User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: True and False

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I think I may have been too general about this,

    Is it better to not trust new information entirely solely based on the fact that it is new and unexplored or is it better to readily accept new information and augment the entire concept to incorporate the new information, then exploring the new information later?
    I don't think all information is equal. The quality of the information is what matters to me, not the age.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Fusion View Post
    I don't think all information is equal. The quality of the information is what matters to me, not the age.
    Indeed, but newer information when it is conceived usually has less quality than when it is fully explored. Ergo, should newer information be incorporated into the framework when it has aged enough to gain greater quality due to more substantial evidence and theoretical exploration, or should we assimilate the new information into the framework and mold the framework based on how the new information evolves?

    Essentially this question asks, should we wait before assuming that this information is entirely credible, or should we accept all new information that applies to the framework?

    This is sort of modeled after the faster-than-light neutrino experiment a while back. They found from their data that neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but it was later discovered that the data wasn't entirely accurate and the neutrinos were actually travelling a hair slower than the speed of light. Before the err was announced however, many physicists had already begun to build models to incorporate how these neutrinos would have been able to accomplish this feat.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Indeed, but newer information when it is conceived usually has less quality than when it is fully explored. Ergo, should newer information be incorporated into the framework when it has aged enough to gain greater quality due to more substantial evidence and theoretical exploration, or should we assimilate the new information into the framework and mold the framework based on how the new information evolves?

    Essentially this question asks, should we wait before assuming that this information is entirely credible, or should we accept all new information that applies to the framework?

    This is sort of modeled after the faster-than-light neutrino experiment a while back. They found from their data that neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but it was later discovered that the data wasn't entirely accurate and the neutrinos were actually travelling a hair slower than the speed of light. Before the err was announced however, many physicists had already begun to build models to incorporate how these neutrinos would have been able to accomplish this feat.
    Haha this is going to sound horribly geeky, but I tried to invent a mathematical model myself to explain the experiment but it didn't work haha. Either because I was really clever or really dumb.

    I never fully accept any information. I'm not sure we can ever KNOW anything for sure, and I look for probable truths rather than certainties. So I'd be on the wait and see side of the scale.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Indeed, but newer information when it is conceived usually has less quality than when it is fully explored. Ergo, should newer information be incorporated into the framework when it has aged enough to gain greater quality due to more substantial evidence and theoretical exploration, or should we assimilate the new information into the framework and mold the framework based on how the new information evolves?

    Essentially this question asks, should we wait before assuming that this information is entirely credible, or should we accept all new information that applies to the framework?

    This is sort of modeled after the faster-than-light neutrino experiment a while back. They found from their data that neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, but it was later discovered that the data wasn't entirely accurate and the neutrinos were actually travelling a hair slower than the speed of light. Before the err was announced however, many physicists had already begun to build models to incorporate how these neutrinos would have been able to accomplish this feat.
    Dumb double post.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Fusion View Post
    I agree that the imagination is important - it's especially useful for sparking your curiosity and making you wonder what could be (or even about impossible things, which is fun). I'm a fantasy and sci-fi novelist (not professional, but I've written books haha), so I certainly have nothing against boundless imagination.

    But the imagination needs external information to work, and if its ideas are to be taken as truth (if anything can) they need to be tested if possible.
    That's completely awesome! But you're probably much like another user named @Ene, where she doesn't make her work known on the forum for fear of exposure, so I can't see it probably...

    But you can at least see Ene's epic existential thoughts in this thread: Welcome to the E-NiVerse: A Different Kind of Reality

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    That's completely awesome! But you're probably much like another user named @Ene, where she doesn't make her work known on the forum for fear of exposure, so I can't see it probably...

    But you can at least see Ene's epic existential thoughts in this thread: Welcome to the E-NiVerse: A Different Kind of Reality
    I've had a few short stories and articles published in magazines. If I post anything on here I won't be able to sell the rights to it, as this effectively counts as online publication. And I need the cash lol!

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Nikola Tesla invented stuff and never got money, so I intend to be the same way!

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    Nikola Tesla invented stuff and never got money, so I intend to be the same way!
    Interesting - I always wondered who invented stuff!

Similar Threads

  1. Physics Question - True Or False?
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-15-2013, 08:46 AM
  2. Counter-Intuitive, Intuitive and False Positives
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2013, 04:56 AM
  3. Reinin dichotomies - True or False?
    By darude11 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 12:44 AM
  4. True or False?
    By Ginkgo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 07:18 PM
  5. True or False?
    By Sunshine in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-10-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO