The Limits of Science

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Hjarloprillar »

uwot wrote:Point taken. I knew the name, but I hadn't realised he was responsible for so much. Head in the clouds/up my own arse, as usual.
Hjarloprillar wrote:He has delivered into lounge rooms of the west . more philosophy than the occupants can handle. making p k dick the pre eminent philosopher of western entertainment.
Very possibly and given that I clearly know bugger all about western entertainment, I wouldn't argue.
not at all " Head in the clouds/up my own arse, as usual."

each of us has only 24 hours a day.
family friends work.. where has time gone?
used up by living a life. no person can know all things.
I'm a generalist so i can speak some of most things.. but only some

prill.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

uwot wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I can give you a list of the works I have read if you like, not sure it would mean anything but it would put my opinions in perspective at least.
That would be a start. What would be better would be if you were to present one of the ideas you have encountered, give your opinion of it and invite others to do likewise. A great deal of what you have posted is along the lines of music is great, Mitchell and Webb are funny, differential calculus is clever, so and so is a fucking troll/who are you calling a fucking troll, you ****? All good fun, but I, at least, would appreciate some philosophical content.
Blaggard wrote:Suffice to say I don't judge modern philosophy based on a forum experience, I am not sure why you even asked that question,
Slow down. Rewind. It'll come back to you.

Hjarloprillar, I haven't read any of those authors, but I would be interested in why they are philosophical.
I've waxed lyrical on a lot of subjects other than that in both religion, philosophy of science and of course philosophy in general. What do you want me to do, claim authority I don't have and then wax lyrical about it, because I can assure I could do that. But then as I have said before I am here to learn and I find the bets way of doing that is to dive in. Of course the dried up old hack will find it offensive when the laymen is talking phislophy after all they have bought the T-shirt but as I said before there are professional Philosophers and then there are philosophers, one is arrogant opinionated and patronising in the main, the other just sticks to logic and reason, he has presumable learnt his lessons well.

I've posted dozens of philosophy threads where I've done that. I posted one a couple of days ago about genetic engineering and the morality of it inviting people to discuss it and I waited at least 48 hours before I gave my own opinion. Do you want me to dish out the threads where I have done something that was about philosophy, or do you just want to talk down to me some more?

Slow down. Rewind. It'll come back to you.
Take your own advice and stop jumping to conclusions you have have no basis to make, you're just making my point for me.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13008

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=12445

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12931

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12624

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12646

That'll do for now, posted many more.

Those are just the threads I have posted, of course I have posted on many philosophical threads too, I did not start. Honestly is that the best ad hominem you could come out with? Is that what philosophy is? Attacking people with bad arguments that are about the person and not what he said and has done.

Well done.

The majority of my posts are actually about philosophy. But what's wrong with a bit of humour in this life? So I post a few threads that are on the lighter side, I most often put them in the right area don't I. If not ther are moderators, but I can assure you were you to go through the forum thread by thread and find all my posts that were light hearted and all those who discussed philosophy you would find the majority are about serious subjects.

To be perfectly frank some of the threads that were humerous contain some things that are philosophically relevant anyway. Ok 99% is just some people having some fun, but perhaps you aught to explain exactly what you want out of a forum, perhaps that would shed light on why you seem to have missed the bulk of my posts, perhaps something constructive would suit better than an ad hominem. Now I am not claiming any of my posts were deeply insightful, in fact I've gone out of my way several times to say I am a novice, but it would be nice to know that someone somewhere has noticed I don't just post your mum jokes and talk about movies.

End of the day no one's forcing you to read my threads about music, comedy and the lighter side of life. If you want a cease and desist oder placed on any sort of social type threads, you can of course ask the mods. I don't think they will care, but there's ignore if I annoy you that much as well. There's all these things in place, but where this ad hominem was remotely based is beyond me. I am not a vindictive person I can only assume you have a reason for this bile, I can assume you perhaps got your knickers in a twist abut something I said, and I am of course well willing to hear it? And if so what it is, and please try to stick to the facts not me and how evil I am. I know I am evil, I don't claim to be good, but I aint the antichrist.

I think honestly it's you who needs to rewind, and I'll come back to you.

By the way I have no spell checker atm so apologise any copious edits I make, I need to get a new one, and frankly the last one wasn't all that, so I am going to shop around. ;)
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Hjarloprillar »

i never noticed any 'copius edits'
i edit all the time for spelling and like an oil.. touch up.


doh 'cat on a hot tin roof' just came on TV. [yah while on pc the 50 inch screen runs in background]
lol the kid with ice cream....lol
pity i dont like elizabeth taylor or newman.. i would watch it if it was bacal and
the general j m Scott. [lancaster]
i just watched again..

Somewhat forgotten political thriller about a military plot to take over the government. Great performances by all in this film, but mostly by Burt Lancaster and Fredric March who toward the end of the movie have a great scene with excellent dialog that sum up the true essence of the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWO-XnAwGrA
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by uwot »

uwot wrote:
Blaggard wrote:I can give you a list of the works I have read if you like, not sure it would mean anything but it would put my opinions in perspective at least.
That would be a start. What would be better would be if you were to present one of the ideas you have encountered, give your opinion of it and invite others to do likewise.
It would be useful, if only to get some sort of handle on what you base your view of contemporary philosophy on.
uwot wrote:A great deal of what you have posted is along the lines of music is great, Mitchell and Webb are funny, differential calculus is clever, so and so is a fucking troll/who are you calling a fucking troll, you ****? All good fun, but I, at least, would appreciate some philosophical content.
A great deal of what you have posted is as described, but as your list shows, there is philosophical content to your contributions and I apologise for implying otherwise. There is, though, still no indication that you have read any, or at least familiarised yourself with anyone of note's work.
uwot wrote:
Blaggard wrote:Suffice to say I don't judge modern philosophy based on a forum experience, I am not sure why you even asked that question,
Slow down. Rewind. It'll come back to you.
Because you say things like:
Blaggard wrote:Suffice to say my point still stands, I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists. But then it is philosophy, mind you I hope anyone who is studying philosophy of science has at least spent time in the real world, because otherwise you are going to be awfully incomplete in your views. Not that I think you have to have walked the walk in philosophy necessarilly, especially if you don't intend to study science at any point or do anything remotely concerned with it. It would be nice to see people relate something a little more anecdotal than erudite sometimes though, because alot of what I hear doesn't really gel with anything I have experienced in my career. So don't be offended if I take some people's opinion with a pinch of salt, particularly people who seem to be parrotting a sort of internet meme.
At the end of the day, it's a free country and you can think what you like, but if it isn't based on anything, aren't you parroting a sort of internet meme?
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

I'm here to learn I am not hear to be lectured at by someone who thinks the only way of doing so is by reading books.

I've read Nietzche, Camus and Hilary Putnam to name a few and a small amount of Dennett, who the hell cares though, you sound like a bit of a philosophical dinosaur no offence, the sort bespectacled academic who wanders libraries pouring over obscure texts and carressing old manuscripts. If you hadn't noticed it is the 21st century not everyone has time to digest philosophical tomes, although I have. Yes not many only about a dozen but to put it bluntly only you care, and you seem obsessed with it to the point of thinking that one must have read hundreds of works before you are even allowed in your dojo.

And people say science is insular and hidebound. Pfft they could get lessons from philosophy clearly. I'll read books when I have time sure, I'll surf the net sometimes. But I sure as hell wont be lectured to about how I chose to learn about a sucbject by anyone and if you think anything you said means anything to me you are probably wrong. This arrogance seems to be endemic in students. Frankly no one cares how much books you have read, you don't see me wandering from forum post to forum post like some mad fiend blathering on about how you are not allowed to discuss science because you haven't read any science books do you? Away with you you plebian clearly you have not read enough books or studied enough maths. Hence why are you talking about quantum mechanics. Kneel before your master fool. No if people are genuinely interested and I think I have something to impart I will, and hopefully without being too arrogant about it.

Well if this is your attitude then quid pro quo then, or do you only ask people do as you say not as you do, next time you discuss some science I want to know that you have studied the subject and read all the relevant books or that's it your out of the club. ;)

Please dude can the ad hominems, not everyone thinks the library is a temple, there are other ways to pick up subjects these days and forums are as good a place as ever, who died and made you the arbiter of who can post and where? And incidentally since I am not studying philosophy I don't need a detailed insight to every bloody philsoophical work out there. I have asked for good material and thanks for that, I will read it in my own good time, but this supecillious nonsense is really patronising, I don't respond well to self professed gurus telling me how and what I should do thanks. If you want to do that I'll just put you on ignore.

If you don't like my questions my posts or the fact that I am not an expert or you want to see me as a dilletante, frankly you can shove it, who cares. We all are allowed to do our own thing and learn in our own way you know. :P
At the end of the day, it's a free country and you can think what you like, but if it isn't based on anything, aren't you parroting a sort of internet meme?
Can you show me this meme? The meme where it's a good idea to know something about the field and where it is now before you tell the field it's troubles. Oh really that just seems like common sense to me.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Blaggard wrote:I'm here to learn I am not hear to be lectured at by someone who thinks the only way of doing so is by reading books.
I have read thousands an i mean like 5 to 8 and all are in suppository... [lol] of knowledge.

books ok but they are not experience. i learnt more in first shooting .303 riffle than any book. age 12.

as such we agree

prill
User avatar
skakos
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:22 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by skakos »

uwot wrote:All science is based on the assumption that there is an external world that conforms in some way to our perception of it. It might be untrue, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in it's favour and it is the most parsimonious explanation. Where people's own assumptions impinge on their theory, there are other scientists who, lacking that assumption, will examine the theory until the assumption is uncovered. Hard science is the bit that everyone, eventually and sometimes unwilling, has to agree with: the objective empirical evidence and the accuracy and efficacy of the mathematical model. It does not follow that any theory that is consistent with the empirical evidence is therefore true. Nor does it follow that any entities postulated by maths as explanatory tools exist. Science is basically observation and maths; all theories are unproven and even though the supporting evidence may be extremely compelling, they always will be. You can blame Karl Popper for that.
What is the "overwelming" evidence?
You are here.
I am here.
What do you see if not images inside your head?
Who controls those images if not your mind?
Where have you met anything "objective"?

This is why philosophy is essential to understand what science says.
What you said is more based on philosophy than science.
Acknowledging that is important.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by uwot »

I think you might be confusing me with someone else, Blaggard. No doubt I can be a self righteous p****, but on this occasion, I don't think I have been. I fully acknowledge that some of what you post is philosophy and apologised for implying otherwise. The fact that the posts I accepted as evidence didn't contain any references to books or authors, should stand as evidence that I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy. What I was asking was, on what do you base judgements such as this?
Blaggard wrote:...I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists.
I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy, I do think though that it is reasonable to expect that a judgment of philosophers is based on some appreciation of what they have actually said. I also think it is a minimal courtesy that if you feel compelled to respond to a post, you at least read it.
Blaggard wrote:We all are allowed to do our own thing and learn in our own way you know. :P
I have said as much on many occasions, even citing an author and book, that is a powerful exposition of precisely that point (Feyerabend; Against Method. It is worth reading, but not necessary; the gist is that a look at the history of scientific progress will show you that any idea of a scientific method beyond, as you put it I think, put up or shut up, is not supported by the evidence. Methodological anarchy he called it.)
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by uwot »

skakos wrote:
uwot wrote:All science is based on the assumption that there is an external world that conforms in some way to our perception of it. It might be untrue, but the evidence is overwhelmingly in it's favour and it is the most parsimonious explanation. Where people's own assumptions impinge on their theory, there are other scientists who, lacking that assumption, will examine the theory until the assumption is uncovered. Hard science is the bit that everyone, eventually and sometimes unwilling, has to agree with: the objective empirical evidence and the accuracy and efficacy of the mathematical model. It does not follow that any theory that is consistent with the empirical evidence is therefore true. Nor does it follow that any entities postulated by maths as explanatory tools exist. Science is basically observation and maths; all theories are unproven and even though the supporting evidence may be extremely compelling, they always will be. You can blame Karl Popper for that.
What is the "overwelming" evidence?.
The overwhelming evidence for an external world is all the things you see, hear, smell and so on, that give the impression of an external world. The simplest explanation for all those sensations is that something loosely corresponding to the sensations is responsible for them. You don't have to believe it, but it is good enough for me.
skakos wrote:You are here.
I am here..
Case closed, then.
skakos wrote:What do you see if not images inside your head?
Who controls those images if not your mind?
Where have you met anything "objective"?.
The individual sensations I have are particular to me, if that's what you mean, but the fact that other people can report similar experiences leads me to believe that we are talking about the same thing.
skakos wrote:This is why philosophy is essential to understand what science says.
I don't see how that follows.
skakos wrote:What you said is more based on philosophy than science.
Acknowledging that is important.
I completely acknowledge it. The philosophical principle that best describes my way of thinking is empiricism; science happens to be an empirical enterprise. The two things are not synonymous, but I still think what I said is true.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

uwot wrote:I think you might be confusing me with someone else, Blaggard. No doubt I can be a self righteous p****, but on this occasion, I don't think I have been. I fully acknowledge that some of what you post is philosophy and apologised for implying otherwise. The fact that the posts I accepted as evidence didn't contain any references to books or authors, should stand as evidence that I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy. What I was asking was, on what do you base judgements such as this?
Blaggard wrote:...I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists.
I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy, I do think though that it is reasonable to expect that a judgment of philosophers is based on some appreciation of what they have actually said. I also think it is a minimal courtesy that if you feel compelled to respond to a post, you at least read it.
Blaggard wrote:We all are allowed to do our own thing and learn in our own way you know. :P
I have said as much on many occasions, even citing an author and book, that is a powerful exposition of precisely that point (Feyerabend; Against Method. It is worth reading, but not necessary; the gist is that a look at the history of scientific progress will show you that any idea of a scientific method beyond, as you put it I think, put up or shut up, is not supported by the evidence. Methodological anarchy he called it.)
You see what I mean you start off ok just being logical and then I feel I want to reply, and then you say something really pompous like, I suggest you read my authoritah before you respond because even though it doesn't need to be said and you are just reiterating the shit you said earlier, I do so need to be patronised again, and then I just think you really havent understood anything I have said at all, and the hypocrisy is amazing. You're so busy being up on your high horse, you actually think it's apposite to talk down to people.

I started this ball rolling by saying if you are going to criticise where science is now you know something about where it is now, I haven't criticised mainstream philosophers however only some "philosophers" who are not actually Philosophers. You're come back has been about how limited I was in philosophy, well duh no fucking shit Sherlock. You started this whole derail into me as a person and all my faults, faults I have already laid out at length anyway on many other threads. It's like you are trying to teach me to suck eggs. You're telling me what I already know, what I already said, like you are some sagacious wit, but really all you are doing is repeating things I don't care to hear because they are already known. I can learn however I like and no hidebound feckless person can tell me otherwise. If you don't like the way I chose to learn about a subject, or express myself the ignore function is there, but I am fucked if I will be talked to like 3 year old who has been naughty. Go single out some other pleb you can be pompous to.


I really don't have time for this shit any more if you want to start an ad hom thread about how evil I am do so but that's about it for me, there's only so much pompous ad homs you can take before you get bored.

Let's get back on topic. There's better things you could be doing than patronising people and insulting them, so stick to that. Clearly you don't realise how pompous and patronising you sound when you tell me things I have already said a dozen times. Yeah right on dad, roll on.

Yeah we're all allowed to express opinions but when you start out insulting people left right and centre, are you really surprised you don't have a decent dialogue, because all you have done is demean and insult and you know it. So don't come the oh if only he read my veiled insults shit with me. You know full well that you have made this all about me and not about the thread topic. And so does everyone else. Is that good philosophy? I don't think so.

Apprently philosophy is all about just reiterating what dead people said, yeah whatever. Who the hell do you think you are and while you are thinking about that why not think about joinging a thread I am on and attacking my argument instead of me? Because unless you do I am fucked if I care. ::)

Good God I an only hope you aren't like this in real life, because I can seriously tell you, you'll be waking up in a ditch at 3 in the morning with blood all over you, or dead soon if you ever deign to speak to people like you do now, in real life.

You seem to think you can just wade in talk shit at someone, not tackle the actual thread topic and then wade out like some mighty arbiter of justice. You do know what an ad hom is right, because you've done that for several threads now, and none of them have been justified despite your back tracking and sophistry.

Time to put the person back on ignore, no damn it I know you are just going to try and reply to this and it will start with a reasoned argument, but then it will just devolve into a serious of ad homs as usal so why bother, you have a bee in your bonnet, and you should really take your hat off. Because that bee keeps stinging your head.

/ignored.
Last edited by Blaggard on Sat May 17, 2014 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by uwot »

Blaggard wrote:You see what I mean you start off ok just being logical and then I feel I want to reply, and then you say something really pompous like, I suggest you read it,


I don't see what you mean, I'm sorry if I come across as pompous, I can imagine it's very irritating. The point I was making is that I think you have just lumped me in with others who have said you need to read philosophy to do philosophy. You would struggle in an academic setting, but generally there is no need to read. I have said so, so I presume the reason you persist in thinking I haven't is that you haven't read it.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

Ok let me put this simply, yeah you must already know I have a degree in a subject so you have started off with if a then you wont be able to study b argument to start with Which is clearly about face you wouldn't do well in acadeamia even though you already have, you could of said you wouldn't do well in philosophy of course, which is fine, but you didn't. If you did of course that would be laughable of course because of course I wouldn't I am not studying it, so I'd be like shit at it if I turned up at lectures at day one having spent all my time preparing for the degree by learning maths not about philosophy at A' level.

I think you might of started with something like well you misunderstood what I said, which could be true, but when the subject is about understanding science and hence being able to comment on it, why start going on about philosophy? See you're trying to fit a square peg in a round whole by comparing my knowledge of philsophy to my knowledge of science. I think we have to have some important provisos, a) philosophy is not science, so any analogy needs to be about something other than that, and b) when I am not ciriticising philosophy if you make an analogy, you need to make it about something that is going on or it's just meaningless.

You could of said something a lot more polite, but instead you chose to say something that is really just a veiled insult once again. You don't seem to be staying on topic, you seem to be dancing all over the map to try and make points that don't need to be made, I am shit at philosophy, so what, what does that have to do with what I said when this sad little derail started. Launching into countless ad homs is of course not helping your case. I have no means to consider where philsoophy is so be it, but since I never said I was criticising philosophy and went to great pains to point that out, so where are you now? Seriously you're not making any sense in the context. As I say if you want to start a thread about me do so, I wont post on it, I don't care, but if you want to stick to the context of the argument and reply to it try that because it might work better than making shite analogies about me having a go at a subject I never did, to make an argument about a not knowing about science and scientists before you judge science. It's so simple this argument, it behooves you to know about a subject before you criticise where it is at fault. Criticising individuals though is not the same as criticising the whole field or even criticising experts in fact how would I be criticising experts given what I said. Is that clear? I don't get the point you are trying to make I freely agree, I don't get how my point was even contentious in the first place and I certainly don't get why you made this whole fiasco. But hey the ignore feature is there for a reason. I'll be damned if I'll listen to any more thinly veiled insults that are not about the subject but about me, before I get to an actual argument. It gets dull after a while.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by uwot »

Blaggard wrote: Great, who would struggle in an academic setting, do you ever listen to yourself talk or do you just engage your gears and talk shit?
Blaggard, this seems to be the bit that has upset you this time:
uwot wrote: The point I was making is that I think you have just lumped me in with others who have said you need to read philosophy to do philosophy. You would struggle in an academic setting, but generally there is no need to read.
To clarify, what I meant was that if anyone tried to do philosophy in an academic surrounding, without reading any texts, they would struggle. I'm sorry you took it personally. Good luck with your degree. If you ever stumble across some bloodied philosopher at 3AM, go easy on me.
Last edited by uwot on Sat May 17, 2014 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

@Hajropillar I have delivered into the lounge room little or no philosophy, I like to think other people have done that. P.K.Dick movies may have some philosophical content, but if I made any contribution to explaining them, I can assure you it was purely incidental.
Blaggard
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: The Limits of Science

Post by Blaggard »

Don't post at 3am is my advice. Go to bed and post at 12pm. Although you don't have to take that to heart if you don't want to, hell if I am up at 3am it's usually because I am suffering from insomnia,and that's hardly a good place to be if you are going to post.

Incidentally people who tend to work night shifts, a sort of enforced insomnia tend to be more prevelant to overeating, depression, and diabetes. Meet for another thread perhaps.

Meh it's my second degree if I fail, so be it. I'll try not to though. When you're 42 and your career is mostly behind you you have the luxury of passing for the sake of knowledge not a living. A far more healthy way to study, it takes the pressure off and the stress out of it, and makes it more noble I think. Sciencia gratia science. Yeah I never studied latin, either as you can tell. ;)

Incidentally why you felt the need to say even when you edited that someone who didn't read books was not going to do well by studying something in acadaemia is also confusing because, clearly anyone who has a degree aka reading for in my kneck of the woods, already knows that. But frankly I am so confused now that you could say milk was the remainder of my flotsma moanomg cheddar ghost, and I'd have more idea what your point was.

I think we should just put it down to too much late night posting, because there's no way either of us is going to "win" in this scenario or should I say understand what the other guy was on about, were' both confused, and that can't be good for anyone, except of course the dark lord, and we should perhaps take a moment to pray to Christ Jesus our saviour that the temptations of the dark lord... Meh you get the point. Suffice to say could go on posting insults about 3am and blood spatters, and then posting counter insults and then where would that lead us?
Post Reply