Strange
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Strange
-
-
19 hours ago, StringJunky said:
If you start with 22000 genes, and in each generation backwards, it halves until you are left with one gene shared, your identifiable genetic relationship with that line ends. in about 14-15 generations. This is how I understood it but could be wrong. Assuming a gene is some indivisible unit of heredity.
Interesting way of looking at
10 minutes ago, Royston said:Today I learned, after a seagull knocked some off my roof, that the humble Lichen is a composite organism. It is a symbiotic relationship between cyanobacteria and fungi. Nearly 6% of the Earth is covered in Lichen, which is testament to, if you get along, you'll be successful.
Some are symbiotes of three organisms: Cyanobacteria, fungus and yeast
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6298/488
Today I learned that “lichen” is also the name of several (rather unpleasant) skin diseases
-
37 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:
How would you define someone who claims to be a "Philosopher?
Is it someone who has big ideas, and would really like to be a Physicist.
But can't do the maths.
I would say someone capable of critical thinking, who asks probing questions, who thinks about the meaning of the words used, etc.
They don't have to have any big ideas, just able to analyse ideas.
-
1 hour ago, cladking said:
I'm a big fan of science as well. It is the chief means by which we can arrive at true knowledge; visceral knowledge.
If by "visceral" you mean "gut feelings" etc. then the whole point of science is to avoid that sort of unreliable "knowledge".
1 hour ago, cladking said:Only individuals think or come up with new ideas.
Nonsense. (And also, not what you said. But then communication your ideas clearly was never your forte.)
Most new ideas are created by groups.
1 hour ago, cladking said:Of course we do! If our models were identical we'd come to the same conclusions and make the same predictions.
So you think that if you use Newton's laws of motion to calculate the path of a projectile, you will come up with a different answer then someone else?
1 hour ago, cladking said:There are even sexual differences such as women tending to navigate by landmarks and men routes.
That is irrelevant because we are talking about scientific models. You know, math and stuff.
(Somehow I am not surprised that you have no idea what a scientific model is. There seems to be no field in which you cannot demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge.)
1 hour ago, cladking said:I'm surprised you'd dispute the idea that scientists believe in laws of nature.
That is not what I said. You seem to be having problems reading now.
1 hour ago, cladking said:Logic is logic. It behaves no laws per se but rather just is. Math is the same thing but is quantized rather than manifested logic.
Oh, please. You are just embarrassing yourself.
"In logic, the law of excluded middle is ..."
-
1 hour ago, cladking said:
I am merely saying that science looks at everything from the same perspective which is reductionistic and dependent on definitions and axioms.
Not entirely true. But so what?
1 hour ago, cladking said:Since all ideas and all progress are individual
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. When science produces a result it is equally valid whatever your personal ideas are. We all benefit from scientific progress (unless you reject it).
1 hour ago, cladking said:Just because 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 does not make our models correct or like one another.
Nice straw man. No one said that.
But the fact that equality can be proved, means that we can have a certain level of confidence in the consistency of models. It is then a matter of comparing that model (the map) to observations (the terrain) and refining it as necessary.
1 hour ago, cladking said:Each of us has a unique model and each of us sees the interrelatedness of scientific and mathematical knowledge but this can't make any of us correct about anything either.
When it comes to science, for example gravity or evolution, we do not each have a unique model.
If you are talking about views outside of science, then, well... duh and thank you, Captain Obvious.
1 hour ago, cladking said:Of course the problem is we have no roots in anything except beliefs, language, and ephemeral definitions and meaning of language. "Philosophy" becomes irrelevant when our understanding is complete.
One of the roles of philosophy is to explore what the roots of belief and knowledge are. (As someone who knew anything at all about philosophy would know.) So hardly irrelevant. (And I think most people with some understanding of philosophy or science would say that knowledge can never be complete.)
1 hour ago, cladking said:I am saying that philosophy could contain a broader perspective if it had a vocabulary with fixed definitions
Many people have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to put philosophy on a formal basis starting from fixed definitions. Some very interesting results have come from such work.
1 hour ago, cladking said:but mostly I am saying that any philosophy that marginalizes individuals is evil.
Christ. Give us some warning when you are about to throw in a non-sequitur like that. I think the sudden change of direction has given me whiplash.
On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:Just as for most people who believe all of reality behaves laws of nature, is mathematical, and reducible to/by induction, I believe none of this.
Please provide some evidence that "most people" believe this.
On 8/13/2020 at 2:58 PM, cladking said:I believe that the laws are illusory and a laboratory manifestation of the logic which underlies existence itself.
So you don't believe in "laws" but you do believe in "logic" underlying reality. Would that be the "laws of logic", by any chance.
-
-
1 minute ago, joigus said:
Some days ago I learnt from @Strange that most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've learnt many other things from him. But this one got me thinking (and still is) about the likely regular Jacks and Susans, and Joes and Marys, who were especially successful in the reproductive sense, but not particularly notorious, and got their genes pushed forward in human history.
Indeed. There is nothing special about Charlemagne in this respect. It is equally true for a downtrodden peasant in rural Transylvania.
When you are little and you think about your ancestors, you soon run into the ancestor paradox: you have two parents and 4 grandparents and 8 greatgrandparents and ... Which leads to questions like: How come the population in the past wasn't bigger than today?
QuoteAbout 20 generations (about 400 years), ago we each have about a million ancestors - and after that the numbers start to get even sillier. Forty generations ago (800 years) gives us one trillion ancestors, and fifty gives one quadrillion. This is not only many, many more people than live on the planet today - it is many more than have ever lived.
"Strangers are just relatives you haven't met yet"
-
13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
I'm not sure anyone here believes maths is reality, it's just a convenient language to describe "a" reality...
There are one or two people who think reality "is" math. But they are very much in the minority. Cladking just likes to pretend everyone else is wrong because it make him feel smart.
-
-
2 minutes ago, cladking said:
It is the crux of my every argument.
There are no two cats alike so therefore it follows not more than a single "cat" can exist. "Cats" can't exist because there can be no hard and fast definition to put all things into the categories of "cats" and "not cats".
For instance at what exact point does a pregnant cat become "two cats"?
Wow. It's like a 14 year old has just discovered philosophy. What next? Trees falling in empty forests? The universe created last Thursday? One hand clapping?
Maybe in a few years you can graduate to The Ship of Theseus / Trigger's Broom.
-
-
-
-
-
Today I learned that Nazi was originally a diminutive of the name Ignatz, which was used to describe someone who was a bit stupid do clumsy. So it became an obvious nickname for the National Socialists: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13551/is-nazi-a-diminutive-of-ignatius
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:
Mucking about infers humour, as in "One for the crack",
"craic" not crack.
1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:I have just had someone tell me that Mary is not the correct name because the real name "Maryam" couldn't be used in the English language so the translator improvised.
Really? Why told you that? No one on this forum.
1 hour ago, Polykephalous said:Oh and in Greek her name is "Agia Maria".
Yes, the English name "Mary" came from the Greek. (See my earlier post, where I said exactly this.)
-
21 minutes ago, cladking said:
Of course if observation does not conform to theory the cause must be reconciled but when observation does conform to theory it does not mean that theory is correct.
Obviously. This is why science never "proves" theories. Contradictory observations can disprove a theory.
You say this trivially true (and well understood) things as if you were providing some deep insight. Instead all you do is demonstrate how little you understand of either science or philosophy (or any other subject, as far as I can tell).
22 minutes ago, cladking said:People and animals have been employing and building counterweights for countless millions of years yet we still don't understand the cause of the gravity that allows them to work.
Another bizarre non-sequitur. Dodging the question again.
And we do understand gravity. We understand it so well we have two theories!
-
There is a great series of lectures by Andrew Ng at Stanford University: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLssT5z_DsK-h9vYZkQkYNWcItqhlRJLN
He starts from pretty much nothing and quickly builds up to a pretty good level of detail of most aspects of ML.
Also available on Coursera, if you want a more structured approach with tests of your understanding, etc: https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning/home/welcome
-
3 hours ago, cladking said:
Your definition makes a bee's waggle dance "astronomy".
Only I if the bees were in space (in which case it would be astronomy).
3 hours ago, cladking said:But it is necessary still to tie theory to reality through experiment.
And, obviously, astronomy does that all the time. Hence it is a science.
3 hours ago, cladking said:I am not claiming ANYTHING not tied to experiment is nonsense but that real science actually works and is tied to experiment.
So, astronomy is a science then. Good. Glad we have settled that.
-
-
6 hours ago, Polykephalous said:
So the translator had no respect for facts or reverence for Maryam and made the decision to change her name to something more comfortable and acceptable to the English.
It is called "translation" for a reason.
6 hours ago, Polykephalous said:Wow, does this mean that other things in the bible have been translated incorrectly for the comfort of the English?
Lots of things have been mistranslated. Either because it wasn't known what the original word means, or because it describes something unfamiliar to a European audience.
6 hours ago, Polykephalous said:How come they didn't also translate Jesus to something like John or Colin?
Jesus is the English translation of Yeshua (via Greek).
(I assume you are just mucking about, here, "or the craic")
-
40 minutes ago, cladking said:
This simply isn't true for all branches of study and it's not as true for astronomy.
It is absolutely true for astronomy. And you have said nothing to suggest otherwise.
41 minutes ago, cladking said:Most of astronomy has far more to do with observation and the explanation of observation derived from experiments on earth rather than doing experiments with stars.
That is true of physics generally.
"rather than doing experiments with stars"
Oh good grief. This isn't the idiotic "if you can't do the experiment in a lab it isn't science" is it? (often followed by "therefore the big bang / origin of species / whatever is not science")
43 minutes ago, cladking said:If you lose sight of axioms it's easy to lose sight of the meaning of experiment.
Another random non sequitur.
43 minutes ago, cladking said:It's impossible to know the limitations of your knowledge.
Well, there is (of course) a whole branch of philosophy devoted to what knowledge is, what it means to know something, what it is possible to know, etc. so I think your statement is a little too reductionist.
45 minutes ago, cladking said:I believe astrology is a confusion of a science.
It is not science at all. (But I am not surprised you don't know that.)
45 minutes ago, cladking said:whether you believe that 2 + 2 = 4
That is not a matter of belief.
-
1 minute ago, cladking said:
In every way...
It is what it is and it is the vector sum total of the understanding of every scientist and mathematician who ever added to it. It is the aggregate of the understanding of every living person.
It is quantified logic applied to the movement of lights in the sky AND everything that has been learned from it.
The same (rather grandiose) statement can be made about botany, physics or medicine.
Why do you think this means it is not science? It uses objective evidence, data, mathematical models, testable predictions, etc. It is a perfect example of a science. (And it is one of those rare examples of a science where non-specialists can still make significant contributions.)
You either have a very odd idea of what science is or a very odd idea of what astronomy is.
1 minute ago, cladking said:"Axioms" are not "true". There are assumed to be true
OK. Not true but true. Got it.
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:I think you have mistaken astrology with astronomy, not the first time you've gotten confused in this thread.
That is entirely possible. Or maybe Cladking will tell us that astrology is a science 😯
Today I Learned
in The Lounge
Today I learned about Vavilovian mimicry.
Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov was a biologist who studied the evolution of domesticated plants, in particular rye. He proposed that rye was "accidentally" domesticated. Originally it was a weed in fields of wheat and so early farmer would pick it out to ensure their wheat could grow. But they were more efficient at picking out the immature rye plants that looked most different from wheat. So they inadvertently selected for rye plants that looked more wheat-like. Eventually rye became so similar to wheat that it was a useful grain in its own right. This is generally accepted today, even though Vavilov is largely forgotten.
Vavilov was killed by Stalin, who only liked science that fitted his political beliefs (e.g. Lysenkoism).