Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 22:12 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:4nnvj2lppam6tqe5su8de9ee7u4reg3j5d(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>> message >>> >>> > If somebody >>> > says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up." >>> >>> That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. >>> An >>> assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two >>> Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday." >> >>An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway ! >> >>Graham > > How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain > today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose. No, that would be describing a trend. Since weather doesn't know from the 7-day Gregorian calendar week, the anecdotes about it raining the past two Tuesdays are speciously relatable to weather prediction. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 25 Oct 2006 22:49 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:1v40k2pmhl8q1c1os8654fil0umlkmipvq(a)4ax.com... > > But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you > evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. > That doesn't sound very scientific to me. The people who evaluate ideas (especially casual ideas like this that are merely speculations) are human, and as such, if you don't take account of their human emotions when you present the idea, you're bound for a life of being the "misunderstood genius". This applies somewhat less to the evaluation of formal, peer-reviewed research papers (i.e., ideas that have had some flesh put on their bones, and which have been tested against some actual data), but it's still a factor. This may not be ideal, but to poo-poo this as "unscientific" is simply ignoring the reality of how humans react. Eric Lucas
From: |||newspam||| on 26 Oct 2006 03:49 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:26:52 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > >news:h5ntj2tj5na16ukm8mafsl3k29tocm4k4j(a)4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:07:31 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > >>>message > >>>news:3g2tj2lhua1fap95hmds1gr987qu2vo90f(a)4ax.com... > >>>> > >>>> My only real suggestion here has been that evolution should be able to > >>>> optimize evolution itself: evolution evolves. And the implications of > >>>> that are manifold, and lead to some ideas that produce some > >>>> interestingly hostile reactions. I think you will find that nature has already exploited this possibility and it is called sexual reprodution. It allows much more rapid adjustments and combinations of novel traits from 2 individuals. Combine that with all the retroviruses ripping segments of DNA out and splicing their own code into higher animals and you already have a much more complex system. A few species have both forms present naturally and are much investigated. eg aphids http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14976619 > >>>Interesting thought. My first response is to ask what you propose as the > >>>mechanism for that. > >> > >> Mutation and natural selection, of course. > > > >That begs the question. What exactly is the mechanism that allows mutation > >and natural selection to control themselves, if both occur passively? > > > >> If that was enough to give > >> us kidneys and eyeballs and brains, it's surely enough to fine-tune > >> the hardware of evolution itself. > > > >You're not going to win any converts with that condescending attitude. > > What's condescending about my reply? I assume that if you asked the > question, you didn't already know the answer. And my point is that > whatever mechanism evolved an eagle's eyeball surely has the > horsepower to manage a bit of self-tuning. Where's the rule that says > evolution can shape an organism but can't affect evolution itself? What sort of fine tuning do you have in mind? There are already plenty of mechanisms in nature that can swap whole chunks of DNA from one species to another already... Evolution just says that the individuals in the next generation that are best suited to their environment are on average more successful at reproducing. The result is that any new trait becomes more common in the population provided that it is neutral or beneficial in that environment. We even use this method for some algorithmic programming now. > But the serious point here is that you have declared that how you > evaluate an idea depends on the deference with which it is presented. > That doesn't sound very scientific to me. If you can present a viable theory that makes testable predictions then you stand a chance of getting somewhere. Arguing against evolution on the basis that it conflicts with your religion will win you no friends at all on the science groups. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 26 Oct 2006 04:13 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:00:43 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:52:45 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:18:40 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:13:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >>>>news:crnvj2pn12lbhdqj7j88rs3bq4ub38b0qn(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the >>>>>>>>>>best >>>>>>>>>>description of gravity in the domain in which it applies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some >>>>>>>>one >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Einstein >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect >>>>>>>>because of [insert reason here]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with >>>>>>quantum >>>>>>mechanics. >>>>> >>>>> But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best. >>>> >>>>Newtonian gravity is perfect at what it tries to describe. >>> >>>Cool, it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not. >>> >>>Got it. >> >>The very use of the term, perfect, should be removed from our >>vocabulary. We don't ever have the perspective to even use it. >> >>Anyway, it's not complicated or confusing, and you know it, John. I >>hope you weren't implying anything. Theories evolve in our mental >>space and not in perceptual space and we don't always know the >>limitations, at first. In fact, it's actually the possession of a >>good theory that allows you to then "see" better towards what is left >>unexplained and to then go after that. > >Sure, it's like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a >simpler one. Newton's equations lack some small high-order terms. >Einstein's are better. No, the comparison of Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity is not at all like that. To say that Einstein's GR theory is "like a higher-order polynomial being a better fit than a simpler one" of Newton's is appalling. You could not possibly be further away from describing their relationship. >>To begin, we imagine broader reach simply because we lack perspective >>to know better, when first proposing a theory. Then, as various >>boundaries are unearthed in our perceptual space via experimental >>results, we learn to recognize them and the initially imagined >>boundaries contract a little. More encompassing theory may then be >>discovered and applied to the same places where prior, more prosaic >>theory also applies, but also now to deal with still more. >> >>Of course, you know all this, as you don't need to worry about the >>exact solutions to Schroedinger equations in 10^10 dimensional space >>in order to use BJTs, nor would you chastise the use of practical and >>much simpler theory, such as Gummel-Poon or EM or even just Shockley, >>just because they are not perfect. >> >>What you got, "it's perfect when it's perfect; otherwise, it's not," >>discerns nothing useful or new. > >As didn't the line I was responding to. > >Dang, you guys get serious. It's nothing compared to a "friendly physics debate luncheon." Jon
From: Daniel Mandic on 26 Oct 2006 06:42
John Larkin wrote: > Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force > in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school > were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery > school. > > John Your psychos you have, are all Na.. remnants, or Jail(USA)-Master in a religious controlled super-state... Best Regards, Daniel Mandic |