Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:49
On 3 Mar, 02:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com....
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
> >> I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the
> >> patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some
> >> who claim to follow science.
>
> > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have
> > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and
> > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these?
>
> I can tell you now what the example will be.  The claim that events that are
> simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames.

Actually I never thought to mention that. I was thinking more about
the philosophical side, for example about followers of science wrongly
claim that falsificationism characterises good science (a bit like how
Christians claim the Bible characterises the practice of their
religion). Of course the examples are myriad, but it's hardly worth
multiplying exponentially the number of issues in dispute.



> Of course,
> it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs of
> frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those
> particular frames.  However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame is
> NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other (non-co-moving)
> frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement.  STE seems to
> ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of
> events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his
> justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting
> forward scientific arguments.  Its rather pathetic really.

I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong. I'm gloating
because some people so emphatically charged me with "idiocy" and
"ignorance", "a slave to my intuitions", etc.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:51
On 3 Mar, 02:44, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> When lightening strikes the train moves.

When lightning strikes the braindead on this newsgroup move.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:57
On 3 Mar, 02:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> I think perhaps his phrasing was clumsy.  I think he *MEANT* to say was:
>
> ==
> No. Evolution's acceptance is not for the sole reason that it passed the
> tests of falsifiability(there are other reasons).  Indeed, that it passed
> the tests of falsifiability is not one of the reasons it is accepted at
> all).
> ==
>
> It still is an odd thing to say.

What I meant to say was that the question of whether evolution is
falsifiable is a complete red herring. Whether or not it is
falsifiable, and whether or not we agree that it is falsifiable, has
absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the acceptance of evolution.

Indeed, the theory of evolution was conceived long before
falsificationism was ever articulated by Popper, and evolution remains
long after falsificationism has been discarded by philosophers of
science as a means of demarcation.
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 06:53

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d06ce29-1ccd-46a8-a5bf-5ebd4c1c3bef(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 02:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip for brevity]
>>
>> >> I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the
>> >> patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some
>> >> who claim to follow science.
>>
>> > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have
>> > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and
>> > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these?
>>
>> I can tell you now what the example will be. The claim that events that
>> are
>> simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames.
>
> Actually I never thought to mention that. I was thinking more about
> the philosophical side, for example about followers of science wrongly
> claim that falsificationism characterises good science

It is what makes an hypothesis a candidate for being a candidate for a
scientific theory. If it is not falsifiable that means it cannot be tested
and possibly refuted. Of course, some ideas are often called 'theories'
when they are still really conjectures of hypotheses, and are in the process
of being developed into theories.

There is more to science than having falsifiable hypothesis .. but that is
still critical to it.

> (a bit like how
> Christians claim the Bible characterises the practice of their
> religion).

They don't .. not if they know what they are saying. They may claim that
concepts and principles that they chose to find in the bible are the basis
for how they practice their religion .. but Christian religious practice
(which varies considerably from denomination to denomination) is certainly
never solely based on the bible. Indeed, much of what is practiced has no
valid biblical basis, but is rather cultural and historical traditions.

However, as with most religions, there are a set of beliefs that one who is
to be a member of a religion must hold to be true, whether or not there is
any evidence or proof of those beliefs.

> Of course the examples are myriad, but it's hardly worth
> multiplying exponentially the number of issues in dispute.
>
>
>
>> Of course,
>> it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs
>> of
>> frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those
>> particular frames. However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame
>> is
>> NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other
>> (non-co-moving)
>> frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement. STE seems
>> to
>> ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of
>> events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his
>> justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting
>> forward scientific arguments. Its rather pathetic really.
>
> I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong.

Not so much wrong, but the way they expressed what SR says was poor

> I'm gloating
> because some people so emphatically charged me with "idiocy" and
> "ignorance", "a slave to my intuitions", etc.

I don't see that you've yet proven otherwise.


From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 06:59

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9caab617-30ba-4b16-86d0-d011d15d1b95(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 02:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think perhaps his phrasing was clumsy. I think he *MEANT* to say was:
>>
>> ==
>> No. Evolution's acceptance is not for the sole reason that it passed the
>> tests of falsifiability(there are other reasons). Indeed, that it passed
>> the tests of falsifiability is not one of the reasons it is accepted at
>> all).
>> ==
>>
>> It still is an odd thing to say.
>
> What I meant to say was that the question of whether evolution is
> falsifiable is a complete red herring.

Not if it is to be taken as a scientific theory

> Whether or not it is
> falsifiable, and whether or not we agree that it is falsifiable, has
> absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the acceptance of evolution.

It is accepted primarily because it is a model whose prediction agree with
what we observe in nature. If they did not agree with what we see in
nature, then it would be rejected. That the things it predicts could
(conceviably) NOT be the case in nature means it is falsifiable.

> Indeed, the theory of evolution was conceived long before
> falsificationism was ever articulated by Popper,

Falsification was around long before Popper. you give him too much credit.

> and evolution remains
> long after falsificationism has been discarded by philosophers of
> science as a means of demarcation.

It hasn't. It is still a requirement of an hypothesis if it is to be
official elevated to the status of a theory. Although some hypothesis are
incorrectly and prematurely called 'theories', mostly out of laziness and
the ambiguity of the term.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights