"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 01:20 On Mar 9, 11:23 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Jenny wrote: > > 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. My reference does not state that "the non-recognition of his achievement was not what pushed him over the edge". You said that and 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"? > > "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. The reference in question wasn't from Wikipedia. You made the claim that it was the deaths of his children. I didn't make any claim. What I said was "I'm not sure how you know that it isn't true". Here it comes again: "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". And 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? 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 didn't say that that the reference "established" anything. You haven't offered anything except personal opinion. Which is OK, but if that's all you have why can't you just say so. > > 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 made the claim that there *wasn't* one, *I* questioned your certainty. It's up to you to establish your claim, it's not up to me to prove anything either way. You're the "expert". > 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. I'm not confused about anything except how you can be so certain of your opinions. You don't give much information as to where they're coming from. > 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 didn't have a core argument, I had a core question. I asked WT for an opinion on a quote. You decided that I shouldn't have quoted Wikipedia. So I quoted something else and asked you a question about that. "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"? All you can tell me is that that quote doesn't prove a position that I don't have. Then you refuse to answer my question. > >> 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? Do you really not enjoy your life? The random quotes are more interesting than your non-random posts. > When the solution is simple, God is answering. All solutions are simple, it's just that the questions sometimes *seem* hard. Love, Jenny
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 01:33 On Mar 9, 10:48 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > :: Is ridicule a rude action? =A0Or not? > : Jenny <yuan...(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? As I wrote, "An action is rude if it's intended to be rude,IMHO". To ridicule is to make fun of, think of a Roast. The perpetrator was only mean or rude if he intended to be mean or rude. > : 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. It wouldn't be the first and second times that I've been wrong and it isn't. Love, Jenny
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 01:58 On Mar 9, 10:05 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > :: 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. Here's what you wrote to me: ________________________ As, for example, in your upthread analogy, which is basically a swing and a miss. Because 1) it's not a case of a revolution, and b) it's eventual success was predicated on an experiment rather than on armchair philosophising. And simply claiming that the mean physicists were rude to him until he *did* the experiment won't change those basic elements of the situation. _________________________ Neither you nor I had made mention of Sorensen in our discussion. To write about an "eventual success ... predicated on an experiment rather than on armchair philosophising." was a clear reference to Mayers about whom we had been talking and the implication was that until then he had been armchair philosophising. I hadn't asked about Thorensen. > 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. What you had written was: "But regardless of that, these examples all point to one thing and one thing only: all these people knew the pre- existing science backwards and forwards, and had *observations* to explain, not philosopicalpinings-for-the-fjords". So I gave you a quote about a medical doctor Mayer and I asked you for your opinion. That quote made it clear that he DID NOT know the "pre- existing science backwards and forwards". And yet he became the first to come up with the idea of conservation of energy. To say that he made mistakes on the way is not the point, have you ever read Einstein's Mistakes by Ohanian? What counts is that he found his way despite resistence from those experts who "knew" that he was wrong. > 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. But did they listen to him? I think the issue is do such theories *not* get successfully developed in ignorance of current imperfect science of the time, based on prejudicial objections alone. IMHO the answer seems to be, yes. Love, Jenny
From: Wayne Throop on 10 Mar 2010 05:59 : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : Neither you nor I had made mention of Sorensen in our discussion. To : write about an "eventual success ... predicated on an experiment : rather than on armchair philosophising." was a clear reference to : Mayers about whom we had been talking and the implication was that : until then he had been armchair philosophising. Which conceivably gives you an excuse for misinterpreting what I said, but doesn't change what I meant by it. Further, there is an upthread context to the discussion in general, so it's a pretty thin excuse. :: Mayer consulted with folks who knew what the current theory was, :: *and* *listened* to them. : But did they listen to him? Apparently, they did. He,s credited with coming up with some of the foundations of thermodynamics. : I think the issue is do such theories *not* get successfully developed : in ignorance of current imperfect science of the time, based on : prejudicial objections alone. : : IMHO the answer seems to be, yes. The Mayer example, however, does not lend support to that opinion. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Jenny on 10 Mar 2010 09:22
On Mar 10, 4:59 am, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > : Neither you nor I had made mention of Sorensen in our discussion. To > : write about an "eventual success ... predicated on an experiment > : rather than on armchair philosophising." was a clear reference to > : Mayers about whom we had been talking and the implication was that > : until then he had been armchair philosophising. > Which conceivably gives you an excuse for misinterpreting what I said, > but doesn't change what I meant by it. Further, there is an upthread > context to the discussion in general, so it's a pretty thin excuse. We were talking about Mayer. It was an article about him that I quoted and it was that article about which I asked your opinion. It was in rponse to your comment that "these examples all point to one thing and one thing only: all these people knew the pre-existing science backwards and forwards". It was clear from the article that Mayer didn't. "Owing to his lack of advanced training in physics, it contained some fundamental mistakes and was not published". Nevertheless, he went on to calculate the mechanical equivalent of heat. It seemed to me that Mayer produced revolutionary physics (the concept of energy conservation) when he did not know "the pre-existing science backwards and forwards". > :: Mayer consulted with folks who knew what the current theory was, > :: *and* *listened* to them. > : But did they listen to him? > Apparently, they did. He,s credited with coming up with some of > the foundations of thermodynamics. As I also quoted "He also discovered that English physicist James Joule had claimed discovery of the mechanical equivalent of heat, while his theory was still unknown". He's only now credited with that discovery because of historical research. There are no units named after him AFAIK, and his name isn't in all the text books. > : I think the issue is do such theories *not* get successfully developed > : in ignorance of current imperfect science of the time, based on > : prejudicial objections alone. > : IMHO the answer seems to be, yes. > The Mayer example, however, does not lend support to that opinion. His article and experimental confirmation of the conservation of energy seems to have been ignored because he wasn't a physicist. Nörremberg did know about the prediction and did advise on the carrying out of an experiment. But did he ever go on to set the record straight by acknowledging that Mayer was the first to expound and prove experimentally the conservation of energy? Love, Jenny |