"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 18:19 : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : I didn't use emotive words like "mean" and "rude". : : I wrote "He wrote to the experts, most ignored him and some even : ridiculed him So... ridicule isn't mean and rude, you say? Good to know. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 18:44 Jenny wrote: > On Mar 9, 1:23 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Jenny wrote: >>> In some geometries there are no true parallels. > >> First, you never named the guy, but it's clear you're talking about >> Julius Robert von Mayer, and it's also clear from googling that you got >> the text you quoted from Wikipedia -- so not a great start. Second, the >> more controversial claims (such as him attempting to commit suicide >> after he discovered he wouldn't be "taken seriously") aren't cited and >> are contradicted by claims later (with citations) -- he attempted >> suicide only after his two children died. > > It's easier to copy from Wikipedia than reference the sources I > actually got it from. > > I wasn't trying to impress, I don't feel any need to impress people > that I'll never meet who don't even know who I am. Perhaps you should have read what I actually typed and what you quoted above, then. The Wikipedia article that you quoted from implies something that isn't true. He was suicidal because his children died, not because of those meanie scientists. > I was just making the point that "outsiders" (i.e untrained amateurs) > can come up with good science. You make that same point yourself > below, with respect to writings and art. Now translate that sideways > to science and you'll find yourself agreeing with me. Since science and writings or art are not the same thing, it's hard to see how that means anything. But no, you're missing the point again. Wayne wasn't saying that amateurs can't contribute. They certainly do, even today; amateur astronomers are a good example. Wayne was saying that total ignorance of the current understanding of science and purely philosophizing in a bubble of your own ignorance has contributed essentially nothing to science. Your examples _are not counterexamples_ to that point; each example includes people who were very carefully aware of the then-current understanding of science. Even this new example demonstrates it clearly: He submitted a paper that was clearly wrong, corrected it after going through peer review, and got published. That does not qualify as someone coming up with something in a bubble and then contributing to science; it involves someone working to learn what the current thinking is, revising his ideas based on criticism, and then moving forward. He didn't credit for the discovery, but that doesn't have anything to do with the challenge (especially since he was flatly wrong in some areas). There are plenty of circumstances in history where someone comes up with something >> Scientists, dandies from the 19th >> Century or not, have lots of stuff to do rather than try every idea they >> hear from every random other non-scientist. Especially in this case, >> this is an experiment that von Mayer _could conduct himself_. He >> doesn't need a known scientist to do it. "Go away and do the >> experiment" is not a libel in science -- it's how things are done. > > Did Einstein measure the deflection of light, or did Eddington do it? > > Who told Einstein to "go away and do the experiment"? Read what I wrote: "Especially in this case, this is an experiment that von Mayer _could conduct himself_." If you contact a scientist and insist that they perform an experiment that you could conduct yourself, you shouldn't be surprised that the scientist will have better things to do and tell you to actually do the experiment and then, maybe, get back to him. >> If we're actually going to go by the Wikipedia article as your primary >> source, the article itself shows why his ideas were probably not taken >> very seriously -- it's because he reached the wrong conclusions. He >> tried to explain conservation of energy by asserting that there was a >> conservation of force, which is something that is clearly _not_ true. >> Hence, his article to a peer-reviewed journal _contained errors_ that >> were found by the peer-review process and was thus rejected. This is >> the way peer-review is supposed to work. > > The issue isn't the initial rejection, the issue is that he > *eventually* got it right. > > . The words "force" and "energy" were very much in a state of flux at > that time so without reading the article, we can't be sure that what > he meant by "force" is not conserved. > > You also write "conservation of force, which is something that is > clearly _not_ true". > > It's not so clear to me. I dare say that I'm more of a skeptic than > you are. Um, okay. Well, good for you, then. Maybe you can write a paper about "conservation of force" and learn the hard way, then. >> Then as you admit, his findings _were_ in fact published, in a reputable >> paper. In other words, he learned from his mistakes, listened to the >> corrections, and fixed them. That's a counterexample to what Wayne was >> talking about. > > I didn't "admit" anything, I quoted from Wikipedia. .... which actually says that he did get published after fixing his errors. I'm using _your source_ and it's demonstrating that it's yet another example of what we are _not_ talking about. > You seem to be agreeing with my point, good (or even great) work is > often not appreciated - or even understood. No one disputed this. >>> And Newton was hammered so hard that even he was almost too scared to >>> publish. > >> Uh, what? > > Example: Newton had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he > feared controversy and criticism. > > (yes, that's Wikipedia again, but read any decent biography) And yet he dropped repeated coded hints about it to people like Leibniz, then had a shitfit when Leibniz published, starting a feud. That Newton was a rather disturbed individual has nothing really to do with the scientific process. > And it follows that "outsiders" often outdo the "experts" and are > ignored. And, once again, that was never the thing people were arguing against. (The qualifier _often_ makes it plenty questionable, however.) Maybe you should read the posts you're replying to? You're arguing against a long stream of strawmen. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Said it? yep / Regret it? nope -- Ice Cube
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 18:53 [Correction.] Erik Max Francis wrote: > He didn't credit for the discovery, but that doesn't have anything to do > with the challenge (especially since he was flatly wrong in some areas). > There are plenty of circumstances in history where someone comes up > with something I mangled this paragraph pretty good before hitting send. What I meant to say was: He didn't credit for the discovery, but that doesn't have anything to do with the challenge (especially since he was flatly wrong in some areas). There are plenty of circumstances in history where the actual first person to come up with something ends up not getting credit for it. It happens for a variety of reasons (loss of records, obscurity, poor presentation, political power, etc.) and is hardly specific to science. And it certainly isn't a counterexample to anything anyone was claiming. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Said it? yep / Regret it? nope -- Ice Cube
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 19:48 On Mar 9, 5:19 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > : I didn't use emotive words like "mean" and "rude". > : I wrote "He wrote to the experts, most ignored him and some even > : ridiculed him > So... ridicule isn't mean and rude, you say? Good to know. No, I didn't say. I used "ridicule", a verb, to describe an action. You used "mean" and"rude", adjectives, to describe people. I was talking about actions, you were making value judgements about those actions. You were "armchair philosophising" about ethics, just as you claimed that Mayer was "armchair philosophising" about science. Love, Jenny
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 20:00
: Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : I used "ridicule", a verb, to describe an action. An action taken by phsyicists. : You used "mean" and"rude", adjectives, to describe people. I used adjectives to describe actions taken by physicists. This is made tolerably clear by saying "mean physicists were rude to him". Rude is describing an action. You might have a point about "mean", if you wanted to be entirely humorless, I suppose. So. Is ridicule a rude action? Or not? Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw |