Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 14:48 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0d8ri2t152uo9hrv300pv4vm0u7vstkhfq(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:31:08 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:9lgqi2dkh1p4583a5tp94s6odq0j844p22(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:31:13 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>message >>>>news:820qi252n7609c4ouhrd8n2pj38mtpfe9h(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:16:58 -0700, JoeBloe >>>>> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:00:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>>>>> >>>>>>>No, Ockham's Razor suggests >>>>>> >>>>>> Totally retarded. >>>>> >>>>> "Ockham's Razor" is not a law of nature, it's an easy way to avoid >>>>> thinking about things that might hurt your head. >>>> >>>> >>>>It's served the advancement of science and technology well for hundreds >>>>of >>>>years. If you remember, it says that "given equal consistency with the >>>>facts, the simplest explanation is almost always the right one." >>> >>> It hasn't "served" science at all. Scientific "explanations" demand >>> proof, not parables. Cite OR in a scintific paper, as proof of a >>> phenomenon, and the peer reviewers will shoot you dead. OR is pop >>> science at best. >> >>Still simplistic (although with less pun intended this time). There has to >>be a point at which two otherwise equal theories need to be >>differentiated. >>The Razor is the commonly accepted practice for this. > > It most certainly is not. Experiment is the way theories are proven or > falsified. I agree. I never said anything about falsification via Ockham's Razor. I think you are misunderstanding it's utility. > Read Smolin's book, "The Trouble With Physics." It's full > of examples of theories in physics that were simple, beautiful, wildly > acclaimed, and dead wrong. Again, nothing to do with Ockhams Razor. >>Granted, the paper >>would not state "Ockhams Razor means XYZ" but that doesn't mean it isn't >>used in theories. I think you have mixed metaphors by bringing in the real >>world engineering solutions - yes there may be a convoluted answer needed, >>but that it is still the simplest, working, solution which is used. >> > > Not true there, either. Often the simplest solution is non-orthogonal, > in that too few adjustable parameters control too many behaviors. That > makes for ugly, often unworkable, tradeoffs. Often a more complex > design is safer to use because various parameters don't strongly > interact. In your examples the "all other things being equal" appears not to have been met. Can you cite any examples of where Ockham's Razor has been falsified? > I doubt you can find a serious scientific paper that mentions OR. You are harbouring misconceptions about what Ockham's Razor is used for. This site explains it fairly well http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html The important bit is: "But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider for example the following two theories aimed at describing the motion of the planets around the sun a.. The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. b.. The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens. Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system. "
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 14:49 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:v1hri2pns2jpog6skaebngq38ite6kvos7(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:32:36 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us: > >>On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:16:58 -0700, JoeBloe >><joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:00:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >>> >>>>No, Ockham's Razor suggests >>> >>> Totally retarded. >> >>"Ockham's Razor" is not a law of nature, it's an easy way to avoid >>thinking about things that might hurt your head. >> >>John > > > Thank you. I have always hated dolts that invoke that stupid cop > out. Well, I would never have expected anything else from you. I am quite confident you have no idea what Ockham's Razor is properly used for, much less its utility in science.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 14:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl50n$8qk_002(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <tZ9Xg.21778$Ij.17957(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egifn0$8ss_002(a)s909.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>> You people keep focusing on the buildings. Why don't you spend >>> a nanosecond thinking about the people who were killed, >> >>I do think about them. It was quite a tragedy...but still less than 1/25 >>of >>the number of people killed *each year* in the US by driving their >>automobiles. >> >> >>> the >>> trade that was interrupted >> >>For a few days. Life moved on. >> >> >>> and the destruction of the >>> knowledge of how to do all this stuff? This includes data bases >>> such as orders, invoices, names, dates, phone numbers, contacts. >> >>Funny, for all that, the world seems to be getting on just fine. > > If it is all just fine, why are you complaining here? I suspect he meant fine regarding world trade. > Consider all the knowhow that was lost that day. The fact > you didn't detect a visible effect in trade shows that a lot > of people did a lot of work to ensure you stayed comfortable > and spoiled. It is great that there is all this behind the scenes work going on. It is even better that it is so behind the scenes no one, but a select few, know it is there. > I don't anybody will know all the efforts that > did go on. There are dribbles of stories that come out once > in a while. I supposed it will take 50 years and a grad > student to compile a history of the unseen efforts of > people. Well, maybe. The more probable answer is that the World Trade Centre was not the centre of world trade and its destruction had impact consistent with zero on world trade. It had minimal impact on US trade, let alone anywhere else.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:08 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl4ob$8qk_001(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <iZOdnWV1GbfEq7DYRVnyiQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:egifio$8ss_001(a)s909.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <452BA71F.FB6D6B40(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <YtsWg.12731$6S3.12584(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> >news:egd9oe$8qk_008(a)s891.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So why aren't we devoting all our resources to getting him? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Because this intent to destroy all traces of Western civilization >>>>> >>>> is not isolated to one human being. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>Where do you *get* these assumptions??? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> What assumptions? Islamic extremists wish to kill me and mine? >>>>> >> They've told me so. Furthermore, their statements were not >>>>> >> empty threats; they demonstrated their intent. >>>>> > >>>>> >No, they did nothing of the kind. They demonstrated their intent to >>> destroy >>>>> >three or four buildings. It's a huge leap of faith (i.e., >>>>> >assumption) >>>>> >to >>>>> >extrapolate from this that they are "intent to destroy all traces of >>> Western >>>>> >civilization." >>>>> >>>>> Which word do you have troubles with meaning: World, Trade, or >>>>> Center? >>>> >>>>Like he said. A few buildings. >>> >>> Do have any idea the trade that was going on inside them? >>> There were whole companies wiped out. >> >>How many? Which ones? > > A list was compiled but I no longer recall where I read it. Ok. I have no doubts that some companies were "wiped out" but I do think it will have been an insignificant amount of companies on the global scale. Even if a thousand companies were "destroyed" by the strike it would be a very small drop in the world trade ocean. I think it was a bit less than a thousand companies which were destroyed. I have relatives who worked in the building, and none of their companies were destroyed (or even significantly long-term impacted on the "trade" front). Think about all the construction work which it generated. >> >>> These people had >>> a collective knowledge about trading and how to get it done >>> that could not be duplicated overnight. >> >>Yet they were not the only people who held this knowledge. > > You are not thinking. A small company has a niche within the > global trade. If they are wiped out, the knowledge goes with > them. And nobody can replace them in that niche until another > company is formed (or the few survivors start remaking the > needed infrastructure). If this company handled a commodity > that is a small, but necessary, ingredient to make a foobar, > manufacturing of that foobar will stop after inventory runs > out. Those workers will be laid off. The companies that > require a foobar to do their business, will eventually have > to slow down or stop, laying their people off. Some will go > out of business because their cash margin was small. > > This is called a lag in the economy and is not a short-term > effect. That is why there are cycles. Very few companies have such a monopoly in a market that they are the _only_ people in the world who are good at "it." I cant think of any companies which were in WTC which were in this enviable position. Can you enlighten me please? The WTC was mainly a financial trading centre. I was not aware any manufacturing facilities were on the site. >> There is nothing >>which makes me think that the people who died in the WTC had exclusive, >>globally important, knowledge which has been lost for all time. Why do you >>think otherwise? > > Because I know how things get made and how people work to get them > made. The latest decade of moving to just-in-time inventory also > ensures that there will be effects from any disruption of deliveries. Still, nothing that went on in the WTC was unique to the WTC. Nothing in your reply implies that the people who died in the 11 Sep 01 attack took with them globally important (even nationally important) knowledge, which was not known to anyone else. Disruption of deliveries will affect JIT inventories. There was no disruption of deliveries here in the UK (or anywhere else in Europe IIRC) as a result of the strike. When the French truck drivers go on strike it effects Europe - would you call that a global impact? The WTC was full of accountants and stockbrokers, not "hard working labourers making sure the deliveries got through." >> >>> The real work >>> involving trade is what gets the food to the shelves in time >>> for you to buy it before it rots. >> >>Yes. There are many more (and more significant) global trading centres >>than >>WTC. It was just a name. > > Sand. Hole. Unseen head. I say there are lots of more significant global trade centres than the WTC and _you_ imply I have my head in the sand. Amazing. You grasp of analogy is unusual, but it does reflect your position. You have your head buried in the sand if you think the WTC was _the_ World Trade Centre.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 15:09
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:TosXg.21982$Ij.21407(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > > People just aren't that way, and neither is society. Fortunately. :-) |