! Heck its even right
there in the Jewish creation myths. The bringing of order out of chaos,
the state of total innocence, followed by the fall from grace as the
fruit of Knowledge causes the psyche to reflect upon itself and the
world..;-)
Additionally the thing that exists because we think it does, is ourselves.
Puts a WHOLE new spin on 'cogito ergo sum'. The process of reflection
from one part of reality into another, creates a perceiver, as well as
aperception. The fact of my thinking does not prove my existence..it
CAUSES it.
Now a religion that taught THAT, would be my kind of religion: The study
of the human psyche is not a fruitless one, and not beyond some kind of
rational analysis and definition.
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
spudnik
*any* one could have been hauling box-cutters, then,
in their carry-on.
the only complcity that I have seen,
is the Scty. of Transort Mineta's testimony,
that Cheeny stopped the standard Air Force interceptions;
the plane-bombs were probably adequate incendiaries.
> Question begs asking: were the events of 9/11/2001 a genuine
> attack by Saudi Arabian extremists wielding boxcutters ... or were they
> an "inside job" planned and carried out with some degree of complexity?
thus:
mike3
> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8f0ef8a-
> > And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
> > DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
>
> Dawkins has *never said that*, you stupid wanker.
>
Well but he sure says it with a great degree of certainty, then:
99.99999999% or
something.
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Dec 31 2008, 12:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> > So what if you just toss your hands in the air, and say, "It is
> > futile, then,
> > to try and _know_ what reality _really_ is"?
>
> Indeed. That is ultimately the position most philosophers seem to have
> arrived at.
>
Hmm.
> > And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
> > DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
>
> I would say so, yes.
>
> If he in fact does so.
>
> But I am not convinced that is his actual position.
>
That is interesting. What do you think the real position of Dawkins
is,
anyway?
> Nor what definition of God he is using to be so sure.
>
> If you define God tightly enough, the concept is disprovable.
>
> I.e. if God will absolutely definitely strike me dead within 30 seconds
> for saying that Baby Jesus as a bastard and a fraud, and nothing
> special, the fact I'm still writing is somewhat a refutation of that
> particular aspect of God's will..
>
That's right, those things can be disproven, obviously. So the more
"loose" (is that a good term?) a claim is, the less certain any proof/
disproof of it can be.
> I.e. the general concept of God is so woolly as to be irrefutable, and
> ergo useless in a scientific or rational explanation, other than as the
> 'God of the Gaps' - a 'Deus ex machina' .."for every other problem,
> there is God".
>
> Every worldview, like every mathematical theorem, has its Godelian paradox.
>
That is right.
> Science, which essentially is the analysis of the world as a totally
> causal mechanism, has to either posit cyclicity, or a beginning, a Prime
> Cause. So the God of Science's gaps is whatever 'caused' the big bang..
>
> Stated like that, its easy to see that the concept is 'built in' to the
> worldview that places causality above everything. Absolute causality
> implies a prime cause.
>
> A worldview that takes as its starting point a living intelligence as
> the most fundamental thing there is, and then attempts to deduce the
> personality of that intelligence from the nature of the world, will also
> run into problems. In that large parts of nature seem utterly devoid of
> intelligence.
>
Which of course, just goes to show the futility of the task...
> It doesn't matter which way you slice the cake of experience: Always you
> return to the problem of the knife, and who exactly is doing the
> cutting, and why ;-)
>
I'd think so, too.
The Natural Philosopher
> On Jan 2, 1:29 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> mike3 wrote:
>>> On Dec 31 2008, 12:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>> So what if you just toss your hands in the air, and say, "It is
>>> futile, then,
>>> to try and _know_ what reality _really_ is"?
>> Indeed. That is ultimately the position most philosophers seem to have
>> arrived at.
>>
>
> Hmm.
>
>>> And also, isn't Dawkins wrong too because he dogmatically asserts "God
>>> DOES NOT exist" as "FACT"?
>> I would say so, yes.
>>
>> If he in fact does so.
>>
>> But I am not convinced that is his actual position.
>>
>
> That is interesting. What do you think the real position of Dawkins
> is,
> anyway?
his mission is to more refute the people who assert '100% sure there is'
than anything else.
As much as I sympathise, his methods cut no ice.
The correct approach is as I have described: To show that the god
concept is counterproductive and unecessary in science, and violates the
principles of a correctly formed scientific hypothesis, and whilst it
may have validity in the human comfort zone, that doesn't make it true,
nor does its irrefutability make it so either.
gabydewilde
debunking effort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M6S2brhFE
The way in which you ignored it shows exactly who you are, what you
are and where you are coming from. Address the technology disclosed
infantile fuck. Doesn't seem a lot to ask, do you have your head that
far up your rectum?
For 150 years people have showed this to science farts, this in it
self proves what fucking morons you all are. You are baby killers and
wage slave farmers. I'm not mistaken, you are clearly to fucking
ignorant to even observe the facts. And truth by ignorance just
doesn't exist. You may wish it did but it doesn't.
On Jan 3, 1:31 am, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I really dyslike the "netiquette" format,
> of jumbles of quoting & reply.
Ah, yes, like I mentioned before, I have hundreds if not thousands of
subjects and topics that do interest me. Septics tend to focus on
things they do not like. This is why septics have such boring lives.
Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman KILLED A GUY in his effort debunking a
motor running on noble gases.
At the public display of the Papp/Roser engine in Roser's parking lot
in Torrence, California, in 1968 Feynman was deployed by Caltech
specially to debunk the engine. He made no secret of it.
The modified four cylinder Volvo engine on a test stand in the parking
lot was controlled by engine electronics run from a 120 VAC extension
cord plugged into the building 100 feet away.
Feynman objected to the controller. Papp pulled the plug and gave it
to Feynman, the engine continued to run.
After about two minutes, the engine had not slowed down (running about
3000 rpm, as evidenced by the fan left on the engine to produce a
visible effect) but started to run rough.
Papp explained the controller needed to be plugged back in. Feynman
held the plug above his head out of reach and ridiculed Papp. Papp
grew increasingly nervous and argued with Feynman to plug it back in.
Feynman refused, so Papp yanked the cord from Feynman and plugged it
in.
But he was to late, the engine exploded, killing one bystander.
Feynman accused Papp of placing explosives in the engine so it would
be destroyed before legitimate testing could be done, in order to keep
the "hoax" alive.
Since a fatality occurred, the FBI got involved. No evidence of
explosives was found. Papp sued Feynman and Feynman and Caltech
settled out of court. If it were a hoax, there is no way Caltech would
have settled out of court. It was done so Feynman and Caltech could
save face.
Feynman killed that guy, but you would want to argue he only unplugged
the controller. How detached from reality can you get.
You wouldn't know about it because your research effort is zero. I
suppose you are now going to give us new insights into the engine
which you know nothing about.
Your logic goes something like:
Know nothing = expert
The only reason water fueled cars are interesting is in that EXISTING
cars can be converted to use the fuel. -> http://knol.google.com/k///1yrf1mzjtxzk5/2
For reference I have also designed a car that doesn't use any fuel
using oxymoronic technology that even a dumb fart like you should be
able to understand. -> http://wind-car.go-here.nl/
You can cry hoax by assertion and truth by ignorance but science is
not a Church. You are nothing but a mass murderer fan boy. They cant
be any doubt about it. People die by the millions thanks to ignorant
farty pants like you.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=386753&type=Opinion
"A HUGE amount of polemics has been dedicated to global poverty, and
the relief thereof, but few realize that the majority of the world's
poor are destined to poverty no matter how hard they work."
The Jewnited states of bankruptcy is coming to a theater near you this
summer! We have all the technology but we decided not to use any of it
and eat burgers by the pool in stead. huhuhuhu!!
gabydewilde
>
> "On Livia's advice Augustus told the Senate, half-jokingly, that these
> poor fellows, while obviously they could not be allowed to worship
> the superior deities, Roma and Julius, must not be denied some sort
> of God, however humble." -- Robert Graves -- "I, Claudius"
>
> As a superior deity I therefore decree nobody is allowed to worship me.
> They can worship you if you like.
> Androcles
Ah, finally a good excuse to worship Einstein the divine.
gabydewilde
> you still have to get the energy from some other source.
>
Stop all fusion research!!!
Spookniks has teh answer, it was in the doctrine all along!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9145055D2093A2C0&playnext=1