Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Minister of Truth, The Anonymous, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Niche Political Commentor, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Lord Yurt, OG Yurt, Yakuda and jakemax |
"The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
"Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
"Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
"Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
"Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
"no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
"Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
"Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams
Accepted practice in science, in scholarship, in any kind of intellectually honest debate is to support arguments, theses, research with the work and findings of subject matter experts.
Nobody here has a PhD in physics, and we have to call upon reputable expertise to support our claims to the truth.
In the past three days I have had dupes complain to me that Encyclopedia Britannica and a preeminent theoretical physicist at University of Michigan are wrong, and that in lieu of expertise instead I should accept the rube's opinion and assertion.
AProudLefty (07-21-2021), ThatOwlWoman (07-22-2021)
Amazing how you have nothing to use against what I say describing the kinetic outcome of biological results being eternally separated now in plain sight except telling everyone I didn't say anything relative to reality, just related to life in real time denied historically so far in every cultivated exercise in believing life is too complicated for DNA to compound naturally here with the system of universal perpetual balancing from now on which is thermal dynamics without time line scenarios debating pros and cons arguing what if we against what about they, them, those people..
Every brain born has a lifetime conflict with ancestral displacement and intellectual social position within the population present. Why, life is a compounding connection between inception, conception, death, extinction life doesn't exceed what exists now.
"The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
"Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
"Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
"Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
"Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
"no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
"Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
"Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams
Science isn't a 'practice', 'method' or 'procedure'. There are no voting blocs in science. There is no one to dictate what is an 'accepted practice'.
Science isn't experts.
Science isn't a debate.
Science isn't a degree, license, certification, PhD, or award.
Science isn't an encyclopedia, book, Holy Link, pamphlet, or paper.
Science isn't a physicist. Science isn't a university.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Quantum mechanics is a branch of science that uses mathematical models and probability math. The theories still must be falsifiable.
Science isn't even people at all.
It is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No more. No less.
"The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
"Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
"Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
"Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
"Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
"no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
"Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
"Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams
"The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
"Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
"Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
"Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
"Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
"no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
"Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
"Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams
Don't trust atoms- They make up everything!
AProudLefty (07-21-2021), ThatOwlWoman (07-22-2021)
Geeko Sportivo (07-21-2021)
AProudLefty (07-22-2021), ThatOwlWoman (07-22-2021)
Wittgenstein:
6.341 Newtonian mechanics, for example, brings the description of the
universe to a unified form. Let us imagine a white surface with
irregular black spots. We now say: Whatever kind of picture
these make I can always get as near as I like to its description,
if I cover the surface with a sufficiently fine square network and
now say of every square that it is white or black. In this way
I shall have brought the description of the surface to a unified
form. This form is arbitrary, because I could have applied with
equal success a net with a triangular or hexagonal mesh. It can
happen that the description would have been simpler with the
aid of a triangular mesh; that is to say we might have described
the surface more accurately with a triangular, and coarser, than
with the finer square mesh, or vice versa, and so on. To the
different networks correspond different systems of describing the
world. Mechanics determine a form of description by saying: All
propositions in the description of the world must be obtained in a
given way from a number of given propositions—the mechanical
axioms. It thus provides the bricks for building the edifice of
science, and says: Whatever building thou wouldst erect, thou
shalt construct it in some manner with these bricks and these
alone.
(As with the system of numbers one must be able to write
down any arbitrary number, so with the system of mechanics one
must be able to write down any arbitrary physical proposition.)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf
Science is a formal system. It does not describe the world but codes it a certain way.
A pretty good summary of Wittgenstein's reaction to the modern attempt to answer every question with a scientific approach - aka, what are we really going to learn about ourselves if we try to turn every question into a form of scientism.
Wittgenstein’s forgotten lesson
Wittgenstein's philosophy is at odds with the scientism which dominates our times. Ray Monk explains why his thought is still relevant.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is regarded by many, including myself, as the greatest philosopher of this century. His two great works, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921) and Philosophical Investigations (published posthumously in 1953) have done much to shape subsequent developments in philosophy, especially in the analytic tradition. His charismatic personality has fascinated artists, playwrights, poets, novelists, musicians and even movie-makers, so that his fame has spread far beyond the confines of academic life.
And yet in a sense Wittgenstein’s thought has made very little impression on the intellectual life of this century. As he himself realised, his style of thinking is at odds with the style that dominates our present era. His work is opposed, as he once put it, to “the spirit which informs the vast stream of European and American civilisation in which all of us stand.” Nearly 50 years after his death, we can see, more clearly than ever, that the feeling that he was swimming against the tide was justified. If we wanted a label to describe this tide, we might call it “scientism,” the view that every intelligible question has either a scientific solution or no solution at all. It is against this view that Wittgenstein set his face.
Scientism takes many forms. In the humanities, it takes the form of pretending that philosophy, literature, history, music and art can be studied as if they were sciences, with “researchers” compelled to spell out their “methodologies”—a pretence which has led to huge quantities of bad academic writing, characterised by bogus theorising, spurious specialisation and the development of pseudo-technical vocabularies. Wittgenstein would have looked upon these developments and wept.
There are many questions to which we do not have scientific answers, not because they are deep, impenetrable mysteries, but simply because they are not scientific questions. These include questions about love, art, history, culture, music-all questions, in fact, that relate to the attempt to understand ourselves better.
People nowadays,” Wittgenstein writes in Culture and Value, “think that scientists exist to instruct them, poets, musicians, etc. to give them pleasure. The idea that these have something to teach them-that does not occur to them.”
At a time like this, when the humanities are institutionally obliged to pretend to be sciences, we need more than ever the lessons about understanding that Wittgenstein—and the arts—have to teach us.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/m...k-wittgenstein
midcan5 (07-22-2021)
One of my favorite thinkers, Ludwig. Personally I think matter always was and humans are just a piece of the totality.
"Wittgenstein was hostile to modern philosophy as he found it. He thought it the product of a culture that had come to model everything that matters about our lives on scientific explanation. In its ever-extending observance of the idea that knowledge, not wisdom, is our goal, that what matters is information rather than insight, and that we best address the problems that beset us, not with changes in our heart and spirit but with more data and better theories, our culture is pretty much exactly as Wittgenstein feared it would become."
'The relentless honesty of Ludwig Wittgenstein'
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/p...onesty-ground/
"It will be easy to read what I will write. What will be hard to understand is the point of what I say." Wittgenstein
Wanna make America great, buy American owned, made in the USA, we do. AF Veteran, INFJ-A, I am not PC.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." Voltaire
Cypress (07-22-2021)
Bookmarks