unifying theory of life? - Page 3

bojan · #41 05-04-2011, 06:25 PM

Yep, garbage.
Please, read what I wrote more carefully. You have missed the point I made (and I dare to say, deliberately).
And, I don't need Lama to tell me what to do and how to do it.
In the course of my scientific education over the years I DID go through that (and many, many more) proofs - this is how math is supposed to be learned.
So, I don't have the BELIEF - I have KNOWLEDGE. And, as Craig said, if I forgot something, I can ALWAYS go through the process again.
Brian, I did advise you before, and I do it now, again: please study in more details the subject before you come up with statements like this...
This is science forum, where people can learn a lot.. if they really want to.

Brian W (Brian) · #42 05-04-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Garbage ! … sorry Brian, but pure garbage !

See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic … it all underpins why we don't need to invoke 'belief'.

Check it all out .. they're all on Wiki !!

You are missing the point here Craig, and it is not garbage it is simply the truth.

Whitehead showed to the world that 1+1= 2. Those who take the time to check his work repeat his procedure come out with the same result and wamb bamb thank you mam you got science... no invocation of the much hated 'belief' needed.

However people such as myself who do not have the skills or people with the skills who choose not to use them, must accept his work or not, based on someone else's understanding of the validity of his work.

No wamb no bamb no thank you mam and no repetition of the procedures and no verifiable results and no science. This takes our understanding of his work out of the realm of science and into the realm of trust in some one else's understanding of his work.

You can call that trust anything you want but it is not knowledge.

Brian

PS, I am often wrong but I do not do garbage.
B

bojan · #43 05-04-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian W

However people such as myself who do not have the skills or people with the skills who choose not to use them, must accept his work or not, based on someone else's understanding of the validity of his work.

You are quite right here, Brian: and this is precisely the reason why people like you are not scientists.

However, you should not extrapolate your way of thinking to others, because then, this becomes garbage.

Brian W (Brian) · #44 05-04-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bojan

Yep, garbage.
Please, read what I wrote more carefully. You have missed the point I made (and I dare to say, deliberately).
And, I don't need Lama to tell me what to do and how to do it.
In the course of my scientific education over the years I DID go through that (and many, many more) proofs - this is how math is supposed to be learned.
So, I don't have the BELIEF - I have KNOWLEDGE. And, as Craig said, if I forgot something, I can ALWAYS go through the process again.
Brian, I did advise you before, and I do it now, again: please study in more details the subject before you come up with statements like this...
This is science forum, where people can learn a lot.. if they really want to.

I did re-read your posts and nowhere do state that you have worked through Whitehead's work. You did tell me what your course used to be called and what it is called now. I made the guess that you were schooled in Germany. Strange as this may sound in my 25 or so years of attending various universities I never once took a course describing what a math student in Germany studied.

That I did not grasp what you thought and think is obvious is undeniable. But rather than accuse me of dishonesty or you of intentionally obscuring what you meant why don't we just chalk it up to an honest misunderstanding.

Of course you do not need the advice of HHDL in your life. All he has ever done is win a prize or two for peace and host multiple science conferences with some of the leading scientists on the planet.

I was simply pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that groups other than scientists employ the scientific procedure of think... experiment... validate or not validate by repetition.

Brian

CraigS · #45 05-04-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian W

I was simply pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that groups other than scientists employ the scientific procedure of think... experiment... validate or not validate by repetition.

Brian

And why do you think they do that, Brian ?

Answer .. because that's how its done !!
Nothing to do with belief !

Did you read any of the links I have posted in this thread ?

If you had, you would appreciate a topic called 'rational thought' and 'logic'.

In conclusion, I concur with Bert's, (perhaps), premature assessment of the technique you seem to favour … 'Superstition'.

Sorry, I'm prepared to listen to rational human beings, but when what they say has nothing more than superstition in support of it .. we'll there's no point in continuing because there's nothing rational left to say.

Cheers

Brian W (Brian) · #46 05-04-2011, 08:06 PM

ok. have a good one.
Brian

bojan · #47 05-04-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian W

. I made the guess that you were schooled in Germany. Strange as this may sound in my 25 or so years of attending various universities I never once took a course describing what a math student in Germany studied.

Well, your guess was reasonable enough (Gymnasia) but not correct

Many other European countries had that (German) model of high school education in those days (late '60-ies)..

Brian W (Brian) · #48 05-04-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bojan

Well, your guess was reasonable enough (Gymnasia) but not correct

Many other European countries had that (German) model of high school education in those days (late '60-ies)..

Wrong again, well as I said to Craig, have a good one.
Brian

avandonk · #49 07-04-2011, 03:58 PM

Brian W I do not normally say straight out what I think but work up to it under provocation by ignorant hordes. What is your problem?

Are you trying to understand the axioms of the real number theory or some idiotic faith based drivel that has no place in any scientific discussion.

Science and Religion are totally exclusive sets. To use one to argue any basis in another is not only pointless but meaningless.

You can go away and follow your delusions as to what some mythical spirit world has. This is a science forum not a forum where the tallest tale is true.

You are delusional at best or a troll at worst.

I am sick and tired of fools who think that mythical being worship is the answer to our problems let alone a model for reality.

I will make a deal with you, stop trolling science forums and I will stay away from the forums that deal with your mythical mates. OK!

Bert

Brian W (Brian) · #50 07-04-2011, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=avandonk;707124]Brian W I do not normally say straight out what I think but work up to it under provocation by ignorant hordes. What is your problem? snip snip

-You are delusional at best or a troll at worst.

-I am sick and tired of fools who think that mythical being worship is the answer to our problems let alone a model for reality.

-I will make a deal with you, stop trolling science forums and I will stay away from the forums that deal with your mythical mates. OK!

As I said to Bojan and Craig, have a good one Bert.

Just for the record, I do not worship mythical or indeed real beings, I am not delusional nor am I a troll.

I simply tried to get some help, which I did, thanks to Craig and Bojan, in understandings things from a different perspective.

Sorry to have pushed so many of your buttons.

Brian

joe_smith · #51 08-04-2011, 02:07 AM

There is an article in this months, April 2011 Scientific American called "The inflation debate - Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? by Paul J. Steinhardt

one part had me thinking about the point Brian W is trying make (i think) in the article it states this.

Quote:

Cosmic inflations so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact.The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.

But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.

Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions.

Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it.

Quote:

Surprisingly few seem to follow the case against inflation except for a small group of us who have been quietly striving to address the challenges. Most astrophysicists have gone about their business testing the predictions of textbook inflationary theory without worrying about these deeper issues, hoping they would eventually be resolved. Unfortunately, the problems have resisted our best efforts to date.

Quotes from here

Quote:

So, I don't have the BELIEF - I have KNOWLEDGE

See Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic … it all underpins why we don't need to invoke 'belief'

Now to the point.....
Do the scientists that "Most astrophysicists have gone about their business testing the predictions of textbook inflationary theory without worrying about these deeper issues" do they have faith and belief that they are right or are they using knowledge and facts from science itself to say its right, facts that are not yet true. To me they are putting their "faith" that the current world view is true, because they believe it to be true. Because scientists that say its wrong are also using the same "Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic …" to say the others are wrong and have faith and believe they are right .
Can you tell me how one or both sides don't have faith in the belief that they are right?? They are all looking at the same universe, looking at the same data, and looking for the real truth in the matter. Surely (I know, "Don't call me Shirley" lol) they must be using some faith and belief deep down?? sure they use Deductive Reasoning, Inductive Reasoning, Theorem , Axiomatic Systems, Formal and Informal Proof, Proof theory, Mathematical Logic but they also use their emotions and consciousness as well,

If you are interested in the theory put forth by Paul J. Steinhardt the one who did the article in scientific American check out his youtube vid where he talks about his book about his theory called "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang"

Quote:

Paul J. Steinhardt
is director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received the P.A.M. Dirac Medal from the International Center for Theoretical Physics in 2002 for his contributions to inflationary theory. Steinhardt is also known for postulating a new state of matter known as quasicrystals.

bojan · #52 08-04-2011, 06:26 AM

Joe,
Everything you wrote above may look plausible on the first glance..... Yes, not many theoreticians are involved in this because the subject is extremely complicated and to deal with it requires mathematical tools that many people simply do not have..
BUT the mere fact that people are re-checking inflation theory is a proof that we are not dealing with faith here - instead what you see is the scientific process in action.
Faith would have been if inflation is accepted by all.. this is clearly not the case, even the theory creators are still working on it's details and re-checking the thought process that gave rise to the theory.

I am firmly standing by my earlier words "we have knowledge, not faith".
Not ALL knowledge yet of course, but we are trying to get there..
(by the term "we" I don't mean or include myself personally - this would have been stupid - I meant "we" as a humans, as a society.. and that knowledge is available to all of us.
Of course, necessary training is required to make any use of it...

CraigS · #53 08-04-2011, 07:17 AM

Joe;

..What Bojan said.

Of course they'll use the logic of mathematics to keep them honest ! Why wouldn't they ?

To those working on these problems, Inflation is itself, a theory. The enquiry into it, is the scientific process in action ! You yourself, just used this process to make your point ! You used it by producing evidence from a respected authority. This is a rational approach, and it seems that others are not even conscious of where this approach first came from, and why they make use of it in their everyday lives!

The matters Brian was raising come from superstition. I suspect he was using an extreme example to make his point, as well.

The fringe areas of any system are subject to possible causes lying outside that system. This in itself, is a mathematically proven theorem. The fringes also produce areas of 'greyness'. The topic being discussed was mathematics ! Would you seriously attempt to query the validity of a mathematically proven theorem ?

The 'fringes' are where most wish to dwell. But examples from the fringe should be taken as not being true, unless you need to make use of hypotheses and maybe even informed conjecture formed at these fringes, to explore the sanity of moving forward with these assumptions. The driving force is the need to progress ! And this progress, may end up disproving the assumptions !

We are privileged thesedays to have immediate access to the workings of great, (and not-so-great), scientific mindsets. We follow their deliberations, as they use vast accumulated knowledge and wisdom, in pondering the unponderable. Why use that against them ? What gave rise to that computer you're sitting in front of ? (Answer: pondering scientists !).

Picking on one fringe area as an example to undermine a discipline developed over hundreds of years by hundreds of thousands of brilliant, if not millions of minds, smacks of pure ego. It seems you wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater !

Get over it, and get on with it. If you believe in the fringes, you are simply being manipulated by the media .. and then you are using it to demonstrate for us how huge your own ego is. Frankly I'm not interested in exploring that. That is for you to 'enjoy' .. just make sure you use a scientific approach in that exploration though. If you don't, you'll end up permanently deluded ! At the moment, I'll assume its only temporary, as in your particular case, I sense we are dwelling on the fringes … yet again

Cheers

CraigS · #54 08-04-2011, 07:47 AM

Its hilarious …

A media 'personality appears. His name is Brian Cox. He presents science. I review his presentation from a sceptical scientific perspective. I detect flaws in his logic, and in some of the items he presents as fact.

I am severly criticised for making fun of someone I don't 'believe' in. After all, it is 'seen' by some here, that he is a scientist and I'm not. "Craig, you are simply jealous of him, you are driven by 'ego' ".

Absolutely zero comments about the flaws in his arguments and facts which I raise, are forthcoming.

How may IIS personalities including Joe, (but certainly not limited to Joe), are entirely manipulated by the media and its icons/deities ?

How many 'astronomers' are using 'faith' as their only guide ?

How few are using science 'filters' (knowledge, process and rational thinking), as their guide ?

Why do they not turn up in the Science Forum ?

Is it out of an irrational fear ?

And rather than putting these aside, and yielding to their own obvious, innate hunger for knowledge, they would rather blatently accuse 'students of rationality', of arrogance, and then go on to flaunt their self-imposed wounds, to gain the sympathetic popular vote ! (Reality by consensus).

Children confront these fears on a daily basis ! They are the true masters of courage !
It seems all we learn to do with age, is learn how to 'look good' and barely survive ! Is this living ?

'Try it on !' …. That is my 'world view', Brian …
'See if it fits !' is the corollary …. but whatever you do …
…. 'don't believe it !'

Craig

Octane (Humayun) · #55 08-04-2011, 08:51 AM

Craig,

You are quickly alienating yourself with your aggressive language.

People with opinions other than your own will simply stop responding or replying to you.

Maybe that's the scientist and sceptic in you, but, if one person finds it aggressive, I am sure others do, too. Perhaps that's the least of your concerns, but, it might go against the grain of this community, in general, despite this section being your playground.

I enjoy reading your posts but you're about to lose me as audience due to the aggression that's been on display in this thread. Perhaps you need to get over it, too? We are /all/ human beings. We /all/ have opinions. We /all/ have faults. We /all/ deserve respect. The way that Brian has been treated by yourself, Bert and bojan, for some opinions he has openly shared on an Internet forum, one would think he ate babies. If Joe keeps responding, he's going to be deemed a babyeater, too. Even Alex/Jarvamundo wasn't treated this way, despite his continuous protestations and lack of engaging in dialogue.

Can we continue with the quest for knowledge without the aggression and show a little compassion, or, at the very least, some tolerance?

If I'm way off base, then, I extend my apologies. I, for one, know that life is too short (despite it being the longest thing we endure) to be engaged in quibbles.

H

sally1jack (Phil) · #56 08-04-2011, 09:24 AM

I agree totally with "H" some of the narrow mindedness dished out to people giving their opinion is boardering on aggorance.
I would have entered some of these debates except for this attitude .
Science is a wonderful thing & our world has improved greatly from it , but science is part of human life & not the other way round. Science can only explain a small number of question that humans pose. Other aspects of human life are just as important . some people that i have read hear need to look beyond their narrow view.
How about a bit more understanding, no wonder our world is riddled with war & hatred( science can't fix that!)
phil

multiweb (Marc) · #57 08-04-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sally1jack

I agree totally with "H" some of the narrow mindedness dished out to people giving their opinion is boardering on aggorance.

Where you see arrogance I see exasperation. Craig has a practical mind. He's deconstructed the arguments times and times again but it seems this thread is still going in circles.

C'mon guys. Group hug.

sjastro · #58 08-04-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

Where you see arrogance I see exasperation. Craig has a practical mind. He's deconstructed the arguments times and times again but it seems this thread is still going in circles.

C'mon guys. Group hug.

Agreed.

Steven

bojan · #59 08-04-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sally1jack

Science can only explain a small number of question that humans pose. Other aspects of human life are just as important . some people that i have read hear need to look beyond their narrow view.

Very true....
And that's why those other aspects of human life have other places and forums to discuss them (general chat perhaps?)
But not here, this is a science forum. So this discussion is actually quite OT (off topic).

As for our narrow views.. well, let me say again - this is science forum.

sally1jack (Phil) · #60 08-04-2011, 10:56 AM

[QUOTE=bojan;707368]
But not here, this is a science forum. So this discussion is actually quite OT (off topic).

Your right Bojan this is a sciece forum.
As someone who is interested to learn more about science i find the way some people are sometimes treated by regular contributors makes it less likley for new or less knowledgeable ( about science) people to engage in debate on scientific topics .
phil