Maybe it was the phrase "Now this angers me" that made me think you became angry. How foolish of me. Apparently what you write only looks like English, but is in fact something totally different.
The anger which you wouldn't have known of if I hadn't told you? But you did not want to know, did you?
Another case of something I mistake for English? Care to translate?
You certainly did not address the erronious beliefs you have about lay people.
I did, but if you choose to ignore it, then that's your problem.
Is it possible you are incorrect?
I have spoken to many lay people who harbour these ideas, and I have read many posts by such people. So it's possible that I'm wrong, but my experience tells me differently. I am certainly not going to indulge you by compiling a list of incidents, it's just not worth my trouble. If you don't believe me, fine. I couldn't care less.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
Maybe it was the phrase "Now this angers me" that made me think you became angry. How foolish of me.
Exactly. I said nothing else to implicate anger. You would not have known I was angry if I had not told you. You did not deduct this from any other source. Your only evidence is that I said it. I did not VENT it! I agree with you, it was foolish to form a conception by a couple of written words without empirical evidence.
Another case of something I mistake for English? Care to translate?
I hope the above clarifies that mistake.
[qs]You certainly did not address the erronious beliefs you have about lay people.
I did, but if you choose to ignore it, then that's your problem.[qs]
May I point out another misunderstanding here. The focul point here should be on the words, " beliefs, you have" Not their beliefs. Your beliefs. Not your beliefs about science. Not their beliefs about science. Not your belief that you know more about science than them either. None of those. Simply your beliefs about the 'layman' in particular and references to straw men. I assume it is from the Wizard of Oz?
I have spoken to many lay people who harbour these ideas, and I have read many posts by such people. So it's possible that I'm wrong, but my experience tells me differently. I am certainly not going to indulge you by compiling a list of incidents, it's just not worth my trouble. If you don't believe me, fine. I couldn't care less.
Again it is not their beliefs to which I refer. It is yours about them. This is in as plain english as I can muster. If you cannot understand this, I am at a loss as to how to get through to you people.
Well, maybe it's not worth the trouble, but I do care. There is a fundamental difference between you and I, thank god.
[...] it was foolish to form a conception by a couple of written words without empirical evidence.
So, tell me, what should I have done? Find out where you live, look you up and see if you froth at the mouth? You did not vent it, you said. Should I have checked that no steam was coming out of your ears? Just to verify that what you write here is in fact true? In this forum, the only evidence we have of what people think is what they write. If you write "Now this angers me", in my book that means that you are angry, at least if it's meant to be English what you write. If not, maybe you can supply explanatory footnotes in the future.
Simply your beliefs about the 'layman' in particular
I have told you my beliefs about "lay circles": I believe that a large portion of the lay public has erroneous ideas about science. This belief stems from my interaction with a lot of them. I have heard or read their words concerning the topic. From these words I infer some conclusions about their ideas. You're not supposing, I hope, that if they express some faulty ideas about science, I should conclude: "Well, they may say things that betray ignorance about science, but they are probably very well versed in matters scientific." I draw different conclusions about them, and they are conclusions every straight thinking, knowledgeable person would draw, given the utterances of these people.
You may want to look up the term 'straw man'. It's a term used in logic and reasoning to denote a particular fallacious strategy. It has nothing to do with the straw man in the Wizard of Oz. Perhaps you know all this already, but used your idiosyncratic way of expressing that fact. Presently, I have no way of knowing.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
I then came to believe that when the atom is split the energy is released (not transformed), virually no physical mass is lost and the energy released immediately becomes mass (form). How am I doing so far?
No mass is lost at all (in total)- mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. The piece of matter that had the atoms now has less mass since some of its energy has been put to usually been put to work and has now dissipated.
The energy doesn't immediately become matter. The energy does have an associated mass. Matter and mass are different words with different meanings, an easy mistake to make though.
Any members who would like to get into a tangle over who's angry or not can open a Free For All thread and hash it out between themselves without fear of moderation. Please don't allow it to affect discussion threads.
Did you not declare it with confidence, as you believed it to be true?
I don't think I did. I try and avoid doing this kind of thing, because I know I'll be called on it by any number of the more knowledgeable people around here.
My real glaringly obvious point is that my behaviour is no differnt to anyones elses. I state what I believe to be true just as you do. You make mistakes, so do I.
Why are my mistakes (even spelling) pointed out so harshly when yours are not?
Two reasons spring to mind. I tend to word things that I am not sure of in a limited fashion, with disclaimers and tentativity. I think it is better to avoid insisting I am right when people I judge more knowledgeable than myself are telling me I'm wrong.
Most posters were trying to blind me with science because they believed I was uneducated. In other words "One-up-manship,"
Either that, or they thought you were more educated that you are. When you said 'Year 12 science", I took that to mean a level of maths equivalent to my own. That includes up to doing calculus on trigonometric functions. In my maths education, I also had to learn the mathematics of basic physics (Newtonian mechanics).
With that in mind, I tried to speak to this level, I suspect others were doing likewise.
I don't think anyone was trying to blind you with science, and if that was the effect it was almost certainly unintentional. When in doubt, I find it best to assume others have nothing but the best of intentions rather than the worst. I find my time here much more enjoyable as a result.
Anyway, you're free to disagree. This probably comes under Admin's warning above and in light of that, it's probably wise to leave it there.
Either that, or they thought you were more educated that you are. When you said 'Year 12 science", I took that to mean a level of maths equivalent to my own. That includes up to doing calculus on trigonometric functions. In my maths education, I also had to learn the mathematics of basic physics (Newtonian mechanics).
Where & when the individual took 12 yr science might have an effect as to how high a level of science & math the individual acquired. In my case it ended with analytic geometry and very introductory calculus, and use of derivatives and integrals
Edited by bluescat48, : spelling
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
So, tell me, what should I have done? Find out where you live, look you up and see if you froth at the mouth? You did not vent it, you said. Should I have checked that no steam was coming out of your ears? Just to verify that what you write here is in fact true? In this forum, the only evidence we have of what people think is what they write. If you write "Now this angers me", in my book that means that you are angry, at least if it's meant to be English what you write. If not, maybe you can supply explanatory footnotes in the future.
The misunderstanding here is in not looking at the same thing. In my book 'this angers me' does not mean I am angry. I meant the subject matter we were discussing angers me. These words impacted on your response. You replied in anger whereas I did not. Because of this perception, that I inadvertently gave you, it influenced your response. The point was lost and personalities take over. Such as this..........
So, tell me, what should I have done? Find out where you live, look you up and see if you froth at the mouth? You did not vent it, you said. Should I have checked that no steam was coming out of your ears? Just to verify that what you write here is in fact true? In this forum, the only evidence we have of what people think is what they write. If you write "Now this angers me", in my book that means that you are angry, at least if it's meant to be English what you write. If not, maybe you can supply explanatory footnotes in the future.
and give instruction like this...........
You may want to look up the term 'straw man'. It's a term used in logic and reasoning to denote a particular fallacious strategy. It has nothing to do with the straw man in the Wizard of Oz.
...............and form opinions like this..............
Perhaps you know all this already, but used your idiosyncratic way of expressing that fact. Presently, I have no way of knowing.
I believe many emotions, not only anger, has been affecting the discussion from the beginning. Without them, this topic would have closed at around post 6.
Thanks Modulous. Joining the dots, I think you are saying that in post 1. I came across as arrogant.
Two reasons spring to mind. I tend to word things that I am not sure of in a limited fashion, with disclaimers and tentativity. I think it is better to avoid insisting I am right when people I judge more knowledgeable than myself are telling me I'm wrong.
I could not come across this way as I genuinely believed what I was saying. I genuinely believed it was common knowledge. My only mistake in post 1. was that I took the speed of light literally. I did not realise it was expressing a number.
I also said yr 12 in maths, not science and it was 32yrs ago.
So I figure many of the responses came from their perception of my arrogance which was from a purely innocent belief.
You know Mod, I was becoming excited with how much knowledge I was acquiring, mainly due to your responses and my research, but I am now utterly deflated by this thread.
I did not need to know what I now know about e=mc bloody squared. I came for a visit amongst the scientific community. It isn't very hospitable, with a few exceptions including yourself. I'm going home. I am an ex brit. Boltonian to be precise. Thanks so much.
I have no misconceptions of E=MC2. I do not dispute it's authenticity. What I do dispute is others conceptions of what it actually means. I am neither scientist, evolutionist or creationist and for this reason, I have chosen to start it here in the coffee house. The only expertise I have is year 12 maths. However, I do have experience in misconceptions and the meaning of words. Therefore for easier understanding I will put the mathematical theory into words. E=MC2 means "Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light.
For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum. I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved. Is this true?
I believe a number of members mistook my opening post for arrogance. It wasn't. I will try to put the record straight.
My intention was to test my theory on 'misconceptions' and I could think of no other way than to put my head on the block. I had to test a concept I truly believed was true. If I tested a concept that I wasn't sure of then it wouldn't be a true belief. I would not have had any conviction behind it. Don't you see? It would not have worked otherwise.
The whole thread is filled with a myriad of misunderstandings. Some because I was deemed arrogant. Others because of my lack of education in this field and finally, many misunderstandings of E=MC^2 and they weren't all mine.
It's great that you can see that your lack of scientific understanding led you to have misunderstandings.
It was nothing to do with my lack of scientific understanding. It was "false perceptions." Differnt to knowledge in a particular field. This happens all the time, in every walk of life at every level. False perceptions are rife throughout this whole forum, especially about each other and more so about oneself.
This is what I determined to demonstrate and I did, but was hoping that others would recognise it in themselves. Next time, maybe.
So let me get this straight: you were really trying to demonstrate the general 'false perceptions' that people have on this site about themselves and others via the medium of a specific 'false perception' you asserrted that people had about e=mc^2?
How have you demonstrated that there are 'false perceptions'?
Your lack of 'scientific understanding' of e=mc^2 was obvious. If you had a greater understanding (as you appear to now possess) you would not have believed the 'false perception' that you held about e=mc^2.
By the way, how close was I in my perception of you?
So let me get this straight: you were really trying to demonstrate the general 'false perceptions' that people have on this site about themselves and others via the medium ..............of a specific 'false perception' you asserrted that people had about e=mc^2?
Almost! if it read..........via the medium of e=mc^2, it would be correct.
It was a test to discover IF there were false perceptions of any kind.
How have you demonstrated that there are 'false perceptions'?
Some were agreeing with my perception and there was disgreement between each other. I'm willing to go back through and find them if you are.
Your lack of 'scientific understanding' of e=mc^2 was obvious. If you had a greater understanding (as you appear to now possess) you would not have believed the 'false perception' that you held about e=mc^2.
It wasn't obvious to any of you where my misunderstanding lay. I had to find it myself. That one perception did not negate other knowledge I have of e=mc^2. I didn't learn all that in one thread.
What did happen was, in finding the 'false perception' I gained a greater understanding of what I already knew. I cannot tell you how great that was. Everything began to make sense in a logical way that my mind is trained to accept.
By the way, how close was I in my perception of you?
I'll give you a hint. You described a person in another thread who had been 'tortured' by false beliefs. Basically that was me.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
