you are conflating an idiot of a doctor with the science of medicine
Yes I was, and I was unecesarily taking out on everyone. But I did not take it out on science itself, or physics itself. Only the jerks who interpret it. Which is not everyone. I believe I have the rightto do so.
I do not rely on my common sense for everything, I never stated that. That would be foolish. I have said this before, I know nothing.
Ok, I haven't had anytime to devote to learning physics, but let me explain where I am at with this problem.
First off, I fully understand the implimications of the problems without knowing pyhsics. I would also be able to solve it in the real world. I will try to describe what I see as going on.
You have the force of the car moving, plus the force of the slope, minus the friction of the skid. Its pretty simple.
I also understand that the length you skid increases to the square relative to the speed you are traveling.
Of course real world measurements would involve a few more things, but IF I had to figure out if this guy was speeding or not using my common sense, I would take a car of the same, using the same tires, and do some skid tests at the seen of the accident. After a couple of slides, I would be able to clearly see if the person was speeding or not.
Even if the skid mark came out to be 24 mph, he still hit the other car, and you would then need to figure out the force of the collsion, and add that to his speed, to get the total speed the car was moving.
I just haven't figured out really how to apply the coefficient of friction to the formula to calculate the speed. So my question is, if I currently do not understand the numbers, does this mean I cannot see what is going on using my common sense?
I still plan on understanding this. Also another question Lam, did the length of the skid increase by 13.875 percent because of the slope?
quote:I do not rely on my common sense for everything, I never stated that. That would be foolish. I have said this before, I know nothing.
I did not claim that you know nothing. I am disagreeing with your earlier stance that common sense often prevails against education and /or methodological naturalism. Not knowing the background of a subject is not a way to gain special insight into that subject. Gut feeling and a sense that you are right is not going to solve how genetic imprinting works for example. At least not without knowing a lot about genetics and imprinting with which to even have a chance of getting a gut feeling about how it works. One of the reasons methodological naturalism developed was because appeals to authority, supernatural beings, and common sense do not allow ones understanding of the natural world to advance.
quote:So why is it you won't listen to them when they tell you it is nonsense?
Because they are just telling me, not proving it.
Did you try the experimet I suggested?
If not, then the problem is not that it hasn't been proven. It's that you've been too stubborn to notice.
This is not the first time I have asked you if you tried the experiment.
quote:Common sense can prevail in a lot of situations vs. education.
No, it can't. That's why we have been asking you various questions that are fairly simplistic in the fields in which they come up but are incredibly difficult to determine if you're just trying to "common sense" your way through it.
quote:But I this happen mostly in the medical field.
Incorrect. The medical field is just as technical as any hard science. Do you seriously think that doctors aren't trained in diagnostic methods?
Question: If your knee isn't hurting, is it actually undamaged?
quote:Ok, I haven't had anytime to devote to learning physics
See, we have. I still remember the professor's comment during one of them: Everything will be fine so long as you don't eat the radioactive source.
You see, while there was a danger from the radiation (and we had to wear the little clips that got developed in order to determine if there was an overexposure) that might cause an elevated cancer risk in 30 or 40 years, the bigger problem was that the source was extremely toxic and would kill you right away.
When was the last time you were in a physics lab running an experiment?
Did you try the experiment I suggested?
quote:First off, I fully understand the implimications of the problems without knowing pyhsics.
Obviously not because you think the problem is one of physics when it's actually one of topology.
quote:I would also be able to solve it in the real world.
So why haven't you?
Have you tried the experiment I suggested?
quote:You have the force of the car moving, plus the force of the slope, minus the friction of the skid. Its pretty simple.
And yet you got it wrong and had to be shown how to solve it.
Do you stick with the door you originally chose or do you switch? We're still waiting for an answer.
quote:IF I had to figure out if this guy was speeding or not using my common sense, I would take a car of the same, using the same tires, and do some skid tests at the seen of the accident. After a couple of slides
While the brute force method does work to solve many problems, it isn't always feasible. That's why you develop methods that will let you know what the answer is without having to completely recreate the scenario. Take evolution, for example. It isn't like we have a spare planet lying around that can be seeded with appropriate organics and left to simmer for 4.5 billion years. How do you plan to brute force your way through a process that takes longer than you could possibly live?
quote:I just haven't figured out really how to apply the coefficient of friction to the formula to calculate the speed.
Why not? It's crystal clear to anybody who's had basic physics training.
quote:So my question is, if I currently do not understand the numbers, does this mean I cannot see what is going on using my common sense?
Oh, you might have a decent understanding of the broad process, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.
Do you honestly think that if we built buildings without structural analyses, that they wouldn't be collapsing all over the place?
People built perfectly servicable buildings for hundreds, nay thousands, of years without any structual analysis. Our buildings wouldn't be collapsing all over the place, they'd just be built using the same repeated principles that have worked before rather than advancing all the time.
I explained to you that you cannot "think outside of the box" if you are unaware or ignorant of what is inside the box in the first place.
quote:I fully agree with this, but that does not stop me from thinking outside the box.
Um, yes, it does stop you.
You don't know what's inside the box, rat.
By definition, you cannot think outside the box before knowing what's inside the box.
What we end up doing if we skip the leaning of what's inside the box is just waste a lot of time spouting off a bunch of ignorant, nonsensical, random garbage that anybody who knows what's inside the box will disregard immediately.
quote:Through my mistakes, I might come up with something, because I am not hindered by a certain knowledge. I would however make more mistakes due to lack of knowledge.
Or, you will make nothing but mistakes and never get anything right because you don't have a clue.
what I am getting at is that without any education, common sense will not help you solve scientific problems. You have been advocating that common sense alone prevails. In fact, most scientists who have made major discoveries or developed major theories have uncommon sense as they have been able to realize things that the common majority have not.