"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 21:34 Jenny wrote: > 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. But he _did_ perform the experiment, and published his results. So Wayne isn't complaining that he was an armchair philosopher, he was saying _this is not a counterexample to his claim_. Which he's only said a zillion times by now. You'd understand what his claim actually was if you had bothered reading what he said before replying. Or read what he said in response to you mentioning von Mayer ("Two problems with this example in the upthread context ..."). It's clear that you still haven't, and are just busy nitpicking and attacking strawmen. I can play this game, too, watch: I know people who likes the taste of orange! Therefore your claim that nobody likes the taste of orange is false. (Never mind that you never claimed this, I'll just keep typing, like you're doing. It shouldn't be very fun for either of us, so it's not clear why you're doing it.) >> 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? Wayne thought von Mayer was. Because at first, he was. Before he talked to experts. Before he conducted the experiment. Before he wrote a paper, which contained errors, and was (rightly) rejected by a peer-reviewed journal. Before he corrected those errors and it was accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. Follow yet? >> I am still learning. > > Keep it up, there's a lot of stuff still left to learn. Has it dawned on your yet that you're responding to randomly-selected quotes? No, didn't think so. -- 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
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 23:05 :: 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. That turns out not to be the case. I was saying that Tue Sorensen's methodology of reforming physics by armchair philosophizing wasn't followed by Mayer. Whether or not Mayer ever philosophises from his armchair was not asserted; whether he did or not, the success of his ideas was based on experiment, and the experiment was designed with physics-as-it-was-then in mind. This whole issue of producing examples arose when Tue said that radically different approaches become necessary. I was interested in whether that ever occurs when the person proposing the changes remains ignorant of the current state of the relevant theories. So the issue at hand is, do such theories get successfully developed in ignorance of current science of the time, based on philosophical objections alone. The answer seems to be, no. Note: ignorance of the *science*, which has nothing to do with whether they are professionals, amateurs, political insiders, outsiders, whether somebody ridicules them, or whether they are space aliens from Zeta Reticuli; the issue is, do they know what the current theory is, and is the success owed to philosophical objections alone. Mayer consulted with folks who knew what the current theory was, *and* *listened* to them. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 23:48 :: Is ridicule a rude action? =A0Or not? : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : An action is rude if it's intended to be rude,IMHO Interesting. Can you give an example, real or hypothetical, of ridicule not intended to be rude? Do you mean merely riducule meant in jest? : I think that you were "armchair philosophising" about ethics, just as : you claimed that Mayer was "armchair philosophising" about science. Turns out you're mistaken. On both counts. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 00:12 On Mar 9, 8:25 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. I asked "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"? You haven't answered. > 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. "It's quite possible" isn't the same as "it for sure was". > > 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. This *is* the context, I haven't taken the comment anywhere. > > 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. You wrote ""conservation of force, which is something that is clearly _not_ true". That's what you claim to be clear to you and that's what you should write about.You're the one with an opinion. I'm the one with questions. It's not at all clear to me, so why on Earth should *I* write about it. > > 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. If you think that then you should stop. > I'm crying everyone's tears Well that will save them the bother. Love, Jenny
From: Erik Max Francis on 10 Mar 2010 00:23
Jenny wrote: > On Mar 9, 8:25 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Jenny wrote: >>> 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. > > I asked "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"? > > You haven't answered. I haven't answered because your reference does not establish this to be the case. It just states it, without evidence. >> 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. > > "It's quite possible" isn't the same as "it for sure was". That exact same argument works precisely in reverse for the thing you're trying to claim. It's your claim (via Wikipedia), so you back it up. >>> 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. > > You wrote ""conservation of force, which is something that is clearly > _not_ true". That's what you claim to be clear to you and that's what > you should write about.You're the one with an opinion. I'm the one > with questions. > > It's not at all clear to me, so why on Earth should *I* write about > it. You're the one suggesting there might be one. Look at the quotations of you saying that it's not clear to you it doesn't exist. Try finding any such concept of "conservation of force" in any physics book. You won't, because there isn't one. Force clearly isn't conserved. von Mayer concluded there was such a thing, which is why his original paper was wrong and rejected. That's life. You're the one confused here about basic physics, and encouraged _me_ to write something about it. It's your confusion; you figure it out. As in, read a physics textbook or something. Getting yet why conversation with you is so frustrating? You can't even seem to focus on what your core argument is; you're all over the place. >> I'm crying everyone's tears > > Well that will save them the bother. Still don't get that the .sig quotes are randomly selected, huh? -- 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 When the solution is simple, God is answering. -- Albert Einstein |