Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

Regarding my prior experience that upset people here...

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#61  Postby Macdoc » Nov 23, 2019 6:38 pm

Newton was wrong and Eddington provided evidence of that with his transit photograph which thoroughly upset the Newtonian smugness.

Science at its best when a "wild idea" like Einsteins will trump the accepted wisdom with evidence.

AFAIK Einstein has yet to be "wrong" in tests of the theory. Does not mean Newton wasn't "useful" ....we don't apparently have a complete understanding of aerodynamics but we still get on planes with reasonable confidence.

Instead of wasting your time and inflicting the nonsense on others...use it to educate yourself in areas that interest you.

Bohr could be skeptical of Einstein....neither you nor I can be. We can however follow the evidence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2
Last edited by Macdoc on Nov 23, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 16809
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#62  Postby Fallible » Nov 23, 2019 6:39 pm

Can we spell ‘irony’?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50764
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#63  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 23, 2019 7:09 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Wow, just wow.

You know what I thought when I say the thread title?

I thought... ok, fair enough... the guy started on the wrong foot, found himself in a hole he was only digging deeper, but it was unintentional and now he wants to find a way to reset. I am always up for giving people a 2nd chance.

How wrong I was.

This is yet more of the Special Me Syndrome that we already have with certain other posters here. The subtext of the verbose diatribe is that Scott is a special thinker and everyone else here is just too limited by the paucity of their abilities to comprehend it... but we should simply lend undue deference to whatever Scott says because he knows better than us.

Here's my answer Scott: get over yourself. That is the only way you're going to find that you can have a normal conversation with people here. Next, learn that when you make a claim, you support that claim. No amount of words about how you're right and other people are wrong is going to act as a proxy for supporting your claim with evidence.


I think of you in the same but opposing way for HOW you presume everyone should have the same style of communications and etiquette as you and/or others you find valid as holding. The fact that one merely states your conditions for rationality as requiring 'support' is also stereotypical of someone I find as arrogant and misguided about quality reasoning. "Support" is for inductive inferrences. It is just as 'supportive' to have one vote for whether what someone says has value as being 'rational' or not as though that even matters. If you think that reality depends on popularity, then how do you expect me to look at you? Truth about reality is not 'democratic' and requires formal reasoning to rationally compare and measure things against.

I'm versed in formal logic, like propositional, predicate, boolean, and computer logic,.... and in general, something you might find in an advanced course on 'discrete math', if you get this far in a science education. I aced my maths and sciences where I have taken them, utilizing mathematical calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology. I have most sources available to me at home with a reference library of science texts of multiple sources and include much of the classics from the philosophical works of the Greeks to the works of the heroes in science of modern times.

I have tried to express how my thinking was "foundational" ...and is always ongoing. This is a process of learning whereby you begin by understanding how things are learned step by step from the bottom up. It requires more time an patience than today's students in a University but I lack the pressure to skip over what you might because I learn to UNDERSTAND in a way that I will NOT pass stage-X without fully understanding it. This means that when I was, say, studying some particular suject, like the physics of Relativity, should I get to a point that needs clarification from another area in order to understand, I'll leave that and go to it in order to be sure I'll understand it before coming back.

I'm not going to waste much time with you nor others where they simply prefer to insult in their own generalizations about my own background you cannot possibly know about nor infer from even the context of what I've written here thus far that is with more depth than is usually welcome. But that is my personality as it is with many who want to participate in places like this but get derailed by similar insults prematurely. I only hope that you try and if you don't like me as a person, you are free to ignore. I won't hold it against you.
Scott Mayers
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#64  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 23, 2019 7:57 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
I'm versed in formal logic, like propositional, predicate, boolean, and computer logic,.... and in general, something you might find in an advanced course on 'discrete math', if you get this far in a science education. I aced my maths and sciences where I have taken them, utilizing mathematical calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology. I have most sources available to me at home with a reference library of science texts of multiple sources and include much of the classics from the philosophical works of the Greeks to the works of the heroes in science of modern times.


Gotcha, Scott. This is the part of "show and tell" called "tell". In other words, It's nothing but a story you're telling. An anecdote. A claim. It's one you could potentially support if you didn't spend all your energy telling everybody how well-versed you are.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29222
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#65  Postby hackenslash » Nov 23, 2019 8:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:My background is intensive and very broad.


And, of course, you can present evidence in support of this assertion...

Your own 'sweeping generalizations' of me


How does one make a sweeping generalisation of an individual?

lacks respect.


I have no respect for overwheening bollocks. If that's what you're after, you're in the wrong place.

If you see 'errors' point them out, give a description of why you think I've erred, and I might be able to have a chance to prove you wrong.


I've done that several times, and you've singularly failed to respond.

An attack against the whole of who I am without concern to specifying your case, for instance, is an ad hominem, an attack against me as a person and not to the content of what value I might possibly have within the argument.


I haven't attacked the whole of who you are, I've challenged your assertions, specifically with regard to your competence in specific areas of thought. Moreover, your citation of ad hominem is categorically incorrect, which again speaks to your competence in the rudiments of logic. In particular, the ad hominem is an iteration of the genetic fallacy, which is committed when a conclusion is accepted or rejected based not on the content or form of an argument but on the basis of some perceived characteristic of the source of the argument. I haven't rejected any of your conclusions, I've rejected your arguments as not having supported your conclusions.

This is the problem with expressing competence in an area of thought to somebody who actually possesses said competence.

Can you not try to be more respectful?


I have no intention of showing respect to bullshit, because the erection of bullshit is disrespectful.

Note that if and where I may 'insult' it is an interpretation of me from your own interpretation or by my own general non-personal issues. You are an avatar to me with personality, not someone I could evaluate as a particular person I want to insult nor power to owe my love nor hate to. When I speak online, I try to be neutral but it can come across insulting for how I avoid the social etiquette that some prefer.


Not masssively interested in your self-assessment, not least because this is an area in which we have robust evidence that your competence is lacking.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#66  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 23, 2019 8:08 pm

Does anyone have any information about what "mathematical calculus" entails in a statement about familiarity with several areas of mathematics? Does it entail the same body of knowledge as "calculus"? I know "calculus" is sometimes used more broadly, as in terms like "moral calculus", but context is everything, here.

I never thought I'd encounter someone here exhibiting more pomposity than jamest, but never is a long time, as they say.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 23, 2019 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29222
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#67  Postby hackenslash » Nov 23, 2019 8:14 pm

Probably derivation of the area under the curve of the number 2...
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21438
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#68  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 23, 2019 8:16 pm

hackenslash wrote:Probably derivation of the area under the curve of the number 2...


Is 2 a number? I always treat it as a pair. Jacks or better to open.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29222
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#69  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 23, 2019 8:18 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:But that is my personality as it is with many who want to participate in places like this but get derailed by similar insults prematurely.


Your personality, Scott, is inarguably on display, just as mine is. That's the "show" part of "show and tell". You're zigging when you should be zagging.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29222
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#70  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 23, 2019 8:34 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
I'm not against empirical processes. I'm against HOW those like yourself default to presume that ONLY seeing is believing (as though this is possible for everyone or something to which the perception you believe is shared).


Well, you're only colliding with empiricism because (as far as I can tell) your rejection of expansion cosmology to favor steady state cosmology simply rejects empirical data to favor your wibble about a wall. That's quite convenient for you, because there is no need to point to an empirical wall that you argue simply must be there in expansion cosmology. Why? Because it just must. It's not your conclusion, it's your assumption. The business about Zeno's paradox must have something to do with mathematical calculus, but I just can't suss it.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Fay Smask
Posts: 29222
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#71  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 8:58 pm

My background is intensive and very broad.


1) Assertion
2) Appeal to authority
3) Not apparent

Your own 'sweeping generalizations' of me lacks respect.


Respect in this sense is earned, not demanded. Your behavior here has earned you the fitting degree of respect.


Can you not try to be more respectful?


How about you try to be worthy of respect?


When I speak online, I try to be neutral but it can come across insulting for how I avoid the social etiquette that some prefer.


Like when you make absurd sweeping generalizations for which you offer no support other than your insistence that you're right.

Let's be clear too - 'insulting' such prejudiced denigration may be, but that doesn't mean people are actually 'insulted'. If someone's being rude, it doesn't stand to reason that the victims of that poor behavior come away feeling down; they can just as easily come away thinking that the rude person is a cock unworthy of their respect.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#72  Postby Fallible » Nov 23, 2019 9:18 pm

Also note that when others say something Scott doesn’t like he’s being insulted. When Scott says something rude, it’s not his fault - he’s just special, and you don’t understand him.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50764
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#73  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 9:32 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
I think of you in the same but opposing way for HOW you presume everyone should have the same style of communications and etiquette as you and/or others you find valid as holding.


So then you would be able to show that I presume this, right?

No, of course not - it is yet another example of how you posit it on behalf of other people.

Evidence is for the little people, isn't it Scott?

As for etiquette - that's just a nice addition at the end of the day. If you were right but presented it in a crotchety tone, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

But we're not talking about etiquette here, Scott. We're talking about how you respond to criticism of your arguments by beating your chest and declaring yourself a superior thinker - an appeal to your authority - and simultaneously make derogatory generalizations pulled from your rectum about everyone else. Etiquette isn't the concern here: it's that your behavior is transparently intended to explain away your argumentative failures by setting up a fantasy scenario where your claims are just automatically superior and anyone's rejection is because of their personal failings.

This is not going to go away from the looks of it as you don't seem to possess the self-awareness to recognize it and you certainly aren't going to change on account of the little yammering peons so far beneath your concern. So this is going to be your entire tenure here. I hope you enjoy it. I hope that this is what you came for. Because if you didn't intend this and don't enjoy it, then you apparently can't even work out your own motivations.


Scott Mayers wrote:The fact that one merely states your conditions for rationality as requiring 'support' is also stereotypical of someone I find as arrogant and misguided about quality reasoning.


I haven't remotely argued anything about 'rationality requiring support', so either you're not paying attention, you're using blind prejudice in place of reality, or you're not as clever as you think you.

Of course, you have once again appealed to a stereotype. A stereotype which apparently only you hold. This is not a stereotype, Scott. It's just plain old self-serving prejudice. Prejudice is apparently at the root of your cognitive dissonance between how well you think of yourself and how you actually come across; what you think you know, and how poor the reasons for your beliefs appear to be.


Scott Mayers wrote:"Support" is for inductive inferrences.


Inferences from what? Your navel? Inferences are formed of observations, Scott. Elementary stuff.


Scott Mayers wrote: If you think that reality depends on popularity, then how do you expect me to look at you?


Do I think that reality depends on popularity?

Have I ever suggested anything that could be taken to mean this?

Of course I haven't. As usual, you're making a claim that you can't support. You're emoting a reality which isn't available to anyone else, and you're using it to pretend you're in a superior position. It doesn't even amount to a strawman: it's just an extension of your prejudice.


Scott Mayers wrote:Truth about reality is not 'democratic' and requires formal reasoning to rationally compare and measure things against.


Reality isn't democratic, and formal reasoning is certainly useful (not that you're employing formal reasoning), but to ultimately arbitrate the competing outputs of reasoning, we need something other than our reason, else it's very difficult to distinguish it from a masturbationary process. That's why, in science, evidence takes precedent. You keep wiggling around trying to avoid this hard fact, but there it remains.


Scott Mayers wrote:I'm versed in formal logic, like propositional, predicate, boolean, and computer logic,....


I don't believe you. More importantly, I don't care. If you were, you wouldn't need to tell me - it'd be apparent. However, what actually has become apparent is that you think 'logic' means 'what I say is true'.


Scott Mayers wrote:... and in general, something you might find in an advanced course on 'discrete math', if you get this far in a science education.


A science education you claim not to have had, except through self-study. Same motif again.


Scott Mayers wrote:I aced my maths and sciences where I have taken them...


More appeals to Special Me, yet according to you all those stuffy old systems of education are the root of the problem, and the only education you've alluded to is online courses which are comprised of interested lay people. I 'aced' an online course on Astrobiology with a score of 99%... doesn't make me an astrobiologist now, does it Scott?


Scott Mayers wrote:... utilizing mathematical calculus, physics, chemistry, and biology.


Send me your C.V. and I'll read it in my own time.


Scott Mayers wrote:I have most sources available to me at home with a reference library of science texts of multiple sources and include much of the classics from the philosophical works of the Greeks to the works of the heroes in science of modern times.


And this is all relevant because?

I also have most sources available to me at home on account of being on the internet, just like you.

I also have a very well founded reference library of scientific texts, classics, and philosophy, being particularly interested in ancient Greece thanks to having had a formal education in pre-Hellenistic Greece.

But none of this really matters, does it Scott? The mere fact that I possess a library of hundreds of books of non-fiction doesn't actually mean that my assertions are now more credible than someone else's assertions. Given your supposed fantastic level of logic, why do you keep revolving around this elementary genetic fallacy?


Scott Mayers wrote:I have tried to express how my thinking was "foundational" ...and is always ongoing. This is a process of learning whereby you begin by understanding how things are learned step by step from the bottom up. It requires more time an patience than today's students in a University but I lack the pressure to skip over what you might because I learn to UNDERSTAND in a way that I will NOT pass stage-X without fully understanding it. This means that when I was, say, studying some particular suject, like the physics of Relativity, should I get to a point that needs clarification from another area in order to understand, I'll leave that and go to it in order to be sure I'll understand it before coming back.


Yes, you're repeating prior claims you made. If you perceive me to be of some lesser intellectual form than you, Scott... and that I didn't understand this the first time I read it, why would you think repeating it for me to read would have any alternative effect?

Frankly, all I am seeing is you making claims about how knowledgeable you must be, and consequently implying that you have implicit authority over others... those others just so happen to include people with formal training that is actually recognized by society and is methodologically measured.


Scott Mayers wrote:I'm not going to waste much time with you nor others...


Yes you are, and from what I can tell, this is exactly what you're here for.


Scott Mayers wrote:... where they simply prefer to insult...


Again you accuse of insults, again you will fail to substantiate such an accusation. Useful for you no doubt that you've already staked a position on not having to support anything you decree.

From what I can tell, you perceive people not genuflecting to your claimed brilliance as being insulting. You're going to find your tenure here to be one long insult in such a case. Tell us again about how all those other fora insulted you. That was a nice story bro.


Scott Mayers wrote:... in their own generalizations about my own background...


Again, the foundational thinker failing to comprehend the word 'generalization' as not pertaining to an individual. :doh:


Scott Mayers wrote:... you cannot possibly know about...


Ahh right, but you in your lofty thought palace have no such restrictions on your ability to determine generalizations about everyone else.


Scott Mayers wrote:...nor infer from even the context of what I've written here thus far that is with more depth than is usually welcome.


What you've written since you've been here is more than enough to establish a series of patterns of what you think about you, your abilities, and other people.


Scott Mayers wrote:But that is my personality as it is with many who want to participate in places like this but get derailed by similar insults prematurely.


I don't care about your personality, Scott. My interest is in your claims and the dramas you're generating to explain away your inability to support those claims.


Scott Mayers wrote: I only hope that you try and if you don't like me as a person, you are free to ignore. I won't hold it against you.


As I told you already: the same way the bull feels about the gnat, Scott - isn't Aesop in your extensive Greek collection?

While I am no doubt meant to feel uplifted by your grace in telling me what I am entitled to do, I am afraid the little grubby soul that I am already knew what I was entitled to do... if I wanted to ignore you, I would. Likewise, I am entitled to respond to your dross how I so choose, within the restrictions placed on me by the forum user agreement, and I elect to do so. I will continue electing to do so. It's one of those interests we little people have with our limited imaginations and grubby little lives of pointless pursuits: popping the egotistical ravings of those who believe they're superior ground apes.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Nov 23, 2019 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#74  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 9:35 pm

Fallible wrote:Also note that when others say something Scott doesn’t like he’s being insulted. When Scott says something rude, it’s not his fault - he’s just special, and you don’t understand him.


And the corollary: we little people can't hope to understand the duties of the special person or perceive the remits of their intellect. Our braying is putting him off his pure thinking. Grubby little creatures that we are.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#75  Postby Thommo » Nov 23, 2019 9:39 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Thommo wrote:Well, I drifted off part way through, because I could not find anything I recognise as an apology, anything I would recognise as representing the academic traditions of the mid 20th century and earlier (sources, citations and evidence are certainly not a new invention), or anything that holds true to my own area of study (I studied mathematics, latterly logic, in the UK).

I do appreciate that this must have taken a lot of effort, but I sincerely think it's misplaced. The fundamental problem is that you frequently appeal to a tradition of logic, and of formal logic that you only borrow legitimacy from. You don't use it as anything more than a label to provide an excuse for not providing evidence, which even in the mid 20th century would have required, at minimum, citations and links to primary sources when making an argument.

As an analogy, consider Ayn Rand's objectivism. She would appeal to objectivity and rationality, but only insofar as to claim that's what she was doing and claim that everyone else was not, regardless of the objective or logical merit of her arguments or theirs.

I also found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy idly springing to mind.

You'd have to read the whole to get my points.


If you'd read to the end of my considerably shorter posts, you'd see that I did go back and read to the end of yours. Doing so changed nothing fundamental about my response, as I mentioned to Hermit. Is it ironic that you've done exactly what I did, then complained about it? Perhaps. At this point I doubt anyone cares. You're taking (as pointed out in one of the posts Macdoc linked from your tenure on another forum) painfully far too many words, to say far too little.

What you are saying amounts to "I'm very clever and special". As I've said in regards to your other claims - I'm not prepared to believe that without evidence. These are appeals to fact that are not based in fact. Of course, where you think there is a direct fact you can refer to your standards suddenly shift (note your claim about online courses that is empirically grounded, albeit by alleged evidence simply not available to the rest of us).

Scott Mayers wrote:I'm a foundational thinker which coincides with the rationalism of the Modern era. Today's thinkers, like yourself, learn first to abide by strict processes that the pedogogy has had to adapt to for practical reasons only. But because of this, you will less likely know the value of the philosophy involved in the evolution of thinking that led to science.


There are other interpretations of what you are doing. Blowing hard would be one of them.

Modern thinking, empiricism and scientific scepticism have developed in myriad ways for myriad reasons. One key advantage they have is that they demonstrably work. This is a standard that you clearly don't aspire to reach. That seems like a problem for you and not for science or other modes of thinking. An excuse and fig leaf for the ego-heavy self image you project here. You have lowered standards and for some reason you're very impressed with yourself about that.

Mine always smell wonderful, indeed.
Last edited by Thommo on Nov 23, 2019 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26874

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#76  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 9:44 pm

Fallible wrote:Can we spell ‘irony’?


Correct spelling is so pedestrian; a mucky labour that the exalted elite no longer need concern themselves with. Boundaries are being plumbed, vistas new are being charted, Fallible... it's understandable that you cannot perceive even a blurred, simplistic as must be, sense of this, nor even an impoverished reflection of this noble, inspired vision. But your insistent tugging at the hem of your better's robe expecting to perceive their intent and momentarily flash of benevolent regard is only hampering the passage of the great works such great men perform for the betterment of all.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#77  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 9:51 pm

hackenslash wrote:
It wasn't merely incomplete, his equation for gravity gives solutions that do not match with reality. In espitemic terms, we call that 'incorrect'.


In foundational thinking terms we call that 'cause for a 48,000 word on how my bum smells divine and yours is pooey'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#78  Postby Thommo » Nov 23, 2019 10:13 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Logic, as I hope to have provided here, is not something you always need some 'empirical' stat to measure up against. The tendency to assume one provides evidence on a forum is also not logical because it relies on linking out the effort to outside sources when those outside sources don't prove the potential of skeptical thinking that can be utilized to full effect here.


There's a kernel of truth here, but it's surrounded by a morass of confusions and evasions.

Let's give three examples of objects derived from logical axioms in a consistent manner:

Euclidean space
Minkowski space
Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds

All of these are equally logical. Each can be rigorously defined. Each is consistent. Each is the logical consequence of a relatively simple set of axioms in a formal system. Logic alone does not allow us to choose between these objects. Each simply is a well defined structure that is studied in mathematics.

But you presume that I wouldn't know this?


If you think it matters, I'm happy to clarify that I didn't.

You've written an enormously long post that has essentially nothing to say about the post it replies to. It does briefly flirt with saying something relevant, but is once again horribly confused on the point. It talks about deriving an empirical approach from a logical one, which is gibberish. Pure oxymoron.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26874

Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#79  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 23, 2019 10:24 pm

Thommo wrote:It talks about deriving an empirical approach from a logical one, which is gibberish. Pure oxymoron.


And is alighted on from that same 'logical' approach. :whistle:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Apology: My Reflections on Forums of Science/Rationalism

#80  Postby Svartalf » Nov 23, 2019 10:58 pm

mmmmh? deriving an empirical approach from a logical one is gibberish? Is that not what we've been doing around the breakthroughs made by Einstein for about a century? trying to determine by observation whether he was right or not?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1923
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Science & Technology

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest