Bartholomew Jones

48 minutes ago, joigus said:

Don't forget half your children dying of dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and a long etc., was part of the equation in that misleadingly pictured "paradise of yore."

It's a nice mental exercise to imagine your family living next to crystal-clear waters, teeming with fish, provided with timber for the winter, and the children rejoicing in the sunny Spring morning with flower garlands on their heads.

That's not what the past was like. Would you say "welcome back" to polio? And this is just an example off the top of my head.

Lose the flower garlands.

The way I see it is that even in our earliest histories humankind was "towards" trends, which is always hurtful.  Our food regimen haven't ever really gotten better, only more conventional, at the expense of the furthest reaching convenience.  In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods.  That's just my point of view.

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Then get off the internet.

And don't let me catch using other advanced technology; no fires, nor clothes for you. 

That's the way I would have it; and the thing is, that's what I'm towards.  For example, my refrigerator is shut down.  I've discovered (as a personal convenience) fermentation is always a safe preservative method.  And folks love my Mediterranean style hospitality.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

If it were a measured value, it will be measured to some level of certainty. The arc of the path is something that can be quantified and accounted for. (c is now a defined value, so these uncertainties show up in measurements that depend on c)

As far as "A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point" goes, I can't figure out what you mean. Do you have an example?

Yeah, you shoot an arrow from a bow.  The velocity constantly diminishes, correct?  But then with gravity it accelerates, so it's negative.  With a beam or a bead of light it would seem to have to diminish.  It seems the velocity of light can't be constant.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Well, then, you should know that a theory and a hypothesis are not the same thing, and in science a hypothesis is more than an educated guess, as it needs to conform to the requirements of science: there needs to be a way to test the hypothesis, and it must be falsifiable. 

A theory incorporates a model and the evidence one has gathered in support of that model. So it's much more than a hypothesis.

Can you exemplify?  My understanding is that a hypothesis might lead to a theory.  And the next logical progression might be scientific law.  That's how I was taught.

With due respect you're missing my point, which is incidental anyway.  A theory to me should go like this: "this seems to always lead to this..."  I'm not saying that everything that sounds like "this seems to lead to this..." is a theory.  It's the converse, the former, that should always hold true, it seems to me.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

This doesn’t seem like a very apt analogy to me. Even the most basic of calculators performs operations that are impossible (or at the very least extremely difficult) to do by counting fingers, since those operations cannot be reduced to steps that utilise only elementary (+,-,*,/) operations - and even those are hard to do with only your fingers, if the numbers are not just nice and clean naturals.

For example, have you lately tried to work out sines, cosines, tangents, exponentials, roots, or logarithms using only your fingers? You’d find that rather difficult. Most calculators do this using the CORDIC algorithm, which requires pre-compiled and hardwired lookup tables - which is something that can’t be replicated by counting fingers only. So clearly, a calculator is more than simply a replacement for finger counting.

You're right.  I'm one of those opponents to everything we humans make more complex than is necessary; I'd rather everyone stay close to home and get around on mules when they had to.  Yeah, pretty radical.  And I hated trig and calculus.  Barely passed.

I know.  It's a theory.  Theories are stated as fact.  That's science.

It's an explanation, right?  Not an answer.

No, it's just that a theory to me goes like this: "it seems..."  But science people (pardon if I seem to use a slur) say it like this: "such is the case."  That bothers me somewhat; actually a lot.  But I can't abandon science because regardless, I always say, science (in its purity) is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Do we really even know the speed of light?  How can we?  A projectile diminishes in velocity perpetually as it approaches a terminal point, correct?

It also must of necessity arc, yes?

Somebody said curiosity killed the cat.  Then they said, how curious was the cat?

Arts and science, like left and right.

I hardly lean too much on dictionaries, as I suppose I might/ought, for science; I tend to lean on those few things, principles, learned over the primary through post-secondary years (long ago).  I tend to favor the old, in every case, science or otherwise; perhaps prejudicially.

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

Science defines some terminology in its own way, and not what you find in a standard dictionary.

 

 

That preceding intended as reply, above.

Anyway, carry on.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Maybe you don't understand what modern science is trying to do. For starters, it's not looking for answers. 

A theory is our best current explanation for any phenomena we observe in nature. A theory is capable of improving, and is always being challenged and tested with new experiments based on the latest data. Theories are based on mathematical models that are trustworthy to an astonishing degree. Theory is as strong as it gets in science, mainly because it's not etched in stone the way an "answer" is. Theories require constant updating, whereas "answers" are rarely questioned. People who think they've found an answer stop looking. 

If we're interested in knowing more about the universe, we need an extremely trustworthy way of deciding what we actually know, a way that's resistant to our biases and wishful thinking. Scientific methodology works.

I've always thought I've understood the notion of hypotheses, as equivalence functionally with questions; although by definition a hypothesis is an educated guess.  Am I incorrect treating them the same, functionally?

An educated guess is an attempt at something, a theory.  Aiming, yes?  But a question is more voluminous?  Because you're seeking?  Yes?

So science as it stands today is a way of aiming; by extension, not "biting off more than we can chew."  Yes?

I ask, seeking (nonetheless), insight into a certain young man's capacity among the figures of the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic texts to explain certain phenomena, having acquired unheard of capacity to predict certain events through certain studies of science, and certain other exercises, while he himself was under certain Babylonian enforcements.

Or rather, a question predicates, or is a necessary aspect of aiming.  Yes?

So for more discrete theories, predicating the figure, if you will, of scientific law, or generally, natural principle, should we predicate (pardon the overuse) hypotheses and theories with originating questions?

Rather, so the individual aspect is framing a question.  The scientific aspect disregards the question, preferring to aim at a theory; separating the individual aspect from the scientific aspect.  Yes?

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

What about all those areas where humans (not man) improved on nature? How can you view nature as "dominant" in general when we've overcome so many of its obstacles? 

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe you're right.  I don't have the answer.  Maybe modern science is an answer.  I don't know.

34 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Nope.  These are based on scientific discoveries that were built upon other scientific discoveries.  Babylonian science discovered that the sun is a God.

Gluttons for punishment?

Please read with less haste.  I said "Babylonian-era science," not Babylonian science.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This is trolling, and if you want this thread to continue, you'll get to the point right away. 

 

In that case, crucify.

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The word "agenda" means "to be done."

Unless your agenda is wasting time and posting nonsense, you are making no progress.

Then why am I commanding your attention?

7 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have evidence that your toothpaste hypothesis is based on ancient Babylonian science?  You seem to be using modern scientific discoveries, which you don't subscribe, at least you said you don't.

Not scientific principle; these are principles of natural discovery; closer to which Babylonian ERA-science was.

37 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Why did you expect tosh?

Is that an example of the implications of you looking at a rock?

These are examples of more antiquated scientific observation.

As has been stated, I have an agenda.

For example, commercial toothpastes foster bad breath because it sterilizes, by its exclusions of flora, rather than sanitarily activating hygienic salivary enzymes; which bad breath is profitable to mass manufacturers.

27 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You said:

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?" 

My question:

What do you think the implications are?

 

Good question.  I had stated before, something like, "I expected an answer such as: over the years, subsequent generations, through communications between radiant energy and enforced conditioning (rock), more rock-like minerals had formed as was evident by the 9 inches that were stratified between the rock and the vivid green moss."  I was trying to show somewhat of my observations of moss in a nutshell, over the past two years.

I don't take an interest in this kind of stuff for amusement.  I'm a reclaimer of lands for their restoration to their natural conditions, and here in the u.s. their return to the natives, particularly, who are households done wrong in any way by anywhom, and not done right by the justice system.

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Imagine if you didn't listen, well enough...

This was duplicated by mistake.  Deleted now.

43 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Approximately 7 years to design and build a plane.  Will you now answer any of my questions to you?

Which question is foremost?

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, implementation...

Come again?

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The wise thing to do is listen, and that's a fact... 😉 😇

This is a truth.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm happy to quote exactly what you put forward.

I suspect that, if what you said supported your case, you would have quoted it.

You're either a very poor reader or very hasty "(or worse)".

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Please proceed then.  So far you have said you don't subscribe to science, we have discussed moss growth and you have hinted ancient Babylon is somehow significant.  I don't know what point you are trying to make in this thread.

How long did it take the Wright Brothers?

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's not a fact.
It's barely an hypothesis.

 

Even if it was true then questioning ideas would still be important.
You put forward an idea
"And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals.  What then are the implications?"
The idea you put forward  was that you noticing something about a broken rock has (implicitly, significant)  implications.

 

Well, prove it...
 

 

What I put forward was not a generalization: "you noticing something about a broken rock," as you say I said.

What I put forward was specific: "And breaking off a section, I noted it was stratified to a much higher degree and depth, and it was hardened minerals."  The question, "what are the implications," follows from that.

7 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Because we let them think (metaphor) they invented the calculator; the first was five fingers on the left, and five fingers on the right.  Who made that one?

5 minutes ago, joigus said:

The problem is not in the pronoun. You can use any pronoun you want. Your concept of letting someone think is what's abhorrent.

The figure is not in the pronoun.  The figure is in the predicate, "let them think."  It would read, "because we don't object that they think they invented the calculator when it was on our two hands."

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Asking you how you rejected the null hypothesis is a quintessentially scientific response.

Did you not understand that?

Today is Put on Your Own Shoes Day.

Hasn't the same gravitas.

 

The fact is, science that is authentic is rooted in a love (brotherly) of something, that being wisdom; which isn't exhibited here.  Philosophy is the parent.

https://www.google.com/search?q=word+origin+philosophy&oq=word+origin+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57.12449j0j9&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

4 hours ago, iNow said:

How does one “let” some other one think?

The profound arrogance embedded in and oozing out from this statement is staggering.

You cannot even control your own thoughts, Bart. It’s time for you to take a pause from suggesting that you ought to control the content of others thoughts and to instead amplify awareness of your own copious opportunities to minimize the heavy burden of ignorance. 

It's a figure of speech.  As in, we don't object.