Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,377 Year: 4,634/9,624 Month: 409/1,096 Week: 4/110 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 238 of 1725 (572578)
08-06-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler writes:
Is anyone else as intrigued by this one as me?
Probably not, though I have been following the debate.
Thus far, I would say that it is lopsided, with bluegenes clearly ahead.
I'm still wondering why RAZD even started this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 251 of 1725 (573542)
08-11-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by onifre
08-07-2010 4:22 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Now if RAZD could just spare us from his long and tedious multi-color sermons (such as Message 14), I might resume reading the "debate".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by onifre, posted 08-07-2010 4:22 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2010 9:41 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 279 of 1725 (574574)
08-16-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by xongsmith
08-16-2010 5:20 PM


Re: Mutual admiration society? - Peanut Gallery
xongsmith writes:
Or, are you saying that just the writing of the word pair "invisible pink", or the pair "immaterial pink", is, by fiat, objective scientific evidence of its fictional origin?
"Invisible pink" is self-contradictory, so is linguistic evidence of a fictional concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by xongsmith, posted 08-16-2010 5:20 PM xongsmith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 288 of 1725 (574612)
08-16-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Blue Jay
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Blue Jay writes:
Anyway, I agree that RAZD is losing the debate with Bluegenes. But, I don’t think it’s because he’s wrong: I think it’s because his raz-otechnic sermons are not getting the message across.
I think that sums it up reasonably well.
I can't really comment on whether RAZD is right or wrong. His "raz-otechnic sermons" (as you call them) make it difficult to follow what he is arguing.
I do agree, however, that what bluegenes presents as his theory is not anything that I would consider to qualify as a scientific theory. Perhaps it can be called a philosophic theory (if there is such a thing), but not a scientific theory.
I don't argue whether it is falsifiable, because I think falsificationism is nonsense. However, a scientific theory has associated empirical principles that connect the symbols (or terminology) used in the theory to actual real world data. And I don't see that.
To be specific, the bluegenes "theory" needs empirical principles that I could follow in order to collect data that would identify a supernatural being. Without such principles, it is only a word game and has no scientific content.
There's probably a lot of similarity in where you see problems and where I see problems. The big difference, is that I don't try to put it in terms of the usual definition of "scientific theory" (such as is often expounded at evcforum). And that's because I strongly disagree with that usual definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Blue Jay, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2010 9:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 443 of 1725 (586165)
10-11-2010 5:58 PM


In Message 45, the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge
RAZD writes:
Curiously, this is not how the scientific method works. It starts from evidence and then deduces the hypothesis.
That does not seem right to me.
If you could deduce it from the evidence, then it would be a fact rather than a hypothesis.

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Panda, posted 10-11-2010 6:38 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 445 of 1725 (586179)
10-11-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Panda
10-11-2010 6:38 PM


Panda writes:
I think RAZD is objecting to forming a hypothesis and then looking for evidence since a hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon" [Wiki].
But there is no point in looking forming a hypothesis, if you are not going to look for evidence.
Typically, a hypothesis is formed on the basis of partial evidence. And then you look for additional evidence to either support or refute the hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Panda, posted 10-11-2010 6:38 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Panda, posted 10-11-2010 7:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 448 by Modulous, posted 10-11-2010 11:17 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 508 of 1725 (590642)
11-09-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Modulous
11-09-2010 7:25 AM


Re: inductive reasoning
I'm not xongsmith, but I'll try my hand at your questions.
Modulous writes:
Would you agree that inductive reasoning is an essential part of the scientific method?
No.
Modulous writes:
That Newton didn't examine every single mass interaction that has ever or will ever take place before deriving the laws of motion, gravity etc?
I agree with that. But what does that have to do with inductive reasoning?
Modulous writes:
Would you agree that a theory must make predictions?
No.
However, I agree that a theory must be said to "make predictions". But we say that by talking in metaphors.
Modulous writes:
Would you agree that a theory should be falsifiable?
No, though it does seem that it must be said to be falsifiable, even though it isn't actually falsifiable.
Modulous writes:
Would you agree that a theory must be consistent with all the known evidence?
No.
Modulous writes:
Relying on a deck of cards is intrinsic to science.
No, it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 7:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 10:48 AM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 510 of 1725 (590669)
11-09-2010 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Modulous
11-09-2010 10:48 AM


Re: schminductive reasoning
Modulous writes:
Since you agree he is making these general statements based on a specific and limited set of observations - we can conclude inductive reasoning is involved.
No, I do not agree with that. Specifically, I do not agree that Newton was making a generalization based on limited specific observations.
Modulous writes:
If you want to argue that this isn't by your philosophical position 'inductive reasoning' (which I suspect you were doing using the minimum number of words possible) then you are making the wrong argument in the wrong place and are just being pedantic on one of your pet subjects.
I'm saying that the induction story is a ridiculous "Just So" story. It is the philosopher's equivalent of the "Adam and Eve" story, a foundational myth for philosophy of science. But it paints a highly misleading picture of how science is done.
Modulous writes:
If you want to call 'schminductive reasoning' that Newton engaged in - then that's fine. It was 'schminductive reasoning' I was talking about and 'schminductive reasoning' that bluegenes is employing and 'schminductive reasoning' that RAZD argues should not be done despite the fact that it is.
If you think I am arguing for the position taken by bluegenes, then you are mistaken. I believe I have already been clear (see Message 288) that I would not consider the "bluegenes theory" to be a scientific theory.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 10:48 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 11:49 AM nwr has replied
 Message 512 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 12:04 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 513 of 1725 (590676)
11-09-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Straggler
11-09-2010 11:49 AM


Re: schminductive reasoning
nwr writes:
Specifically, I do not agree that Newton was making a generalization based on limited specific observations.
Straggler writes:
Can you explain what you do think he was doing then?
There is more than one way that you can have a bunch of observations that appear to be specific instances of a general statement.
One method is induction. I'm not sure why philosophers see only that one method.
Another method is to define a standard, such that observations are to be made in accordance with that standard. Then all observations that are made by following that standard will have the appearance of being specific instances of the general statement which is the standard.
I say that Newton was setting standards. And we are still using some of Newton's standards even today. The Wikipedia definition of "dyne" is pretty much the restatement of one of Newton's laws in the form of a standard of measurement.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 11:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 12:35 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 514 of 1725 (590679)
11-09-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by Modulous
11-09-2010 12:04 PM


Re: schminductive reasoning
Modulous writes:
What's the difference between Newton's limited set of observations of "all known bodies" leading to a theory of "all bodies" (which I'm going to start calling schminduction if this argument continues to future posts) different than bluegenes observations of "all known supernatural beings" leading to the theory "all supernatural beings"?
Newton's laws are a standard upon which observation is based. As far as I know, he proposed those standards on theoretical grounds, and then his "limited set of observations" were used to demonstrate the efficacy of his standards.
When bluegenes proposes a set of standards that we should follow when making observations of supernatural beings, I will agree that he is doing science about supernatural beings as they are defined by his proposed standard. However, I'm inclined to doubt that RAZD would accept that proposed standard as defining what he (RAZD) means by "supernatural beings."

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 12:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 5:39 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 522 of 1725 (590693)
11-09-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Straggler
11-09-2010 12:35 PM


Re: schminductive reasoning
Straggler writes:
How do you derive your standard?
A standard is a construct, an invention. Newton was a brilliant inventor.
Straggler writes:
And why would you expect any observations to meet that standard unless the standard itself is itself inductively derived from observations?
Sigh! How can you be so confused.
My wristwatch meets the time standard. It does not meet the time standard because somehow the time standard is derived from observations. Rather, it meet the time standard because I damn well set my watch using that standard.
A standard is not a description of our observations, it is a method that we follow in order to make those observations. If we followed the method given in the standard, then our observation is made in accordance with the standard.
Is standard time a result of induction, based on observations? Hell, no. People are still arguing against the use of standard time, at least in rural parts of USA. They wouldn't be arguing against it if it were inductively derived from observations.
Straggler writes:
It is F=ma that is fundamental here.
It is F = ma that is the fundamental standard here.
If you were to go back to some time before Newton (and before Galileo), you would find that "mass" did not exist as a fundamental concept. Rather, mass and weight were treated as the same. And I think you would find that "force" was an intentional concept, based on human intentions (humans forcing things), and quite different from our modern scientific conception of force.
Newton gave us new concepts of mass and force, and his laws set standards for the use of those concepts within science.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 12:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 2:03 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 528 of 1725 (590705)
11-09-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Straggler
11-09-2010 2:03 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
Straggler writes:
You think Newton invented rather than discovered the relationship between mass, force and acceleration? That it didn't exist before he came along?
I suppose that depends on whether you are a Platonist or a nominalist.
Your questions already miss the point.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 2:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 3:00 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 532 of 1725 (590716)
11-09-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by Straggler
11-09-2010 3:00 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
Straggler writes:
And your answers (as usual) demonstrate that you have no point.
I explained my point in earlier posts. You have completely avoided responding to the important parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 6:14 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 542 of 1725 (590760)
11-09-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Modulous
11-09-2010 5:39 PM


Re: schminductive reasoning
Modulous writes:
Basing observations upon standards? Proposing standards on theoretical grounds? Is this how you think scientists go about doing stuff?
Yes, of course that is how a great deal of science is done.
Modulous writes:
He didn't just tinker, measure and record results of various experiments and say "I did this 500 times and I got the following results, indicating this is a rule that describes the relationship between Force and Acceleration in general," That would be completely against the practice of science as it occurs every day - right?
He could not "just tinker, measure and record results" until there were suitable measurement standards to follow.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Modulous, posted 11-09-2010 5:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6414
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(1)
Message 544 of 1725 (590778)
11-09-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Straggler
11-09-2010 6:14 PM


Re: Invention and Discovery
Straggler writes:
So Newton didn't discover relationships between empirically observed phenomenon he invented them?
Oh, bullshit.
That's not what I said and it's not implied by what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 6:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 545 by Straggler, posted 11-09-2010 8:36 PM nwr has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024