User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 88

  1. #41
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Impulsive Queen check in an attempt to shift pressure to the other side of the board that wasn't thought out.

    Most of modern science is based on mathematical evidence, in fact, science is mathematics. The entire field of Quantum Mechanics is based on advanced mathematics; Chemistry would be impossible without mathematics, meaning that Biochemists wouldn't be able to manufacture basic drugs like aspirin and would require archaic, herbal treatment. You are attempting to group social sciences with the remainder of the actual sciences, and it is a glaring error. Social sciences are entirely subjective and are not truly science, they simply utilize the title of "science" to justify their own, personalized, idiosyncratic ideology.

    Knight takes Queen.
    Sorry, you're still wrong. Quantum mechanics is *always* subject to experimental verification, else there wouldn't be any fuss about Hermitian operators.
    Chemistry -- "wet bench" chemistry -- had to wait for physical technology to catch up, in order that compounds could be prepared in anything like pure form; and the insistence on *NON* mathematical constructs such as phlogiston, as well as difficulties with non-reversibility of reactions involving organic compounds, significantly delayed the progress of chemistry.
    And even Mendeleyev laid out the periodic table by associating various chemical characteristics of the elements, well in advance of either modern atomic theory, quantum mechanics, or knowledge of the Aufbau principle. Purely empirical.

    The reason I said that scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, is Feynman's famous quote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
    Evidence of this is given by Relativity, which is purely mathematical in essence -- people like to trumpet how Relativity was "proven" by experimental measurements of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
    But in reality, the first couple of measurements were taken as *dis*proof of Relativity: it was only after the setup and results were re-checked that the current conclusion was reached.

    Or, for that matter, look at the large number of variations in fundamental particle physics / cosmology: String Theory, SuperSymmetry, Loop Quantum Gravity, Hawking's declaration of a variable event horizon for black holes and the idea of "firewalls".
    All due to paucity of data.

    I never mentioned the social sciences; you did.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Sorry, you're still wrong. Quantum mechanics is *always* subject to experimental verification, else there wouldn't be any fuss about Hermitian operators.
    Chemistry -- "wet bench" chemistry -- had to wait for physical technology to catch up, in order that compounds could be prepared in anything like pure form; and the insistence on *NON* mathematical constructs such as phlogiston, as well as difficulties with non-reversibility of reactions involving organic compounds, significantly delayed the progress of chemistry.
    And even Mendeleyev laid out the periodic table by associating various chemical characteristics of the elements, well in advance of either modern atomic theory, quantum mechanics, or knowledge of the Aufbau principle. Purely empirical.

    The reason I said that scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, is Feynman's famous quote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
    Evidence of this is given by Relativity, which is purely mathematical in essence -- people like to trumpet how Relativity was "proven" by experimental measurements of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
    But in reality, the first couple of measurements were taken as *dis*proof of Relativity: it was only after the setup and results were re-checked that the current conclusion was reached.

    Or, for that matter, look at the large number of variations in fundamental particle physics / cosmology: String Theory, SuperSymmetry, Loop Quantum Gravity, Hawking's declaration of a variable event horizon for black holes and the idea of "firewalls".
    All due to paucity of data.

    I never mentioned the social sciences; you did.
    Another misstep, Quantum Mechanics has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart for how the universe works based on the usage of advanced mathematics, it surpassed even General Relativity, and is now approaching Newtonian Physics, which is simple Trigonometry and Calculus. Relativity is dying. Mendeleev laid the foundation of modern chemistry through his observations of the different elements, if anything, he is the reason those theories exist today.

    As for String Theory, SuperSymmetry, and Loop Quantum Gravity, you realize that Quantum Mechanics is a field currently being pioneered right? It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for, unlike the incredible certainty of how the world works according to religion that was theorized by the first schizophrenics and schizotypals with social finesse and confidence thousands of years ago.

    Before you dare question scientific proof, I want you to chisel your counter-argument into stone gathered from the very earth at your feet with a tool of your own creation and hand-deliver it to me without using any form of transportation you did not create yourself and then tell me that scientific proof is flawed. The reason you are even debating with me is due to the sacrifice of scientists to dedicate their life so that we can enjoy an advanced life where we can instantly communicate with each other.

  3. #43
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Did we forgot the part where religion persecuted those who went against their own belief system? Religion allowed science to flourish because it was beneficial to productivity and civilization, and simply denied any information or insights that were heretical. You act as though religion was the loving father of science and not the tyrant who imprisoned it and whipped it when it dared speak against the system. The Library of Alexandria burned and no one cared but those who worked on it and added to it. Did religion, in any form, ever try to restore or even acknowledge the utter devastation to human understanding that was created from a war between civilizations that were founded upon a common religion? The sons of Mars cared not that their posterity would not see the glorious works of geniuses now lost to us until centuries later, they cared only for their personal glory and their standing in the eyes of their gods, and then when the suppressed science finally ushers into the modern society freely you seek to claim responsibility for its achievements?
    I didn't forget it -- because it's atheist propaganda. MOST people were Christians in Western Europe back then: the overwhelming majority of the scientists, if not personally devout, were still in synch with the overall idea of a Universe ordered by the will of a Creator. The conflicts were not because "they're threatening our ignorance" but because the style of the delivery offended well-connected people. (If you bother reading a little bit, you'd find out how much various scholars flamed each other to a crisp personally back then, in a way that makes modern internet flame wars seem like love fests.)

    The other element you're forgetting, is that it was not a struggle between "science" and "religion" but the emergence of two entirely new forms of thought: empiricism replacing scholasticism -- recall, by the way, that Scholasticism was the only thing that made the Enlightenment possible by preserving the writings of the Greco-Roman civilizations; also recall that scholasticism was practiced *within SCIENCE* as well, particularly in biology and in medicine (remember Galen?), and still has maintained strongholds there to the present day (Lister getting thrown out of hospitals for insisting on asepsis during surgery; the declarative statements that ulcers were due to extra stomach acid, and not H. pylori), etc. etc. AND a change in focus from the "why" being asked as fundamentally personal, knowledge to enrich one's well-roundedness, or save one's soul, to learning how better to navigate ships and tell time, in order to harness the power of nature to MAKE MONEY.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    I didn't forget it -- because it's atheist propaganda. MOST people were Christians in Western Europe back then: the overwhelming majority of the scientists, if not personally devout, were still in synch with the overall idea of a Universe ordered by the will of a Creator. The conflicts were not because "they're threatening our ignorance" but because the style of the delivery offended well-connected people. (If you bother reading a little bit, you'd find out how much various scholars flamed each other to a crisp personally back then, in a way that makes modern internet flame wars seem like love fests.)

    The other element you're forgetting, is that it was not a struggle between "science" and "religion" but the emergence of two entirely new forms of thought: empiricism replacing scholasticism -- recall, by the way, that Scholasticism was the only thing that made the Enlightenment possible by preserving the writings of the Greco-Roman civilizations; also recall that scholasticism was practiced *within SCIENCE* as well, particularly in biology and in medicine (remember Galen?), and still has maintained strongholds there to the present day (Lister getting thrown out of hospitals for insisting on asepsis during surgery; the declarative statements that ulcers were due to extra stomach acid, and not H. pylori), etc. etc. AND a change in focus from the "why" being asked as fundamentally personal, knowledge to enrich one's well-roundedness, or save one's soul, to learning how better to navigate ships and tell time, in order to harness the power of nature to MAKE MONEY.
    Christian scientists who were betrayed by their own faith when they dared to question. Need I cite Galileo?

    Did they preserve the Greco-Roman writings because of their knowledge and insight or because they were antiquated and didn't want to lose relics of the past? Did they do anything with them other than preserve them until someone just happened upon them at a later date?

    (Very stimulating argument by the way, I appreciate this)

  5. #45
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Another misstep, Quantum Mechanics has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart for how the universe works based on the usage of advanced mathematics, it surpassed even General Relativity, and is now approaching Newtonian Physics, which is simple Trigonometry and Calculus. Relativity is dying. Mendeleev laid the foundation of modern chemistry through his observations of the different elements, if anything, he is the reason those theories exist today.

    As for String Theory, SuperSymmetry, and Loop Quantum Gravity, you realize that Quantum Mechanics is a field currently being pioneered right? It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for, unlike the incredible certainty of how the world works according to religion that was theorized by the first schizophrenics and schizotypals with social finesse and confidence thousands of years ago.

    Before you dare question scientific proof, I want you to chisel your counter-argument into stone gathered from the very earth at your feet with a tool of your own creation and hand-deliver it to me without using any form of transportation you did not create yourself and then tell me that scientific proof is flawed. The reason you are even debating with me is due to the sacrifice of scientists to dedicate their life so that we can enjoy an advanced life where we can instantly communicate with each other.
    You obviously left your reading glasses in your other pocket tonight.
    Or you are in over your head. From some of your grammatical mistakes (e.g. "has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart...") it appears that you are either
    a) flustered
    b) tired
    c) under the influence,
    d) not a native speaker of English

    It's OK. I'll walk you through this.
    Do you even know what a Hermitian operator is, and why it is important?

    Relativity is not dying: it is used in GPS tracking, for example.

    In saying that Mendeleyev "is the reason" the theories of modern chemistry exist today, is just what I finished telling you: but you seem to have missed the point.
    Mendeleyev did NOT rely upon mathematical theory (which is what you insisted in your prior post made science so "special")...he relied upon observation and experimental results.
    Which, in case you forgot, was MY point, not yours.

    Now for your next howlers.

    "As for String Theory, SuperSymmetry, and Loop Quantum Gravity, you realize that Quantum Mechanics is a field currently being pioneered right? It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for"

    Quantum mechanics goes back more than a century. We have Schrodinger and Heisenberg by the 1930s, the atomic bomb in the 1940s (think nuclear fission and Enrico Fermi, btw, more experiment),
    Feynman's Path Integrals in the 1940s, Murray Gell-Mann's 8-fold way in the 1960s...
    yep. Quantum mechanics is being *pioneered*.

    And you managed to contradict your very first sentence at the same time!

    Compare:
    Quantum Mechanics has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart for how the universe works based on the usage of advanced mathematics
    to
    It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for

    Which one is it?

    You wrote:
    unlike the incredible certainty of how the world works according to religion that was theorized by the first schizophrenics and schizotypals with social finesse and confidence thousands of years ago.
    Are you aware that even today, MD-level psychiatrists will not issue a prescription for psychoactive drugs remotely? And yet you -- not even an MD -- are diagnosing people from thousands of years ago,
    across vast differences of time, culture, and language, based on writings for which you neither attribute authorship, nor vouch for the accuracy of the translations?
    As they say, ECREE. I doubt you can back up this superstition of yours according to your *own* rules of evidence.

    Before you dare question scientific proof, I want you to chisel your counter-argument into stone gathered from the very earth at your feet with a tool of your own creation and hand-deliver it to me without using any form of transportation you did not create yourself and then tell me that scientific proof is flawed. The reason you are even debating with me is due to the sacrifice of scientists to dedicate their life so that we can enjoy an advanced life where we can instantly communicate with each other.
    Does your Mom know you're using her computer?
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  6. #46
    Senior Member zago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    The reason I said that scientific proof is weaker than mathematical, is Feynman's famous quote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
    That's saying scientific proof is stronger than mathematical. String theory is mathematical gymnastics that we can't prove with experiment; or, math proof seems to be weaker than science proof.

    Evidence of this is given by Relativity, which is purely mathematical in essence -- people like to trumpet how Relativity was "proven" by experimental measurements of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
    I wouldn't call relativity purely mathematical in essence by a long shot. I believe Einstein actually intuited it all via thought-experiment before ever working out the math, even.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    You obviously left your reading glasses in your other pocket tonight.
    Or you are in over your head. From some of your grammatical mistakes (e.g. "has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart...") it appears that you are either
    a) flustered
    b) tired
    c) under the influence,
    d) not a native speaker of English

    It's OK. I'll walk you through this.
    Do you even know what a Hermitian operator is, and why it is important?

    Relativity is not dying: it is used in GPS tracking, for example.

    In saying that Mendeleyev "is the reason" the theories of modern chemistry exist today, is just what I finished telling you: but you seem to have missed the point.
    Mendeleyev did NOT rely upon mathematical theory (which is what you insisted in your prior post made science so "special")...he relied upon observation and experimental results.
    Which, in case you forgot, was MY point, not yours.

    Now for your next howlers.

    "As for String Theory, SuperSymmetry, and Loop Quantum Gravity, you realize that Quantum Mechanics is a field currently being pioneered right? It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for"

    Quantum mechanics goes back more than a century. We have Schrodinger and Heisenberg by the 1930s, the atomic bomb in the 1940s (think nuclear fission and Enrico Fermi, btw, more experiment),
    Feynman's Path Integrals in the 1940s, Murray Gell-Mann's 8-fold way in the 1960s...
    yep. Quantum mechanics is being *pioneered*.

    And you managed to contradict your very first sentence at the same time!

    Compare:
    Quantum Mechanics has ushered into the scientific community as the most calculated and verifiable chart for how the universe works based on the usage of advanced mathematics
    to
    It isn't completely flawless until every aspect can be accounted for

    Which one is it?

    You wrote:
    unlike the incredible certainty of how the world works according to religion that was theorized by the first schizophrenics and schizotypals with social finesse and confidence thousands of years ago.
    Are you aware that even today, MD-level psychiatrists will not issue a prescription for psychoactive drugs remotely? And yet you -- not even an MD -- are diagnosing people from thousands of years ago,
    across vast differences of time, culture, and language, based on writings for which you neither attribute authorship, nor vouch for the accuracy of the translations?
    As they say, ECREE. I doubt you can back up this superstition of yours according to your *own* rules of evidence.

    Before you dare question scientific proof, I want you to chisel your counter-argument into stone gathered from the very earth at your feet with a tool of your own creation and hand-deliver it to me without using any form of transportation you did not create yourself and then tell me that scientific proof is flawed. The reason you are even debating with me is due to the sacrifice of scientists to dedicate their life so that we can enjoy an advanced life where we can instantly communicate with each other.
    Does your Mom know you're using her computer?
    Option B please. The personal slanders are a bit harsh, I was mostly sure that this was clearly a debate of ideas rather than a debate of personal character, did I strike a chord with the schizophrenic assertion? If so, I apologize. It would seem we have ran aground on the same island we did earlier today, that we need objectified evidence to prove something happened the way it did in the past.

    Science is mathematics, science is observation and experimentation, science is pure extroverted logic, it is when science is taken too far from its own evidence that it become severed from reality.

    I didn't really contradict my first sentence in any way, you just assume that because it the most calculated chart of the universe that it must be fully developed, which isn't true in all cases.

  8. #48
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Christian scientists who were betrayed by their own faith when they dared to question. Need I cite Galileo?
    Try reading Galileo's Daughter which I quoted upthread. It was not science vs. religion; it was embarrasing VIPs by how things were presented.

    Or try reading The Agony and the Ecstasy (biographical novel of the life of Michelangelo) where one of the monks snuck him a key to the mortuary so he could study human anatomy (on corpses, surreptitiously) to improve his sculpture and painting.

    As Hilaire Belloc said,

    There is no such thing as a religion called
    "Christianity"_there never has been such a religion.

    There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies
    proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church's doctrines by men who
    still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals. But there
    never has been and never can be or will be a general Christian religion
    professed by men who all accept some central important doctrines, while
    agreeing to differ about others. There has always been, from the
    beginning, and will always be, the Church, and sundry heresies either
    doomed to decay, or, like Mohammedanism, to grow into a separate religion.
    Of a common Christianity there has never been and never can be a
    definition, for it has never existed.

    There is no essential doctrine such that if we can agree upon it
    we can differ about the rest: as for instance, to accept immortality but
    deny the Trinity. A man will call himself a Christian though he denies the
    unity of the Christian Church; he will call himself a Christian though he
    denies the presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; he will
    cheerfully call himself a Christian though he denies the Incarnation.


    (Recall that Isaac Newton called himself a Christian though he denied the Trinity.
    But he sure a f*ck wasn't an atheist.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Did they preserve the Greco-Roman writings because of their knowledge and insight or because they were antiquated and didn't want to lose relics of the past? Did they do anything with them other than preserve them until someone just happened upon them at a later date?

    (Very stimulating argument by the way, I appreciate this)
    Some of both, I bet. I'm not old enough to have been around to ask them.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  9. #49
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Option B please. The personal slanders are a bit harsh, I was mostly sure that this was clearly a debate of ideas rather than a debate of personal character, did I strike a chord with the schizophrenic assertion? If so, I apologize. It would seem we have ran aground on the same island we did earlier today, that we need objectified evidence to prove something happened the way it did in the past.

    Science is mathematics, science is observation and experimentation, science is pure extroverted logic, it is when science is taken too far from its own evidence that it become severed from reality.

    I didn't really contradict my first sentence in any way, you just assume that because it the most calculated chart of the universe that it must be fully developed, which isn't true in all cases.
    It's not personal character assassination: it's holding you (a skeptic and rationalist) to the same standards to which you would hold (for example) a Young Earth Creationist.
    I know it feels good to attack religious people, but I'm not going to let you get away with unfounded assertions which you would not be able to defend using your own standards of evidence; let alone changing the standards of evidence when they suit your whim.
    Can you give me (say from DSM-IV) a good set of criteria for diagnosing someone as schizotypal, and then show to me beyond a reasonable doubt, that the founders or main propagators of various religious faiths unambiguously satisfied those criteria? And can you then show that your sources upon which you rely for their behaviour, are therefore historically accurate, instead of you just cherry picking examples when they suit your desires, and otherwise dismissing the sources as unreliable?

    If not, you're merely masturbating. Don't do that online.

    As Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #50
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zago View Post
    That's saying scientific proof is stronger than mathematical. String theory is mathematical gymnastics that we can't prove with experiment; or, math proof seems to be weaker than science proof.



    I wouldn't call relativity purely mathematical in essence by a long shot. I believe Einstein actually intuited it all via thought-experiment before ever working out the math, even.
    Fair 'nuff, though I call semantics. My point was he didn't run a bunch of physical experiments, Michelson-Morley notwithstanding.
    Recall also that Special Relativity (uniform velocity) preceded GR (accelerating bodies).
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

Similar Threads

  1. Sciencebucks.com, the kickstarter of science funding?
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 01:48 PM
  2. the Pinnacle of Science Fiction
    By Kingfisher in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 07:32 PM
  3. [NT] Worshiping at the altar of science.
    By ObeyBunny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
  4. Informal Discussion on the Philosophy of Science
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 12:23 PM
  5. What is the purpose of Science Fiction?
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 06:53 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