Do Cranks Recant? [mostly OT]
Mark Q
from objectivism to socialism, from supporting the Yankees to supporting the
Mets, but I don't think I've ever heard about a single crackpot denouncing
his delusional game and becoming a scientist, or at least a true skeptic.
I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even outright cranks,
but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there really examples
of such people?
Mark Q
Patrick Reany
modern "science" has made a wrong turn. That it has
abandoned its TRUE goal of finding God's own explanations
of the behavior of the universe. The schools teach this
doctrine implicitly by ignorance. Most scientists come
to see this goal as incredibly naive, but most cranks
take it as a dogma that needs no justification. And
lacking a need to rationally justify this nutty doctrine
they are incapable of seeing its obvious flaws. So they
never listen to any criticism of their nutty beliefs. So
they feel free to condemn the "Establishment" as
heretical, and they feel justified to go their own way
on that "holy" search for the TRUTH using science. It's
a pipe dream. Worse, it's a damnable illusion. They don't
get it and probably never will.
Once a person reaches adulthood believing this nonsense
it is virtually impossible to reeducated them to reality. It
becomes even harder if they interweave their beliefs about
religion and patriotism into the mix. Then add to that
their own supper inflated egos, and there you have it: The
perfect formula for making a crank with a completely
closed and paranoid mind. That is why cranks rarely
ever recant!
We have to tell people the truth while they are still
young, while they still have an open mind: Physical
theories are free creations of the human mind, and
are not, Not, NOT! ever demonstrable TRUTHS
about the universe. Physical theories either work well
or they don't. And that is really all that science needs
to say about them, particularly in physics. Judgments
about whether theories are true or not lie outside of
science proper and lie within the realm of Natural
Philosophy.
Patrick
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/AJNP_NP.html
Randy M. Dumse
news:3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even outright
> cranks, but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there
> really examples of such people?
Where would the fun in that be?
I am not saying this lightly. Think in psychological terms. Where is the
incentive to abandon the unique idea (meme) which gives special identity in
the universe and supporting their entire self-identity. In short, their
sense of self and self worth is tied up and entwined in their theory being
right.
If they are right, they are the archetypical misunderstood genius, stuggling
against the archtypes of conventional thinking, leading the way to
beneficial reform for all humanity, on the hero's mythological quest, as in
Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" (which was the deeper story
line behind Luke Skywalker's character in Star Wars and a reoccurring theme
in mythology).
If they are wrong, they're just ordinary, failed and stupid to boot.
Where's the incentive in recanting?
Further, how would you ever hear of it? Even if someone did see the light,
why would they broadcast their fall from grace? Wouldn't they slide away
quietly instead? For instance, going from Objectivism to Socialism, at least
you've left one place and arrived at another, you have something new to talk
about. In the recantation you inquire about, how would they describe what
they had converted to? Where is the incentive in shouting, "Ah ha, I have
been wrong, and now have nothing special to say about anything in
particular!"
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Graham Rounce
news:NWMh8.4880$JZ6.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> ...the archetypical misunderstood genius, stuggling
> against the archtypes of conventional thinking, leading the way to
> beneficial reform for all humanity, on the hero's mythological quest, as
in
> Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" (which was the deeper story
> line behind Luke Skywalker's character in Star Wars
Gee! And here's me thinking SW was just a bunch of pretentious BS!
Bob Kolker
Graham Rounce wrote:
>
> Gee! And here's me thinking SW was just a bunch of pretentious BS!
It was pretentious, but apparently not BS.
Bob Kolker
Randy M. Dumse
news:3C87BF7A...@attbi.com...
Let's face it friends, next to sex, mythology sells. The better the
mythology, the deeper the collection plates.
Campbell found this same theme running through so many of the different
cultures and religions he examined, he came to call this hero's journey,
"The Mono Myth". Lucas actually had Campbell consulting on SW's IIRC. Yes,
see:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Campbell+Lucas+Star+Wars
and specifically
http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/myth.html
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mark Q" <crag...@ua.moc.sumirpi> wrote in message news:3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au...
I have been collecting well over 100 crank names in my "green rule"
over the last two years. Two of them still turn up green, but really
stopped talking nonsense and actually engage in trying to refute
other cranks, sometimes with reasonable success.
So I'm inclined to consider them as converted. They probably have
not become scientists, but they seem to be.... healthy.
I won't give their names. If they want, they can reply here and tell
their story, but I won't comment ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Phil
Well gee, if I was a converted crank, would I go around telling everyone that I
used to be a crank? Not likely, so to some extent you simply have a truism, a
case of cause and effect.
The other possibility is that there are in fact several things seriously wrong
with modern science, and once recognized, even at an intuitive level, it becomes
very difficult (short of brain damage) to "un-learn" those insights.
Unless we believe that the scientific method, in its current form, is equivalent
to the "Divine Word of God," then there are bound to be at least a few things
wrong with it, although probably not nearly as much as the cranks think (we
hope). My guess is that both factors combine to make "crank conversion" a highly
unlikely event -- sort of like catching a neutrino.
Phil (the crank?)
Patrick Reany
Phil wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Unless we believe that the scientific method, in its current form, is equivalent
> to the "Divine Word of God," then there are bound to be at least a few things
> wrong with it, although probably not nearly as much as the cranks think (we
> hope).
Care to list those you personally think are plaguing science?
Why is it that people just can't help but frame their misgivings
about science in religious/TRUTH format? What the hell about
science was EVER supposed to be the "Divine Word of God"?
Science is a completely made up thing! It can't be right or
wrong! You either accept it as it is or you don't, but no
Truth can ever come out of it. Science was never designed
to make Truth or even to compete against it.
Science is just a collection of myths that have some practical
use in "understanding," and to some extent, controlling the world
around us.
Patrick
Phil
Patrick Reany wrote:
> Phil wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > Unless we believe that the scientific method, in its current form, is equivalent
> > to the "Divine Word of God," then there are bound to be at least a few things
> > wrong with it, although probably not nearly as much as the cranks think (we
> > hope).
>
> Care to list those you personally think are plaguing science?
Perhaps, but I think that we can, and indeed should, assume that there are some things
wrong, even if I can't list any myself. The alternative would be to say, "if you can't
list anything wrong then there must not be anything wrong," and that *really would* be
in the realm of "divine faith," rather than caution and careful analysis.
In other words, if your question about problems is a serious attempt to examine the
assumptions that underlie modern science, then it deserves a serious answer, but if it
is just a way of dismissing such concerns, then it is a statement of faith, no
different than the statements used by the bishops/inquisitors of Galileo's day to
attack his support of the Copernican theory.
> Why is it that people just can't help but frame their misgivings
> about science in religious/TRUTH format? What the hell about
> science was EVER supposed to be the "Divine Word of God"?
I think I was saying that science should *not* be a matter of divine faith. Maybe I
didn't do a very good job of expressing my point?
> Science is a completely made up thing! It can't be right or
> wrong! You either accept it as it is or you don't, but no
> Truth can ever come out of it. Science was never designed
> to make Truth or even to compete against it.
I am going to disagree with you here. To me, science is an attempt to create models,
analogies, of the inherent structure of nature that does, in fact, cause events to
turn out the way they do. For example, we can model, or describe, the moon as a
spherical object that orbits the earth, with the light of the sun shining on both the
earth and the moon. From this model, it *necessarily follows* that the moon will have
the appearance it does, from new moon to full moon to eclipses. The test, or judge of
this model is twofold: One, does it *necessarily follow* from the most basic
observations, i.e., the most basic truths. Granted that these truths are not absolute,
they nevertheless represent a very high standard of accuracy, reliability, and "the
truth." Two, does the model's predictions match actual observations, and to what
degree? In science, as opposed to mathematics, a "very good fit" with reality (actual
observations) still counts as forward progress in our effort to understand the world
around us.
The main point here is that science has -- or at least should have -- a fundamental
reference that determines its validity, namely the actual results of events around us.
The ability to accurately predict those results is a *reference* that can legitimately
be used to judge our theories, and to conclude whether they are true or false. Is it
perfect? No. But it is as close to reality as we can get, and that means something.
> Science is just a collection of myths that have some practical
> use in "understanding," and to some extent, controlling the world
> around us.
> Patrick
To the extent that "myth" means that our theories are analogies or models, not reality
itself, I agree with you. But to say that they are myths *therefore* there is no truth
in them is, I believe, a "shift error," i.e., the act of taking a conclusion that is
valid from one point of view, unconsciously shifting to a different point of view, and
then mistakenly applying the conclusion there. Yes our theories are myths, but those
myths can have a very high degree of alignment with the reality they represent, or
they can have a low or poor alignment. The "degree of alignment" is not a myth; it can
be tested and verified, and is therefore both meaningful and real.
And the problems with science? There are basically two great schools of thought,
namely dialectic and science. Dialectic is used in debate, politics, and the social
arena. Its arguments do not need to be true, they just need to sound convincing, and
be immune to attack (usually by hiding the fundamental assumptions). Science, on the
other hand, tries to develop models with a very high alignment with reality, with the
actual (usually hidden) structure of nature that causes events to turn out the way
they do. In order to achieve this, the models must have very exposed assumptions for
all to see, both to make the model clearer and to help in exposing errors. The
internal consistency of a theory -- which is great in debates -- tells you absolutely
nothing about the theory's alignment with reality.
In other words, the rules for science and the rules for debate are very, very
different, and if we are to have the finest theories possible, then we * must* use the
rules of science, not debate.
Have you checked, lately, to see if modern science is sticking to this rule? Are you
aware that the modern scientific method is vastly different from the method used by
Galileo, Newton, and (in my opinion) Einstein? A discussion of this can be found in
several articles in a wonderful book, "Reinterpreting Galileo," edited by William
Wallace.
Dialectic can attack both false *and true statements* with equal ease. The modern
scientific method is very different from the "renaissance" scientific method in that
it has developed very effective shields that protect it from the *unfair* assaults of
dialectic. A real achievement, right? However, I have examined this issue (in general,
I mean) for about 15 years, and the conclusion I came to is that the shields of modern
science also act as extremely affective blinders, which prevent modern scientists from
seeing many of the most basic truths that are lying almost literally at their feet.
Naturally you will want proof, and all I can say is that I am working on a series of
*comprehensible* notes (unlike my postings so far, apparently) for exactly that
purpose.
In the meantime you can:
(1) Cut me to shreds in order to "prove me wrong." Oh wait, that's a dialectic
technique that tells you nothing about the actual alignment (or lack thereof) between
my words and reality.
(2) Put forth a general criticism without any supporting examples. Works great in a
debate! Oh wait, that's a dialectic ...
(3) Declare that if there was any truth to this, then someone would have noticed it by
now. A very appealing, internally consistent argument. Oh wait ...
Look at this thread. How many people simply put forth various put-downs of "the
cranks," and how many tried to find the elements of reality that *cause* cranks to
never recant? I was the only one who even tried to put forth a scientific, rather than
a dialectic, response. That is not a good sign. What makes you think that any of you
are truly in the habit of rejecting the use of dialectic techniques, in favor of truly
scientific techniques, especially when those scientific techniques leave you
completely exposed, vulnerable to attack? Do you really think that it is mere
coincidence that Einstein's wife said that although everyone thought he must be this
tower of strength, since he could solve all these problems, "the truth is that he is
the most vulnerable man I have ever known."?
Well, I am not really asking you to respond, I really just want to plant some seeds of
doubt, or perhaps some questions worth following up on. And I really don't mean to
insult you personally; it's just that a real, honest response to your question
includes some pretty harsh judgments of the modern scientific method and, unavoidably,
those who practice it. Should be interesting, nevertheless, to see your response
(assuming you think my ramblings are worth responding to!)
Phil
Patrick Reany
Phil wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Unless we believe that the scientific method, in its current form, is equivalent
> > > to the "Divine Word of God," then there are bound to be at least a few things
> > > wrong with it, although probably not nearly as much as the cranks think (we
> > > hope).
> >
> > Care to list those you personally think are plaguing science?
>
> Perhaps, but I think that we can, and indeed should, assume that there are some things
> wrong, even if I can't list any myself. The alternative would be to say, "if you can't
> list anything wrong then there must not be anything wrong," and that *really would* be
> in the realm of "divine faith," rather than caution and careful analysis.
I suppose that listing faults is one of those "dialectic" arguments.
> In other words, if your question about problems is a serious attempt to examine the
> assumptions that underlie modern science, then it deserves a serious answer, but if it
> is just a way of dismissing such concerns, then it is a statement of faith, no
> different than the statements used by the bishops/inquisitors of Galileo's day to
> attack his support of the Copernican theory.
Good. I want a serious answer.
> > Why is it that people just can't help but frame their misgivings
> > about science in religious/TRUTH format? What the hell about
> > science was EVER supposed to be the "Divine Word of God"?
>
> I think I was saying that science should *not* be a matter of divine faith. Maybe I
> didn't do a very good job of expressing my point?
The way to take the pointless "faith" out of this is to simply
stop treating scientific theories as TRUTH or as possible
TRUTH.
> > Science is a completely made up thing! It can't be right or
> > wrong! You either accept it as it is or you don't, but no
> > Truth can ever come out of it. Science was never designed
> > to make Truth or even to compete against it.
>
> I am going to disagree with you here. To me, science is an attempt to create models,
> analogies, of the inherent structure of nature that does, in fact, cause events to
> turn out the way they do. For example, we can model, or describe, the moon as a
> spherical object that orbits the earth, with the light of the sun shining on both the
> earth and the moon. From this model, it *necessarily follows* that the moon will have
> the appearance it does, from new moon to full moon to eclipses. The test, or judge of
> this model is twofold: One, does it *necessarily follow* from the most basic
> observations, i.e., the most basic truths. Granted that these truths are not absolute,
> they nevertheless represent a very high standard of accuracy, reliability, and "the
> truth." Two, does the model's predictions match actual observations, and to what
> degree? In science, as opposed to mathematics, a "very good fit" with reality (actual
> observations) still counts as forward progress in our effort to understand the world
> around us.
Prove to me that even one human made model is TRUE. By
what standard would you use? This is impossible. To test the
truthfulness of something you need an absolute standard of
truthfulness for comparison. Where are we to get such a standard?
It's an infinite regress or an act of pure personal faith. Dogmatism.
> The main point here is that science has -- or at least should have -- a fundamental
> reference that determines its validity, namely the actual results of events around us.
No. All science needs is to make theories that work. That's
its duty and it does this well. Science itself doesn't have to
be valid; its theories have to be valid. Science just is an
invention. Science is not valid or invalid. These adjectives
have no objective meaning when applied to science.
> The ability to accurately predict those results is a *reference* that can legitimately
> be used to judge our theories, and to conclude whether they are true or false. Is it
> perfect? No. But it is as close to reality as we can get, and that means something.
There is a standard that is neither dogmatic nor
unjustifiable. The purpose of science is to invent
theories that work to organize thought, collect data
into meaningful groups, and make testable predictions.
Notice that all of the above are subjective criteria
in the metaphysical sense, yet still allow for objective
tests in the epistemological sense.
> > Science is just a collection of myths that have some practical
> > use in "understanding," and to some extent, controlling the world
> > around us.
>
> > Patrick
>
> To the extent that "myth" means that our theories are analogies or models, not reality
> itself, I agree with you. But to say that they are myths *therefore* there is no truth
> in them is, I believe, a "shift error,"
I am not interested in possible "truth" in theories. I am
interested only in verifiable "truth" in scientific theories. But
there is no test for such a thing. So I am really not interested
in Truth in science at all in the metaphysical sense.
> i.e., the act of taking a conclusion that is
> valid from one point of view, unconsciously shifting to a different point of view, and
> then mistakenly applying the conclusion there. Yes our theories are myths, but those
> myths can have a very high degree of alignment with the reality they represent, or
> they can have a low or poor alignment. The "degree of alignment" is not a myth; it can
> be tested and verified, and is therefore both meaningful and real.
Alignment only proves that a theory is useful in making
accurate predictions, not that it is true. Physics can never
prove to reverse engineer metaphysics, or what I call
"deep reality." See scientific instrumentalism.
> And the problems with science? There are basically two great schools of thought,
> namely dialectic and science. Dialectic is used in debate, politics, and the social
> arena. Its arguments do not need to be true, they just need to sound convincing, and
> be immune to attack (usually by hiding the fundamental assumptions). Science, on the
> other hand, tries to develop models with a very high alignment with reality, with the
> actual (usually hidden) structure of nature that causes events to turn out the way
> they do. In order to achieve this, the models must have very exposed assumptions for
> all to see, both to make the model clearer and to help in exposing errors. The
> internal consistency of a theory -- which is great in debates -- tells you absolutely
> nothing about the theory's alignment with reality.
>
> In other words, the rules for science and the rules for debate are very, very
> different, and if we are to have the finest theories possible, then we * must* use the
> rules of science, not debate.
They are similar in this respect: They must deal with challenges
put to them.
> Have you checked, lately, to see if modern science is sticking to this rule? Are you
> aware that the modern scientific method is vastly different from the method used by
> Galileo, Newton, and (in my opinion) Einstein? A discussion of this can be found in
> several articles in a wonderful book, "Reinterpreting Galileo," edited by William
> Wallace.
I know Einstein well. He said that: Physical theories are
free creations of the human mind, and are not, however
it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
Thus, if there is no uniqueness of theory, there is also
no meaning to "true" or "false" theory.
To learn about Einstein, don't read Wallace. Read Einstein.
He was a prolific author of essays on his own beliefs
about science. Start with Ideas and Opinions.
> Dialectic can attack both false *and true statements* with equal ease. The modern
> scientific method is very different from the "renaissance" scientific method in that
> it has developed very effective shields that protect it from the *unfair* assaults of
> dialectic. A real achievement, right? However, I have examined this issue (in general,
> I mean) for about 15 years, and the conclusion I came to is that the shields of modern
> science also act as extremely affective blinders, which prevent modern scientists from
> seeing many of the most basic truths that are lying almost literally at their feet.
> Naturally you will want proof, and all I can say is that I am working on a series of
> *comprehensible* notes (unlike my postings so far, apparently) for exactly that
> purpose.
How typical. The old "science has gone astray" lament.
Science evolved, as it necessarily needed to do to be
able to deal with the epistemological reality that science
is not about truth but about theories that work.
Physics evolved. How naive to think that the philosophical
foundations of science were completed by the time of Newton.
Einstein taught us how that science evolved in his book
the Evolution of Physics, coauthored with Infeld. What
actually evolved is the notion of the research program. But
I repeat that Physical theories are free creations of the
human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world.
Einstein explained that he preferred the so-called "principle"
theory rather than the older "constructive" theory. He sought
to educate his generation that physical models follow the
principles of physics, not the other way around!
We are never going to KNOW by use of science whether
light is a particle, a wave, or a wavicle, or even something
else. Science just makes useful models, whose connection
to truth is forever enigmatic, except by faith. Who can prove
that humans make any TRUE models?
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-Infeld-Evolution-Genius.html
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
[snip]
Patrick
Martin Gradwell
Randy M. Dumse <r...@newmicros.com> wrote in message
news:NWMh8.4880$JZ6.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
Consider the case of John Forbes Nash Jr., the subject of the film
"Beautiful Mind".
The following paragraph is from his short autobiography at
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1994/nash-autobio.html
----
"So at the present time I seem to be thinking rationally again
in the style that is characteristic of scientists. However this is
not entirely a matter of joy as if someone returned from physical
disability to good physical health. One aspect of this is that
rationality of thought imposes a limit on a person's concept of
his relation to the cosmos. For example, a non-Zoroastrian could
think of Zarathustra as simply a madman who led millions of naive
followers to adopt a cult of ritual fire worship. But without his
"madness" Zarathustra would necessarily have been only another
of the millions or billions of human individuals who have lived and
then been forgotten."
-----
When a "crank" becomes a "scientist", it doesn't necessarily
mean that the person has changed in any way - only that the
public perception of the person has changed.
However, mental illness, by forcing the mind along
paths which would otherwise be unexplored, can act
as a source of creativity and insight. If this is followed
by recovery, the recovering individual has the opportunity
to explore the consequences of the new insights, to test
their validity, and perhaps to adjust them until they seem
to align with reality.
Maybe the new ideas are obviously invalid and cannot be
repaired, or maybe the recovering individual loses the impetus
required to propel the ideas forwards and decides to quietly
earn a living instead, or maybe he finds that he is irrevocably
labelled as unsound, and gives up for that reason. In these
cases, the "crank" disappears into obscurity, and hardly anyone
notices.
However, to be an acknowledged "genius" it is necessary
to think along untrodden paths, and to be driven and relentless
in the pursuit of an idea. This is not much different from some
forms of madness, and often the difference between a genius
and a madman is the difference in their degree of material success.
The rich or famous ones are geniuses, possibly acknowledged to
be eccentric. The others driven individuals are perceived as cranks.
>
> --
> Randy M. Dumse
>
> Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
Gerry Quinn
>
>Science is a completely made up thing! It can't be right or
>wrong! You either accept it as it is or you don't, but no
>Truth can ever come out of it. Science was never designed
>to make Truth or even to compete against it.
The purpose of science is to understand the physical construction of the
natural world. Nothing less, nothing more.
Thus its purpose is to discover truths. The fact that no truth can be
logically proven true is perfectly irrelevant, any more than eating a
potato is made less satisfactory by the impossibility of a perfect
proof that one is eating a potato.
Scientists accept certain basic axioms about the nature of the universe.
If these axioms are true, science generates truths. If they are false,
science is as meaningless as the twittering of some philosophers.
- Gerry Quinn
Gregory L. Hansen
There are probably an infinite number of axiom sets that can correctly
predict the behavior of things in the physical world. If we find one set
that works, that doesn't mean that axiom set is True. It just means that
axiom set is a model of nature that correctly predicts the behavior of
things in the physical world.
Science is "right" or "wrong" to the extent that we have theories that
predict things. But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
geometry. We have a good model of gravity as a curvature of spacetime,
but that doesn't mean Einstein has peered at the Cosmic Blueprints and
told us what it *really* is, if that's even a sensible question to ask.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Bob Kolker
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
>
> Science is "right" or "wrong" to the extent that we have theories that
> predict things.
> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
> geometry.
In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
Bob Kolker
Phil
> > Perhaps, but I think that we can, and indeed should, assume that there are some things
> > wrong, even if I can't list any myself. The alternative would be to say, "if you can't
> > list anything wrong then there must not be anything wrong," and that *really would* be
> > in the realm of "divine faith," rather than caution and careful analysis.
>
> I suppose that listing faults is one of those "dialectic" arguments.
No, but this response is: it "wins" a debating point, even though I listed several faults
below -- some of which you snipped.
> > In other words, if your question about problems is a serious attempt to examine the
> > assumptions that underlie modern science, then it deserves a serious answer, but if it
> > is just a way of dismissing such concerns, then it is a statement of faith, no
> > different than the statements used by the bishops/inquisitors of Galileo's day to
> > attack his support of the Copernican theory.
>
> Good. I want a serious answer.
Again, see the sections (including the missing ones) below.
> > > Why is it that people just can't help but frame their misgivings
> > > about science in religious/TRUTH format? What the hell about
> > > science was EVER supposed to be the "Divine Word of God"?
> >
> > I think I was saying that science should *not* be a matter of divine faith. Maybe I
> > didn't do a very good job of expressing my point?
>
> The way to take the pointless "faith" out of this is to simply
> stop treating scientific theories as TRUTH or as possible
> TRUTH.
See the next comments.
> > > Science is a completely made up thing! It can't be right or
> > > wrong! You either accept it as it is or you don't, but no
> > > Truth can ever come out of it. Science was never designed
> > > to make Truth or even to compete against it.
> >
> > I am going to disagree with you here. To me, science is an attempt to create models,
> > analogies, of the inherent structure of nature that does, in fact, cause events to
> > turn out the way they do. For example, we can model, or describe, the moon as a
> > spherical object that orbits the earth, with the light of the sun shining on both the
> > earth and the moon. From this model, it *necessarily follows* that the moon will have
> > the appearance it does, from new moon to full moon to eclipses. The test, or judge of
> > this model is twofold: One, does it *necessarily follow* from the most basic
> > observations, i.e., the most basic truths. Granted that these truths are not absolute,
> > they nevertheless represent a very high standard of accuracy, reliability, and "the
> > truth." Two, does the model's predictions match actual observations, and to what
> > degree? In science, as opposed to mathematics, a "very good fit" with reality (actual
> > observations) still counts as forward progress in our effort to understand the world
> > around us.
>
> Prove to me that even one human made model is TRUE. By
> what standard would you use? This is impossible. To test the
> truthfulness of something you need an absolute standard of
> truthfulness for comparison. Where are we to get such a standard?
> It's an infinite regress or an act of pure personal faith. Dogmatism.
I think Gerry Quinn's response is clearest here. Okay, assume you have no absolute truth,
what do you have? Given that you want the clearest, most accurate understanding of the world
around you that you can get, what should you do? You take what we do have and make the best
of it. What that "best is" is the important question.
> > The main point here is that science has -- or at least should have -- a fundamental
> > reference that determines its validity, namely the actual results of events around us.
>
> No. All science needs is to make theories that work. That's
> its duty and it does this well. Science itself doesn't have to
> be valid; its theories have to be valid. Science just is an
> invention. Science is not valid or invalid. These adjectives
> have no objective meaning when applied to science.
I forgot to mention another common debate technique, namely "dogmatic errors." This is where
you assume that *since* your point of view is true, *therefore* all other points of view are
false. A good example would be to say that since air resistance does affect the flight path
of an artillery shell, therefore any claims about gravity affecting it are nonsense. You
seem to think that because you have an internally consistent argument about what science is,
therefore it cannot be anything else, nor do any other points of view apply to science.
> > The ability to accurately predict those results is a *reference* that can legitimately
> > be used to judge our theories, and to conclude whether they are true or false. Is it
> > perfect? No. But it is as close to reality as we can get, and that means something.
>
> There is a standard that is neither dogmatic nor
> unjustifiable. The purpose of science is to invent
> theories that work to organize thought, collect data
> into meaningful groups, and make testable predictions.
> Notice that all of the above are subjective criteria
> in the metaphysical sense, yet still allow for objective
> tests in the epistemological sense.
Now I agree with you, except that I again don't think that you have the entire picture
contained in your view of science.
> > > Science is just a collection of myths that have some practical
> > > use in "understanding," and to some extent, controlling the world
> > > around us.
> >
> > > Patrick
> >
> > To the extent that "myth" means that our theories are analogies or models, not reality
> > itself, I agree with you. But to say that they are myths *therefore* there is no truth
> > in them is, I believe, a "shift error,"
>
> I am not interested in possible "truth" in theories. I am
> interested only in verifiable "truth" in scientific theories. But
> there is no test for such a thing. So I am really not interested
> in Truth in science at all in the metaphysical sense.
I believe, completely, that you are not interested in such things.
> > i.e., the act of taking a conclusion that is
> > valid from one point of view, unconsciously shifting to a different point of view, and
> > then mistakenly applying the conclusion there. Yes our theories are myths, but those
> > myths can have a very high degree of alignment with the reality they represent, or
> > they can have a low or poor alignment. The "degree of alignment" is not a myth; it can
> > be tested and verified, and is therefore both meaningful and real.
>
> Alignment only proves that a theory is useful in making
> accurate predictions, not that it is true. Physics can never
> prove to reverse engineer metaphysics, or what I call
> "deep reality." See scientific instrumentalism.
Does it necessarily follow that since alignment proves that a theory is useful in making
accurate predictions, that that is all that alignment is good for?
> > And the problems with science? There are basically two great schools of thought,
> > namely dialectic and science. Dialectic is used in debate, politics, and the social
> > arena. Its arguments do not need to be true, they just need to sound convincing, and
> > be immune to attack (usually by hiding the fundamental assumptions). Science, on the
> > other hand, tries to develop models with a very high alignment with reality, with the
> > actual (usually hidden) structure of nature that causes events to turn out the way
> > they do. In order to achieve this, the models must have very exposed assumptions for
> > all to see, both to make the model clearer and to help in exposing errors. The
> > internal consistency of a theory -- which is great in debates -- tells you absolutely
> > nothing about the theory's alignment with reality.
> >
> > In other words, the rules for science and the rules for debate are very, very
> > different, and if we are to have the finest theories possible, then we * must* use the
> > rules of science, not debate.
>
> They are similar in this respect: They must deal with challenges
> put to them.
So? Does the fact that this viewpoint is true mean that my concerns are not?
> > Have you checked, lately, to see if modern science is sticking to this rule? Are you
> > aware that the modern scientific method is vastly different from the method used by
> > Galileo, Newton, and (in my opinion) Einstein? A discussion of this can be found in
> > several articles in a wonderful book, "Reinterpreting Galileo," edited by William
> > Wallace.
>
> I know Einstein well. He said that: Physical theories are
> free creations of the human mind, and are not, however
> it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world.
>
> Thus, if there is no uniqueness of theory, there is also
> no meaning to "true" or "false" theory.
>
> To learn about Einstein, don't read Wallace. Read Einstein.
> He was a prolific author of essays on his own beliefs
> about science. Start with Ideas and Opinions.
You are aware, then, that he said that modern scientists were making a serious mistake by
not being familiar with the history of science. You are also aware that he spent a great
deal of time going over Galileo's "Two New Sciences" in great detail, thereby gaining even
more familiarity with the renaissance scientific method. You also must know that he said
that if we want to learn something about the methods of modern physicists, we should stick
to the following rule; observe their actions and ignore their words. Is it possible, do you
think, that the words he was saying to ignore sound a hell of a lot like yours? Nope, if you
want to check on the methods of science, you don't collect a bunch a stupid sayings that are
merely bulletproof in arguments, you go to the *assumptions* of science, and see if they
really serve you best in the goal of obtaining the most accurate, clear, and easy to correct
models of nature possible. And the *last* thing that Einstein would have said was to "Listen
only to my (divine) words, and don't do any checking of your own."
> > Dialectic can attack both false *and true statements* with equal ease. The modern
> > scientific method is very different from the "renaissance" scientific method in that
> > it has developed very effective shields that protect it from the *unfair* assaults of
> > dialectic. A real achievement, right? However, I have examined this issue (in general,
> > I mean) for about 15 years, and the conclusion I came to is that the shields of modern
> > science also act as extremely affective blinders, which prevent modern scientists from
> > seeing many of the most basic truths that are lying almost literally at their feet.
> > Naturally you will want proof, and all I can say is that I am working on a series of
> > *comprehensible* notes (unlike my postings so far, apparently) for exactly that
> > purpose.
>
> How typical. The old "science has gone astray" lament.
> Science evolved, as it necessarily needed to do to be
> able to deal with the epistemological reality that science
> is not about truth but about theories that work.
A dialectic cut-down, followed by the assertion that since science *is* such-and-such,
*therefore* it cannot be anything else. Boring.
> Physics evolved. How naive to think that the philosophical
> foundations of science were completed by the time of Newton.
> Einstein taught us how that science evolved in his book
> the Evolution of Physics, coauthored with Infeld. What
> actually evolved is the notion of the research program. But
> I repeat that Physical theories are free creations of the
> human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
> determined by the external world.
I said that the philosophical foundations of science were different, not completed, in
Newton's time. It sounds much better in a debate, however, if you ignore that minor detail,
claim that we have "evolved" past Newton, and skip the possibility that some of the
differences may not have been for the better -- at least, if by better you mean better
science, not better debate.
> Einstein explained that he preferred the so-called "principle"
> theory rather than the older "constructive" theory. He sought
> to educate his generation that physical models follow the
> principles of physics, not the other way around!
We read Einstein differently. What was he doing when he put forth his explanation for the
Brownian motion? He was saying that it *necessarily follows*, from observations of the
Brownian motion, that air is composed of molecules. This is classic renaissance science in
that it deduces conclusions about the inherent, but hidden, structure of nature from things
which are not hidden, which we can perceive.
> We are never going to KNOW by use of science whether
> light is a particle, a wave, or a wavicle, or even something
> else. Science just makes useful models, whose connection
> to truth is forever enigmatic, except by faith. Who can prove
> that humans make any TRUE models?
>
> http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-Infeld-Evolution-Genius.html
I own a copy of Einstein-Infeld. If you think that it contains a complete review of
Einstein's thoughts on science then I think you are in for a surprise.
> http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
???
> [snip]
>
> Patrick
Look Patrick, you have a view of science, a very defensible view (which probably means that
its assumptions are well hidden), and you believe in it. But no matter how consistent your
view of science, you are *never* going to prove to me that my thoughts and conclusions about
science are wrong simply because your point of view is a legitimate one. Again, proving that
your point of view is valid does *not* prove that other points of view are invalid. My
criticisms of modern science (including the fact that its followers tend to be unaware of
shift errors and dogmatic errors) are not falsified by "sticking to your guns" on this
matter. You would have to show that an effort to obtain accurate, vulnerable models of
nature (vulnerable = exposed assumptions, for better clarity and for ease in detecting
errors) is harmed by shifting from your view of science to mine. I have given you example
after example of errors and bad habits that (I claim) are common in the modern scientific
method, problems which (I claim) reduce our ability to obtain first-rate models of nature.
Why waste your time trying to "convert" me when I am obviously hopeless? I clearly just do
not see "the true light." I have this weird delusion that modern science may have decayed,
relative to the renaissance scientific method, due to the substitution of dialectic
concerns, rather than reality, as a primary reference. Have you checked this for yourself?
Do you plan to check? Or are you just going to continue to defend "the true faith?"
Now, if you think that I am just nuts, then I would not bother to check up on the
assumptions of the modern scientific method, because there is no need. However, checking the
assumptions of the modern scientific method does *not* mean verifying that its arguments are
internally consistent; it means verifying that its assumptions do the best job possible of
leading to accurate, vulnerable models of nature. Of course, if you just want to have
theories that can withstand unfair dialectic assault, then making theories vulnerable by
making their assumptions extremely clear is insane; it really depends on what your goal is.
In other words, you do not have to *prove* that I am wrong. You can conclude that I am
crazy, and forget about my thoughts and concerns. That is a legitimate, scientific,
decision, and I will not and should not criticize you for it. We all have to draw the line
somewhere in terms of how much time we have to verify common assumptions and beliefs. But if
you think that you can prove my thoughts wrong simply by showing that your own thoughts are
internally consistent, then we disagree on what does and does not constitute valid science.
Phil
Oriel36
> Have you checked, lately, to see if modern science is sticking to this rule? Are you
> aware that the modern scientific method is vastly different from the method used by
> Galileo, Newton, and (in my opinion) Einstein? A discussion of this can be found in
> several articles in a wonderful book, "Reinterpreting Galileo," edited by William
> Wallace.
Phil,
Einstein's work is mathematical and forms the endpoint of intuitive
thinking in the study of nature and is known today only by its
absense.Most of the earlier scientists kept a balance between
intuitive and the mathematical,Newton was more mathematical than
intuitive and Pascal probably existed on the intuitive side but again
mathematics and physics has found itself in a mathematical rut that
developed out of the Newtonian method.
This forum exists for the simple reason that the balance between
intuition and mathematics was lost by the early 1900's,the self
correcting mechanism that would have halted a mathematical work from
swamping the intuitive sense was no longer in place,suddenly the
mathematical became the intuitive and the world has paid dearly for
that.
Today,because relativity won out,the mathematical and the intuitive is
now defined as physics and metaphysics,the balance that once existed
in the individual is now consigned to seperate departments will little
ties between the two or a grudging acknowledgement from the physics
side so it can use words like 'elegant','mysterious',' ghostly' etc to
promote the mathematical side.
I always try to let the words of Pacsal do the talking and it is no
surprise that any response has either been hostile or the passage
considered meaningless.Here is that passage again.
'The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind'
"In one the principles are obvious,but remote from ordinary usage,so
that from want of practice we have difficulty turning our heads that
way;but once we turn our heads the principles can be fully seen;and it
would take a thoroughly unsound mind to draw false conclusionsfrom
principles so patent that they can hardly be missed.
But with the intuitive mind,the principles are in ordinary usage and
there for all to see.There is no need to turn our heads,or strain
ourselves,it is only a question of good sight,but it must be good;for
the principles are so intricate and numerous that it is almost
impossible to miss some.Now the omission of one principle can lead to
an error,and so one needs very clear sight to see all the principles
as well as an accurate mind to avoid drawing false conclusion from
known principles.
All mathematicians would therefore be intuitive if they had good sight
because they do not draw false conclusions from principles that they
know.And intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could adapt
their sight to the unfamiliar principles of mathematics.
Thus the reason why certain intuitive minds are not mathematical is
that they are quite unable to apply themselves to the principles of
mathematics,but the reason why mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they cannot see what is in front of them;for being accustomed to
the clearcut,obvious principles of mathematics and to draw no
conclusions until they have clearly seen and handled all their
principles,they become lost in matters requiring intuition,whoes
principles cannot be handled in that way.These principles can hardly
be seen,they are perceived instinctively rather than seen and it is
with endless difficulty that they can be communicated to those who do
not perceive it for themselves.These things are so delicate and
numerous that it takes a sense of great delicacy and precision to
perceive them and judge correctly and accurately from this
perception;most often it is not possible to set it out logically as in
mathematics because the necessary principles are not ready at hand and
it would be an endless task to undertake.THE THING MUST BE SEEN ALL AT
ONCE ,AT A GLANCE,AND NOT AS A RESULT OF PROGRESSIVE REASONING,AT
LEAST UP TO A POINT.Thus it is rare for the mathematicians to be
intuitive or the intuitive to be mathematicians,because mathematicians
try to treat these intuitive matters mathematically and make
themselves ridiculous by trying to begin with definitions followed by
principles,which is not the way to proceed in this kind of
reasoning.It is not that the mind does not do this,but it does so
tacitly,naturally and artlessly,for it is beyond any man to express it
and given to very few to apprehend it.Intuitive minds,on the
contrary,being thus accustomed to judge at a glance are taken aback
when presented with propositions of which they understand nothing (and
of which the necessary preliminaries are definitions and principles so
barren that they are not used to looking at them in such detail) and
consequently feel repelled and disgusted.
But unsound minds are neither intuitive or mathematical.
Mathematicians who are merely mathematicians therefore reason soundly
so long as everything is explained to them by definitions and
principles,otherwise they are unsound and intolerable,because they
reason soundly only from clearly defined principles.
And intuitive minds which are merely intuitive lack the patience to go
right into the first principles of speculative and imaginative matters
which they have never seen in practice and are quite outside ordinary
usage."
Joe Fischer
: "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
:> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
:> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
:> geometry.
:
: In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
No, you can't, no we can't, nobody can say
for sure.
But gravity is probably the only phenomenon
which is such a puzzle.
But I will say for sure, any gravity theory
that requires a force to be exerted to produce the
observed freefall, is wrong without question.
The problem with this, is that essentially
all scientists either do believe, or will revert
to the belief that a force is needed to produce
the observed freefall.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Gregory L. Hansen
Joe Fischer <grav...@shel1l.iglou.com> wrote:
>Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>: "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>:> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
>:> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
>:> geometry.
>:
>: In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
>
> No, you can't, no we can't, nobody can say
>for sure.
That's the one, the only thing we actually can say, Joe. We can say, for
instance, that Maxwell's lumeniferous aether theory is wrong, it's dead.
It's an animated cadaver walking around on Usenet, but it's still dead.
That doesn't mean some non-Maxwellian neo-aether doesn't exist. But a
non-Maxwellian neo-aether is not the same theory that Maxwell held.
Maxwell's aether is kaput, other aether theories need not be.
Phil
I agree, Pascal's thoughts on the matter are pretty good. What baffles me is why this seems
so outrageous to many. After all, what are we really talking about? Basic, ordinary
questions concerning how we think, our habits, strengths, and limitations. Gee, do you think
we should take these features into account when trying to practice top-quality science? Do
you think we should check, from time to time, to see whether we have gone astray, or if a
new, powerful tool is within reach?
What is really weird, however, is the uncanny resemblance between the attacks of the
inquisitors against Galileo, for questioning the Divine Word of God, and the attacks of the
true believers of today, for questioning the Divine Word of Einstein. Both get hysterical,
both assume that we are committing major crimes... and neither group accepts the possibility
that we are simply trying to check things, and see if we can get a little closer to the
truth. How Einstein hated this attitude! But no one remembers that.
Well, I will have to back off a bit, because there are many good people here who simply get
frustrated with the real loons -- are there are a few, no doubt -- so I cannot (or should
not) get too judgmental when they assume that anyone who tries to carefully check the
current assumptions and beliefs of science falls into the "loon" category.
However, having said that, it really should not be as difficult as it is to have a sane,
calm discussion about the fundamental assumptions of relativity, science, etc., and my own
conclusion is that the "overall" structure of modern science is extremely weak in this area.
From another point of view, I could say that modern science is very good at defending itself
from unfair attacks, but frighteningly weak when it comes to any sort of a "self-test," or
"self-check." That needs work, and both we and science will be much better off if that
changes.
Phil
Bob Kolker
Joe Fischer wrote:
>
> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> : "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
> :> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
> :> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
> :> geometry.
> :
> : In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
>
> No, you can't, no we can't, nobody can say
> for sure.
>
If the theory predicts something that is verified to be untrue, the
theory is broken. If the theory produces a contradiction, it is broken.
Bob Kolker
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer <grav...@shel1l.iglou.com> wrote:
:>Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
:>: "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
:>:> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
:>:> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
:>:> geometry.
:>:
:>: In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
:>
:> No, you can't, no we can't, nobody can say
:>for sure.
:
: That's the one, the only thing we actually can say, Joe. We can say, for
: instance, that Maxwell's lumeniferous aether theory is wrong, it's dead.
: It's an animated cadaver walking around on Usenet, but it's still dead.
Ok, I guess Bob may have meant that we can
never say when a theory is right, therefore we can
only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
: That doesn't mean some non-Maxwellian neo-aether doesn't exist. But a
: non-Maxwellian neo-aether is not the same theory that Maxwell held.
: Maxwell's aether is kaput, other aether theories need not be.
You keep using dirty words. :-) Actually,
it is likely that most theories have something right,
and I think it is wrong to put a theory in a cabinet
and never open the door to look at it.
Newtonian mechanics is right, as long as you
don't use it where gravity is present, as long as you
don't use it where high relative speed is involved,
as long as you don't use it near great masses, etc....
So we may never be able to say a theory is
right, for sure, but we can identify where each
useful theory is right, and use just that part.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Bob Kolker
Joe Fischer wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I guess Bob may have meant that we can
> never say when a theory is right, therefore we can
> only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
That is precisely what I meant to say.
Bob Kolker
>
Joe Fischer
:Joe Fischer wrote:
:> Bob Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
:> : "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
:> :> But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
:> :> in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
:> :> geometry.
:> :
:> : In point of fact, we can only say definitely when a theory is wrong.
:>
:> No, you can't, no we can't, nobody can say
:> for sure.
:
: If the theory predicts something that is verified to be untrue, the
: theory is broken.
No, a theory is never broken, and even if that
were true, it would be a mistake to consider that theory
broken.
: If the theory produces a contradiction, it is broken.
No, at least not until it is certain the data
is right, and atleast not until it is certain that the
experiment was done correctly.
I am not a trained scientist, but when a salesman
for a big lab wquipment sales company showed me a PH meter,
and claimed it was not functioning because when he used
a solution of 7.0 made for calibration, he could not get
the meter to move with the calibration knob.
After I told him he couldn't use a 7.0 solution,
as the calibration process worked on percentage away
from neutral, he called the main office, and they
agreed they were sending out the wrong solutions,
and would send both 3.0 and 10.0 solutions to use.
I just saw a news conference on the GRACE
gravity dual satellite project, and one the experts
said he used gravimeters to measure gravity around
a mountain, and calculated what his answer should
be, and deduced the core of the mountain must have
a large salt deposit, as the measurements were
much lower than what he calculated.
But I question his assumption, because
I know the gravity of all mountains is much less
than calculated, in fact, usually about half
the calculated amount.
It is not possible to say anything for
sure, and all theories and all data should be
looked at occasionally.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Bob Kolker
Joe Fischer wrote:
>
>
> No, a theory is never broken, and even if that
> were true, it would be a mistake to consider that theory
> broken.
>
> : If the theory produces a contradiction, it is broken.
>
> No, at least not until it is certain the data
> is right, and atleast not until it is certain that the
> experiment was done correctly.
The assumption was that the observations and experiments which refute
the theory are sound, and no auxillary hypothesis consistent with the
theory could save it. I am sorry for not saying so, explicitly.
I am thinking of the way Uranus was discovered. Since Neptune was moving
in an anomolous orbit either Newtonian Gravity was off or there was
another (yet to be seen) planet purturbing Neptune. And so it worked
out. When the same trick was applied to Mercury to account for its
anomolous precession of perihelion, the trick did not work. Newtonian
Gravity is broken. It is not quite right.
HOWEVER, if a theory does predict correctly there is no assurance that
some set of circumstance will not be found in the future that will break
the theory. And that is why we can never show that our theories are
right. Only that they are wrong.
The BEST you can say of a theory, is that it has predicted correctly, so
far.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
Phil wrote:
> Gerald,
>
> I agree, Pascal's thoughts on the matter are pretty good. What baffles me is why this seems
> so outrageous to many. After all, what are we really talking about? Basic, ordinary
> questions concerning how we think, our habits, strengths, and limitations. Gee, do you think
> we should take these features into account when trying to practice top-quality science? Do
> you think we should check, from time to time, to see whether we have gone astray, or if a
> new, powerful tool is within reach?
Gone astray according to what standard? Define "top-quality science."
> What is really weird, however, is the uncanny resemblance between the attacks of the
> inquisitors against Galileo, for questioning the Divine Word of God, and the attacks of the
> true believers of today, for questioning the Divine Word of Einstein. Both get hysterical,
> both assume that we are committing major crimes... and neither group accepts the possibility
> that we are simply trying to check things, and see if we can get a little closer to the
> truth. How Einstein hated this attitude! But no one remembers that.
What true believers? What hysteria? Please give Einstein quotes
with references.
> Well, I will have to back off a bit, because there are many good people here who simply get
> frustrated with the real loons -- are there are a few, no doubt -- so I cannot (or should
> not) get too judgmental when they assume that anyone who tries to carefully check the
> current assumptions and beliefs of science falls into the "loon" category.
What particular assumptions are those?
>
> However, having said that, it really should not be as difficult as it is to have a sane,
> calm discussion about the fundamental assumptions of relativity, science, etc., and my own
> conclusion is that the "overall" structure of modern science is extremely weak in this area.
Of course, this is not really the correct forum for this.
You're talking natural philosophy or meta-science. I
like this stuff myself, but it is only appropriate here,
I believe, as it relates to people's misconceptions about
relativity. Certainly misconceptions about the nature of
scientific theories generally can lead to misconceptions
about Einstein's theories in particular.
Patrick
Phil
> Phil wrote:
>
> > Gerald,
> >
> > I agree, Pascal's thoughts on the matter are pretty good. What baffles me is why this seems
> > so outrageous to many. After all, what are we really talking about? Basic, ordinary
> > questions concerning how we think, our habits, strengths, and limitations. Gee, do you think
> > we should take these features into account when trying to practice top-quality science? Do
> > you think we should check, from time to time, to see whether we have gone astray, or if a
> > new, powerful tool is within reach?
>
> Gone astray according to what standard? Define "top-quality science."
The kind god would approve of, or if you prefer, the kind that leads to conclusions about which a
race of super inlelligent beings would say, given the data at hand, those were the most
intelligent, accurate conclusions that could be reached.
> > What is really weird, however, is the uncanny resemblance between the attacks of the
> > inquisitors against Galileo, for questioning the Divine Word of God, and the attacks of the
> > true believers of today, for questioning the Divine Word of Einstein. Both get hysterical,
> > both assume that we are committing major crimes... and neither group accepts the possibility
> > that we are simply trying to check things, and see if we can get a little closer to the
> > truth. How Einstein hated this attitude! But no one remembers that.
>
> What true believers? What hysteria? Please give Einstein quotes
> with references.
No need, because you are very familiar with Einstein. Remember how he hated the dogmatic attitude
which which the schools tended to "force-feed" the beliefs of the time into their students? He
said, after he got his degree, that he could barely think about physics for a year because he was
so revolted by the "accept the great truths here without question" attitude of (most of) his
teachers. Seriously, I may go to the trouble to look some of this up, but if it is just to win an
argument with you, frankly I'm not interested. You are welcome to "win" and say that I couldn't
back up my claims. If you can be more specific about what you want, I have books by Zahar,
Einstein, and many others that contain a lot of Einstein's "philosophical" ideas and attitudes, so
I may can help you.
> > Well, I will have to back off a bit, because there are many good people here who simply get
> > frustrated with the real loons -- are there are a few, no doubt -- so I cannot (or should
> > not) get too judgmental when they assume that anyone who tries to carefully check the
> > current assumptions and beliefs of science falls into the "loon" category.
>
> What particular assumptions are those?
What are the assumptions that lie behind our current physical theories? You are aware, are you
not, that all theories include a set of assumptions or basic beliefs? Many of these are pretty
reliable, but they are assumptions nevertheless. GR includes many assumptions that are still being
tested today, as they should be. Not because it is "suspect," but because that is how science
should be done.
> > However, having said that, it really should not be as difficult as it is to have a sane,
> > calm discussion about the fundamental assumptions of relativity, science, etc., and my own
> > conclusion is that the "overall" structure of modern science is extremely weak in this area.
>
> Of course, this is not really the correct forum for this.
> You're talking natural philosophy or meta-science. I
> like this stuff myself, but it is only appropriate here,
> I believe, as it relates to people's misconceptions about
> relativity. Certainly misconceptions about the nature of
> scientific theories generally can lead to misconceptions
> about Einstein's theories in particular.
>
> Patrick
Now here I mostly agree with you, although there may be one exception. If some meta-science issue
has led scientists down a path that is either faulty or at least tends to produce confusion, then
it may be necessary to examine that path in order to "back up, find the right path, and start
making some real forward progress again." In other words, misconceptions can lead to confusion
*about* a theory, but they can also lead to confusion *within* the theory, and it is possible that
the only way such mistakes will even be seen is if we look at the faulty views of science
(assuming such beasts exist) that led to those mistakes.
Phil
Patrick Reany
Phil wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Prove to me that even one human made model is TRUE. By
> > what standard would you use? This is impossible. To test the
> > truthfulness of something you need an absolute standard of
> > truthfulness for comparison. Where are we to get such a standard?
> > It's an infinite regress or an act of pure personal faith. Dogmatism.
>
> I think Gerry Quinn's response is clearest here.
Neither you nor Gerry made a proof that even one human
made model is TRUE.
> Okay, assume you have no absolute truth,
> what do you have?
Where do you get this stuff? I do NOT assume that there is
no absolute TRUTH. I merely maintain that absolute truth
and TRUTH of any metaphysical meaning is NOT the goal of
modern science.
> Given that you want the clearest, most accurate understanding of the world
> around you that you can get, what should you do?
Whatever "understanding" of the world you get, you get
it subjectively. Where is this absolute knowledge you have
about how to found science so that it also produces ONLY
absolute knowledge? You don't! Science is 100% a made-up thing!
Understanding is theory dependent!! Understanding is also
research program dependent!!
> You take what we do have and make the best
> of it. What that "best is" is the important question.
This is so typical of our discussion so far. You pretend
to allude to important things, but you fail to just come out
and say what it is. If you think you have a notion of this
"best" thing then just tell us plainly what it is. In the future,
don't allude, just say. You aren't a member of the
Illuminati are you? ;-)
> > > The main point here is that science has -- or at least should have -- a fundamental
> > > reference that determines its validity, namely the actual results of events around us.
> >
> > No. All science needs is to make theories that work. That's
> > its duty and it does this well. Science itself doesn't have to
> > be valid; its theories have to be valid. Science just is an
> > invention. Science is not valid or invalid. These adjectives
> > have no objective meaning when applied to science.
>
> I forgot to mention another common debate technique, namely "dogmatic errors." This is where
> you assume that *since* your point of view is true, *therefore* all other points of view are
> false. A good example would be to say that since air resistance does affect the flight path
> of an artillery shell, therefore any claims about gravity affecting it are nonsense. You
> seem to think that because you have an internally consistent argument about what science is,
> therefore it cannot be anything else, nor do any other points of view apply to science.
You're the dogmatic one. You make these vacuous claims that
there exists some preferred reference frame for understanding the
true reality, but you do NOT tell us what it is, or why it is different
than just whatever YOU personally think it should be, or even if
such a concept has any a priori merit at all. Don't allude, just say.
> > > The ability to accurately predict those results is a *reference* that can legitimately
> > > be used to judge our theories, and to conclude whether they are true or false. Is it
> > > perfect? No. But it is as close to reality as we can get, and that means something.
> >
> > There is a standard that is neither dogmatic nor
> > unjustifiable. The purpose of science is to invent
> > theories that work to organize thought, collect data
> > into meaningful groups, and make testable predictions.
> > Notice that all of the above are subjective criteria
> > in the metaphysical sense, yet still allow for objective
> > tests in the epistemological sense.
>
> Now I agree with you, except that I again don't think that you have the entire picture
> contained in your view of science.
Don't allude to the missing parts, just tell us what they are.
> > > > Science is just a collection of myths that have some practical
> > > > use in "understanding," and to some extent, controlling the world
> > > > around us.
> > >
> > > > Patrick
> > >
> > > To the extent that "myth" means that our theories are analogies or models, not reality
> > > itself, I agree with you. But to say that they are myths *therefore* there is no truth
> > > in them is, I believe, a "shift error,"
> >
> > I am not interested in possible "truth" in theories. I am
> > interested only in verifiable "truth" in scientific theories. But
> > there is no test for such a thing. So I am really not interested
> > in Truth in science at all in the metaphysical sense.
>
> I believe, completely, that you are not interested in such things.
And you are not interested in backing up your high and might
claims of this preferred epistemological frame of reference that
gives humans the TRUTH.
>
>
> > > i.e., the act of taking a conclusion that is
> > > valid from one point of view, unconsciously shifting to a different point of view, and
> > > then mistakenly applying the conclusion there. Yes our theories are myths, but those
> > > myths can have a very high degree of alignment with the reality they represent, or
> > > they can have a low or poor alignment. The "degree of alignment" is not a myth; it can
> > > be tested and verified, and is therefore both meaningful and real.
> >
> > Alignment only proves that a theory is useful in making
> > accurate predictions, not that it is true. Physics can never
> > prove to reverse engineer metaphysics, or what I call
> > "deep reality." See scientific instrumentalism.
>
> Does it necessarily follow that since alignment proves that a theory is useful in making
> accurate predictions, that that is all that alignment is good for?
No, but all these uses are necessarily within science itself.
People can take these subjective theories and make of them
what they will within their own natural philosophies, but
science is NOT responsible for their chimerical notions
of TRUTH.
> > > And the problems with science? There are basically two great schools of thought,
> > > namely dialectic and science. Dialectic is used in debate, politics, and the social
> > > arena. Its arguments do not need to be true, they just need to sound convincing, and
> > > be immune to attack (usually by hiding the fundamental assumptions). Science, on the
> > > other hand, tries to develop models with a very high alignment with reality, with the
> > > actual (usually hidden) structure of nature that causes events to turn out the way
> > > they do. In order to achieve this, the models must have very exposed assumptions for
> > > all to see, both to make the model clearer and to help in exposing errors. The
> > > internal consistency of a theory -- which is great in debates -- tells you absolutely
> > > nothing about the theory's alignment with reality.
> > >
> > > In other words, the rules for science and the rules for debate are very, very
> > > different, and if we are to have the finest theories possible, then we * must* use the
> > > rules of science, not debate.
> >
> > They are similar in this respect: They must deal with challenges
> > put to them.
>
> So? Does the fact that this viewpoint is true mean that my concerns are not?
No. Your problem is that you try to make your personal
opinions have the validation of science itself. Science
does not and cannot produce verifiable TRUTH. Why do
people believe that science can produce verifiable TRUTH?
Just quote from Einstein and give references and stop prefacing
your allusions. Please get to the damn point or waste someone
else's time. If you don't know how to effectively quote from
Einstein look at my website -- I did it quite a lot there. Get
a clue how it's done effectively.
> > > Dialectic can attack both false *and true statements* with equal ease. The modern
> > > scientific method is very different from the "renaissance" scientific method in that
> > > it has developed very effective shields that protect it from the *unfair* assaults of
> > > dialectic. A real achievement, right? However, I have examined this issue (in general,
> > > I mean) for about 15 years, and the conclusion I came to is that the shields of modern
> > > science also act as extremely affective blinders, which prevent modern scientists from
> > > seeing many of the most basic truths that are lying almost literally at their feet.
> > > Naturally you will want proof, and all I can say is that I am working on a series of
> > > *comprehensible* notes (unlike my postings so far, apparently) for exactly that
> > > purpose.
> >
> > How typical. The old "science has gone astray" lament.
> > Science evolved, as it necessarily needed to do to be
> > able to deal with the epistemological reality that science
> > is not about truth but about theories that work.
>
> A dialectic cut-down, followed by the assertion that since science *is* such-and-such,
> *therefore* it cannot be anything else. Boring.
Yes, this lecture on dialectic is boring, and pointless. I challenged
you to tell us plainly what this preferred reference frame is that
science can use to produce TRUTH. We're still waiting.
>
>
> > Physics evolved. How naive to think that the philosophical
> > foundations of science were completed by the time of Newton.
> > Einstein taught us how that science evolved in his book
> > the Evolution of Physics, coauthored with Infeld. What
> > actually evolved is the notion of the research program. But
> > I repeat that Physical theories are free creations of the
> > human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
> > determined by the external world.
>
> I said that the philosophical foundations of science were different, not completed, in
> Newton's time. It sounds much better in a debate, however, if you ignore that minor detail,
> claim that we have "evolved" past Newton, and skip the possibility that some of the
> differences may not have been for the better -- at least, if by better you mean better
> science, not better debate.
Dammit, not again! Just tell us what the hell these "actual"
"not better differences" are. Just how many posts are you
going to make until you tell us?
>
>
> > Einstein explained that he preferred the so-called "principle"
> > theory rather than the older "constructive" theory. He sought
> > to educate his generation that physical models follow the
> > principles of physics, not the other way around!
>
> We read Einstein differently.
No kidding?
> What was he doing when he put forth his explanation for the
> Brownian motion?
I'll tell you for all the good it will do: He was freely inventing
a model and then working with it.
> He was saying that it *necessarily follows*, from observations of the
> Brownian motion, that air is composed of molecules. This is classic renaissance science in
> that it deduces conclusions about the inherent, but hidden, structure of nature from things
> which are not hidden, which we can perceive.
Yes, Einstein often mixed up his personal natural philosophy
with his actual science. I don't like this, and one has to
know the distinction less one such as you falls victim
to its slyness. He was generally less cautious to mix things
up in his essays than in his physics-proper papers. Know
the difference.
> > We are never going to KNOW by use of science whether
> > light is a particle, a wave, or a wavicle, or even something
> > else. Science just makes useful models, whose connection
> > to truth is forever enigmatic, except by faith. Who can prove
> > that humans make any TRUE models?
> >
> > http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Einstein-Infeld-Evolution-Genius.html
>
> I own a copy of Einstein-Infeld. If you think that it contains a complete review of
> Einstein's thoughts on science then I think you are in for a surprise.
I do not. Which part of it do you dispute?
>
>
> > http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
>
> ???
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > Patrick
>
> Look Patrick, you have a view of science, a very defensible view (which probably means that
> its assumptions are well hidden),
More crafty allusions. Do you ever actually say anything
concrete? You have a talent for seeming to say things
without actually saying anything at all. Are you out to win
the 2002 obfuscation award?
> and you believe in it. But no matter how consistent your
> view of science, you are *never* going to prove to me that my thoughts and conclusions about
> science are wrong simply because your point of view is a legitimate one.
Your views aren't wrong only because my views are right. My views
are right, and your views are wrong simply because you have
accepted a supposed positive belief system without realizing
that it is meaningless. Specifically, it is meaningless to talk of an
empirical means of arriving at TRUTH unless you have
and infallible means of verifying that TRUTH has indeed
been found. I already went over this with you. You have
only a pipe dream to give us.
Prove to me that in principle there exists some foundation to
science will give it the ability to produce TRUTH. Name
one TRUTH that science has ever produced.
> Again, proving that
> your point of view is valid does *not* prove that other points of view are invalid.
They do in this case because they are mutually exclusive. I claim
that there is no way to PROVE that science can produce TRUTH.
PROVE ME WRONG if you think you're so insightful.
> My
> criticisms of modern science (including the fact that its followers tend to be unaware of
> shift errors and dogmatic errors) are not falsified by "sticking to your guns" on this
> matter.
You have already shown that YOU do NOT really know
my viewpoint. You have committed the fallacy of the false
generalization. It is NOT true that everyone who disagrees
with you has the same philosophy of science -- the official
dogma (or "the true faith") or as you would put it.
> You would have to show that an effort to obtain accurate, vulnerable models of
> nature (vulnerable = exposed assumptions, for better clarity and for ease in detecting
> errors) is harmed by shifting from your view of science to mine. I have given you example
> after example of errors and bad habits that (I claim) are common in the modern scientific
> method, problems which (I claim) reduce our ability to obtain first-rate models of nature.
> Why waste your time trying to "convert" me when I am obviously hopeless?
I could care less to convert you. I just want you to back up
all the platitudes and vacuous allusions you've been giving us.
> I clearly just do
> not see "the true light." I have this weird delusion that modern science may have decayed,
> relative to the renaissance scientific method, due to the substitution of dialectic
> concerns, rather than reality,
Please define "reality." Deal in specifics only. In what ways is
your personal definition relevant to scientific TRUTH?
> as a primary reference. Have you checked this for yourself?
Yes.
>
> Do you plan to check?
Been there, done that. Wised up finally. I used to be scientifically
naive just like you!
> Or are you just going to continue to defend "the true faith?"
Are you ever going to say plainly what the hell specific doctrines
you're a champion of? Proclaiming that modern science MAY
have fallen from a better methodology of science compared
to 400 years ago is NOT a doctrine! It's a damn platitude.
If it was better back then, then just tell us plainly in which
ways. If science has taken a wrong turn, tell us plainly where
it turned wrong.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
Correct. Physics alone cannot be used to reverse-engineer
deep reality. All physics can do is to invent models that
live within theories that rest on research programs. All
of it the invention of the human mind. All of it existing
in anthropomorphism land in the imaginations of our
collective minds.
It doesn't matter if light is really a particle or a wave. It
only matters how well the theory that holds the concept
does to correlate data, organize thought and provide
for testable experiments. Success found this way
is its own virtue and its own reward.
What if the universe is not metrical at its heart, as
most people seem to assume that it is?
Patrick
Phil
you, at least on the grounds you consider to be important and correct. Perhaps my problem, as you
say, is that I am scientifically naive and need to wise up. Perhaps then we would discuss things
on more even footing, and see more eye to eye. Until then, I will simply conclude that you win.
Bye Patrick.
Phil
Patrick Reany
Phil wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> > Phil wrote:
> >
> > > Gerald,
> > >
> > > I agree, Pascal's thoughts on the matter are pretty good. What baffles me is why this seems
> > > so outrageous to many. After all, what are we really talking about? Basic, ordinary
> > > questions concerning how we think, our habits, strengths, and limitations. Gee, do you think
> > > we should take these features into account when trying to practice top-quality science? Do
> > > you think we should check, from time to time, to see whether we have gone astray, or if a
> > > new, powerful tool is within reach?
> >
> > Gone astray according to what standard? Define "top-quality science."
>
> The kind god would approve of, or if you prefer, the kind that leads to conclusions about which a
> race of super inlelligent beings would say, given the data at hand, those were the most
> intelligent, accurate conclusions that could be reached.
Your definition is useless once again. Scientists are not god and the
people who invented science are not god. They are just people
who want something better than mere commonsense to be able
to predict what the world is all about.
>
>
> > > What is really weird, however, is the uncanny resemblance between the attacks of the
> > > inquisitors against Galileo, for questioning the Divine Word of God, and the attacks of the
> > > true believers of today, for questioning the Divine Word of Einstein. Both get hysterical,
> > > both assume that we are committing major crimes... and neither group accepts the possibility
> > > that we are simply trying to check things, and see if we can get a little closer to the
> > > truth. How Einstein hated this attitude! But no one remembers that.
> >
> > What true believers? What hysteria? Please give Einstein quotes
> > with references.
>
> No need, because you are very familiar with Einstein.
You mean "no need" because you're a bunch of hot air.
Next time you want to debate be ready to drop all the
circumlocutions and just state simple arguments in
list style. Then we can rationally deal with your position.
Be ready to give direct quotes and not vague allusions
to what others said.
Patrick
Gerry Quinn
No, but our ability to model gross gravitational phenomena in various
ways constitute truths. We don't know what the table is made of, but we
do know the shape of the table.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>Phil wrote:
>> Patrick Reany wrote:
>> >
>> > Prove to me that even one human made model is TRUE. By
>> > what standard would you use? This is impossible. To test the
>> > truthfulness of something you need an absolute standard of
>> > truthfulness for comparison. Where are we to get such a standard?
>> > It's an infinite regress or an act of pure personal faith. Dogmatism.
>>
>> I think Gerry Quinn's response is clearest here.
>
>Neither you nor Gerry made a proof that even one human
>made model is TRUE.
You are the one who insists on defining (maybe) and describing a whole
load of different notions that you variously refer to as 'Truth',
'"Truth"', TRUTH, Deep Reality, etc. You attempt to develop a
metaphysical basis for science that includes all sorts of bizarre ideas
like "ghosts" that need to be ruled out of theories by fiat. It seems
complex, unwieldy, unnatural and pointless. It's also somewhat self
contradictory, because all these concepts are themselves quite analogous
to the 'ghosts' to which you object. Why are you flailing about with
all this stuff?
I don't have to prove a model is true for it to be true. Lots of
mathematical theorems are true but unprovable (that *has* been proved).
Provability is therefore no part of the concept of truth. All your
metaphysics are a pointless diversion from Science's business of
searching for (as distinct from proving mathematically) truths.
As I've proposed before, the following three axioms:
1. There exists a world external to any given observer.
2. Observations are to some extent correlated to this world.
3. The universe is not designed purposely to trick us.
..are all we need to justify the notion that science produces truths.
The axioms might be false, but at least they are simple, and a simple
robust metaphysics seems the best basis for good science. I don't need
your 'deep realities' or 'ghosts' or 'TRUTHS'. Just three simple axioms,
and science may progress without further recourse to metaphysics.
I can't PROVE that what I am eating is "in Deep Reality" a 'POTATO'; but
why should I want to? "What are you on about, Patrick?" is what I would
ask if you interupted my lunch with such a demand!
Note in particular the shortage of axioms about the nature of the
universe. The principle of relativity can be discovered, if it's true -
or true in some limited sense - but there's no a priori reason
whatsoever why it should be true. I make no assumptions about the
geometry or indeed the existence of space. Everything bar the axioms
must consist of models based on observation.
- Gerry Quinn
Kevin Aylward
news:Mzni8.6235$W8.5...@news.indigo.ie...
I think that you have this all backwards. You seem to be claiming that Patrick
is claiming that there is a true reality. I don't see that that is what he is
saying at all. On the contrary, it seems that Patrick is doing exactly the
opposite of what you assert he is doing. The business about "theories are a
creation of the mind" is just that. There is no proof of truth or reality, and
in practise, it don't matter. Patrick appear to be pointing that out, he is not
stating that you have not proved one model is true because he thinks that there
is a true model different from what you claim, he says it, in my view, because
its not possible to present such proves even in principle. It seems that you
are claiming that a model is true, despite its lack of proof.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Bilge
Re: Science as myth to usenet:
>
>There are probably an infinite number of axiom sets that can correctly
>predict the behavior of things in the physical world. If we find one set
>that works, that doesn't mean that axiom set is True. It just means that
>axiom set is a model of nature that correctly predicts the behavior of
>things in the physical world.
it's true. Whether it's possible to know this is a different question,
but I think most physicists are physicists because the believe it is.
>
>Science is "right" or "wrong" to the extent that we have theories that
>predict things. But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
>in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
>geometry.
Actually, you can't. You can always come up with a different theory to
explain something. There is a preference in choosing the simplest, most
general description.
>We have a good model of gravity as a curvature of spacetime,
>but that doesn't mean Einstein has peered at the Cosmic Blueprints and
>told us what it *really* is, if that's even a sensible question to ask.
It's certainly a sensible question and a lot of physics is done
in puruit of answering it.
Bob Kolker
Think about it. Our unaided senses are not able enough to see into the
small things of nature. Our detection devices require a theory to
interpret their readings. So any insight we have into the very large and
the very small of nature is conditioned by a hypothesis. In sure, all
the knowledge we have of the very large and the very small is
inferential and hypothetically grounded.
And that is why physical theories will always be "up in the air" to an
extent.
Bob Kolker
Robert B. Winn
> from objectivism to socialism, from supporting the Yankees to supporting the
> Mets, but I don't think I've ever heard about a single crackpot denouncing
> his delusional game and becoming a scientist, or at least a true skeptic.
> I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even outright cranks,
> but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there really examples
> of such people?
>
Mark,
Thank you for your comments. Most people who are considered
cranks are persons of limited education like myself who had a question
of some kind or another about the theory of relativity. Upon asking
such a question, the response is so derogatory that the person
immediately perceives that there is something wrong with scientists as
a group. Maybe they are all just socially disfunctional people, but
once this is discovered, since communication is obviously not going to
take place, a crank is just going to keep the scientist at his worst
because that is where the scientist is the weakest. Scientists are
not being picked on. This is what people characteristically do toward
any group which sets itself up as a light to the world.
If the response of a scientist is profanity, insults,etc., then it
is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all that the scientist made
a mistake. So it just becomes a task of waiting to see what the
mistake was.
Robert B. Winn
Gregory L. Hansen
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <a6amvo$4sd$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>In article <aI4i8.6068$W8.5...@news.indigo.ie>,
>>Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>Science is "right" or "wrong" to the extent that we have theories that
>>predict things. But we can't say some particular theory is right or wrong
>>in the sense that gravity really is an aether or force or field or
>>geometry. We have a good model of gravity as a curvature of spacetime,
>>but that doesn't mean Einstein has peered at the Cosmic Blueprints and
>>told us what it *really* is, if that's even a sensible question to ask.
>
>No, but our ability to model gross gravitational phenomena in various
>ways constitute truths. We don't know what the table is made of, but we
>do know the shape of the table.
Those are a different set of truths-- experimental facts. They should be
distinguished from the metaphysical truths, sometimes called "Truth with a
capital 'T'" where we go beyond "This theory models a part of nature
as..." to "This theory proves nature's mechanism is..."
Judging by some of the readers on Usenet, a lot of laymen think the
business of physics is to find Truth with a capital 'T', and they don't
care so much about accordance with experimental fact. And so we see new
theories offered up with some disclaimer like "I agree with the
predictions made by the math, but... [explanation of why the words
associated with the theory are wrong and should be replaced by something
else]", or alternative theories that are just plain wrong but we're
assured they're God's Truth. It's the distinction between physics and
metaphysics, predictive models of nature versus the fundamental nature of
reality, e.g. quantum theory versus the many interpretations of quantum
theory. And so starts many sci.physics.* flame wars.
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <3C8977FC...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> >Phil wrote:
> >> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Prove to me that even one human made model is TRUE. By
> >> > what standard would you use? This is impossible. To test the
> >> > truthfulness of something you need an absolute standard of
> >> > truthfulness for comparison. Where are we to get such a standard?
> >> > It's an infinite regress or an act of pure personal faith. Dogmatism.
> >>
> >> I think Gerry Quinn's response is clearest here.
> >
> >Neither you nor Gerry made a proof that even one human
> >made model is TRUE.
>
> You are the one who insists on defining (maybe) and describing a whole
> load of different notions that you variously refer to as 'Truth',
> '"Truth"', TRUTH, Deep Reality, etc. You attempt to develop a
> metaphysical basis for science that includes all sorts of bizarre ideas
> like "ghosts" that need to be ruled out of theories by fiat. It seems
> complex, unwieldy, unnatural and pointless. It's also somewhat self
> contradictory, because all these concepts are themselves quite analogous
> to the 'ghosts' to which you object. Why are you flailing about with
> all this stuff?
It is quite obvious that you have never understood one word
I have said. My "physics" is to get rid of ALL unnecessary
metaphysics. I proved this constantly by denigrating other
people's bizarre and unnecessary preconceptions of what
reality just has to really be like. Irrelevant at best and distracting
at worst. Physical models don't have to have any connection
to metaphysics; all they have to do is to be useful for making
predictions that agree with measurement. Granted it's
convenient to at least assume that we each exist, and so
do our measuring instruments in some sense.
If you have a personal metaphysics that suits you then
go for it. But don't try to tell the rest of us that we
have to accept your personal metaphysics just to do
physics.
All science can ever touch metaphysically are abstract models only.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
This is essentially correct. Einstein tells us that physical
concepts are free creations of the human mind. He tells
us that these creations are not unique, and without uniqueness
there is no way to claim to get at the True structure of the
universe. Einstein here is the great liberator!! He allows
us to invent any kinds of models we wish to as long as they
are useful in making theories whose predictions correspond
to measurement. If I have an intuition that atoms are really
nucleated globs of electrical particles with electrical mass
bits flying around them, I still am NOT forced to build
models that conform to this intuition of structure. I can
instead invent models of atoms in any way I please. This
is the liberty that Einstein preached for us. Einstein
claimed that physical theories are only obligated to
conform to the "behavior" of nature, not to its supposed
ontological essences. Why is it that what Einstein presents to
us as liberty, others find to be tyranny? I just don't get it!
Maybe *they* just don't get it.
Einstein is NOT rejecting the existence of a metaphysical
world. He is simply telling us that it is NOT the duty
of physics to determine what the hell it is. Done.
Patrick
Etherman
> "Mark Q" <crag...@ua.moc.sumirpi> wrote in message
news:<3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > I've heard of people switching from religious fundamentalism to
atheism,
> > from objectivism to socialism, from supporting the Yankees to
supporting the
> > Mets, but I don't think I've ever heard about a single crackpot
denouncing
> > his delusional game and becoming a scientist, or at least a true
skeptic.
> > I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even outright
cranks,
> > but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there
really examples
> > of such people?
To a limited extent this is true for me. I was once a Creationist but
now I'm an evolutionist. I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not. All
in all you'd probably still think me a crank on other issues :-)
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Patrick Reany
Bob Kolker wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Think about it. Our unaided senses are not able enough to see into the
> small things of nature. Our detection devices require a theory to
> interpret their readings. So any insight we have into the very large and
> the very small of nature is conditioned by a hypothesis. In sure, all
> the knowledge we have of the very large and the very small is
> inferential and hypothetically grounded.
>
> And that is why physical theories will always be "up in the air" to an
> extent.
>
> Bob Kolker
Correct. Understanding itself is dependent on the theory we
use to "explain" it and on the research program that was used
to found the theory. There is no proof of reality anywhere
there. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may naively seem to the contrary,
uniquely determined by the measurable aspects of our
experiences. Measurement itself is the free invention of the
human mind. People should stop taking the "reality" of
metrical variables for granted. Who knows what they
really mean independently of human concepts.
What Bob says is also true of the ordinary world, but
we prefer to not admit to that. It just seems too weird,
until you realize that we have the freedom to invent physical
concepts any damn way we please. After that, both
logic and peer review are our arbiters if we decide to
go public with it. If this stuff would get taught in schools
then we'd have much fewer cranks on the newsgroups.
Patrick
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> What Bob says is also true of the ordinary world, but
> we prefer to not admit to that.
At human scale, there is nothing more real than experienced perception.
Notwithstanding the occasional optical illusion, what you see is what
you get.
The "proof" of the reality of what we perceive? Survival. Given our
sensory equipment and the dangers in the world, our survival as a
species (as well as individual survival) testifies to the goodness of
our perceptions.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Einstein is NOT rejecting the existence of a metaphysical
> world. He is simply telling us that it is NOT the duty
> of physics to determine what the hell it is. Done.
On the other hand if our sciences do not tell us something true and
useful about the world we live in (regardless of how the sciences are
constructed) they are hardly worth the time and energy spent on them.
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
> > "Mark Q" <crag...@ua.moc.sumirpi> wrote in message
news:<3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > > I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even
> > > outright cranks, but never the other way around. Why is
> > > that so? Or are there really examples of such people?
>
> To a limited extent this is true for me. I was once a
> Creationist but now I'm an evolutionist.
I find that fascinating. I have never met an ex-creationist who
came to embrace evolution for rational reasons. Is that the claim
being made?
I do not think it possible for a normally-functioning scientific
mind to reason its way towards creationism, i.e., by being
rational yet just making an error in knowledge or judgment. The
very premise of creationism is so irrational in nature that by
embracing it one removes oneself from any claim to rational
judgment, at least in this context.
Whatever distortions of mind made possible the creationist stance
in the first place, those I have met who subsequently rejected
creationism brought with them the same crippled mental baggage
which initally led them towards creationism.
I would be delighted to know a counterexample to these, one who
rejects creationism as having been an irrational choice, and yet
embraces evolutionism for rational reasons. Is this the case with
Etherman?
> I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not.
>
I would consider that to be in an entirely different category.
One can mistakenly become an etherist, and still be rational.
Unfortunately, such people -- especially as noted on this group
-- are rather rare, and inded most etherists are grossly
irrational cuckoos.
> All in all you'd probably still think me a crank on other
> issues :-)
>
Using appropriate discretion, I will not pursue that one. :)
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bilge
>
>Think about it. Our unaided senses are not able enough to see into the
>small things of nature.
Why does that matter?
>Our detection devices require a theory to interpret their readings.
The main difference between eyes and a phototubes is taht the information
from a phototube is better.
>So any insight we have into the very large and the very small of nature
>is conditioned by a hypothesis.
So?
>In sure, all
>the knowledge we have of the very large and the very small is
>inferential and hypothetically grounded.
You could simply say _all_ knowledge.
>
>And that is why physical theories will always be "up in the air" to an
>extent.
No, that isn't why. If you think your eyes are anything but a
detector, then you are wrong.
Oriel36
I hope that I may speak freely as a Christian.
The oldest book in the Bible is the Book of Job,it is not even a
Hebrew work and you do not need to be 'religious' to come to terms
with what the narrative of the author is conveying.It bears directly
on the matter under discussion here for the protagonist of the
story,Job, is forced to recognise that part of nature which empirical
methods abhor.The business of science is affirmation, fact and proof
and as a discipline, stands now like Job as certain of its own
position but behind it there are more urgent questions that strike
when illness occurs or a way of life collapses.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvBJob.html
I see your courage in illness and your attempt to turn it into an
advantage rather than moan about it and nobody can ask more from a
person.Chapter 38 of Job is a statement of that same courage of an old
author who found that there was a bottom when you go in the other
direction to science,where negations are just as good as affirmation,
but eventually a new and wonderful affirmation emerges.
Science positively refuses to look in that direction even though the
great works of humanity emerge from the courage of those who did and
still do cast aside the 'certainty' of the crowd so as to return to a
radical innocense,the Pascals,Beethovens and Van Goghs turned enmity
of the world into works that will always be appreceated whereas this
forum is built on opinions that come and go as they have for 80 years.
Again,I admire you courage in the face of shrill insults,likewise for
me these insults really mean nothing except masking the greater
reality found in all beliefs and especially in the purpose and meaning
of Christian belief.
Thanks for the correspondense.
Gerald
Phil <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:<3C89137E...@jump.net>...
> Gerald,
>
> I agree, Pascal's thoughts on the matter are pretty good. What baffles me is why this seems
> so outrageous to many. After all, what are we really talking about? Basic, ordinary
> questions concerning how we think, our habits, strengths, and limitations. Gee, do you think
> we should take these features into account when trying to practice top-quality science? Do
> you think we should check, from time to time, to see whether we have gone astray, or if a
> new, powerful tool is within reach?
>
> What is really weird, however, is the uncanny resemblance between the attacks of the
> inquisitors against Galileo, for questioning the Divine Word of God, and the attacks of the
> true believers of today, for questioning the Divine Word of Einstein. Both get hysterical,
> both assume that we are committing major crimes... and neither group accepts the possibility
> that we are simply trying to check things, and see if we can get a little closer to the
> truth. How Einstein hated this attitude! But no one remembers that.
>
> Well, I will have to back off a bit, because there are many good people here who simply get
> frustrated with the real loons -- are there are a few, no doubt -- so I cannot (or should
> not) get too judgmental when they assume that anyone who tries to carefully check the
> current assumptions and beliefs of science falls into the "loon" category.
>
> However, having said that, it really should not be as difficult as it is to have a sane,
> calm discussion about the fundamental assumptions of relativity, science, etc., and my own
> conclusion is that the "overall" structure of modern science is extremely weak in this area.
> From another point of view, I could say that modern science is very good at defending itself
> from unfair attacks, but frighteningly weak when it comes to any sort of a "self-test," or
> "self-check." That needs work, and both we and science will be much better off if that
> changes.
>
> Phil
>
> Oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Phil <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:<3C8872AF...@jump.net>...
> >
> > > Have you checked, lately, to see if modern science is sticking to this rule? Are you
> > > aware that the modern scientific method is vastly different from the method used by
> > > Galileo, Newton, and (in my opinion) Einstein? A discussion of this can be found in
> > > several articles in a wonderful book, "Reinterpreting Galileo," edited by William
> > > Wallace.
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > Einstein's work is mathematical and forms the endpoint of intuitive
> > thinking in the study of nature and is known today only by its
> > absense.Most of the earlier scientists kept a balance between
> > intuitive and the mathematical,Newton was more mathematical than
> > intuitive and Pascal probably existed on the intuitive side but again
> > mathematics and physics has found itself in a mathematical rut that
> > developed out of the Newtonian method.
> >
> > This forum exists for the simple reason that the balance between
> > intuition and mathematics was lost by the early 1900's,the self
> > correcting mechanism that would have halted a mathematical work from
> > swamping the intuitive sense was no longer in place,suddenly the
> > mathematical became the intuitive and the world has paid dearly for
> > that.
> >
> > Today,because relativity won out,the mathematical and the intuitive is
> > now defined as physics and metaphysics,the balance that once existed
> > in the individual is now consigned to seperate departments will little
> > ties between the two or a grudging acknowledgement from the physics
> > side so it can use words like 'elegant','mysterious',' ghostly' etc to
> > promote the mathematical side.
> >
> > I always try to let the words of Pacsal do the talking and it is no
> > surprise that any response has either been hostile or the passage
> > considered meaningless.Here is that passage again.
> >
> > 'The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive mind'
> >
> > "In one the principles are obvious,but remote from ordinary usage,so
> > that from want of practice we have difficulty turning our heads that
> > way;but once we turn our heads the principles can be fully seen;and it
> > would take a thoroughly unsound mind to draw false conclusionsfrom
> > principles so patent that they can hardly be missed.
> >
> > But with the intuitive mind,the principles are in ordinary usage and
> > there for all to see.There is no need to turn our heads,or strain
> > ourselves,it is only a question of good sight,but it must be good;for
> > the principles are so intricate and numerous that it is almost
> > impossible to miss some.Now the omission of one principle can lead to
> > an error,and so one needs very clear sight to see all the principles
> > as well as an accurate mind to avoid drawing false conclusion from
> > known principles.
> >
> > All mathematicians would therefore be intuitive if they had good sight
> > because they do not draw false conclusions from principles that they
> > know.And intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could adapt
> > their sight to the unfamiliar principles of mathematics.
> >
> > Thus the reason why certain intuitive minds are not mathematical is
> > that they are quite unable to apply themselves to the principles of
> > mathematics,but the reason why mathematicians are not intuitive is
> > that they cannot see what is in front of them;for being accustomed to
> > the clearcut,obvious principles of mathematics and to draw no
> > conclusions until they have clearly seen and handled all their
> > principles,they become lost in matters requiring intuition,whoes
> > principles cannot be handled in that way.These principles can hardly
> > be seen,they are perceived instinctively rather than seen and it is
> > with endless difficulty that they can be communicated to those who do
> > not perceive it for themselves.These things are so delicate and
> > numerous that it takes a sense of great delicacy and precision to
> > perceive them and judge correctly and accurately from this
> > perception;most often it is not possible to set it out logically as in
> > mathematics because the necessary principles are not ready at hand and
> > it would be an endless task to undertake.THE THING MUST BE SEEN ALL AT
> > ONCE ,AT A GLANCE,AND NOT AS A RESULT OF PROGRESSIVE REASONING,AT
> > LEAST UP TO A POINT.Thus it is rare for the mathematicians to be
> > intuitive or the intuitive to be mathematicians,because mathematicians
> > try to treat these intuitive matters mathematically and make
> > themselves ridiculous by trying to begin with definitions followed by
> > principles,which is not the way to proceed in this kind of
> > reasoning.It is not that the mind does not do this,but it does so
> > tacitly,naturally and artlessly,for it is beyond any man to express it
> > and given to very few to apprehend it.Intuitive minds,on the
> > contrary,being thus accustomed to judge at a glance are taken aback
> > when presented with propositions of which they understand nothing (and
> > of which the necessary preliminaries are definitions and principles so
> > barren that they are not used to looking at them in such detail) and
> > consequently feel repelled and disgusted.
> >
> > But unsound minds are neither intuitive or mathematical.
> >
> > Mathematicians who are merely mathematicians therefore reason soundly
> > so long as everything is explained to them by definitions and
> > principles,otherwise they are unsound and intolerable,because they
> > reason soundly only from clearly defined principles.
> >
> > And intuitive minds which are merely intuitive lack the patience to go
> > right into the first principles of speculative and imaginative matters
> > which they have never seen in practice and are quite outside ordinary
> > usage."
> >
> > > Dialectic can attack both false *and true statements* with equal ease. The modern
> > > scientific method is very different from the "renaissance" scientific method in that
> > > it has developed very effective shields that protect it from the *unfair* assaults of
> > > dialectic. A real achievement, right? However, I have examined this issue (in general,
> > > I mean) for about 15 years, and the conclusion I came to is that the shields of modern
> > > science also act as extremely affective blinders, which prevent modern scientists from
> > > seeing many of the most basic truths that are lying almost literally at their feet.
> > > Naturally you will want proof, and all I can say is that I am working on a series of
> > > *comprehensible* notes (unlike my postings so far, apparently) for exactly that
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > In the meantime you can:
> > >
> > > (1) Cut me to shreds in order to "prove me wrong." Oh wait, that's a dialectic
> > > technique that tells you nothing about the actual alignment (or lack thereof) between
> > > my words and reality.
> > >
> > > (2) Put forth a general criticism without any supporting examples. Works great in a
> > > debate! Oh wait, that's a dialectic ...
> > >
> > > (3) Declare that if there was any truth to this, then someone would have noticed it by
> > > now. A very appealing, internally consistent argument. Oh wait ...
> > >
> > > Look at this thread. How many people simply put forth various put-downs of "the
> > > cranks," and how many tried to find the elements of reality that *cause* cranks to
> > > never recant? I was the only one who even tried to put forth a scientific, rather than
> > > a dialectic, response. That is not a good sign. What makes you think that any of you
> > > are truly in the habit of rejecting the use of dialectic techniques, in favor of truly
> > > scientific techniques, especially when those scientific techniques leave you
> > > completely exposed, vulnerable to attack? Do you really think that it is mere
> > > coincidence that Einstein's wife said that although everyone thought he must be this
> > > tower of strength, since he could solve all these problems, "the truth is that he is
> > > the most vulnerable man I have ever known."?
> > >
> > > Well, I am not really asking you to respond, I really just want to plant some seeds of
> > > doubt, or perhaps some questions worth following up on. And I really don't mean to
> > > insult you personally; it's just that a real, honest response to your question
> > > includes some pretty harsh judgments of the modern scientific method and, unavoidably,
> > > those who practice it. Should be interesting, nevertheless, to see your response
> > > (assuming you think my ramblings are worth responding to!)
> > >
> > > Phil
Dirk Van de moortel
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:273f8e06.02031...@posting.google.com...
> Phil,
>
>
> I hope that I may speak freely as a Christian.
Ha. That explains a lot.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
Etherman wrote:
> > "Mark Q" <crag...@ua.moc.sumirpi> wrote in message
> news:<3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > > I've heard of people switching from religious fundamentalism to
> atheism,
> > > from objectivism to socialism, from supporting the Yankees to
> supporting the
> > > Mets, but I don't think I've ever heard about a single crackpot
> denouncing
> > > his delusional game and becoming a scientist, or at least a true
> skeptic.
> > > I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even outright
> cranks,
> > > but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there
> really examples
> > > of such people?
>
> To a limited extent this is true for me. I was once a Creationist but
> now I'm an evolutionist. I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not.
I'm curious what was so appealing to you about the ether model?
> All
> in all you'd probably still think me a crank on other issues :-)
I prefer to think of the creation/evolution debate as existing
not within science per se, but within a much larger forum
called natural philosophy -- the set of all philosophies of the
natural realm. They both are myths, that is, beliefs systems
that can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical
means. In the same sense we cannot prove that any of
our sophisticated physical models of the last 400 years
are true. Einstein tells us that this isn't important anyway.
It's not the models that are important, or even the nature
of the founding concepts that's important in physics,
because there is no uniquely preferred foundation or
theoretical approach to science. (This is a sort of a
foundational meaning of "relativism" in science.)
The psychological problem is that once we become used to
thinking in terms of a single successful theory, it becomes
our "box" and we strongly resist thinking outside of it.
It has become our personal "reality." That's fine for you
guys, but don't force it on the rest of us.
All that matters is the predictions, theoretic concinnity and
unification. All the rest is myth as well. So why do
we continue to argue so strongly about myths? Anyway,
that is why I renamed the other branch of this thread
as "science as myth". Some posters see my views as
leaving no place for "truth" in science, but this is not so.
We still need experimentalists to be truthful about what
they actually measure in their labs. And we still need
theories that make predictions that conform to measurement
reasonably well. And when theories do this they can
be said to be "true to life" sotospeak. But there is simply
no way to prove that the models that live within successful
theories are themselves TRUTH about reality. All we can
know is the behavior, not the deep reality.
And in particular, Einstein's special relativity is one of the
most successful physical theories of all time, yet it doesn't
even introduce particular models of matter, and it relies
on the conventional macroscopic models of quasi-rigid
matter to use the notions of ordinary clocks and "rigid"
measuring rods. And its invention of spacetime is
purely formal, though many people prefer to think of it
as something real. In any case, spacetime is not easily
thought of as a thing per se. If it were a thing per se, then
in light of general relativity's curved spacetime, what are
we to believe? That the local spacetime of every
nonsingular spacetime point is a "real" flat SRian-like
THING? This is to me a very bizarre way to look at the
local properties of curved spacetime. So I treat
spacetime as purely formal. Otherwise all we reify
is the old debate about the reality of infinitesimals,
because a thing cannot live at a literal point only; it must
have some extension into both space and time. (Time
will tell if there are really point particles in nature. If there
are, I will modify my definition of thingness. In any case,
spacetime in not an "ordinary thing.")
The advantage of being liberated from determining TRUTH
in physics that we are free as humans to use our creativity
in any way that works to invent a successful physical theory.
Patrick
Gerry Quinn
>I find that fascinating. I have never met an ex-creationist who
>came to embrace evolution for rational reasons. Is that the claim
>being made?
I believe Martin Gardner used to hold some very fundamentalist views as
a young man. Hence, his later 'convert fervour' in favour of
'scepticism'.
>I do not think it possible for a normally-functioning scientific
>mind to reason its way towards creationism, i.e., by being
>rational yet just making an error in knowledge or judgment. The
>very premise of creationism is so irrational in nature that by
>embracing it one removes oneself from any claim to rational
>judgment, at least in this context.
Why on earth do you think creationism irrational per se? We observe a
complex world, which we largely do not understand, and it seems a very
comfortable place for us to live. One reasonable hypothesis is that it
was created for our benefit. We could postulate creation by
extra-terrestials, but unless we have a model of how life might have
evolved somewhere, that's really just recursively passing the buck and
is the sort of thing that gets roundly criticised on this newsgroup.
In short, without a model for evolution (which we now have, of course)
special creation is a perfectly reasonable theory, and rational men
throughout the ages have believed in it. I think at one time it must
have seemed the only reasonable hypothesis.
Your bias is showing. Special creation is (or can be) a scientific
theory just like evolution, to be defeated on the evidence and not on
the basis of a priori beliefs in its irrationality. I can certainly
imagine observations that would make me believe it (observations, I add,
that thus far remain in the realms of imagination).
Of course, most current creationists have probably arrived at their
views by way of non-scientific approaches. It is probable, therefore,
that creationism is untrue, because science is a uniquely powerful way
to determine certain classes of truth about the natural world. [The
assumptions needed to assert that science generates truths, plus others,
are also needed to assert that bible studies generate truths, so science
trumps bible studies as a means of generating this kind of truth under
any set of assumptions that affords primacy to reason over emotion.]
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not.
> >
>
> I would consider that to be in an entirely different category.
> One can mistakenly become an etherist, and still be rational.
> Unfortunately, such people -- especially as noted on this group
> -- are rather rare, and inded most etherists are grossly
> irrational cuckoos.
>
Or, one can purposefully become an etherist and still
remain rational.
I have suspected for a long time that some modern etherists
were cranks long before they were etherists. It has to do
with their psychology. They start out as anti-establishment
(I mean way more so than I ever was) and then adopt
the ether view because it is anti-establisment. This anti-
establishment stance is only reinforced in youth when
they are told to "use some commonsense, for heaven's
sake" rather than being told to "use some creativity for
heaven's sake." Think of it this way: What recognized
genius has ever been awarded that status on the basis
of he or she using ONLY commonsense? So, if
commonsense isn't the basis of genius, what is?
The establishment in science has gone well beyond
the draconian limitation of so-called commonsense,
but students are rarely informed about this or
presented good reasons why this is a very good thing
to do. So they aren't prepared for it when they learn the
truth as adults about what science has really been up to.
To them it's just scandalous. A worldwide conspiracy
to destroy the human mind and turn it away from
rational thinking. (Isn't that a twist?!) Of course this
view of the establishment is all nonsense.
So, the more studious of these contrarians eventually
learn a few of the philosophical name calling epithets to
throw at "relativists," such as "positivist" or "solipsist."
They have called me both of these. I am convinced
that nobody knows what "positivism" really means, as
its meaning has changed many times over the last 300
years. And I know that I am not now and never have
been a believer in solipsism (the theory or view that
the self is the only reality).
I don't believe that being an etherist is in itself reason
to say that a person is a crank. The crankishness comes
from etherists claiming that they have the TRUE knowledge
of the physical universe, and that classical etherism is better
overall than SR, even though this is easily shown to be false
in my own opinion.
The problem with cranks on this newsgroup is that
they typically aren't subjected to the effective counter
arguments. Just calling them names isn't going to
convince them. Both sides tend to see the debate
from the stance that "our theory is TRUE and
your theory is FALSE." This is incorrect at its heart.
The correct way to compare theories is in their
relative merits to organize thought, unify knowledge,
simplify conceptualization or calculation, reduce the
number of independent axioms, lead to fruitful new
areas of research, and, of course, to make predictions
that agree with measurement. It is NEVER a question
of which theory is the TRUE one.
Patrick
What if you're all just a brain in a vat -- or not even that!?
Gerry Quinn
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>>
>> why should I want to? "What are you on about, Patrick?" is what I would
>> ask if you interupted my lunch with such a demand!
>
>I think that you have this all backwards. You seem to be claiming that Patrick
>is claiming that there is a true reality. I don't see that that is what he is
>saying at all. On the contrary, it seems that Patrick is doing exactly the
>opposite of what you assert he is doing. The business about "theories are a
>creation of the mind" is just that. There is no proof of truth or reality, and
>in practise, it don't matter. Patrick appear to be pointing that out, he is not
>stating that you have not proved one model is true because he thinks that there
>is a true model different from what you claim, he says it, in my view, because
>its not possible to present such proves even in principle. It seems that you
>are claiming that a model is true, despite its lack of proof.
Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths, unless he
can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
appears to generate them.
At other times he indulges in more serious excursions away from science,
as for example when he asserts that the principle of relativity should
be an axiom, rather than a (probably true, at least within a
certain regime) theory derived from observation.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>> You are the one who insists on defining (maybe) and describing a whole
>> load of different notions that you variously refer to as 'Truth',
>> '"Truth"', TRUTH, Deep Reality, etc. You attempt to develop a
>> metaphysical basis for science that includes all sorts of bizarre ideas
>> like "ghosts" that need to be ruled out of theories by fiat. It seems
>> complex, unwieldy, unnatural and pointless. It's also somewhat self
>> contradictory, because all these concepts are themselves quite analogous
>> to the 'ghosts' to which you object. Why are you flailing about with
>> all this stuff?
>
>It is quite obvious that you have never understood one word
>I have said. My "physics" is to get rid of ALL unnecessary
>metaphysics. I proved this constantly by denigrating other
>people's bizarre and unnecessary preconceptions of what
>reality just has to really be like. Irrelevant at best and distracting
>at worst. Physical models don't have to have any connection
>to metaphysics; all they have to do is to be useful for making
>predictions that agree with measurement. Granted it's
>convenient to at least assume that we each exist, and so
>do our measuring instruments in some sense.
But it's obviously not working, because you've got far more metaphysics
than me. Therefore MY program is the one which eliminates unnecessary
metaphysics.
>If you have a personal metaphysics that suits you then
>go for it. But don't try to tell the rest of us that we
>have to accept your personal metaphysics just to do
>physics.
And you're doing... what?
My metaphysics provides a simple concept of metaphysical realism with
three simple axioms, only one of which most people would think subject
to debate. Indeed, your program basically does debate the third axiom,
and as far as I can see, all it consists of is an attempt to justify
physics in a world ruled by a Cartesian demon. Simplest to rule the
demon out axiomatically, since it doesn't affect how we will think and
operate. Unfortunately at times you have come up with bizarre ideas
like taking the principle of relativity as an axiom - it's clear that
your tangled metaphysics are spreading out to infect scientific
objectivity. An object lesson in why metaphysics should be kept simple.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>
>Correct. Understanding itself is dependent on the theory we
>use to "explain" it and on the research program that was used
>to found the theory. There is no proof of reality anywhere
>there. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
>and are not, however it may naively seem to the contrary,
>uniquely determined by the measurable aspects of our
>experiences. Measurement itself is the free invention of the
>human mind. People should stop taking the "reality" of
>metrical variables for granted. Who knows what they
>really mean independently of human concepts.
By my third axiom (the world is not purposely designed to fool us) we
can justify statistical correlation of repeated observations as
generators of truth; measurements fall into this category.
- Gerry Quinn
rbw...@mindspring.com
<Pine.LNX.4.10.102030...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
Stephen,
Well, I would take the view that people who automatically respond to any
question not pre-approved by their faction using profanity, antagonism, and
hostility are the ones who are irrational.
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Bob Kolker
Bilge wrote:
>
> >extent.
>
> No, that isn't why. If you think your eyes are anything but a
> detector, then you are wrong.
If not a detector, then what? Do tell us. Processing occurs in the
visual cortex. Or put another way, eyes are the part of the brain that
sees light.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
<rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:a6fo50$jfb$1...@news.netmar.com...
> In article
[snip]
> Stephen,
> Well, I would take the view that people who automatically respond to any
> question not pre-approved by their faction using profanity, antagonism, and
> hostility are the ones who are irrational.
>
> Robert B. Winn
Robert, you should try and look around here. Your getting profanity,
antagonism, and hostility to your questions is entirely self-inflicted.
The normal procedure is to ask a question, get a reply and say
"Thanks, that clears it up" or "Thanks, but that's over my head".
You start your question with: "Hey, I have a question that no scientist
has ever bothered to answer".
Suppose this is a welder's forum and I ask:
Hey, I want to weld two metal plates together with a candle.
I know I can do it but no welder has ever given me a proper
explanation why I couldn't do it. As soon as I talk about the
candle they give me profanity, antagonism, and hostility.
Dirk Vdm
Oriel36
This is for you Dirk and the spacetime cadets for forgetting the
rotation of the Earth beneath your feet.
Job 39.
13: "The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; but are they the pinions
and plumage of love?
14: For she leaves her eggs to the earth, and lets them be warmed on
the ground,
15: forgetting that a foot may crush them, and that the wild beast may
trample them.
16: She deals cruelly with her young, as if they were not hers; though
her labor be in vain, yet she has no fear;
17: because God has made her forget wisdom, and given her no share in
understanding
Kevin Aylward
> In article <2Ppi8.4201$yc2.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Kevin
Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I can't PROVE that what I am eating is "in Deep Reality" a 'POTATO'; but
> >> why should I want to? "What are you on about, Patrick?" is what I would
> >> ask if you interupted my lunch with such a demand!
> >
> >I think that you have this all backwards. You seem to be claiming that
Patrick
> >is claiming that there is a true reality. I don't see that that is what he is
> >saying at all. On the contrary, it seems that Patrick is doing exactly the
> >opposite of what you assert he is doing. The business about "theories are a
> >creation of the mind" is just that. There is no proof of truth or reality,
and
> >in practise, it don't matter. Patrick appear to be pointing that out, he is
not
> >stating that you have not proved one model is true because he thinks that
there
> >is a true model different from what you claim, he says it, in my view,
because
> >its not possible to present such proves even in principle. It seems that you
> >are claiming that a model is true, despite its lack of proof.
>
> Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
> is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
> is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths,
What do you mean by truth here. Ok, you could say that that proving a
contraction process a truth that something has been falsified.
> unless he
> can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
> appears to generate them.
>
Granted that there _may_ be a real truth, I see no way that such truth could be
proven, if it did exist. Give me an example of a truth, and I will bet 10 pints
of Guinness that I can offer an alternative to that truth that can not be proven
false.
Kevin Aylward
> In article <3C8AB665...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
> >Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >>
> >> You are the one who insists on defining (maybe) and describing a whole
> >> load of different notions that you variously refer to as 'Truth',
> >> '"Truth"', TRUTH, Deep Reality, etc. You attempt to develop a
> >> metaphysical basis for science that includes all sorts of bizarre ideas
> >> like "ghosts" that need to be ruled out of theories by fiat. It seems
> >> complex, unwieldy, unnatural and pointless. It's also somewhat self
> >> contradictory, because all these concepts are themselves quite analogous
> >> to the 'ghosts' to which you object. Why are you flailing about with
> >> all this stuff?
> >
> >It is quite obvious that you have never understood one word
> >I have said. My "physics" is to get rid of ALL unnecessary
> >metaphysics. I proved this constantly by denigrating other
> >people's bizarre and unnecessary preconceptions of what
> >reality just has to really be like. Irrelevant at best and distracting
> >at worst. Physical models don't have to have any connection
> >to metaphysics; all they have to do is to be useful for making
> >predictions that agree with measurement. Granted it's
> >convenient to at least assume that we each exist, and so
> >do our measuring instruments in some sense.
>
> But it's obviously not working, because you've got far more metaphysics
> than me. Therefore MY program is the one which eliminates unnecessary
> metaphysics.
>
I don't see how you concluded that at all. Are you actually reading hs post?
Patrick has no metaphysics. period. He has specifically stated that _all_ models
are metaphysically, i.e. a free creation of the human mind, and that none of
them necessarily has any relevance to any supposed truth. It is you that is
making a claim that such truth exists.
> >If you have a personal metaphysics that suits you then
> >go for it. But don't try to tell the rest of us that we
> >have to accept your personal metaphysics just to do
> >physics.
>
> And you're doing... what?
>
Stating that absolute truth does not exist, or if it does, we have no way of
determining whether such truth is in fact true.
> My metaphysics provides a simple concept of metaphysical realism with
> three simple axioms, only one of which most people would think subject
> to debate. Indeed, your program basically does debate the third axiom,
> and as far as I can see, all it consists of is an attempt to justify
> physics in a world ruled by a Cartesian demon. Simplest to rule the
> demon out axiomatically, since it doesn't affect how we will think and
> operate. Unfortunately at times you have come up with bizarre ideas
> like taking the principle of relativity as an axiom - it's clear that
> your tangled metaphysics are spreading out to infect scientific
> objectivity.
The POR can indeed be taken as an axiom. Since mathematically _all_ theories can
be written covariant, i.e. independent of co-ordinate systems e.g. moving frame
co-ordinate systems, whether or not systems are in fact independent of said
moving frames. Thus, you can not determine whether or not the POR is really true
physically, or whether it has been hidden by a convenient set of transformed
physical variables. SR and LET is one example that shows this.
Bottom line is that, yes there may be a truth, but if there is, there is simple
no way of proving it, so its academic.
Kevin Aylward
If by truth here, you mean that the results are correct, maybe. Whether or not
the universe fools you on purpose is not relevant, it can still make a monkey
out of you. Its done it before, and it wont be the last time me thinks.
How do you define mass? length? time? One big circular argument, always.
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <2Ppi8.4201$yc2.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Kevin Aylward" <ke...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I can't PROVE that what I am eating is "in Deep Reality" a 'POTATO'; but
> >> why should I want to? "What are you on about, Patrick?" is what I would
> >> ask if you interupted my lunch with such a demand!
> >
> >I think that you have this all backwards. You seem to be claiming that Patrick
> >is claiming that there is a true reality. I don't see that that is what he is
> >saying at all. On the contrary, it seems that Patrick is doing exactly the
> >opposite of what you assert he is doing. The business about "theories are a
> >creation of the mind" is just that. There is no proof of truth or reality, and
> >in practise, it don't matter. Patrick appear to be pointing that out, he is not
> >stating that you have not proved one model is true because he thinks that there
> >is a true model different from what you claim, he says it, in my view, because
> >its not possible to present such proves even in principle. It seems that you
> >are claiming that a model is true, despite its lack of proof.
>
> Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
> is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
> is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths, unless he
> can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
> appears to generate them.
Once again you do NOT understand what the hell I am saying,
which is amazing as what I am saying is damn simple. I am
saying that without a method of verifying the existence of
truth it is meaningless to say that you have found one. Science
has no such verification method. If you can take a statement of
science and verify that it is true from a position outside of
science proper then you have a metascientific truth, not
a scientific truth. Who's to say that a physical law that has lasted
for 400 years won't be proven tomorrow to be utterly false?
But I am saying much more than that the behavior of nature
may change; I am saying that the True ontology of nature is
actually irrelevant to DOING theorizing. This was Einstein's
often preached belief. You get to freely invent the concepts
and principle to found a research program and a theory on top
of it. From there it's the judgment of one's peers as to the
usefulness of such a theory and program. When Einstein
undertook to eliminate the notion of absolute acceleration in
his general relativity he was NOT embarking on a verifiable
path to Truth. Instead he was simply undertaking to eliminate
what he thought of as an unjustifiable predilection of the
physicists then to give too much importance to a notion that
for him had no observational meaning. It was of no concern
to Einstein if God KNOWS the TRUE path of a stone falling
through TRUE space. He claimed that this preferred space is
beyond the grasp of mere mortals (using ordinary empirical tests),
and that our science should include this limitation explicitly.
Thus was the philosophical foundation to Einstein's second
installment of the relativity program: the destruction of the notion
of absolute acceleration. The first being the destruction of the
notion of absolute velocity as an empirical notion.
> At other times he indulges in more serious excursions away from science,
> as for example when he asserts that the principle of relativity should
> be an axiom, rather than a (probably true, at least within a
> certain regime) theory derived from observation.
There is nothing more serious than the destruction of this long
held ridiculous, pompous and obvious bigoted and pointlessly
argumentative belief that science can produce truths of the
type that I'm claiming it cannot. It's all about getting rid of
dogmatism and hyperconfining rhetoric that serves no scientific
value, but lives on because of the idiosyncratic prejudices
of people. Getting rid of this "religious" hypocrisy will level the
scientific playing field for us all, and open our minds to the
possibilities that Einstein foresaw so long ago to be truly creative
and "out-of-the-box" thinkers. To be able to freely create.
But you also didn't understand what I was saying about the
principle of relativity. It is not a truth or even an axiom.
It is a commitment to place physical laws in a certain form.
It is a stylistic convention that has proven to have enormous
heuristic value. It is in objective terms no more than a
statement of what is meant by a "general law of nature."
It plays the role of an implicit definition of a "general law
of physics." And definitions cannot have physical content.
All the parts of a theory that don't have physical content
are much better placed within the research program's
foundation rather than snuck into the theory proper.
By contrast the Light Principle is obviously testable
and thus has physical content and so deserves to live within
the SR theory itself. It's ironic that Einstein spent so much time
teaching us about the research programs that lived prior to
his generation but did so little to organize his own theories
according to these same insights. Maybe that was because
his own insights into the nature of the research program came
after his publication of SR, and so he found himself constrained
by the way it was presented in the first years of its acceptance
to some degree. In any case, I have no such restrictions on
me so I re-organize it more logically for perspicuity's sake.
So many arguments over the PoR that can now be done
away with.
Most physicists proclaim Einstein to be a genius, but I'm
beginning to have the idea that many of them haven't the
slightest idea why he should be thought of as one. For
me, I'm on record as saying that Einstein is a genius,
and I have stated why I think he should be given this
tittle. Another irony is that today's generation of physicists
seem to undermine the very philosophy that Einstein
used to arrive at his ingenious theories. They seem to
want to go back to the "in-the-box" thinking that Einstein
told them to get the hell out of and to stay out of.
Einstein told us we get to CHOOSE the research program
we want. He told us that we get to CHOOSE the mode
of theory we prefer -- either constructive or principled or
whatever. And he also told us that we get to CHOOSE
the physical concepts we want -- to freely invent them --
within the theory and/or research program. But what has
this generation of physicists done with all this insight that
Einstein has given us? Do they really believe that Einstein
is a genius or not?
Patrick
Oriel36
The creationist/relativist mind are comparable insofar as no evidence
will disturb untenable positions nothwithstanding that both completely
misinterpreted the purpose and meaning of the old texts and especially
Genesis.The scientist views the texts from the creationist perspective
and all contention is fought out on scientific or pseudoscientific
lines but the author of that text has the final say.Joseph Campbell
more than anyone unsuccessfully tried to call attension to the
intricate structure contained in the text based on the Babylonian Soss
or base 60,despite appearances the Hebrew author protected his work
from mindless speculation seen today focusing on whether a day is
figurative or literal.The stupidity of the creationist/evolutionist
debate morphes into the wider scientific/religious debate with not one
person of character to grasp that this perceived opposition is an
artificial construct that says more about the smallness of man and his
reasoning than it says about the greatness of man's endeavors.
I can take or leave the mathematical facet of Genesis because it is
only a protective measure built into the text like the gargoyles
outside a cathedral,its real substance exists in the meaning behind
the narrative.This from the 14th century Theologia Germanica -
Chapter 3
"What else did Adam do but this same thing? It is said, it was
because Adam ate the apple that he was lost, or fell. I say, it was
because of his claiming something for his own, and because of his I,
Mine, Me, and the like. Had he eaten seven apples, and yet never
claimed anything for his own, he would not have fallen: but as soon as
he called something his own, he fell, and would have fallen if he had
never touched an apple. Behold! I have fallen a hundred times more
often and deeply, and gone a hundred times farther astray than Adam;
and not all mankind could mend his fall, or bring him back from going
astray."
http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm
Science assumes that the texts are concrete descriptions of actual
events but the author assumed that his audience could make the
transition from the childhood surface story to the true substance
which is far removed from the simple narrative (in terms that the
Theologia Germanica understood it).Not only has it not happened but
everything is taken at a surface level which is convenient for science
as presenting itself as a valid substitute and truly it is not.Looking
at the highly developed Christian writers the deterioration has almost
become complete,the last writer who had a true grasp of
Judaeo-Christian ideals was William Blake (circa 1800's).
Below is an excerpt from a previous posting relating to the
genealogical structure of Genesis that is the protective measure
inserted by the author to prevent the discussion of whether a day of
Genesis 1 is literal or figurative.
'Many forget that the Massoretic text of Genesis took 700 hundreds of
years
to develop and passed through many traditions before it reached it's
final form ,the last tradition being the post-exilic Priestly
tradition who reworked the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh into the text
of Genesis.The Hebrews deliberately retained the Babylonian chronology
insofar as the creation of Adam to the first drop of rain of Noah's
flood is a variation to the legend of Gilgamesh.
The genealogical structure of Genesis 5 lists the 10 Patriarchs from
Adam to Noah,the time elapsed between Adam and Noah is calculated from
father to the birth of each son and amounts to 1656 years ("when Noah
was 600 years old the flood came" Gen 7).A straight reading in terms
of weeks as we still calculate it in a solar year -
1656 years x 52.17 weeks = 86,393.52 weeks.
However Gen 7 v11 allows a more precise figure to emerge in that "In
the 2nd month ,on the 17th day of the month the rain came " Gen 7 v11,
considering that this can be translated into anytime within the 45th
day or 6.48 weeks the total figure arrived at is -
86,393.52 + 6.48 = 86,400 weeks.'
Phil
> Phil,
>
> I hope that I may speak freely as a Christian.
>
> The oldest book in the Bible is the Book of Job,it is not even a
> Hebrew work and you do not need to be 'religious' to come to terms
> with what the narrative of the author is conveying.It bears directly
> on the matter under discussion here for the protagonist of the
> story,Job, is forced to recognise that part of nature which empirical
> methods abhor.The business of science is affirmation, fact and proof
> and as a discipline, stands now like Job as certain of its own
> position but behind it there are more urgent questions that strike
> when illness occurs or a way of life collapses.
>
> http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvBJob.html
>
> I see your courage in illness and your attempt to turn it into an
> advantage rather than moan about it and nobody can ask more from a
> person.Chapter 38 of Job is a statement of that same courage of an old
> author who found that there was a bottom when you go in the other
> direction to science,where negations are just as good as affirmation,
> but eventually a new and wonderful affirmation emerges.
Hmmm, well I think I can state with some authority that I am not that
courageous, but we are all walking dead men and women, and cancer
does have the nice benefit of partially shutting off the "immortality drug"
that prevents almost everyone else from being aware of that fact.
> Science positively refuses to look in that direction even though the
> great works of humanity emerge from the courage of those who did and
> still do cast aside the 'certainty' of the crowd so as to return to a
> radical innocense,the Pascals,Beethovens and Van Goghs turned enmity
> of the world into works that will always be appreceated whereas this
> forum is built on opinions that come and go as they have for 80 years.
>
> Again,I admire you courage in the face of shrill insults,likewise for
> me these insults really mean nothing except masking the greater
> reality found in all beliefs and especially in the purpose and meaning
> of Christian belief.
>
> Thanks for the correspondense.
>
> Gerald
Thanks for the kind words, it's a pleasure to have someone who does
not go wacko when I suggest, as Einstein said, that we should test for
ourselves the assumptions that lie behind the current theories of physics,
rather than simply accept as "divine truths" theories that are, in the final
analysis, merely inventions of human beings (Patrick, does this mean I
agree with you after all? ;-) ). And again, there are many fans of relativity
here who are quite willing to question the fundamental assumptions, but
who simply have not found any errors. Nevertheless, it is easy to have
a conversation with you concerning the premises of relativity, science,
etc., and that is nice!
As for your Christian views, I have two thoughts: One, the day that god
personally tells me the answers, I'll know for sure what to think, and two,
I would like for anyone to name me one subject, one field of study, other
than theology, that has the courage to ask questions such as "how should
we live," "why are we here," and "what happens to us after death?" I
respect all religions for having the guts to ask such questions, and I think
that most open-minded individuals tend to feel the same way, regardless
of their personal feelings for or against some religion. In contrast, anyone
who says "You are a Christian, therefore everything you say is nonsense,"
is simply using the old debating tactic of cutting someone to shreds in
order to "prove them wrong;" a tactic that, if true, would mean that since
Hitler said that 2 + 2 = 4, that it must be false, and we must get a new
system of mathematics. Pathetic, really.
Phil
David McAnally
Is it my imagination or is Bob Kolker making the same statement as Bilge
in order to try to correct what he perceives as a misapprehension of
Bilge. The above discussion looks to me exactly like:
Bilge: The eye is just a detector.
Bob Kolker: No, that's wrong. The eye is a detector.
How can Bob Kolker think that Bilge said that the eye is not just a
detector in response to Bilge saying that the eye IS just a detector?
Weird!
David McAnally
-----------------
Eric Baird
At least two ways to do it:
1: start with two perfectly flat, freshly milled surfaces, slide them
together and heat gently with the candle (or tap with a hammer). In
some circumstances, the two (unoxidised) surfaces merge, and the
stresses in the microcrystalline structure formed and exposed by the
milling can lead to zones in the two regions making a mesh. At that
point, you effectively have a cold weld.
2: use the thermite process. I think its supposed to be a mixture of
fine aluminium and iron filings, heat them enough to "burn" together
to create an alloy and they generate enough heat to meltt surrounding
metal. You might need to light a magnesium fuse to get up the reaction
temperature.
I'm guessing that that "magic paste" that you used to see people using
to burn through doors etc in "Man From Uncle" films might have been
supposed to be a thermite mixture.
So if your hypothetical welders had started immediately yah-booing the
idea, perhaps they wouldn't be experts in all aspects of welding
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
standard disclaimer: I am not a welder
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Baird" <eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:ltvm8u0t0f6gusb07...@4ax.com...
Man from UNCLE, now *that* is a long time ago... :-)
> So if your hypothetical welders had started immediately yah-booing the
> idea, perhaps they wouldn't be experts in all aspects of welding
>
> =Erk= (Eric Baird)
> standard disclaimer: I am not a welder
These methods might work but my method is different.
Much simpler actually, and the candle is all I need.
Dirk Vdm
Randy M. Dumse
news:a6aah5$a8q$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> Consider the case of John Forbes Nash Jr., the subject of the film
> "Beautiful Mind". ... But without his "madness" Zarathustra would
> necessarily have been only another of the millions or billions of
> human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten."
Very nicely supportive of my original point. Of course, I wasn't really
trying to imply the cranks are necessarily clinical mental cases. Certainly
Nash was at some times. Interesting how he comments how it wasn't always as
a "joy" to be sane.
> However, mental illness, by forcing the mind along
> paths which would otherwise be unexplored, can act
> as a source of creativity and insight.
More often than not, mental illness is just that, illness. The definition of
neurosis I am most familiar with is inability to comprehend (model) reality.
So thinking wrongly about reality may not be the equivalent to understanding
reality any better.
> However, to be an acknowledged "genius" it is necessary
> to think along untrodden paths, and to be driven and relentless
> in the pursuit of an idea.
Sometimes I wonder if true clinical cases only look like geniuses. The part
that is similar is the "driven and relentless" part. I have noticed when I
push myself hard creatively or in work, I get lots of people trying to
divert me. "Slow down", "You gotta get some exercise", "You can't work all
the time". I wonder what these same people say to Olympic class athletes in
training? "Quit pushing yourself", "You gotta read some books", "You can't
exercise all the time". :-) I think not. Everybody seems understands
stretching the body for a physical goal. No one seems to be supportive of
reaching for a mental goal. Perhaps because it is so much rarer an endeavor.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Robert B. Winn
Dirk,
Thank you for your comments.
>
> Robert, you should try and look around here. Your getting profanity,
> antagonism, and hostility to your questions is entirely self-inflicted.
> The normal procedure is to ask a question, get a reply and say
> "Thanks, that clears it up" or "Thanks, but that's over my head".
> You start your question with: "Hey, I have a question that no scientist
> has ever bothered to answer".
>
> Suppose this is a welder's forum and I ask:
> Hey, I want to weld two metal plates together with a candle.
> I know I can do it but no welder has ever given me a proper
> explanation why I couldn't do it. As soon as I talk about the
> candle they give me profanity, antagonism, and hostility.
>
> Dirk Vdm
contention are making a mistake. There are many welders who asked
foolish questions when they first started welding. There are other
welders who pretend to know everything about welding from the time
they start welding. The ones who ask questions are more likely to end
up as better welders, but not necessarily. Some people just cannot
weld.
Hostility to my questions is not self-inflicted. If the questions
are so bad, then why answer them?
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn
Dirk,
I use a portable welder and 7018 rod which seems to work well
enough for what I am doing. Maybe if I get into something that this
kind of welding does not handle, I will look into your process.
Robert B. Winn
Bilge
>This forum exists for the simple reason that the balance between
>intuition and mathematics was lost by the early 1900's,the self
>correcting mechanism that would have halted a mathematical work from
>swamping the intuitive sense was no longer in place,suddenly the
>mathematical became the intuitive and the world has paid dearly for
>that.
That doesn't require the rest of us to wait.
[...]
>Thus the reason why certain intuitive minds are not mathematical is
>that they are quite unable to apply themselves to the principles of
>mathematics,but the reason why mathematicians are not intuitive is
>that they cannot see what is in front of them;for being accustomed to
>the clearcut,obvious principles of mathematics and to draw no
>conclusions until they have clearly seen and handled all their
>principles,they become lost in matters requiring intuition,whoes
People boarding airplanes find it reassuring that the designers
used mathematics to check their intuition about things like "lift".
Ask someone next time you are on a plane. See if they agree.
[...]
>And intuitive minds which are merely intuitive lack the patience to go
>right into the first principles of speculative and imaginative matters
>which they have never seen in practice and are quite outside ordinary
>usage."
And bs is still bs.
Bilge
Re: Science as myth to usenet:
Did I miss something or did you just try to tell me I was wrong by
agreeing with me and expanding upon what I said?
Bob Kolker
OOOOOPS. Sorry. An Eye full of sleepy seeds.
My appologies.
Bob Kolker
Bilge
Re: Do Cranks Recant? [mostly OT] to usenet:
> Thank you for your comments. Most people who are considered
>cranks are persons of limited education like myself who had a question
>of some kind or another about the theory of relativity. Upon asking
>such a question, the response is so derogatory that the person
That's pretty dishonest of you. Limited education has nothing to do with
the derogatory comments your receive. An unwillingness to be educated and
deliberately being as ass to anyone naive enough to spend time providing
a detailed asnwer you have no intention of reading is why you receive
derogatory comments.
>immediately perceives that there is something wrong with scientists as
>a group. Maybe they are all just socially disfunctional people, but
Disfunctional is trolling for attention by abusing anyone that is
willing to pay attention. Disfunctional is buying into a guilt trip
for refusing to go along with the charade.
[...]
>any group which sets itself up as a light to the world.
> If the response of a scientist is profanity, insults,etc., then it
>is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all that the scientist made
>a mistake. So it just becomes a task of waiting to see what the
>mistake was.
You left of the "forgive them for they know not what they do" that
completes the tale of woe.
Oriel36
Phil,
I remembered a passage from Stephen Mitchell's introduction to the
translation of the Book of Job and I am leaving this as a way to tie
this in with the discussion and your above viewpoint .The full
introduction is found at
http://stephenmitchellbooks.com/translations/job.htm
"What does it mean to answer someone about human suffering? For there
are answers beyond the one-size-fits-all propositions of the
theologians. But these answers can’t be imposed from the
outside. They will resonate only where the questioner lets them enter.
Above all, they require a willingness to accept what can be
excruciating to the ego. Often we find such reality unbearable. The
light is so brilliant that it hurts, as in the Tibetan Book of the
Dead, and we retreat to the softer glow of a familiar, comfortable
grief.
There is never an answer to the great question of life and death,
unless it is my answer or yours. Because ultimately it isn’t a
question that is addressed, but a person. Our whole being has to be
answered. At that point, both question and answer disappear, like
hunger after a good meal.
“God is subtle, but not malicious,” Einstein said in a
different context. We have to listen to the Voice from the Whirlwind
in a more oblique mode, as if its true meaning lay inside the logical
framework of its words. First, we should notice how the answer
consists mostly of questions (a good Jewish trait). In their volume
and insistence, these questions acquire a peculiar quality. They sound
in our ears as a ground bass to the melody of their content, and
eventually function as a kind of benign subliminal message, asking a
fundamental question that will dissolve everything Job thought he
knew.
The closest we can get to that question is What do you know? During
their dialogue, Job and the friends agree about the limits of human
understanding, but none of them suspects how absolute those limits
are. In order to approach God, Job has to let go of all ideas about
God: he must put a cloud of unknowing (as a medieval Christian author
expressed it) between himself and God, or have the Voice do this for
him."
David McAnally
>My appologies.
Nice to see that Bob can apologise for *some* of his offences. It's a
pity that he can't apologise, or at least acknowledge, all of them.
David McAnally
----------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrna8lnt...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Bob Kolker said some stuff about
>
> >
> >small things of nature.
>
> Why does that matter?
>
> >Our detection devices require a theory to interpret their readings.
>
> The main difference between eyes and a phototubes is taht the information
> from a phototube is better.
>
> >So any insight we have into the very large and the very small of nature
> >is conditioned by a hypothesis.
>
> So?
>
> >In sure, all
> >the knowledge we have of the very large and the very small is
> >inferential and hypothetically grounded.
>
> You could simply say _all_ knowledge.
>
> >
> >And that is why physical theories will always be "up in the air" to an
> >extent.
>
> No, that isn't why. If you think your eyes are anything but a
> detector, then you are wrong.
I see there was some discussion about the eye being just a
detector or just a detector ;-)
I don't know where I read it, but it seems that the retina
consists of brain cells performing real brain stuff (like interpreting),
so we could safely call it a little bit more than just a detector.
A quick and dirty google search produces a.o.
http://www.wesleyan.edu/synthesis/Scientists/SOBER.HTM
So I propose we call the eye an intelligent detector, perhaps
a slightly smart extension of the brain ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert B. Winn" <rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4c9b6e23.02031...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<iEYi8.248932$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
[snip]
> > These methods might work but my method is different.
> > Much simpler actually, and the candle is all I need.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk,
> I use a portable welder and 7018 rod which seems to work well
> enough for what I am doing. Maybe if I get into something that this
> kind of welding does not handle, I will look into your process.
> Robert B. Winn
Why would you use a machine that uses a lot of energy, while you
can do it with just a candle?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert B. Winn" <rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4c9b6e23.02031...@posting.google.com...
It is not the questions... it is the attitude.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
>
> > Einstein is NOT rejecting the existence of a metaphysical
> > world. He is simply telling us that it is NOT the duty
> > of physics to determine what the hell it is. Done.
>
> On the other hand if our sciences do not tell us something true and
> useful about the world we live in (regardless of how the sciences are
> constructed) they are hardly worth the time and energy spent on them.
>
> Bob Kolker
OK, this takes us to the core of modern physics, which is the
preeminence of theory. And theory gives us two things:
1) fuzzy things called explanations, which are subjective, and
2) objective things called physical laws (as "objective," anyway,
as our anthropomorphic variables are "objective").
It's the physical laws that we ordinarily think of as being "true."
If asked if two massive bodies gravitationally attract each other,
I would say that's "true." But someday they might not attract
each other, so I don't say that the statement is "True."
To get out of dogmatism, all we need say about physical laws
is that our experience provides a reasonable basis to believe in them.
We needn't insist that they are inviolate forever. Let the future
be its own guardian of "Truth."
In any case, we need not and should not demand that the
models used within physical theories are True. And we
have the freedom to invent models irrespective of anyone
else's intuition about whether they are True or not.
Patrick
Etherman
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3C8B3D5A...@asu.edu...
>
>
> Etherman wrote:
>
> > > "Mark Q" <crag...@ua.moc.sumirpi> wrote in message
> > news:<3c874...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
> > > > I've heard of people switching from religious fundamentalism
to
> > atheism,
> > > > from objectivism to socialism, from supporting the Yankees to
> > supporting the
> > > > Mets, but I don't think I've ever heard about a single
crackpot
> > denouncing
> > > > his delusional game and becoming a scientist, or at least a
true
> > skeptic.
> > > > I've heard of scientists becoming crankish, perhaps even
outright
> > cranks,
> > > > but never the other way around. Why is that so? Or are there
> > really examples
> > > > of such people?
> >
> > To a limited extent this is true for me. I was once a Creationist
but
> > now I'm an evolutionist. I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not.
>
> I'm curious what was so appealing to you about the ether model?
The observed wave nature of light implied the existence of a medium.
So I tried solving the usual problems that relativists bring up and I
couldn't. Finally I decided a particle model would make more sense.
Of course I still haven't discovered an alternative to relativistic
field theory, but I'm hopeful :-)
> > All
> > in all you'd probably still think me a crank on other issues :-)
>
> I prefer to think of the creation/evolution debate as existing
> not within science per se, but within a much larger forum
> called natural philosophy -- the set of all philosophies of the
> natural realm. They both are myths, that is, beliefs systems
> that can be neither proved nor disproved by empirical
> means.
I think Young Earth Creationism (as science) can be disproved. Or it
could if such a scientific theory existed. Mostly we end up with
qualitative predictions that are invariably wrong.
> In the same sense we cannot prove that any of
> our sophisticated physical models of the last 400 years
> are true. Einstein tells us that this isn't important anyway.
> It's not the models that are important, or even the nature
> of the founding concepts that's important in physics,
> because there is no uniquely preferred foundation or
> theoretical approach to science. (This is a sort of a
> foundational meaning of "relativism" in science.)
A sufficiently, but not overly, complex lie is as good as truth.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Etherman
<rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a6fo50$jfb$1...@news.netmar.com...
> In article
>
<Pine.LNX.4.10.102030...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>
,
> Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> >I do not think it possible for a normally-functioning scientific
> >mind to reason its way towards creationism, i.e., by being
> >rational yet just making an error in knowledge or judgment. The
> >very premise of creationism is so irrational in nature that by
> >embracing it one removes oneself from any claim to rational
> >judgment, at least in this context.
> >
> >in the first place, those I have met who subsequently rejected
> >creationism brought with them the same crippled mental baggage
> >which initally led them towards creationism.
> >
> >I would be delighted to know a counterexample to these, one who
> >rejects creationism as having been an irrational choice, and yet
> >embraces evolutionism for rational reasons. Is this the case with
> >Etherman?
I embrace evolution basically because it's been observed. Allele
frequencies change over time. Speciation has been observed. The
fossil record is pretty consistent with the ideas of evolution. The
distribution of species fits with what we'd expect from evolution.
Evolution explains both good and bad "design." I used to argue for
Creationism a lot over in talk.origins and as I came to reject
Christianity and the inerrancy of the Bible I looked at the evolution
evidence without that bias. I discovered that all my objections to
evolution were based on my interpretation of the Bible and lies spread
by Creationists.
Bob Kolker
Etherman wrote:
>
>
> A sufficiently, but not overly, complex lie is as good as truth.
As long as the "lie" conforms with the outcome of experiment or
observation, which is the difference between science and metaphysical
claptrap.
Strange definition of "lie" when correspondence to reality is truth.
Bob Kolker
rbw...@mindspring.com
Well, the reason is that in structural steel, you have to weld with 7018
rod or something comparable because that is what is required by the building
code. If you can get your one candle process approved by the building
inspectors, people might start using it, but as far as welding goes in
structural steel, it is not done much different now than it was when welding
first started.
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
rbw...@mindspring.com
moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
>> Hostility to my questions is not self-inflicted. If the questions
>> are so bad, then why answer them?
>> Robert B. Winn
>
>It is not the questions... it is the attitude.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
Dirk,
My attitude is that there is something wrong with scientific
interpretation of relativity as it is taught today. Since I am relatively
uneducated and not very good at mathematics, it is unlikely that I will ever
figure out just what it is that I do not agree with.
That having been said, I do not allow people other than scientists to call
me dirty names, so I do not intend to let scientists do it. I think most
scientists are beginning to understand this even though they all consider it
a bad attitude toward science.
Dirk Van de moortel
<rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:a6l03g$ebg$1...@news.netmar.com...
> In article <6Iaj8.249860$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van de
> moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >> Hostility to my questions is not self-inflicted. If the questions
> >> are so bad, then why answer them?
> >> Robert B. Winn
> >
> >It is not the questions... it is the attitude.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
> Dirk,
> My attitude is that there is something wrong with scientific
> interpretation of relativity as it is taught today. Since I am relatively
> uneducated and not very good at mathematics, it is unlikely that I will ever
> figure out just what it is that I do not agree with.
You might just listen to the replies and accept them. If you don't
understand the replies, you might consider finding another hobby.
But I already told you that, so never mind.
> That having been said, I do not allow people other than scientists to call
> me dirty names, so I do not intend to let scientists do it. I think most
> scientists are beginning to understand this even though they all consider it
> a bad attitude toward science.
I do not understand what you are trying to say.
But never mind, I'm not a welder.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
rbw...@mindspring.com wrote:
> In article <6Iaj8.249860$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van de
> moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >> Hostility to my questions is not self-inflicted. If the questions
> >> are so bad, then why answer them?
> >> Robert B. Winn
> >
> >It is not the questions... it is the attitude.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
> Dirk,
> My attitude is that there is something wrong with scientific
> interpretation of relativity as it is taught today. Since I am relatively
> uneducated and not very good at mathematics, it is unlikely that I will ever
> figure out just what it is that I do not agree with.
I think that there is a lot of resistance to SR from people
who think that it has failed to explain light propagation.
But Einstein never intended to use SR as an explanation
of light propagation. If he had, that would have been
a constructive type theory he spoke of. Instead, he was
interested in unification, and he found out how to do this
by use of what he called a "principle" theory. What he
did was to start with strongly confirmed empirical and
transformational principles -- the Light Principle and his
view of the socalled Principle of Relativity, and used
them to unify optics and mechanics. Since 1905, this same
approach has found a much greater unification too, for it
is used to unify all the known forces of nature. If schools
would teach relativity in its historical perspective then maybe
students would genuinely appreciate what a brilliant
accomplishment Einstein actually made.
This was Einstein's original interpretation of relativity:
Why the hell would Nature invest in two different
transformations (Galilean and Lorentzian) of the equations
that describe the behavior of mechanics and optics -- two
phenomena that actually interact with each other at the
macroscopic level?
This is perhaps the most profound question asked
of nature by any physicist of the twentieth century. It
could have been asked much earlier but wasn't. It was
asked by Einstein because he was focused on behavior,
unlike his predecessor and contemporaries who were
fixated on mechanical models. Einstein deserves to be
called a genius!
But not even a genius can sidestep the fundamental
limitations of all physical theories, which is that they
must arbitrarily start somewhere, and rest their foundation
on the trivial explanation, "Just because." At least in the
case of the Light Principle the justification is empirically
sound even if theoretically unexplained.
It's as if the real question being asked by these skeptics
is this: "Well, why can't physics just explain EVERYTHING"?
Well, apart from the fact that it is in practice very difficult to
explain anything at all, there is a simple logically reason why
this is impossible. It is impossible because "to explain" is
to offer a reason of something based on something else more
primitive. So, what the skeptics are asking for would
require an infinite regress of ever more primitive explanations.
This just can't work.
The single biggest stumbling block of the young skeptics
is that they were never taught what the hell a physical
theory really is all about. They don't know what its
purpose is or how it's logically constructed.
Patrick
Etherman
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C8DDED2...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Etherman wrote:
> >
> >
> > A sufficiently, but not overly, complex lie is as good as truth.
>
> As long as the "lie" conforms with the outcome of experiment or
> observation, which is the difference between science and
metaphysical
> claptrap.
Indeed. But when it doesn't you just make the lie a bit more complex.
> Strange definition of "lie" when correspondence to reality is truth.
Fields are real. Is the previous sentence true or just a complex lie?
Patrick Reany
Etherman wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> [snip] I was once an Aetherist, now I'm not.
> >
> > I'm curious what was so appealing to you about the ether model?
>
> The observed wave nature of light implied the existence of a medium.
> So I tried solving the usual problems that relativists bring up and I
> couldn't. Finally I decided a particle model would make more sense.
> Of course I still haven't discovered an alternative to relativistic
> field theory, but I'm hopeful :-)
According the Einstein nothing is logically implied by
the "wave" nature of light.
Possibly we can say that the EM "wave" equations
might *suggest* trying an explanation based on some
carrying medium, but we don't have to, and we can't
reverse engineer deep reality from mere observations
and creative thought. Fortunately, from the standpoint
of doing physics, we don't have to. We can freely
create our own explanations instead. Or choose to
go around a problem by taking a different approach
in which the nature of the propagation becomes
irrelevant.
Patrick
Gerry Quinn
wrote:
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
>> is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
>> is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths, unless he
>> can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
>> appears to generate them.
>
>Once again you do NOT understand what the hell I am saying,
>which is amazing as what I am saying is damn simple. I am
>saying that without a method of verifying the existence of
>truth it is meaningless to say that you have found one. Science
>has no such verification method.
But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that science, given certain
simple assumptions, will generate truths. I've never claimed to have
mathematically provably found one, but I certainly think any reasonable
person would agree that to an over-reaching order of probability,
science, given the assumptions that the universe is not a trick, has
indeed found truths. For example, the principle of relativity, which
states that within a certain regime, physical laws may be put in a
certain simple form which does not depend on the empirically discovered
(and almost certainly true, in context) property of 'motion', is
probably true. We'd be very surprised if we suddenly found our
observations to this effect were in error, (i.e. not true).
>If you can take a statement of
>science and verify that it is true from a position outside of
>science proper then you have a metascientific truth, not
>a scientific truth. Who's to say that a physical law that has lasted
>for 400 years won't be proven tomorrow to be utterly false?
Such as? Seriously, give us an example of what you mean - our actions
are controlled by planetary occultations, perhaps?
>But I am saying much more than that the behavior of nature
>may change; I am saying that the True ontology of nature is
>actually irrelevant to DOING theorizing.
You keep on bringing up these new concepts without definition. What's
"True" above? Is it the same thing as we mean when we say "true"? You
are Bill Clinton and I claim my five pounds.
>> At other times he indulges in more serious excursions away from science,
>> as for example when he asserts that the principle of relativity should
>> be an axiom, rather than a (probably true, at least within a
>> certain regime) theory derived from observation.
>
>There is nothing more serious than the destruction of this long
>held ridiculous, pompous and obvious bigoted and pointlessly
>argumentative belief that science can produce truths of the
>type that I'm claiming it cannot.
What type is that? You haven't defined it. I claim only that science
can produce truths.
>But you also didn't understand what I was saying about the
>principle of relativity. It is not a truth or even an axiom.
>It is a commitment to place physical laws in a certain form.
>It is a stylistic convention that has proven to have enormous
>heuristic value.
Now you are talking about a commitment to the use of generally covariant
equations, an issue of no particular relevance to the principle of
relativity (and which for Einstein came LATER than the PoR). Please get
your terms right, at least. For the sake of argument, I'll accede that
it may be a useful heuristic - it certainly acted as such for Einstein,
who at one time even mistook the heuristic for the theory. He got it
right later on, though.
>Einstein told us we get to CHOOSE the research program
>we want. He told us that we get to CHOOSE the mode
>of theory we prefer -- either constructive or principled or
>whatever. And he also told us that we get to CHOOSE
>the physical concepts we want -- to freely invent them --
>within the theory and/or research program. But what has
>this generation of physicists done with all this insight that
>Einstein has given us? Do they really believe that Einstein
>is a genius or not?
Einstein was a genius (though not the only one). He said a lot of
things at different times about the scientific method, many of them
highly contradictory.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>news:kiIi8.6422$W8.5...@news.indigo.ie...
>> In article <3C8AC233...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >Correct. Understanding itself is dependent on the theory we
>> >use to "explain" it and on the research program that was used
>> >to found the theory. There is no proof of reality anywhere
>> >there. Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
>> >and are not, however it may naively seem to the contrary,
>> >uniquely determined by the measurable aspects of our
>> >experiences. Measurement itself is the free invention of the
>> >human mind. People should stop taking the "reality" of
>> >metrical variables for granted. Who knows what they
>> >really mean independently of human concepts.
>>
>> By my third axiom (the world is not purposely designed to fool us) we
>> can justify statistical correlation of repeated observations as
>> generators of truth; measurements fall into this category.
>>
>If by truth here, you mean that the results are correct, maybe.
What else would I mean? I don't have a bunch of different straw horse
"Truths" and 'TRUTHS'.
>Whether or not
>the universe fools you on purpose is not relevant, it can still make a monkey
>out of you. Its done it before, and it wont be the last time me thinks.
>
>How do you define mass? length? time? One big circular argument, always.
The truths we find don't depend on such differences. Apples fall
towards the centres of planets, pace certain corrections. Am alien
species capable of advanced science might express this probable truth in
a different way, but they would be expressing the same truth - something
known about the universe.
- Gerry Quinn
Kevin Aylward
Do they?. Well, I don't believe you. I don't even belive you exist. I am
obviosly talking to another computer...
There might well be a truth. Unfortunately, there is really is no way to _prove_
that if such a truth existed, that that is indeed the case. Its that simple.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Kevin Aylward
> In article <3C8B944C...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu>
> wrote:
> >Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >> Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
> >> is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
> >> is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths, unless he
> >> can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
> >> appears to generate them.
> >
> >Once again you do NOT understand what the hell I am saying,
> >which is amazing as what I am saying is damn simple. I am
> >saying that without a method of verifying the existence of
> >truth it is meaningless to say that you have found one. Science
> >has no such verification method.
>
> But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that science, given certain
> simple assumptions, will generate truths.
But there is no way to varify that these "truths" are true.
> I've never claimed to have
> mathematically provably found one, but I certainly think any reasonable
> person would agree that to an over-reaching order of probability,
> science, given the assumptions that the universe is not a trick, has
> indeed found truths.
I don't see that. I think any rational person that understands the deeper
meaning of the word "relativity" should understand that truth is relative as
well.
>For example, the principle of relativity, which
> states that within a certain regime, physical laws may be put in a
> certain simple form which does not depend on the empirically discovered
> (and almost certainly true, in context) property of 'motion', is
> probably true. We'd be very surprised if we suddenly found our
> observations to this effect were in error, (i.e. not true).
Independent of whether or not effects really are independent of motion, one can
_always_ put physical laws in such a form. Its called general covariance. Its a
mathematical identity. Trust me on this, cos I can not be bothered quoting MTW
on this again. So, you can not determine whether or not the POR is in fact true
or not.
>
> >If you can take a statement of
> >science and verify that it is true from a position outside of
> >science proper then you have a metascientific truth, not
> >a scientific truth. Who's to say that a physical law that has lasted
> >for 400 years won't be proven tomorrow to be utterly false?
>
> Such as? Seriously, give us an example of what you mean - our actions
> are controlled by planetary occultations, perhaps?
>
Historically, one can easily argue that _all_ laws have failed. I see no reason
why this shall change. For example, its known that GR and QM are technically not
compatible. At least on of them is wrong. I guess, from historically precedence,
that they probably both are.
>
> >> At other times he indulges in more serious excursions away from science,
> >> as for example when he asserts that the principle of relativity should
> >> be an axiom, rather than a (probably true, at least within a
> >> certain regime) theory derived from observation.
> >
> >There is nothing more serious than the destruction of this long
> >held ridiculous, pompous and obvious bigoted and pointlessly
> >argumentative belief that science can produce truths of the
> >type that I'm claiming it cannot.
>
> What type is that? You haven't defined it. I claim only that science
> can produce truths.
>
Prove this.
> >But you also didn't understand what I was saying about the
> >principle of relativity. It is not a truth or even an axiom.
> >It is a commitment to place physical laws in a certain form.
> >It is a stylistic convention that has proven to have enormous
> >heuristic value.
>
> Now you are talking about a commitment to the use of generally covariant
> equations, an issue of no particular relevance to the principle of
> relativity (and which for Einstein came LATER than the PoR). Please get
> your terms right, at least. For the sake of argument, I'll accede that
> it may be a useful heuristic - it certainly acted as such for Einstein,
> who at one time even mistook the heuristic for the theory. He got it
> right later on, though.
I agree absolutly that the concepts of POR and general covariance are quite
distinct. However, how do you propose to experimentally determine the POR from
general covariance?
Patrick Reany
I have recently answered your questions in another
post, but I will quickly recap them here.
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <3C8B944C...@asu.edu>, Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu>
> wrote:
> >Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >> Patrick is trying to conflate the notions of truth and provability. He
> >> is perfectly at liberty to say that science doesn't prove truths, but he
> >> is incorrect to assert that science does not generate truths, unless he
> >> can prove otherwise - in face of the obvious common-sense notion that it
> >> appears to generate them.
> >
> >Once again you do NOT understand what the hell I am saying,
> >which is amazing as what I am saying is damn simple. I am
> >saying that without a method of verifying the existence of
> >truth it is meaningless to say that you have found one. Science
> >has no such verification method.
>
> But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that science, given certain
> simple assumptions, will generate truths.
Please think more carefully on this, for you have not
addressed the main point of the argument yet. There
are two important points here that you keep
cavalierly glossing over
1) science producing "truth" in some manner is NOT
the same as science producing "scientific truth,"
i.e., a claim that science itself has the means of
verifying the existence of this "truth."
2) There are two kinds of "truth" that I'm addressing.
a) "Truth" -- a statement bearing physical content that
is independent of human cognition and is unalterable
for all future time.
b) "truth" -- a statement bearing physical content whose
believability for the indefinite future is reasonable given
its present level of testing (this is NOT the most
general definition of "truth" but is rather tailored for
use in the sense of science, but even at that it is
vague and requires the full definition of the scientific
method to give it precise meaning).
And a third point is that there many other notions of "truth."
I grant that science correctly uses the scientific method to
arrive at "scientific truth," but not to arrive at "Truth." To claim
that science can produce "Truth" requires either an act
of faith or a method of verification that lies outside of
science. I think it naive to believe that science of today
has infinite reach into the future.
There is another aspect of truth to be mindful of. THERE IS
NO ONE WAY TO DEFINE OR TEST FOR TRUTH.
Whatever truth you claim to have is only as good as the
arbitrarily invented means of testing for it. This is the realm
of epistemology. There are religious, moral, social, scientific,
cultural, logical, historical, medical, etc KINDS of truths,
each having its own -- or even having many -- kinds of
"truth tests." There is no single meaning to "truth" used
by humans in all situations where the term is used.
> I've never claimed to have
> mathematically provably found one, but I certainly think any reasonable
> person would agree that to an over-reaching order of probability,
> science, given the assumptions that the universe is not a trick, has
> indeed found truths.
I think you should define what *you* mean by "truth."
I am trying to stay out of the realm of justifying the
existence of "truth" on the basis of human intuition or
appeal to probability. Truth is something that has to
be arbitrarily defined to have any meaning that we
can discuss rationally. You can use your intuition to
define what you mean by "truth" in a given situation,
but from thereafter it's a matter of rational analysis.
> For example, the principle of relativity, which
> states that within a certain regime, physical laws may be put in a
> certain simple form which does not depend on the empirically discovered
> (and almost certainly true, in context) property of 'motion', is
> probably true. We'd be very surprised if we suddenly found our
> observations to this effect were in error, (i.e. not true).
I wish you had paid much more attention to my boring
pontificating on the PoR so that you would not have
fallen into this very old mind trap. Einstein used the
PoR to IMPLICITLY define what he meant by a
"physical law." (Which is not well suited for perspicuity!)
In any case, this proves that your argument is circular,
or rather *logically true*. So, in this sense only you
get a kind of "truth."
The classification of "logically true" is really outside
the pale of our discussion, though it is good to bring
it up for our purpose of clear contrast.
In other words, just like the PoR itself, your argument has
no physical content. Only those equations that have
physical content and are in the correct style (say Lorentz
invariant) will be dignified with the adjective of "physical law."
For example, person A comes to a physicist P with a claim to
have discovered a "physical law. P looks carefully at it and
says that it may well be an important relationship but it's
not yet in the correct form to be called a "physical law" by
relativistic standards. And if this is not specific enough I
go back to Einstein's original notion of the "general"
physical law, which is dependent on the requirement of
form invariance. In other words, this requires that the
"general physical laws" be covariant while allowing for
"physical laws" which need not be. But the PoR was
originally about "general physical laws." A notion, which
as far as I can determine, was invented by Einstein.
And this is why the PoR has only heuristic value!
>
> >If you can take a statement of
> >science and verify that it is true from a position outside of
> >science proper then you have a metascientific truth, not
> >a scientific truth. Who's to say that a physical law that has lasted
> >for 400 years won't be proven tomorrow to be utterly false?
>
> Such as? Seriously, give us an example of what you mean - our actions
> are controlled by planetary occultations, perhaps?
Take your pick. Anything at all might not be the same
tomorrow as it is today. Gravity. E&M. Whatever.
The infinite future is a long time for serious change to occur.
All I'm saying is that it's possible. Let the future be its own
guardian of TRUTH.
> [snip]
> >
> >There is nothing more serious than the destruction of this long
> >held ridiculous, pompous and obvious bigoted and pointlessly
> >argumentative belief that science can produce truths of the
> >type that I'm claiming it cannot.
>
> What type is that? You haven't defined it. I claim only that science
> can produce truths.
OK, I defined what I meant by "truth" in many other posts
and now in this post above. Again I point out that to
claim that science produces "truth" requires on your part
two things
1) a definition of "truth" and
2) a method of testing this "truth"
If all you're going to tell me is that whatsoever
the scientific method spits out as "truth" is indeed
scientific "truth" then I'm not impressed. I explained
above that that particular kind of truth can be justifiable,
but not scientific "Truth" as I defined above. But
understand the heart of the argument. The argument
is circular because the use of the scientific method to
produce "truth" is circular, because it can only
produce "scientific truth." We have to quit thinking
of truth as something independent of the means
by which it is verified. It is not! In other words,
truths arrived at through different verification standards
are not even necessary comparable.
Epistemology is to naive thinking about "truth" as
science is to commonsense.
> [snip]
Patrick
Gerry Quinn
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>news:s0Hj8.7104$W8.5...@news.indigo.ie...
>> states that within a certain regime, physical laws may be put in a
>> certain simple form which does not depend on the empirically discovered
>> (and almost certainly true, in context) property of 'motion', is
>> probably true. We'd be very surprised if we suddenly found our
>> observations to this effect were in error, (i.e. not true).
>
>Independent of whether or not effects really are independent of motion, one can
>_always_ put physical laws in such a form. Its called general covariance. Its a
>mathematical identity. Trust me on this, cos I can not be bothered quoting MTW
>on this again. So, you can not determine whether or not the POR is in fact true
>or not.
You (and Patrick after you) did not properly read what I wrote. That
physical laws may be put in a form that doesn't depend on motion is
indeed a mathematical fact, nothing to do with physics. That physical
laws may be put in a ***SIMPLE*** form that doesn't depend on motion is
however an empirical observation, a case for statistical analysis, a
probable truth. A pattern in the datastream, the shape of God's
handiwork, if you wish. (If not God, indeed, then surely some Demon.)
The one is math, the other science. Einstein confused them once (though
in a slightly different context) but we, whilst not smarter, should be
alert knowing of his error.
- Gerry Quinn
Martin Gradwell
Randy M. Dumse <r...@newmicros.com> wrote in message
news:je3j8.5263$JZ6.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> "Martin Gradwell" <mtgra...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a6aah5$a8q$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
..
> > However, mental illness, by forcing the mind along
> > paths which would otherwise be unexplored, can act
> > as a source of creativity and insight.
>
> More often than not, mental illness is just that, illness. The definition
of
> neurosis I am most familiar with is inability to comprehend (model)
reality.
> So thinking wrongly about reality may not be the equivalent to
understanding
> reality any better.
What does it mean, inability to comprehend reality? Does it mean
that one has no model at all, or does it mean that the model is
incorrect in some way? The latter, surely, since everybody except
the most seriously mentally impaired will have some model. But,
how do we decide whether a model is correct or not?
Much mental illness is indeed "just" illness, resulting in
inappropriate behaviour for which the sufferer can give
no sensible explanation. But where there is a strong
(and possibly enforced) consensus, those outside the
consensus may be unfairly labelled. For instance, in the
Soviet Union there was a category of Schizophrenia
("sluggishly progressing schizophrenia") which was used
to label political dissidents and confine them to psychiatric
hospitals "for the purpose of silencing them or getting
them to recant their ideas" - see
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/schizophrenia
This is relevant here because theoretical physics is all
about the modelling of reality. Competing theories are
competing models of reality. Furthermore there is an
emergent consensus. This is not (yet) legally enforced,
and if it ever is then the science will cease to advance,
but there is a tendency among supporters of the concensus
to regard it as "the" model of reality. To fail to accept
this model fully is to fail to grasp reality.
Also, much of physics, even at the heart of the consensus,
appears at least superficially to be off its trolley, out of
its tree, and several sandwiches short of a picnic. Reading
it can result in a strong compulsion to glance at a calendar,
to check that it isn't April 1st. So, on both sides of the
"common sense"/"consensus" divide there is a temptation
to describe the opposition stances in terms of mental
illness.
"Crank" and "crackpot" are not a medical or legal
terms, but they are intended to convey the impression
of a failure to grasp reality, as in delusional mental illness.
They are used as labels in ad-hominem arguments, in
preference to discussing the actual ideas being raised.
>
> > However, to be an acknowledged "genius" it is necessary
> > to think along untrodden paths, and to be driven and relentless
> > in the pursuit of an idea.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if true clinical cases only look like geniuses. The
part
> that is similar is the "driven and relentless" part.
I would say the part that is similar is the tendency to see
the world in a different way. You can work your guts out
in pursuit of prosaic goals (a slow advance up the career
ladder, a comfortable retirement..) and nobody will call
you a genius. They might say you are mad to put up with
your abysmal working conditions, but they are speaking
figuratively.
> I have noticed when I
> push myself hard creatively or in work, I get lots of people trying to
> divert me. "Slow down", "You gotta get some exercise", "You can't work all
> the time".
How do you push yourself hard creatively? Keep banging
your head until an idea comes?
> I wonder what these same people say to Olympic class athletes in
> training? "Quit pushing yourself", "You gotta read some books", "You can't
> exercise all the time". :-) I think not. Everybody seems understands
> stretching the body for a physical goal. No one seems to be supportive of
> reaching for a mental goal. Perhaps because it is so much rarer an
endeavor.
Ah. "You gotta read some books". Is that how you push
yourself creatively? But those books are full of *other peoples'*
ideas. Assimilating is not creating. Much office work is a long,
hard mental slog, but I wouldn't call that sort of thing creative.
OK, a computer programmer "creates" a program by relentlessly
typing and debugging, battling against the computer every step
of the way, but that isn't really creativity. It's just taking a design
and making it manifest. The creativity is in producing the design
in the first place, if it is original.
Ask yourself why you get lots of people telling you to
"slow down". Consider the possibility that they are right.
(Disclaimer: It's not my fault if you follow this advice
and lose your job).
>
> --
> Randy M. Dumse
>
> Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
Randy M. Dumse
> What does it mean, inability to comprehend reality?
The psychologist who offered that description, (Brandon. I got it second
hand from one of his patients in casual party conversation. Think I also
read it in his work, but don't recall clearly.) implied we are all
neurotic to some degree, in that we do not fully comprehend reality.
Some do better than most, most understand reality well enough to
function, and some have it very wrong.
> Does it mean that one has no model at all, or does it mean that the
> model is incorrect in some way?
His premise is we all have it wrong to varying degrees, and in varying
areas. After all reality is considerably larger and more complex than
the little part we are able to hold in our brains as our model about it.
The better our model fits reality, the better we do, and thereby the
less neurotic we are. So I suppose you could say the test of fit of the
model was the ability to survive, function and prosper.
> The latter, surely, since everybody except
> the most seriously mentally impaired will have some model. But,
> how do we decide whether a model is correct or not?
The model is measured by practical results. Consider a typical child who
thinks they can walk through anything they can see through. Sliding
glass doors usually provide a little reality check on the ol' forehead.
This causes a modification for their model of reality. Generally, they
are pretty quick on the up take, and the problem goes away with only
minor need for occasional reinforcement. The inability of an adult to
avoid collisions with glass doors might be an indication there is
something seriously flawed with his model, or his ability to
learn/adapt.
> But where there is a strong
> (and possibly enforced) consensus, those outside the
> consensus may be unfairly labeled.
Much is swept under the rug in the name of the collective.
> This is relevant here because theoretical physics is all
> about the modeling of reality. Competing theories are
> competing models of reality.
Here in theoretical physics, though, the models are (generally) held
separate from the modeler. That is, the models themselves are
independent of the mental wherewithal of the person or persons holding
the model. Too much personal attachment to the model maybe an indication
of neurosis. I am always suspicious of any idea I find I really "want"
to be right.
> Furthermore there is an
> emergent consensus. This is not (yet) legally enforced,
> and if it ever is then the science will cease to advance,
Agreed. In many ways, these counter forces, of stasis and change, are
the main theater of societal conflict. My opinion is we will have
dissidents with us always, because our genes conspire to throw out at
least 1 in 100 who can't stand to conform.
> but there is a tendency among supporters of the consensus
> to regard it as "the" model of reality. To fail to accept
> this model fully is to fail to grasp reality.
Indeed, as is the subject of a split on this thread, "Science as myth".
> Also, much of physics, even at the heart of the consensus,
> appears at least superficially to be off its trolley, out of
> its tree, and several sandwiches short of a picnic. Reading
> it can result in a strong compulsion to glance at a calendar,
> to check that it isn't April 1st. So, on both sides of the
> "common sense"/"consensus" divide there is a temptation
> to describe the opposition stances in terms of mental
> illness.
By that statement, I suspect you of being genetically 1 in 100. Don't
worry, I suspect the same of me.
> "Crank" and "crackpot" are not a medical or legal
> terms, but they are intended to convey the impression
> of a failure to grasp reality, as in delusional mental illness.
> They are used as labels in ad-hominem arguments, in
> preference to discussing the actual ideas being raised.
There is a discussion going on elsewhere in which the two sides are
arguing (IMHO) about interchanged terms, pitch and amplitude. Since I
can look these terms up in the dictionary, as can any in that
conversation, and see which group is using the term in the most standard
way, I infer one group does not have a good grasp on reality and the
other does, in this limited case. To chose non-standard definitions to
sacrifice clear communications to preserve self illusions, seems to me
much like walking into glass doors.
> > that is similar is the "driven and relentless" part.
>
> I would say the part that is similar is the tendency to see
> the world in a different way.
The question is if they are driven to see the world in a different way
for the sake of discovery, or if they are driven to see the world in a
specifically different way because they hinge their special identity on
the truth in the difference only they can appreciate.
> How do you push yourself hard creatively? Keep banging
> your head until an idea comes?
I remember one point where I'd work 9AM to 11PM for weeks at a time. I
was laying out a board design which was the future for our
microprocessor board line. I was literally at the very edge of what was
possible with the standard 2-layer processing of the day. I remember
spending days chasing the last few traces around. I knew the coming 10
or 20 years of my company depended on what I decided was feasible or not
in those days. I also remember some "friends" saying "slow down, why
push so hard, what does it matter?" One of them, I last caught a glimpse
of as a homeless man selling flowers on the median. (Sadly, a true story
of my first employee. We had a falling out about him taking a month and
a half fishing trip to Argentinia.) In the meantime, I've retired in my
mid-40's to work on things which matter most to me.
> Ah. "You gotta read some books". Is that how you push
> yourself creatively? But those books are full of *other peoples'*
> ideas. Assimilating is not creating. Much office work is a long,
> hard mental slog, but I wouldn't call that sort of thing creative.
> OK, a computer programmer "creates" a program by relentlessly
> typing and debugging, battling against the computer every step
> of the way, but that isn't really creativity. It's just taking a
design
> and making it manifest. The creativity is in producing the design
> in the first place, if it is original.
I think you are whipping someone else's dead horse in this paragraph.
> Ask yourself why you get lots of people telling you to
> "slow down". Consider the possibility that they are right.
Sigh. Couldn't resist, eh?
Yes. I am, and have, worked myself near t6 death. I already have three
mildly fatal diseases, and I started to go blind in my right eye a few
months ago. I wouldn't trade what I've accomplished for all the drunken
seaside strolls at sunset in the world.
> (Disclaimer: It's not my fault if you follow this advice
> and lose your job).
I haven't had a "job" since 1983. I create jobs by coming up with
profitable ideas and let other people do them with me. That's not to say
I am immune to twists of fate...
Robert B. Winn
> > >It is not the questions... it is the attitude.
Dirk,
Thank you for your comments.
> > >Dirk Vdm
> > >
> > Dirk,
> > My attitude is that there is something wrong with scientific
> > interpretation of relativity as it is taught today. Since I am relatively
> > uneducated and not very good at mathematics, it is unlikely that I will ever
> > figure out just what it is that I do not agree with.
>
> You might just listen to the replies and accept them. If you don't
> understand the replies, you might consider finding another hobby.
> But I already told you that, so never mind.
Some people might, but I never do any more. Everything today is
run on the principle of adversarial process of a courtroom. Then
there is a judge who is supposed to be the ultimate authority, etc.,
which is the position scientists take in this newsgroup. But my
experience in actual courtrooms convinced me that the persons furthest
removed from reality were the judges, who were supposed to know so
much. Secondly, a defendant can prove this without any difficulty
just by asking for a trial by jury, which the Constitution of the
United States guarantees defendants in all criminal prosecutions, the
Constitution being the supreme law of the land by its own definition,
etc., after which any judge in the United States today will deny the
trial by jury except in rare circumstances such as the O.J. trial or
some other event that lawyers want publicized.
But you tell me scientists are different from lawyers. Scientists
are honest and should always be believed. Why should I believe
someone who calls me dirty names?
> > That having been said, I do not allow people other than scientists to call
> > me dirty names, so I do not intend to let scientists do it. I think most
> > scientists are beginning to understand this even though they all consider it
> > a bad attitude toward science.
>
> I do not understand what you are trying to say.
> But never mind, I'm not a welder.
There are people other than welders who do not like being called dirty
names.
Robert B. Winn
Robert B. Winn
Bilge,
Thank you for your comments.
> That's pretty dishonest of you. Limited education has nothing to do with
> the derogatory comments your receive. An unwillingness to be educated and
> deliberately being as ass to anyone naive enough to spend time providing
> a detailed asnwer you have no intention of reading is why you receive
> derogatory comments.
Not dishonest at all. All you are saying is that anyone who is not
convinced by your explanations of the Lorentz equations or who has
further questions about it should be called dirty names and labeled as
stupid. Now the fact of the matter is that it makes no difference who
does this or who the person is, that person has made a mistake. So
that brings up a further question, If this great scientist is so prone
to mistakes, why not investigate a little further and see what other
mistakes there are?
> >immediately perceives that there is something wrong with scientists as
> >a group. Maybe they are all just socially disfunctional people, but
>
> Disfunctional is trolling for attention by abusing anyone that is
> willing to pay attention. Disfunctional is buying into a guilt trip
> for refusing to go along with the charade.
You have a strange definition of abuse. Profanity and insults are all
right, but the minute I say, Profanity is the attempt of a weak mind
to make a strong statement, you say you have been abused. Go ahead
and say it. I do not think it is true.
> >any group which sets itself up as a light to the world.
> > If the response of a scientist is profanity, insults,etc., then it
> >is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all that the scientist made
> >a mistake. So it just becomes a task of waiting to see what the
> >mistake was.
>
> You left of the "forgive them for they know not what they do" that
> completes the tale of woe.
Yes, thank you. God will forgive whom he will forgive, but of us it
is required to forgive all men.
Robert B. Winn
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert B. Winn" <rbw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4c9b6e23.02031...@posting.google.com...
Getting called dirty names has nothing to do with the value
of the message that goes along with it.
You can very easily avoid getting dirty names by:
- not using the word "scientists" when addressing people.
- listening to the replies
- showing that you are interested in the replies
- showing that the message gets through
- accepting that you are wrong when people show that you are wrong
>
> > > That having been said, I do not allow people other than scientists to call
> > > me dirty names, so I do not intend to let scientists do it. I think most
> > > scientists are beginning to understand this even though they all consider it
> > > a bad attitude toward science.
> >
> > I do not understand what you are trying to say.
> > But never mind, I'm not a welder.
>
> There are people other than welders who do not like being called dirty
> names.
Of course, there are other people other than welders who
- use the word "scientists" when addressing people
- refuse to listen to the replies
- show that they are not interested in the replies
- refuse to let the message get through
- do not accept that they are wrong when people show they are wrong
Dirk Vdm