beecee

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, beecee, I hope you are doing well in your followup crusade against philosophy. 

Hi Eise...Yes I remember our past "crossing swords"effort re my supposed criticisng philosophy. If you read through my posts in this issue, my point was that much of what is covered by science today, was once the exclusive domain of philsophers, and perhaps in those circumstances, philsophy is superfluous at best. This was imo the main area of criticism by Krauss. I also offerred some criticism on the points another great scientist made, namely Richard Feynman, on the occasions that imo seem to delve into pedant and near stupidity.eg:  “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963).

The opnion above is in my case re-enforced, particularly with 2 so called phislophical types on this forum, that I have crossed swords with a few times. Many times the same pedant as expressed by Feynman, is used rather then getting a direct answer, or completely and purposely avoiding an answer. 

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Should I condemn physics as stupid because Aristotle said that F = mv? 2500 years ago? Or astronomers that thought the cosmos is static and exist just out of the stars we see in the Milky Way, not much more than 100 years ago? Of course not, but that is exactly what you are doing when they, and you, are critisising philosophy: as if philosophy has not progressed in those thousands or most recent 100 years (Russel, anybody?).

Yes valid points that are all recognised by scientists, hence why scientific theories remain as scientific theories, simply gaining in certainty over time, and as they continually align with predictions. If they don't, the theories are modified, added to or just scrapped. That is science, and those scientific theories are generally accepted by the scientific community. Philosophers on the other hand seem to make their living, picking each other apart, never quite agreeing on any one particular philosophy. Highlighted by the following.....

"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.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

If you say that philosophy has still no answers to the most fundamental questions it asks since thousands of years, then I can only react that physics and astronomy have not either.

I have said many times that philosophy is the foundation stone of science, as I'm sure Krauss, DeGrasse-Tyson and Dicky Feynman would agree. I have never said it has no answers, only that areas that it once covered exclusively, are now the domain of science, namely physics and cosmology.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Thereby: every science has its philosophical assumptions. See my present disclaimer ('There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.') Grappling with these assumptions is philosophy (at least of one of its subdisciplines).

Grappling with these assumptions is the scientific methodology, which has as its foundations philosophy.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"), on the other side you have his reaction on the question of what magnetism 'really' is (I think even you have shared the youtube of that interview here in these fora); there he is clearly taken a well argued philosophical stance, i.e. he is philosophising. 

Yep, one of my favourite videos, and sure, he is philosophising to a certain extent, and I have said we all philosophise at some time, but he is also explaining how depending on how deep one needs to answer that question, and whether one is speaking to an innocent child, lay person, or physicist, the answer has many levels. And essentially he is employing the scientific method, which, yes, has as its foundation stone, philosophy.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

Feynman shows a nice example of the ambiguity of scientists about philosophy: on one side, he finds it completely useless ("What is 'talking'"),

And therein lies a point I raised earlier...define talking? define this, define that etc etc Having had those pedant queries thrown at me rather then answering questions directly, has me completely agreeing with Feynman.

11 hours ago, Eise said:

 You will also see that the author himself is not the only one that has both studied physics and philosophy (often in that chronological order). All less talented than Krauss? In cosmology, sure. In philosophy? Definitely not.

Eise...I'm a non scientist, although have made plenty of efforts to learn from reputable reading material, and forums such as this,  and certainly have never studied any philsophy. I see one side (science) as practical, the other just asking questions without any real answers (philosophy) I am also a practical bloke and do not just wax on lyrically about certain things. I do and have done things with regards to world hunger and poverty, and climate change and when asking others what they have done to practically help with some of these problems, get told I am simply blowing my own trumpet from morons that simply take up cyber space on forums such as this. By practical I mean, sponsoring two children (My Mrs mainly responsible for this), limiting my driving to 10,000 kms a year and using public transport...solar panels, waste distribution and plastics sorting. Talk,(philosophising) is cheap, and please note carefully, I am in no way inferring or casting any aspersions on you or your character.

BTW, You'll be interested to know that  in reality have no objection to the following....

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Philosophy and Physics try to answer fundamental questtions about the behaviour of nature.
Physics asks questions whose answers can be tested, while Philosophy asks questions with untestable answers.
At some point, before testing methodology is devised, or possible, for a Physics questiion, it is in effect, a Philosophy question.
All Physics started off as Philosophy, and while the realm of Physics seems to expands as we are able to test what used to be Philosophical questions, it seem that the Philosophical realm shrinks.

On 5/21/2022 at 10:46 PM, dimreepr said:

It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...

What is really ironic is that you who whole heartedly embrace the woo woo that is  karma,  and the supernatural, should see anything ironic about my use, and the conventional every day use of the phrase "merry christmas" and accuse me of religiousity simply to support your extreme attemped implementation of nonsensical PC. Sorry old friend, like much of your philosophy, it won't happen. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You misunderstand my confusion, what I don't understand is, how you can hold so many opposing position's at the same time? I understand cognitive dissonance, but this is some next level stuff... 

 Sorry for the rather late reply...had a piss up last night celebrating a Labor win in our elections!!!

Not at all on either points....your confusion, and your rather silly rhetoric about me holding opposing positions. Your confusion on the latter, is your inabilty to be able to see where normal positions, move into extreme unworkable positions, much as you hold in many disciplines.

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Congratulations on your new Labor Government Beecee.
i understand you helped out canvassing and spreading the word.

I hope you will still criticise any mistakes they make.
How else will they learn to do better yet.

When I was a young hairy arse brat, I was a Labor party member.

And sure I'll criticise when they make mistakes, and some will be made...minor I hope.

Here is the PM elect's acceptance speech......

Thanks for the thoughts.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Progressivism is nearly always alien to Luddites, obviously, as your silly photo implies. If you take that personally, I don't mind.   We shouldn't deny as a society what we have learned since your time as youngster.

Totally wrong of course but I can understand your predicement and why you are blinkered. This "new age" thinking that one must envelop all forms of progressivism and extremes of PC, is pretentious at best. 

We have just elected a new "progressive central" government in Australia, and rejected the  and far right loonies, as well as those loonies on the far left. I'm confident unlike the previous conservative government, they will govern wisely for all Australians, most of who thankfully are of a  sensible and balanced progression, and acceptance of reasonable PC.

Reasonable, sensible and inevitable progressivism is the desire of most Australians including me and will in time be achieved. You know Stringy, the real meaty stuff like climate change action and alternate forms of energy...Old age and disability and care...equal pay...a livable mnimum wage...strenghtening of medicare...cheaper child care for working parents...recognition and consideration to our indigenous Australians and the Uluru statement enshrined in the constitution. All those reasonable sensible policies are the platform of Australia's new governemnt, and yet is already hearing cries of "we are doomed" from the far right ratbags, and the usual fucking "not going far enough nonsense" from the equal loony far left.

Thankfully sanity will prevail and the extremeties of both ends will rightly be like the words of a Sarah Brightman song, 

On 5/19/2022 at 11:47 AM, beecee said:

But progressivnism like political correctnness can reach a stage of going mad and silly and shooting themselves in the foot in the progress.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

So, you've got nothing against PC or social or justice or warrior, as long as you agree with what they say; otherwise "they're not worthy" to listen to, even their more reasonable suggestions; sound's awfully religious to me, please explain my confusion.

It's difficult to get through your confusion, but the same situation applies with your own views. Differences being, my views are widely accepted, while yours are essentially unworkable. Why not for once in your life, take the bit between the teeth, and just admit that you find the extreme PC example I gave, as reasonable and just, in your opinion?  That was what you were trying to convey, correct? Thankfully though, as I reported, It of course was laughed out of existence, as well as that council and its so called progressives. Worth noting, that the council was run by my own Labor party, or at least a few extremists that just happened to be a part of that Labor run council. They were rightly given the royal order of the boot, and subsequently admonished by the Federal and State levels of the Labor party. 

I hope that wasn't too confusing. Merry Christmas!!! 😄

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Good advice.

That's why I gave him a like!

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

It must be difficult living in constant fear that you could melt at any time. 

 

LOL! Stop it Smalls, you're killing me! 😂

I will be absent most of today, as I am helping clean up a couple of polling booths in my area, so you may need to get your entertainment value elsewhere for a while. 😴

Although counting continues, Australia now has a new Prime Minister, Anthony Albenese. You fucking beauty!!! Both major parties though lost numbers to the Greens and some Independents. Only doubt that remains is whether he is heading a government that will need the support of the Greens, and some Independents, or have the required 76 seats to govern in their own right.

Here is PM Albenese's acceptance speech.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/politics/federal-election/watch-live-australias-new-prime-minister-anthony-albanese-gives-victory-speech-c-6887483

20 hours ago, Peterkin said:

....

That's intelligent. 

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

And that’s a feature, not a bug. No unfair advantages. No more exclusions based on arbitrary historical reasons. Competitors don’t get displaced. It’s win-win.

This is a problem… how, exactly?

It's superfluous, not needed and is only to please the extremes of the PC brigade. If it would automatically work out the same as currently is, why do you find that necessary then to implement? Men and women are different. *shrug* (Ooops, I said that before! 🤣)

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your morals are clearly shit, and I thought you were better than this. 

I suggest if I replied in such a churlish manner, I would be bombarded with neg votes. But that's more a reflection on some here.

And since your supposed PC proposal would work out the same as the present status quo  with women sports segregations, as is, I find your reply even more weird.

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You said you support equal pay. I said "commendable". You didn't like that. I took it back, even though I approve. You don't believe that. Or you don't believe I meant it. Or something.

What, precisely, do you want?

For you to be more honest, stop pretending playing dumb, and less supposedly smart arse one word answers.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I don't believe you. 

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

When have I ever given the impression that I disapprove of equal pay for women?

And now in your efforts of one-upmanship, you chose to be dishonest. I never said anything about you disproving equal pay.

I said.....

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I don't believe you. Although you may get a like for your usual facetiousness. 

NOTE: Facetiousness.

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Neither. Merely brief.

In an effort to minimize misconstruction. Evidently futile.

15 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, 

In general sports as pastimes - "fun and games" then any differences, advantages, weaknesses... are less important since as the good PC brigade keep ramming down our throats "its the taking part that counts". Fine this works just dandy.

But at the elite level where "professional" sports people are competing at the highest level and are earning their living from this then the distinction between differences, advantages, weaknesses become majorly important, to keep things as "fair" or rather, as equally opportunistic for those people.

   

Ha ha,

Nobody said they are, we are discussing why they should/shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to do so in the first place.

How many times in history people have suffered the consequences out of ignorance? 

Me personally I couldn't give a shite since it doesn't really affect me if Mr Joe decides to become Miss Jo and kick everyone's ass. It just amazes me that people are so afraid to speak of such, even to ignore the very evolution of humankind just because it doesn't fit in within modern western society.  

Crack on if it fits in with PC, and makes everybody feel better about themselves. 

My point being that, in my humble and perhaps archaic opinion, this world is a bit fucked up and we have bigger problems to worry about other than all this over bearing PC.  

Great post and I gave you a like also. 😉

Yes, sadly extreme nonsensical PC does exist. I gave one example earlier. And just as sadly maybe the cause of the rise of the extreme looney right brigade and the Trumpists. 

The other rather notable situation that has developed is the facetiousness and sarcasm directed at anyone that dare stray from this extreme PC, under the guise of humour. That of course is evident with the uses of the positive and neg rep situations also. Stands out like dog balls sadly. A sadness reflected more as this being a science forum, is supposed to be populated with the highly educated with degrees and such, although I think that misuse and facetiousness only applies to probably a few, not all.

Anyway I'm off! Election day and I am handing out "how to vote" cards.!!

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Neither. Merely brief.

In an effort to minimize misconstruction. Evidently futile. 

And I don't believe you. Although you may get a like for your usual facetiousness. 

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Certainly not. If you don't consider it commendable, I withdraw my commendation, even though I continue to approve of your moral stance.

Obviously your original reply was facetious rather then funny. Hence my reply regarding moral stance. Appears to be par for the course for poor philsophers.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why does the importance of these alleged differences in their “builds” supersede letting anyone qualify based on merit and skill based thresholds regardless of who they are and how they urinate?

You keep repeating this point. I find it irrelevant and peripheral to the position I’m advocating. Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

As has already been pointed out, not too many scientific studies have been done. Again, all else aside, I'm saying that if your proposal was the status quo, then not much would actually change. The merit and skill based thresholds would see men against men, and women against women in certain professional sports. If that's repeating myself, then it is worth repeating.

PS: I have nothing against any PC social justice warrior, only the few occasions where that so called socail justice goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. An example of PC going from the sublime to the ridiculous occurred in Sydney a couple of Xmas's ago. A certain council came down with an edict that It is now  politically incorrect to say Merry Christmas because you might insult non Christians and atheists. We are told that the correct greeting is now Happy Holidays. It of course was laughed out of existence, as well as that council and its so called progressives.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course he was being facetious.

And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

Let me say it again. And while we're busy tooting our own horns, I'd like to point out that I have never beaten my wife, nor have I ever argued that women should not be allowed to vote in any election whatsoever! That is just my moral stance that I have stood by for years, and I don't care if you criticize me for my stand. I am not backing down!

(Just to be clear, I was being facetious there! 😀)

Facetiousness, sarcasm or otherwise, I'm pretty sure that the status quo and men and women sports segregations, will remain as is. Why? because it is the morally correct thing to do. 😁 FACT:

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Categorize based on skill and ability and merit. Ignore gender, and sex, and how they identify or how they sit or stand when they pee.

Why is this such an appalling and unacceptable idea to so very many? Why is it so hard to agree here that sports qualification criteria shouldn't care how you were classified at birth and how it should instead be focused on qualifications based on sport-specific thresholds?

As nice as those sentiments are, the facts are it would never work in certain sports. Men and women, (thankfully) are built different. The sport's specific thresholds and standards are very rarely ever going to compare equally...Men would generally align with one threshold, and women with another. Transgenders though is one category I havn't thought about much, other then if the inclusion of transgenders are shown to have no meaningful advantages, then I have no real objection. And therein lies the main point. How many scientific studies have been done with transgener athletes?

21 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Commendable!

No not commendable, just a moral stance, devoid of any silly extreme PC I have always upheld and personaly fought for more then 20 years ago, at least with women and men employment. I hope you weren't being facetious or sarcastic.

Let me spell it out again. What I am saying is that in many sports, particularly all football codes, a professional men's side would be faster, stronger, and more aggressive then any professional woman's side. That's why we have sports segregation in those sports. So that is a furphy. 

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. And then, later, in a related sidebar, we were comparing the merits of North American men's and women's soccer teams, with regard to pay equity.  

I have never argued against equal pay for men and women in any endeavour whatsoever. It's part of the policy of our Labor party in today's elections, that I am voting for. Let me spell it out again. What I am saying is that in many sports, particularly all football codes, a professional men's side would be faster, stronger, and more aggressive then any professional woman's side. That's why we have sports segregation in those sports. So that is a furphy. 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Winning games, perhaps? The US women have won World cups and Olympic gold. The men haven’t had anywhere close to the same success. They didn’t even qualify for the WC in 2018, and their highest finish since 2002 was 8th.

Of course. But that isn't what was being suggested. They are obviously the best in their category of women's soccer. We were making the "unfair" comparisons between women and men in certain  sports.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I certainly hope you do, just with reasoned arguments, rather than your usual handwaving insistence that you're right, because you say so.

You mean like your usual philsophical utterences? Or like this?

I'm really trying not to laugh at your hypocrisy!

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet again!!! you've failed to directly address a single point I've made, if and when you do (and I hope you do) we can have a decent conversation; until then I won't be replying to you...

*shrug*  🥱 

Like I said, already clarified. What you do from here on in is your concern.

I'll certainly though keep pointing out what I believe to be the shortcomings in your claims and philosophy when needed and appropriate.

Have a great day! 

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

46 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They do look warm and cuddly!

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a those girls ever got the chance, they'd overrun you and everyone you care about!

The female referee in that game, Belinda Sharpe, also has refereed and been a touch judge in many male NRL games, and handled it well. 

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I do enjoy watching women's soccer also, nonetheless enjoyable to watch.

I watch women's beach volleyball for that.

While in rugby the men's game is certainly faster, harder, tougher and with far more aggression, as a spectator, looking at 26 pairs of hairy legs is sometimes off putting.

With the NRLW or the womens game, we have no such putting off.

😉

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

A good soccer game is akin to chess; a lot of strategic setting up

Similar analogy between cricket and baseball....cricket akin to chess...baseball akin to draughts. Sorry my North American friends. 😄

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

An agenda seeking real progress would strive to give everyone the same rights and opportunities, and reduce the ability for the rich to exploit the poor, regardless of the colour of their skin and regardless of their gender.

I'll drink to that!!!!

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Exactly.

So why do the Philosophers get it so much more in the neck that the Physicists ?

Do they? Science in general also seem to cop plenty, but at least imo, don't take it to heart as much as philsophers. I mean Krauss literally had then gnawing and biting at his heels non stop after his criticism. Like I said earlier, philosophy is the foundation of science, and indispensable in many ways. But gee, sometimes the absurdities are well laughable...imo anyway, and while certainly a defining aspect as to a word or sentence is paramount to reach an opinion, and/or conclusion, sometimes those definings are as Feynman put it, absurd. I believe I can speak from some experience, as some of those absurdities have been put to me on more then one occasion over a few threads by one or two, imo, poor philsophers.

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Is that really true?  Has a research team attached pulse oximeters to players, or done some other measure of oxygenation?  I have been a longtime hiker, on challenging grades, and my impression is that fit women have, if anything, more stamina than men, complain less, need less hydration, and "activate...their hips" quite efficiently (sometimes distractingly).  

The same situation applies with the rugby codes of footy, (with reduced playing times for women) so I would suggest that it probably is true and follows medical advice which our NRL and WNRL stringently adhere to particularly with our system of HIA's (head injury assessments) each team must have an independent doctor watching the game, and calling players off in the event of a head knock, first assessed by a qualified trainer on field, then either agreed with or disagreed with by the side line doctor watching it on video.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. Note that I said "style of play" and not "men are better footballers than women". As a parallel, consider,say, pre-sixties football style was much more physical and aggressive, with balls that weighed a ton wet. Compared to them, modern footballers are frail, athletic gazelles... they wouldn't last five minutes playing  then.  

While today's rugby league and union players are fitter and faster due to improved training methods, the pre sixties and sixties style was most certainly more aggressive and physical. Not too sure about the fragile gazelles comparison, we still certainly have some tough bastards playing the game today.

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I watch football because they are men, I'm not interested in the female style of play. 

I watch and enjoy both. I actually love two or more women playing rugby and clashing together with all the zest and force one can expect, with nothing held back.