Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You want me to stop saying you don't understand concepts yet it is clear that you either don't or you are deliberately being deceptive by redefining things to your own personal ideas without opening them up to scrutiny then hailing that the concepts everyone else uses don't match those that you are using. You are following in strong tradition. Einstein made his whole crap argument through sentences that began with 'It is clear that...'. When real world results confirm the theory... Not another 'last word' merchant! An argument between you and DeGaul would be fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Fyi Paradox, Wikipedia defines a rhetorical question thus... "A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply." So, I've indicated which of my comments are rhetorical questions, for your benefit. Please answer the non-rhetorical ones. Thank you, BAA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paradox wrote... No -- it's because very few philosophers would confer upon such a nebulous term as 'science' the exalted and well-defined status that Popper and, generally, the science community like to. ...and 'science' needs the seal of endorsement/approval of these philosophers? Like a fish needs a bicycle? (Rhetorical question!) Machines stop working, experimentation becomes impossible, universal laws and constants begin varying, effect precedes cause and cosmic chaos ensues? Really? (Rhetorical question!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Please answer the non-rhetorical ones. Can you give me a good reason why I should? Paradox wrote... No -- it's because very few philosophers would confer upon such a nebulous term as 'science' the exalted and well-defined status that Popper and, generally, the science community like to. ...and 'science' needs the seal of endorsement/approval of these philosophers? Like a fish needs a bicycle? (Rhetorical question!) Machines stop working, experimentation becomes impossible, universal laws and constants begin varying, effect precedes cause and cosmic chaos ensues? Really? (Rhetorical question!) You might find this interesting (or even very interesting), as it highlights the messiness of the whole domain of proof and falsification: http://philosophysother.blogspot.com/2011/06/lehrer-jonah-truth-wears-off-is-there.html BTW I have never objected to extolling experimentation for what it can achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Paradox wrote... Can you give me a good reason why I should? BAA replied... Why don't you just dodge the issue by answering the question with a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The New Yorker, complete article about research problems: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer And a healthy and level headed analysis of the New Yorker article: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-decline-effect/ Problems of scientific research in the field of drugs, psychology, and sociology, do not automatically make 1+1≠2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The New Yorker, complete article about research problems: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer And a healthy and level headed analysis of the New Yorker article: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-decline-effect/ Problems of scientific research in the field of drugs, psychology, and sociology, do not automatically make 1+1≠2. Two soft sciences and a science that is no secret influenced by a multi billion dollar industry. Disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And an argument that the "Decline Effect" shows the strength of scientific method, not a weakness: http://failedempire.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-decline-effect-demonstrates-strength-of-the-scientific-method-not-weakness/ It's quite interesting that in an industry where falsifying results and the chances of "conspiracies" is more likely, they admit errors, within a decade or two. While in a scientific field where no one is getting rich (I don't know anyone who became multimillionaire from relativity theory), there's no "Decline Effect" after a whole century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Now you say you haven't discussed what your conception of force is. So it seems you have been arguing something which none of us were privy to. But, it seems to me you did up there and that is not what force is defined as by any standard I'm aware. You want me to stop saying you don't understand concepts yet it is clear that you either don't or you are deliberately being deceptive by redefining things to your own personal ideas without opening them up to scrutiny then hailing that the concepts everyone else uses don't match those that you are using. Alpha, this is why i made the comment eailier in this thread about his argumentation style. I went through the calcus with him before. He then follow this exact tact. You are following in strong tradition. Einstein made his whole crap argument through sentences that began with 'It is clear that...'. He dismisses your vaild and correct arguement out of hand with a hand wave. Or by picking up on one pharse in your reply that he doesn't like a dismisses it. Never responding to the point made. As I said before, you can't have a logical debate with a fundementalist no matter what stripe they are. In Paradox's case, he fundementally believes Einstein is crap and wrong, and my guess from his posts is that only Netownian physics is correct. Therefore, he uses the same tactics that every other fundi uses to make is point stick, when there is moutains of evidence that prove him wrong. Good luck Alpha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 While in a scientific field where no one is getting rich (I don't know anyone who became multimillionaire from relativity theory), there's no "Decline Effect" after a whole century. I raised this with him a while back and he claimed NASA has their chips placed on relativity's square. Clearly NASA has sway over Russian, French, German, etc... scientists as well. I don't understand the physics, so I can't follow the logic from that angle, but I can clearly see this is a preposterous claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And an argument that the "Decline Effect" shows the strength of scientific method, not a weakness: http://failedempire....d-not-weakness/ It's quite interesting that in an industry where falsifying results and the chances of "conspiracies" is more likely, they admit errors, within a decade or two. While in a scientific field where no one is getting rich (I don't know anyone who became multimillionaire from relativity theory), there's no "Decline Effect" after a whole century. What goes unsaid is they have to admit mistakes or unintended consequences. People die when drug companies screw up. Lawyers will keep them "honest" or at least make them pay. Happens in psychology too. Sociology may not cause deaths but the governent policies enacted because of them could be detremental to certain demographics. Sorry no link for this one, but I would think an examiniation of the scientific reasoning behind segregation would be a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And an argument that the "Decline Effect" shows the strength of scientific method, not a weakness: http://failedempire....d-not-weakness/ I never disputed the strength, as you put it, of the scientific method. Bring back Francis Bacon, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 While in a scientific field where no one is getting rich (I don't know anyone who became multimillionaire from relativity theory), there's no "Decline Effect" after a whole century. I raised this with him a while back and he claimed NASA has their chips placed on relativity's square. Clearly NASA has sway over Russian, French, German, etc... scientists as well. I don't understand the physics, so I can't follow the logic from that angle, but I can clearly see this is a preposterous claim. Why is it preposterous? Russia has always been more liberal on these things which is probably why this site publishing, in English, the full book by Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (scroll down), is Russian: http://russamos.narod.ru/l-dingle.htm#contents Unfortunately there are other things to consider: 1) western journals won't translate and publish the relevant work 2) there isn't much need to be anti-relativity when there is no great culture of relativity in the first place 3) academic interests in Russia still have their power structures which are propped up by peer review -- those structures have interests that are not necessarily financial and to some extent parallel the courses taken in the west 4) Russia has become ever more dependent on the west in recent years. Of course, the world, to a large extent, depends on Nasa for research and communications. And if, Vigile, you don't follow the physics (as evidently Stryper doesn't either) perhaps you could dampen down on those snide comments (same to Styper). There might even be one or two people reading this thread who are interested in some of the things I have to say, and wouldn't want me to get sufficiently hacked off to jack it in and go elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Russia has become ever more dependent on the west in recent years. I can't speak to the rest of your comments as they are well out of the realm of my personal experience and knowledge, but this one does not appear accurate unless I'm missing some context. Russia has, if anything, become much more independent of the west in recent years and in fact is financially in far better shape that the whole of Europe and the US given they actually maintain a budget surplus (or at least did until last year when I more closely paid attention to the numbers given a position I held for a Moscow financial firm). Moreover, the west, in particular Europe, has become more dependent on Russia in recent years given their dependence on Gazprom pipelines and Russia's willingness to play hardball on price and even access. And if, Vigile, you don't follow the physics (as evidently Stryper doesn't either) perhaps you could dampen down on those snide comments (same to Styper). I comment where I have an understanding. You haven't seen me engaged in discussions of formula, for instance. This does not hinder my ability to understand claims made regarding the scientific method nor do many of the logical fallacies you engage in slip by me. When you are made moderator, I may or may not take your advice regarding thread participation. Until then, feel free to ignore me. It's no skin off my nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Russia has become ever more dependent on the west in recent years. I can't speak to the rest of your comments as they are well out of the realm of my personal experience and knowledge, but this one does not appear accurate unless I'm missing some context. Russia has, if anything, become much more independent of the west in recent years and in fact is financially in far better shape that the whole of Europe and the US given they actually maintain a budget surplus (or at least did until last year when I more closely paid attention to the numbers given a position I held for a Moscow financial firm). Moreover, the west, in particular Europe, has become more dependent on Russia in recent years given their dependence on Gazprom pipelines and Russia's willingness to play hardball on price and even access. The more of a free rein a country's economy has in regard to financial structures, the more the status of banking is elevated. At the top of the pyramid, the (privately owned) Federal Reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 That sounds like a paradox. FWIW, I have a fairly good inside look at the Russian banking situation, though will not claim to be an expert on such a difficult subject. I was formerly on the board of directors for a Moscow-based online stock brokerage and my brother in law is a hedge fund manager for one of the country's wealthiest oligarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And if, Vigile, you don't follow the physics (as evidently Stryper doesn't either) perhaps you could dampen down on those snide comments (same to Styper). There might even be one or two people reading this thread who are interested in some of the things I have to say, and wouldn't want me to get sufficiently hacked off to jack it in and go elsewhere. do I follow it on a daily basis no. I don't. but I do know enough to follow that F=ma, and enough about calc to derive a. My comments have been at your arguement style. Alpha clearly showed his work, in a better fashion then I did, and got the same result I did earlier in this post. When met with that your response is. Look, last time I was on this subject, a couple of weeks ago, we got into calculus and it was a lot of posts spect going round the houses and finding out nothing of any great significance, which is why I didn't mention it. If you want to play upon the two ideas of Newton's definition of force (which was deliberately idealised and conceived conditions of perfect elasticity) and the modern definition of force and keep saying I am wrong about what force is when I have not so much as stated my own conception of force, it's up to you. Stop picking up on every utterance with 'so you don't understand...' with arm-flailing persistence. I am getting fed up of this crap. Get on with the substantial issues or drop it. Alpha and I clearly spelled out exactly what we understand force to be. Alpha has repeatedly asked you to define this other concept of force. Yet you repeatedly and out right in the quote say you haven't said what it is. So, in an attempt to clarify, we both produced the same eqution with similar derivations, to prove: 1: its not instant. 2: What we define as force. Since all you have done is berate those definition and not provided anything to show what you are talking about. Discussion becomes pointless and your position is invalid because you self-admittedly have not stated your own conception of force and seem to have no inclination to do so. Additionaly, in the above quote you state "Stop picking up on every utterance with 'so you don't understand...' with arm-flailing persistence." When in the following quote You are following in strong tradition. Einstein made his whole crap argument through sentences that began with 'It is clear that...'. You dismiss a point out of hand because Alpha used the phase "it is clear that". So, the only assumptions I feel I can make about you are: You are: A arguing for the sake of it. B a troll (probably not but its begining to feel like it) C actually have no clue what you are talking about or less of one then you think you do. D have some good idea but are to arrogant to spell them out for lay person All of which are very negative becuase you self-admiitiedly haven't/won't spell out your concept in a similar manner. Now, to your mind, list out what the substanitial issues are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I raised this with him a while back and he claimed NASA has their chips placed on relativity's square. Clearly NASA has sway over Russian, French, German, etc... scientists as well. I don't understand the physics, so I can't follow the logic from that angle, but I can clearly see this is a preposterous claim. As almost always, we're in full agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 What goes unsaid is they have to admit mistakes or unintended consequences. People die when drug companies screw up. Lawyers will keep them "honest" or at least make them pay. Happens in psychology too. Exactly. Medical science is a very lucrative business and it tends to sway quite a bit (and it has dangerous results when wrong). Sociology may not cause deaths but the governent policies enacted because of them could be detremental to certain demographics. Sorry no link for this one, but I would think an examiniation of the scientific reasoning behind segregation would be a good place to start. That's true. Sociology in itself does not necessarily affect people, but indirectly it does change politics and can cause long term harm because of some dumb statistical error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I never disputed the strength, as you put it, of the scientific method. Bring back Francis Bacon, I say. And I didn't say that you did. You posted the article. My post was about the article, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You might find this interesting (or even very interesting), as it highlights the messiness of the whole domain of proof and falsification: http://philosophysot...f-is-there.html BTW I have never objected to extolling experimentation for what it can achieve. Actually I read that article and you're right for once. I did find it interesting. Fascinating even. Here, look at this quote: Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) Despite these findings, second-generation antipsychotics are still widely prescribed, and our model of the neutron hasn’t changed. The law of gravity remains the same. OMFG, who wrote that? A ten year old? Yes, that's a direct quote. I have no idea how this stuff even gets passed the editors desk. I'd like to know what drugs the author was taking when he came up with that dribble. Apart from the fact that he can't keep context to save his life its alight with the most basic of logical fallacy. Surely a philosophy site would be able to pick up on that? Lets look at another: The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. . . . ROFLMFAO Complete total and utter ignorance of what constitutes proof. This is the garbage you cite as a reference. No wonder you're so confused. Do yourself a favour and read that article using critical thinking, investigate all the terms and understand exactly what they are then look for the logical fallacies as well. If I had to demonstrate something that was poorly written, ignorant of the subject it is making cometary on and is full of logical fallacies, then this would be a high contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v65/i10/p1173_1 "One interpretation of our results suggests a breakdown of the Newtonian theory which is much larger than the effect previously reported. But the lack of consistency between the results suggests that it is not fundamental physics that has failed, but rather the experiments are subject to large systematic uncertainties which are caused by mass anomalies at intermediate distances from the holes." In other words, the law is not necessarily wrong, but the method to measure it is not perfected. What's interesting is that they did repeat the experiment to confirm, and did realize that the measuring was not perfect. The article draws a hasty conclusion by claiming that "law of gravity hasn't always been perfect," since it's the equipment or method of experiment that most likely failed. But on the other hand, the law of gravity does not accurately predict the motion of the stars in our solar system, hence the idea of dark matter. And gravity is not explained in QM. Every model is a model in a given context. We're still finding the boundaries for the contexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) http://prl.aps.org/a...v65/i10/p1173_1 "One interpretation of our results suggests a breakdown of the Newtonian theory which is much larger than the effect previously reported. But the lack of consistency between the results suggests that it is not fundamental physics that has failed, but rather the experiments are subject to large systematic uncertainties which are caused by mass anomalies at intermediate distances from the holes." In other words, the law is not necessarily wrong, but the method to measure it is not perfected. What's interesting is that they did repeat the experiment to confirm, and did realize that the measuring was not perfect. The article draws a hasty conclusion by claiming that "law of gravity hasn't always been perfect," since it's the equipment or method of experiment that most likely failed. But on the other hand, the law of gravity does not accurately predict the motion of the stars in our solar system, hence the idea of dark matter. And gravity is not explained in QM. Every model is a model in a given context. We're still finding the boundaries for the contexts. Quite. As I said, the whole domain of proof and falsification is very messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Quite. As I said, the whole domain of proof and falsification is very messy. And I didn't say that you didn't say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Now look what's happened Paradox! You declined to answer just one question and now there's four of them stacked up in your 'In' tray. You also wanted a good reason why you should treat my questions seriously? Ok, I'll give you three. 1. If you don't care that you'll acquire a reputation for dodging questions, then go for it - dodge away! Anyone already here who might have been disposed to take you seriously, probably won't do so once they see how adeptly you sidestep questions. Same applies for any newbies who might have been sympathetic to the NPA and anti-Relativism. So, if you really don't care about being taken seriously and just don't care about advancing your cause, then go ahead and play dodgeball with us. As you recently said to me, 'It's up to you.' 2. Think about it! This is your chance cut me to pieces and demolish me. You know full well that I've no formal training in any of the areas you're clearly expert in. So it's a good bet that I've overlooked something or there's a serious flaw in my thinking. Do you really want to pass up the chance of easy meat? 3. Please check out the member with the handle, Rayskidude. He used to call himself the Big M.A.C., meaning Most Annoying Christian. Well, he thought he could f**k me over and did so in January last year, by twisting the wording of one of my questions to suit his own ends. Then, when confronted by me, he refused point blank to admit it and continued to maintain the lie in the face of the evidence I cited. Evidence that's recorded here in this forum, for all to see. To make sure that everyone in this forum could see it and could continue to see his chicanery, I created this thread... All The Questions Dodged By Rayskidude. 1 2 3 7 → (A Permanent Repository of stuff he won't / can't answer.) ...and made sure that it was always easily visible, at or near the top of the sub-forum he frequented the most. Now, if it comes down to it Paradox and you give me no option but to repeat this exercise, I'll do so, but I'll drop the 'can't', ok? You clearly have the ability to answer my questions. You just won't. Please note that this is no threat against you and no promise of future action on my part. It's simply an accurate account of recent history in this forum. You will determine if I go down this path again or not. Also, the fact that I can openly show you all of this is evidence that doing this breaks no forum rules or guidelines. I hope those are 'good' enough for you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions for Paradox. 1. ...and science needs the seal of endorsement/approval from philosophers, because...? 2. Why does science need or require philosophers to confer anything upon the scientific community? 3. Where and when did philosophers acquire any authority over scientists? 4. Other spheres of human activity can police themselves quite adequately, so why do scientists need philosophers to police them? Looking forward to your answers! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Quite. As I said' date=' the whole domain of proof and falsification is very messy. [/quote']Since you can't falsify a proof without tearing apart the axiom it was derived from, what definition of "proof" are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts