Eise

Philosophy (split from Sam Harris thread)

Recommended Posts

Just now, studiot said:

The Scientific Method is the collection of data about the real world and its organisation in a rational structure.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beecee;

After reviewing your previous post, I have decided to not respond to it. You obviously have some very strongly held beliefs and opinions, which you have every right to hold. There seems to be nothing that I absolutely have to address in that post, but the following deserves and requires a response as it is very insulting to Philosophy and philosophers.

 

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:25 PM, beecee said:

Wow, this is getting way to philosophical for me. :) It reminds me of a quote I once came across.....
 

Quote

 

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself " 

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956.

 

 

I did not know who Henry Louis Mencken was, so I went to Wiki for answers. Please consider the following from Wiki.
 

Quote

 

Henry Louis Mencken (September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956) was an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.[1] Known as the "Sage of Baltimore", he is regarded as one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists of the first half of the twentieth century. He commented widely on the social scene, literature, music, prominent politicians and contemporary movements. His satirical reporting on the Scopes trial, which he dubbed the "Monkey Trial", also gained him attention.

As a scholar, Mencken is known for The American Language, a multi-volume study of how the English language is spoken in the United States. As an admirer of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, he was a detractor of religion, populism and representative democracy, which he believed to be a system in which inferior men dominated their superiors.[2] Mencken was a supporter of scientific progress, skeptical of economic theories and critical of osteopathic and chiropractic medicine.

Mencken opposed American entry into World War I and World War II. His diary indicates that he was a racist and anti-semite, and privately used coarse language and slurs to describe various ethnic and racial groups (though he believed it was in poor taste to use such slurs publicly).[3] Mencken also at times seemed to show a genuine enthusiasm for militarism, though never in its American form. "War is a good thing," he once wrote, "because it is honest, it admits the central fact of human nature… A nation too long at peace becomes a sort of gigantic old maid."[4]

 

If you look at the last paragraph, you will note that he was a racist and anti-Semite, but he hid it from the public. He also thought that war was a "good thing", but did not want the US to enter World Wars l and ll. I suspect that theoretically, he found the idea of war valid, as long as it did not affect him or his. In short, he was a hypocrite.

Philosophy studies truth, so it is not terribly surprising that a hypocrite would not like philosophers. Also, if he had hidden Nazi leanings, he would not want any deep thinkers looking too closely at him.

Arguing is for drunks, idiots, children, and angry people. It is mostly "I am right and you are wrong" and serves no purpose except to enrage people.

 Philosophers do not argue, they make an argument. So what is the difference? In a philosophical argument, a philosopher takes his/her observations, experiences, any evidence and facts, and sets them into a well reasoned and logical format. Anyone reading this "argument" can learn why the philosopher holds that opinion or position. This "argument" serves two purposes: First it shares the philosopher's knowledge and information and may help others to learn and see the philosopher's point of view. Second, since the facts and evidence are set out in a logical format, if there is a mistake in evidence or fact, or if there is a mistake in logic or reasoning, others can point it out, so the philosopher can learn.

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gees said:

I did not know who Henry Louis Mencken was, so I went to Wiki for answers. (...) he was a hypocrite. (...) he would not want any deep thinkers looking too closely at him. Arguing is for drunks, idiots, children, and angry people. 

So, your response to a quote from Mencken suggesting that:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.”

... is to insinuate that he’s a jackass.

Lol. You can’t script this stuff. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Area54;

Hello at last. Please consider my responses below:

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:25 AM, Area54 said:

You are correct about this being a communication problem, but you have misidentified the source.

You recall the problems that arose because you insisted upon using the generic "consciousness" to cover a variety of sins, often failing to use context to distinguish between them.

"A variety of sins"? Have you considered writing fiction? You have a wonderful flare for words.

I often failed to use context to distinguish between them -- Because. There. Is. No. Between. Them.  It does not exist. Is that clear? Probably not. 

Do you remember when I finally listed the "supposed" levels of consciousness? Sentience, awareness, consciousness, self-awareness, and the new control something? I said that sentience was applied to things like skin cells and bacteria? That it meant aware, but mindless? I stated that this designation for consciousness was emotional because we do not want to think that bacteria has mind. It is emotional because it is an invalid distinction made for emotional reasons. Do you know how I know that it is invalid? Because we can not know if skin cells have minds or if they don't -- we don't even know what mind is -- and can not even prove that other people have subjective minds. This designation is nonsense. It is not true. 

I also explained that self-awareness was designed to distinguish human superiority, and that the new designation, control something, was made because we are starting to learn that other species are self-aware. (chuckle) This is another emotional designation as we have no way of knowing how many other species are self-aware, or even if they all are self-aware. This designation is nonsense. It is not true.

The difference between awareness and consciousness seems to be that people think that consciousness includes thought. There might be some truth to this, as it appears that the brain processes thought, but that would mean that spiders, ants, flies, and maybe fleas think. No one wants to admit that possibility, so we are stuck with another invalid, emotionally distorted designation.

All life is conscious. This is true and it is how we distinguish life from non-life. Philosophy cares about what is true. If you want to have levels of consciousness, then assign a level to each and every specie, as it appears that consciousness, or the ability to be conscious of something, depends on the physical life form. Have a good time with that, as there must be thousands or tens of thousands of levels.

 

Quote

Now you have applied the same approach to the variety of meanings for "known".

This surprises me. How many varieties of meaning are there for "known"? I know of only one.

 

Quote

In this regard your posts are often a poor promotion of the power of philosophy. That's something you would benefit from addressing, rather than composing and posting a faulty refutation of my observations.

Philosophy has no power in this forum. It has no support. It has no understanding. Most members view it as a "helper" to science or a kind of religion or emotional crutch. I doubt that there are any moderators, who are also philosophers, so I don't see how I can do it much damage.

 

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 4:41 PM, Area54 said:

I have only limited influence on your perceptions. Your ideas presented here and on the other thread seem quite interesting to me. That's why I have engaged in the discussion.

People, who think deeply, are always interesting, but sometimes hard to follow, especially if the listener has no background on the topic.

 

Quote

However, as I have pointed out, a characteristic of your style obfuscates those ideas. That was problematic in the other thread, as noted by several members other than myself. Then, I notice the same issue occuring here. I could remain silent on the matter, but I would actually like to follow your argument without requiring mutltiple posts to extract your meaning,

If you want to follow the argument, then first you will have to open your mind. Have you viewed the following link regarding Richard Feynman and magnets? First he says that it is electricity that makes magnets work, but we know that is not true because you do not get an electrical charge when you put them on your tongue like you do a 9V battery, and there is no lightening coming out of it. Then he talks about ice and the chair arm and says that it is all related and that there are some things that he does not even know. Do you think that he is "obfuscating"? Is it a "characteristic of his style"?

No. He explains that you could only understand him if you were one of his students, that you need enough background in order to understand it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

So I will take a page out of Feynman's book and explain: Consciousness is emotion. There is that better? Do you understand now? Do you even believe me? My guess would be No, No, and No.

 

Quote

So, it is personal in the sense that I, personally, would like to understand your arguments without unnecessary effort. 

Then you are doomed to failure. Philosophy is like dancing or sex; in that, what you get out of it directly relates to how much effort you are willing to put into it. You have to "work it".

 

Quote

It's sounds as if I was as unclear in that post as I believe you often are. I'll revisit it in the thread and provide any necessary clarification.

Oh, you were clear. Do you have any idea of how many hours I researched amino acids and prions because you implied that they might be related to consciousness? Too many. I learned a lot, but nothing about consciousness.

I have a new idea to try out on you. If it works, let me know and I will post it in the other thread.

Imagine that consciousness is the electricity wired into your house. There is a nightlight plugged into a wall outlet, and we will say this light represents bacteria. There is a computer plugged into another outlet, and we will say this computer represents humans. There are other appliances and lights that represent other species. You are viewing reality from inside the computer. So someone tells you that the nightlight has the same power that you do. "No way." you say, "As I have so much more power. I can do so much more. I can think." Yet, if we unplug the nightlight and the computer and switch them to the other outlets, they will not change.

I do not think that consciousness itself has levels, as there seems to be no evidence to support this. Only the different species have levels or degrees that allow them to be conscious or aware of more things. The plug that plugs these appliances in is chemistry, hormones in particular.

This is not a full explanation, but it shows that I do not see consciousness as being different, I see the way it is used as being different. I see consciousness as simply something that is part of reality, a force that happens to empower life.

Gee

3 hours ago, iNow said:

So, your response to a quote from Mencken suggesting that:

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.”

... is to insinuate that he’s a jackass.

Lol. You can’t script this stuff. 

iNow;

When I first came to this forum, I thought that maybe you were the daughter of the owner of the forum. Some spoiled princess, who was allowed to make rude comments and sometimes stupid remarks because you were protected.

That was before I learned about the Leaderboard and the emotional and sometimes dimwitted reactions of the click-it squad. Now I understand that you just want to stay on top and are willing to sacrifice your intelligence to do it. Pity, that.

My last post should give you lots of ammunition.

Gee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gees said:

Some spoiled princess, who was allowed to make rude comments and sometimes stupid remarks because you were protected.

That was before I learned about the Leaderboard and the emotional and sometimes dimwitted reactions of the click-it squad. Now I understand that you just want to stay on top and are willing to sacrifice your intelligence to do it. 

IOW... You’re now suggesting that I’m the jackass. This stuff is pure gold, Gees. Please tell me you’re doing this as a ruse or intentional joke and aren’t, in fact, completely unaware of and oblivious to just how deeply you’re reinforcing the core point of that Mencken quote beecee shared. 

Edited by iNow
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gees said:

Beecee;

After reviewing your previous post, I have decided to not respond to it. You obviously have some very strongly held beliefs and opinions, which you have every right to hold. There seems to be nothing that I absolutely have to address in that post, but the following deserves and requires a response as it is very insulting to Philosophy and philosophers.

You have done a poor job in not responding to me! :) 

My apologies for having trod on your toes, but I'm sure it hasn't actually insulted all philosophers, and of course whether Mencken was a racist or not is of no consequence: I was giving his quote on philosophy which aligns somewhat with Professor's Hawking and Krauss. And perhaps in the pain of me treading on your toes, you failed to see the humour and smiling emoji in my posts.

Here are a couple more quotes that may affect you less......  ;) 

 

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".

 Richard Feynman: 

 

"Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists".

Richard Feynman: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, war of the quotes:

Quote

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

Dennett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eise:

I apologize for being so late in responding. I tried to answer your post several days ago, but lost my response half way through. Please consider my following thoughts when you have time.

 

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:54 AM, Eise said:

I think I repeated this already a few times. Philosophy is the investigation in our way of thinking.

You say, "investigation in our way of thinking"; I say, "interpreting knowledge". I suspect that we are both talking about the same thing, but using different words. This is not where our difference of opinion exists; the difference is where and how we divide what is Philosophy and what is Science. You divide it by subject matter, the empirical; I divide it by methodology, procedure. Instead of trying to turn this into a silly debate of Philosophy v Science, let us just talk about Philosophy.

I think that we can both agree that in order to work Philosophy, one requires a premise. So please consider the next three questions.

1) How does one go about formulating a premise if they are not allowed to use the empirical which would include observation and/or experience and also evidence and fact?

2) How does one go about determining if said premise is a reflection of something real, or if it is just imagining?

3) What is real?

If you can answer all three questions, and give examples, without using the empirical, then I will consider that the empirical may have nothing to do with Philosophy.

 

Quote

Capra is the godfather of new age kitsch of physics, especially of QM, comparing insights of physics with 'eastern wisdom'. So yes, such kind of books.

Capra is the godfather of nothing. What you don't seem to understand here is that the key word is "consciousness". In my studies of consciousness, I learned that Spinoza (17th Century Philosopher) had a concept of "God" that was very close to mine and reflected a Universal understanding of consciousness. Spinoza's ideas have been compared to the Vedanta tradition of India -- so this is not anywhere close to a "new" idea. Because of Spinoza's work, I now have an interest in the Vedanta, and because QM has been related to consciousness, I also have an interest there. No doubt Capra also saw these ideas and is comparing them -- as many other people are doing. Do not confuse a study of consciousness with a new age religion.

As for the book, Quantum Enigma, I finally browsed through it and found no reference to Capra. What I did find were references to Galileo, Newton, Planck, Einstein, and other physicists. There was a lot about Einstein, as one of the authors, when he was a student, actually visited with Einstein. He stated that he was so awed by the great man, that it took years before he finally realized what Einstein was trying to discuss with him. (chuckle) I also found the following on Page 251.

"Does Quantum Mechanics Support Mysticism?

It is sometimes implied that the sages of ancient religions intuited aspects of contemporary physics. The argument can go on to claim that quantum mechanics provides evidence for the validity of these ancient teachings. Such reasoning is not compelling." 

In that chapter, it goes on to state that physicists are often "embarrassed" by similar comparisons. So I suspect that you owe an apology to the authors of Quantum Enigma.

 

Quote

Is physics not also a kind of knowledge? Note I use 'e.g.', i.e. physics as an example of knowledge.

Everything that we think we know is a kind of knowledge. What is your point? It did not escape my notice that you used theories of physics as an example, knowing full well that wannabe philosophers and wannabe scientists are constantly questioning theories of physics. Are you trying to throw me in with that lot? I can assure you that I have never in my entire life questioned theories of physics. I don't know enough about physics to even consider it.

 

Quote

 

You said this:  "In order for it to become "knowledge", it first must be interpreted. Philosophy is good at interpreting."

You suggest here science only provides experimental and observable facts, and that the theorising is the task of philosophy.

 

I suggested no such thing. I said that Philosophy interprets knowledge. If I meant that it interpreted theories, I would have stated that it interprets theories. I did not state that because it is a ridiculous idea. You are trying to make something very simple into something more.

What is knowledge? It is what we know. Or is it what we think we know? Maybe it is what we believe or imagine or assume. How can we know that it is actual knowledge? How can we know that it is true? This is what Philosophy interprets -- truth. If "knowledge" is not true, then it is not knowledge.

 

Quote

Can you elaborate? Can you give some example of 'knowledge', that then is interpreted by philosophy? Where does that leave theory building?

Sure. I will use a topic that I know well -- consciousness.

Religion has decided that consciousness comes from "God" and this "knowledge" has produced theories and ideas to support their position.

Science has decided that consciousness comes from us and this "knowledge" has produced theories and ideas to support their position.

Both Disciplines have produced enough evidence for this Monism v Dualism debate to go on for more than a thousand years. Yet, there is still no comprehensive theory of consciousness. Why? Because both disciplines based their premises on assumption -- not knowledge. We don't even know what consciousness is, and they are arguing over where it came from. (chuckle)

An invalid premise based on anything but true knowledge will corrupt the theory.

 

Quote

 

Well, this is the bon mot by Russell:

We still have no idea what dark matter is. Should we ask philosophers? I am pretty sure we should not. Let physicists and cosmologists try to find out. It is an empirical question, so it is a scientific question.

OK, I took the effort to find out in what context Russell said this. It comes from 'Unpopular essays', Chapter 'Philosophy for laymen', page 24 (here a link where you can download it as pdf)

It stands in the context of the idea that all of science was called 'philosophy' in antiquity and the middle ages, and that at the moment parts of it became empirically based theories they became science. Of course this feeds the idea that in the end nothing is left for philosophy. But pity enough this has nothing to do what philosophers are doing today. So you cannot apply Russell's use (in a historical context) to the present situation.

And Russel is definitely positive about philosophy (page 33)

 

I can understand your perspective and even appreciate your position. Having been academically trained, you tend to put things into their historical positions as related by your training. That is fine.

I am just a simple philosopher looking for simple truths. Russell's statement is a summation given for the understanding of laymen, and as such it is true. I don't really care if it is right or wrong, or if it is relevant or irrelevant to the times. I just care if it is true.

I could state, Philosophy is the beginning; Science is the ending. It also would be true. Like Russell's statement, it would not explain Philosophy or Science, as it would just be a summation. That does not affect the truth of it. It is a statement that is true now and will always be true. But I would not generally make that statement because people will misunderstand it. They will think that Philosophy starts things off, and Science finishes them, or that Science is the new and improved Philosophy -- which is not true.

Philosophy puts it trust in the premise at the beginning of constructing new knowledge; Science puts it trust in the testing at the ending of constructing new knowledge. Both are necessary.

Consider it like house construction. Philosophy would provide the water level to start the foundation and ensure that it is level, then it would provide the plumb line and square to ensure that it stays level and square. Science would come in and make sure that the windows and doors open and close as they should, that the plumbing does not leak, the electricity works, the roof does not leak, and the furnace is adequate. Between them, they can construct something that will last for ages. Without Philosophy there is a good chance that it would not start off well, and without Science there would be no one to ensure that it stayed level and square and was in working order. Both are necessary.

Gee

 

Eise;

 

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:58 AM, Eise said:

You call established theories 'bits of information'? Fits to what I stated before. Science are the facts and their interpretation in theoretical frameworks. This kind of interpretation is still science, not philosophy.

No. I did not at any time call "established theories 'bits of information'". You are putting ideas together that don't belong together and making me wonder if you are truly a philosopher. Every philosopher that I have ever met, or read about, has a passion for truth and an ability to recognize it.

What I was talking about was the weakness that is inherent in any strength. The strength in Science lies in the scientific method, and the strength in the scientific method lies in it's ability to isolate one component so that the testing will show the attributes of that one component without influence by other things. So it has to turn things into "bits of information" in order to be sure of them and study them properly. This kind of study and testing has resulted in reliable information that is so valid, it was impossible to know before Science formed. But this is also a weakness, as these "bits" have to be reorganized and reformed into whatever they were beforehand. 

This also limits Science in areas where the information can not be broken down into bits. This is the reason why studies like Psychology, Animal Behaviorism, and Archeology are known as "soft" sciences, as they will not break down for study by the scientific method. Although there are some parts that can be helped along with the scientific method, a large part of these studies are a combination of Science and Philosophy.

 

Studiot;

 

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, studiot said:

I have been trying to find the foreward in a book I have where the author states

The Scientific Method is the collection of data about the real world and its organisation in a rational structure.

I agree. The only problem that I see is that reality is not always rational. (chuckle)

Gee

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gees said:
On 15/10/2017 at 2:03 PM, studiot said:

I have been trying to find the foreward in a book I have where the author states

The Scientific Method is the collection of data about the real world and its organisation in a rational structure.

I agree. The only problem that I see is that reality is not always rational. (chuckle)

Gee

 

This thought is deeper than it first looks.

Because if we ask the question

"Why bother with the organisation, why not just place all data in a gigantic database and retrieve any required bit when desired?"

Apart from the obviousl economy of data saving and retrieval;

We come up with the concept that the organisation process allows us to deduce new material from the data, that was not in the original.
We can compare parts of the data with other parts, we can compare with models and thoughts we may have had as a result.
We can propose new observations to extend the data.

In other words we can do Philosophy. (and perhaps some Science to boot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

I tried to answer your post several days ago, but lost my response half way through.

That is highly frustrating. Often I give up when such a thing occurs...

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

You divide it by subject matter, the empirical; I divide it by methodology, procedure.

These are of course not independent. And I think I do not know of a 'philosophical methodology' that is also not used in science: logic, valid proofs and argumentations, clarity of concepts, striving for consistency, for unifying theories etc. 

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

1) How does one go about formulating a premise if they are not allowed to use the empirical which would include observation and/or experience and also evidence and fact?

2) How does one go about determining if said premise is a reflection of something real, or if it is just imagining?

3) What is real?

1. 'Premises' in philosophy are found the way we think. That needs a kind introspection ("Why do I assume this is true? How did I come to the conclusion this is true? Was the way I got to this conclusion valid? etc.

2. If you own thinking (or the way you think others think...) is the starting point of philosophy, then the border between 'real' and 'imagining' becomes at least vague.

3. That is a philosophical question ;)

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

If you can answer all three questions, and give examples, without using the empirical, then I will consider that the empirical may have nothing to do with Philosophy.

If you hive our ways of thinking (which includes erroneous thinking...) to the empirical, then you are right. But I think there is a distinction between thinking about the world, and thinking about thinking. 

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Spinoza's ideas have been compared to the Vedanta tradition of India

But Spinoza did not compare modern scientific thought with Vedanta. But that is what (amongst others) Capra is doing in his 'Tao of physics'. But he takes a very esoteric stance on QM, that not many physicists share (e.g. consciousness determines what exists by observation). This is what you find in 'Quantum Enigma' too. See here (pdf) for a devastating critique on the book.

Quote

Can you elaborate? Can you give some example of 'knowledge', that then is interpreted by philosophy? Where does that leave theory building?

That was my question. And you answer with 'consciousness'. Which I think is a bad example to make your ideas about facts, theory building and interpretation clear, because these 3 are highly intermingled in the topic of consciousness. Please give simpler example using established science, with theories that are accepted. What are there the facts, how did the theory building proceed, what was the role of interpretation (and maybe of philosophy)?

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Russell's statement is a summation given for the understanding of laymen, and as such it is true.

Are truths different for different groups of people? And Russell himself describes his bon mot as 'with enough truth to justify a joke'. Justifying a joke needs less than justifying truth.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

I don't really care if it is right or wrong, or if it is relevant or irrelevant to the times. I just care if it is true.

??? Can it be wrong and true??? Please explain.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

No. I did not at any time call "established theories 'bits of information'". You are putting ideas together that don't belong together and making me wonder if you are truly a philosopher.

If you can present you ideas with clarity, we can start philosophising. I am trying to understand what you are saying. Until now I do not have a clear picture of how you see facts, theory building and interpretation in science. So I really hope you can clear this up.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Every philosopher that I have ever met, or read about, has a passion for truth (1) and an ability to recognize it (2).

(1) Every academic should have a passion for truth. But in philosophy maybe not in the way you would like... (I am not sure if I need it to say here, but philosophy is not science...)

(2) That would be great. But I am afraid I have to disappoint you... Philosophers should be trained thinkers, being able to understand complex texts, complex arguments, and on the other side be able to present his own ideas as clear as possible. But that is still not the 'ability to recognise truth'. But it can help.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

This kind of study and testing has resulted in reliable information that is so valid, it was impossible to know before Science formed. But this is also a weakness, as these "bits" have to be reorganized and reformed into whatever they were beforehand. 

So you think we know what protons are, what neutrons are, what electrons are, but do not know how they come together to form atoms? Again, can you please give clear and unambiguous example? I think you view of science is a bit naive: science 'reorganises the bits' in theories.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:15 AM, Gees said:

Although there are some parts that can be helped along with the scientific method, a large part of these studies are a combination of Science and Philosophy.

I suspect you call finding hypotheses that explain the facts philosophy. I think that is just part of scientific work. But that will become clearer if you can explain your ideas more precise.

Edited by Eise
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now