exchemist

Sounds to me as if they may be falling into what I think of as the "Dawkins Trap" of treating religion and science as alternative accounts of the physical world, whereas their roles in human thought are in my opinion quite different. Science provides an account of the natural, physical world. Religion is not about that but is a guide to help human beings live their lives. So the undeniable fact that science can and does make errors is beside the point. Of course it does, like any human enterprise. But it isn't trying to guide people as to how to live their lives. Its methodology depends on scepticism in its older sense (e.g. as in Robert Boyle's "The Sceptical Chymist"), that is, requiring observational confirmation of phenomena to justify hypotheses, before accepting them as explanations. It is undeniable that applying this principle has met with enormous success. Without it, we would not have modern science at all. Moreover this reliance on confirmed observation is the mechanism by which the inevitable errors and false leads are corrected, over time. Conversely, if and when religion strays from its purpose and purports to explain the physical world, it is often shown by observation either to be wrong or else to be proposing ideas that can't be tested by observation. In the latter case such ideas are ipso facto not scientific, so science has nothing to say about them one way or the other. You, by the sound of it may be a physicalist, that is, one whose worldview is that the physical world as portrayed and investigated by science is all there is. That's a point of view, but it is not the only position that followers of science can take. Many scientists are also religious believers. In fact historically this was normal. Quite a number of scientists in the c.19th and c.18th were clergymen.

Well, all biochemistry has a quantum mechanical basis. So that goes for mental processes, i.e. brain function too. But what do we mean by intuition? As I understand it, we mean a process of understanding something without a conscious train of reasoning. I think we actually carry out a lot of mental processes without that, though most of them are fairly simple. I further suspect quite a bit of what we are taught about reasoning is to stop us jumping to conclusions, intuitively, because a lot of the time we would be wrong if we did that. So we learn to break issues down into steps and evaluate them sequentially, to have more confidence our understanding and conclusions are sound. So maybe intuition is what we call it when we fail to apply a reasoning process and, by luck, turn out nevertheless to be right!😀. On that basis I think I would say that quick "intuitive" mental processes without a conscious train of reasoning are the default method of thinking and just, well, normal, not special at all.

You haven’t noticed the changes in the last decade then? Renewable power generation? Electric vehicles? The switch to almost all domestic admin done on your mobile phone? m-RNA vaccines? Anti-obesity drugs? Sometimes changes can occur under your nose without you even realising.

Is that what you have to do in order to be sure an LLM doesn't feed you botshit?

What @Sensei may be trying to say, I suppose, is that a lot of cultures make use of flat breads, either unleavened like the pooris and chapattis of S Asia, or leavened like naan or the pitta bread of the E Med These may be cooked on the floor of a hot oven, or on a griddle or pan. They are typically made simply from flour, yeast in the leavened versions, water, salt, and often some oil. (I make pooris at home sometimes.) The distinguishing feature of pancakes however - at least in modern English usage - is a recipe based on eggs and milk as well as flour, to make batter, as in fact @Sensei 's recipe indicates, which is poured into a hot pan where it spreads out into a thin sheet (e.g. in crêpes) and is cooked very quickly on both sides. Thicker batter can make smaller, thicker pancakes, such as the Scotch pancakes I had as a child. (Batter is also used in Britain for other purposes e.g coating fish before deep-frying, or making Yorkshire puddings.) The basic recipe seems to have originated in Northern Europe - and hence is now found in N America. No one in the English speaking world, so far as I know, would describe pancakes, as described above, as bread. The thread title and discussion up to now have been about the leavening process in ordinary bread-making.

The thread is about bread, not pancakes. And most of the rest of the world does not eat pancakes.

Looks as though Honest Bob has just shown up, at last.😁

Thanks all for the advice. I’m having a second look at bluetooth, as it appears one can get long range bluetooth now that can send a signal >50m. If true, and if it can get through a brick wall, that may work. These transmitters seem to be fairly inexpensive, though I would of course need to buy bluetooth active speakers to receive the signal. Any comments on this?

I don’t think we are. But the media? Yes, possibly, at least in the UK where the journos mostly seem to be arts graduates. My impression from reading le Figaro on hols is that French media are a lot more science-literate. They seem to write on science assuming readers have at least A level understanding and don’t talk down to them. It may be that British media are an outlier. Britain seems still not to have quite shaken off the old notion that science is all a bit working class: a discipline in which one has to do things with one’s hands, my dear. I do think many popularisers of science tend to stress knowledge: that we now know the way things really are, rather dogmatically. Not many of them speak of models and the use of alternative models to fit the situation at hand.

Yes, I now rather regret having introduced action into the discussion. Because, instead of simply acknowledging a typo or error in the units of his OP - an innocent mistake anyone can make - he has seized instead on the red herring of action and tried, absurdly, to pretend that is what he meant all along, even though it makes no sense whatever in this context, digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. In my opinion this ludicrous pretence is posting in bad faith.

A bacon flattener. Now that's a really good idea. I'm actually amazed my mother never had one. She was into 1970s kitchen gizmos in a big way. I had to dump a lot of rusting or broken relics of some of them when I cleared the family house. I once had to the replace our fish slice, when we had a nanny for my son so my wife could get back to work, and said nanny bent it by flattening bacon with it too vigorously. Not much point now: it's only me in the house and I only make a bacon butty once in a blue moon.

Well not really, any more than if you use an iron for making toast.😁

Well done! That is indeed very close to your claim, at least in your translation. So you weren't making it up. I apologise. My Jerusalem bible has something a bit different: "Yahweh your God has allotted these to all the other peoples under heaven". Neither of these asserts that God made the heavenly bodies for that purpose though, i.e. for these other people to worship.

Rice's whales. Named after someone called Rice.

As I say, I think you have made that up, or possibly you are imagining it. Provide the reference and I will believe you. But not otherwise.

TACO.

Christ almighty. I’m out.

I have told you: action has dimensions of energy x time. Its energy may be constant but its action won’t be. Because of the x time. Action is a concept used in Lagrangian mechanics.

If you wait for 10 years the action has increased rather a lot, because its dimensions are energy x time.

Ah, the light dawns. You have completely misconstrued the meaning of this. What it says isGod gave them (i.e. the disbelieving people) over to the worship of the sun etc. That means God gave up with them and let them go back to their previous primitive pagan ways. (Acts 7:42 in My Jerusalem bible has "God turned away from them and abandoned them to the worship of the army of heaven".) It emphatically does not say or imply that God "made the moon for people to worship", which is what you originally asserted.

Yes I think is the yeast having time to digest the gluten that makes traditionally proved bread more digestible. Since Chorleywood came in, half the country seems to have developed gluten intolerance!

But that's the point. To speak of action implies a duration. And it also implies potential energy. If you just talk about a stream of particles, you have specified neither. It's meaningless. You're just bullshitting.

You have absolutely no idea what are talking about, have you?

J.s has dimensions of action. How can a stream of particles have the dimensions of action? I can see how it could have dimension of J/s, i.e. the rate of energy flow past a given point, thereby defining the size of the stream. But action? How can that work?

Your question is not a complete sentence. Typo? Can you try again?