"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 20:07 Jenny wrote: > 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. Congratulations, that's yet another claim he never made. (You're really piling them up now, aren't you?) Quite the contrary, he said that von Mayer was _not_ an example of this. Why not read what people are actually writing, rather than making things up? -- 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 I am still learning. -- (Michaelangelo's motto)
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 21:09 On Mar 9, 5:44 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Jenny wrote: > > 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'm not sure how you know that it isn't true. "During this period, one of his sons and two of his daughters fell ill and died before the age of three. He also discovered that English physicist James Joule had claimed discovery of the mechanical equivalent of heat, while his theory was still unknown. In 1850, during an attack of insomnia, Mayer jumped out of a third-story window and fell almost thirty feet to the ground. He survived, but soon was forced to begin spending long series of voluntary and involuntary hospitalizations and even occasional restraint by strait-jacket". How do you extract from that life story the conclusion that the non- recognition of his achievement was not what pushed him over the edge? It's not uncommon for those who lose loved ones to immerse themselves in work and when that work is not recognized to fall into despair. > > 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. You can, if you like, disagree with me and claim that good art and good writing are sometimes not recognized until their creators die but that good science is always recognized when it is produced. But I think you will need to rewrite a lot of history. > 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. I don't think I claimed that he said that. He said "all these people knew the pre-existing science backwards and forwards" and I asked "How about this for a Doctor of Medicine?" It's clear that Mayer *didn't* know the pre-existing science backwards and forwards" and yet he came up with and demonstrated experimentally the idea that energy was conserved. A *revolutionary* breakthrough IMHO. > 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. I was responding to his talking about not knowing "the pre-existing science backwards and forwards", not about "total ignorance". I'm not sure that "total ignorance" is easy to come by even for someone who's been to University. > > 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. I read what you wrote. They "have lots of stuff to do rather than try every idea they hear from every random other non-scientist". Of course they would rather be busy testing their own theories. They only listen to their buddies. C'est naturelle. > > 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. It's not as clear to me as it is to you, so perhaps you should write it. > >> 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. I asked Wayne Throop his opinion on an article I quoted. So how can that article be an example of what I'm not asking about. The article *is* what I was asking about. It seemed to me that a non-scientist had an idea, was advised to perform a particular experiment, did that experiment, confirmed his idea and was published. But he didn't get proper credit because the journal he published in was the rather obscure "Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie". i.e Mayer *didn't* know the pre-existing science backwards and forwards" and yet he came up with and demonstrated experimentally the idea that energy was conserved. > > You seem to be agreeing with my point, good (or even great) work is > > often not appreciated - or even understood. > No one disputed this. I'm glad of that. > > 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. Newton was disturbed, Mayer was disturbed, Boltzmann was disturbed... and they in turn disturbed other people. The scientific process is all about disturbance and not wanting to *be* disturbed. > > 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.) I repeat. Wayne Throop wrote about not knowing "the pre-existing science backwards and forwards" and I asked his opinion on that article about Mayer who did not know "the pre-existing science backwards and forwards". In any case, you just agreed that you weren't arguing with my qualifier that "we seem to have agreed that good work by "outsiders" is *often* misunderstood and unappreciated by the "experts"". So "it follows that "outsiders" *often* outdo the "experts" and are ignored". That's simple logic. "Experts" often misunderstand and unappreciate good work by "outsiders" therfor "outsiders" often outdo the "experts" and are ignored. > Maybe you should read the posts you're replying to? You're arguing > against a long stream of strawmen. I asked for an opinion on an article. You seem to think I shouldn't, because it came from Wikipedia. > Said it? yep / Regret it? nope La Belle Dame Sans Regrets Je chante, tu cries Love, Jenny
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 21:17 On Mar 9, 7:00 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Jenny <yuan...(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? An action is rude if it's intended to be rude,IMHO. I don't know what their intentions were, so I don't know if they were being rude. If Mayer was right and energy is conserved, then they were not doing as good a service to science as they perhaps thought they were. Maybe they should have thought more and ridiculed less. I think that you were "armchair philosophising" about ethics, just as you claimed that Mayer was "armchair philosophising" about science. Love, Jenny
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 21:25 On Mar 9, 7:07 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Jenny wrote: > > 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. > > Congratulations, that's yet another claim he never made. (You're really > piling them up now, aren't you?) Quite the contrary, he said that von > Mayer was _not_ an example of this. Perhaps you read better than I do. WT wrote " it's eventual success was predicated on an experiment rather than on armchair philosophising". I think that"it" was Mayer's prediction of energy conservation and that WT was saying that, until he performed the experiment, Mayer was just armchair philosophising. > Why not read what people are actually writing, rather than making things up? What do *you* think the sentence meant? Who did WT think was armchair philosophizing? > I am still learning. Keep it up, there's a lot of stuff still left to learn. Love, Jenny
From: Erik Max Francis on 9 Mar 2010 21:25
Jenny wrote: > On Mar 9, 5:44 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Jenny wrote: > "During this period, one of his sons and two of his daughters fell ill > and died before the age of three. He also discovered that English > physicist James Joule had claimed discovery of the mechanical > equivalent of heat, while his theory was still unknown. In 1850, > during an attack of insomnia, Mayer jumped out of a third-story window > and fell almost thirty feet to the ground. He survived, but soon was > forced to begin spending long series of voluntary and involuntary > hospitalizations and even occasional restraint by strait-jacket". > > How do you extract from that life story the conclusion that the non- > recognition of his achievement was not what pushed him over the edge? > It's not uncommon for those who lose loved ones to immerse themselves > in work and when that work is not recognized to fall into despair. Your reference (Wikipedia) does not establish this. It establishes that he attempted suicide after both happened. It's quite possible for someone to be so upset about the death of his children to attempt suicide. It doesn't require scientific frustration to initiate. >> 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. > > I read what you wrote. They "have lots of stuff to do rather than try > every idea they hear from every random other non-scientist". Of course > they would rather be busy testing their own theories. They only listen > to their buddies. C'est naturelle. Still doesn't change the fact that you took the comment out of context, like pretty much all the other false claims you've piled up in this thread. > >>> 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. > > It's not as clear to me as it is to you, so perhaps you should write > it. So now I should write a paper to demonstrate something that is clearly false? Well, that makes a huge amount of sense, congratulations. > Newton was disturbed, Mayer was disturbed, Boltzmann was disturbed... > and they in turn disturbed other people. The scientific process is all > about disturbance and not wanting to *be* disturbed. Wow, what a waste of time and words this discussion is. -- 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 I'm crying everyone's tears -- Sade |