BS: Logic and the laws of science

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 04:59 PM

I suppose the version Of English I use is a 120 year old American.
When I was seven, the last Civil War veteran died. The widow of George Eastman was a client of mine. Another client attended the abusive national denominational schools in Ireland. Being a non conformist meant something different back then.

One of the best innate features of this forum are the old sayings and quotations that pop up frequently.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Jul 16 - 02:09 AM

I'm sure there are plenty of others, but one non-academic book I enjoyed on the subject is "The Story of English" by McCrum, Cran and MacNeil. As well as covering the central core, it deals how the language is changing as a result of being used in so many different countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 07:41 PM

Well, Donuel, I love the language though I've never studied it in any formal way. The way we sometimes treat our language, which, let's face it, has been hard-won, frequently reminds me of entropy, in that dumbing down (which is what entropy is, kind of) strips away nuance. I've just spent a week in my beloved Italy. The language is beautifully executed, though, in large part, nuance in Italian, a far more regular language than English, is achieved by hand gesture and incredibly persuasive sing-song phrase endings. I love that and I love how different it is from English, in which nuance is achieved largely by the manipulation of words, though not exclusively by any means (I'm a northerner, tha knows...)

But I'm no pedant, and I love to wantonly split infinitives, and, hopefully, there's nothing wrong with "hopefully." Rules are meant to be broken and breaking rules is how English moves on. Just don't regale me with horrors such as "prior to" or "albeit" and I'll never shout at you!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 07:17 PM

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pleasure-finding-things-out/

I concur

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 01:13 PM

Steve your discussion of word usage has given me new insights into language. With two feet in language and only a finger tip in math, I find it helpful to my self expression.

A new language invented by a holocaust survivor that bypassed the propagandistic Orwellian warping of words was use with much success by deaf and mute children. Expandable pictograms breathed life into an innately more truthful language. I forget his name but he was a mandolin playing linguist. It ended in tears after he sued the schools using his language.

Squabbles, as irrational as quantum mechanics.

Thanks for the introduction to evolving word usage

And that goes for Lighter too.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 16 - 11:05 AM

DMcG

I am a breakfast person and would love to hear one of your typical family discussions.

I am one of those who have rejected sport as an opiate of the masses all my life. I am not a total stick in the mud with a stick up my bum, I can enjoy sports in a snippet. I am proud of not knowing sports except from a how and why physics perspective.

Instead, my neurons have concentrated on esoteric phenomenon to the point that few if any would believe what I have experienced and found.
If you had the chance to tell someone the most important thing in the world and you know they would never believe you, would you try?

I did.

I painted a detailed 16 square painting of downtown NYC on 9-11, planes and both towers etc. I went to the FBI and discussed a prevention plan and all this was 7+ years prior to 9-11.

Even my hours spent with 4 physicists who worked on the star wars X ray laser project seems to have had a time bending butterfly effect on our reality. I will stop there.

Later in life I put on a personae like putting on clothes that allowed me to be judged and believed more conventionally while pursuing answers to the esoteric questions I still had. The clothes didn't fit.

You see, I still seek a logical answer beyond the ilk of conventional science to explore the precognitive qualities of time perception in my life as well as other objects I have seen that do not interact with normal matter.

Some call the phenomena I speak of as becoming a vessel to catch the ideas that float all around living beings.

In small ways I have left many empirical clues here like my posts regarding the invention of the high tech doorbell 2 years ago. Now in the US commercials for this device run everyday. You might say it is a chicken and egg notion or good ideas are stolen. Or consider...
The concept of simultaneous discovery or invention which is known to most scientists.

The explanation I am currently thinking about is that just as space spreads out so does time. More than that, space has two opposing forces, one energetic with a time signature and another Omni dimensional energetic space without a gravity or time signature.

All we see comes from the distant past or up close near instantaneous past. But go to a ultra high gravity time stopping region and come back, you are looking at a present in the future. This is just relativity using one aspect of space.

My idea is far reaching as well as still baking, but it explains why time scales differently like gravity on plank scales and how peculiarities in quantum theory can be seen more rationally.

In its entirety this idea simply adds a new perspective. Instead of a particle being at two places at the same time, it can be seen as one particle being at two times in opposing space.

It seems to me that our 3D brains can perceive 4 dimensional space as easily as a two D hologram can show 3 D effects. This might help you visualize the opposing expansionist space dimension compared to a Omni dimensional anti space.

Anyway if one believes in the vessel thing, this idea is not mine but is already in the wind.

Another clue is the existence of the pilot wave, known by Tesla, me and I hope you too. It steers the future direction of a particle in energetic space.

The old phrase extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof has its ancillary , extraordinary experiences demand extraordinary explanations.

Here is to better ideas. I'm open to them.

Totally logical or not, you know, like Feynman's craziest ideas

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jul 16 - 07:40 AM


"It has taken me quite a few years to realize the fact that most of the thoughts in my head are not necessary."

Much of life is unnecessary. I doubt if many people would reject watching all sport on the grounds it is unnecessary. Very little theatre or art or film serves a necessary purpose. Your typical Hollywood blockbuster is impressively unnecessary.

None of which says we shouldn't do/make them.

Some people find discussions of this kind interesting and informative; I certainly find them more entertaining than sport myself. If you dislike this conversation I doubt if you would have enjoyed the discussion I had (via messenger) over breakfast on Saturday morning on whether the ancient Greeks had a concept of intelligence similar to ours, or was their concept of disposition of mental abilities significantly different? That is a fairly typical breakfast topic in my household; I understand not everyone starts their day like that, but if you don't it seems unreasonable to object to those who like to do so.

I let your earlier comment pass, Ed T, about this discussion being for a handful of people talking amongst themselves on an obscure music website. All I can say is what's wrong with that? In other circumstances Steve and Lighter and Donuel and others might have this conversation sitting round a pub table; why shouldn't we have it here rather than there? It is, after all, the only place we are likely to meet. (Arguably it is better here as at least we don't annoy the people on an adjacent table!)

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 06:48 PM

Keith that sounds reasonable.

Regarding holy water I recall a Japanese 'scientist' who showed the ice crystals from water that was from exotic rivers and mountain monasteries having more beautiful structure than water from polluted streams. While the findings were dubious his photos were nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 06:48 PM

"It has taken me quite a few years to realize the fact that most of the thoughts in my head are not necessary." 
Bert McCoy

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 10:25 AM

Sirius B and measure the additional distance that has accrued over the last 10,000 years due to space expansion

The extra distance is negligible. Swirling within the galaxy is far more significant and will often mean a reducing distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jul 16 - 02:36 PM

A bit busy and having PC problems but I thought I'd just let you know I'm still here by taking issue with Donuel's description of the preparation of Holy Water. It actually comes from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jul 16 - 04:50 PM

Lighter, it seems you have taken some words I use and examined them in detail. I have learned some things about word usage I did not know so I thank the contributors here.

You may however be on a fools gold mission since my word selection is not groomed with a fine tooth comb nor do I measure them with a mental micrometer. I am a severely dyslexic writer, clocked and measured, and rely on associative processes not found in the angular gyrus like most people. I do not know if language for me passes through the corpus callosum or has manifested in the right hemisphere instead of the left la Brocia region. What I do know is that dissecting my fast and dirty word selection in these impromptu posts is missing the point more than I can say.

So let me do what I do most often which is pose questions.

If we take the distance to the star Sirius B and measure the additional distance that has accrued over the last 10,000 years due to space expansion and plug in speed values of a quarter the speed of light, or even half light speed,   we could determine how much more time it would take to travel there.

A science fiction writer could then assign the life span limits to an alien species by assuming their conspicuous absence may have recently been exceeded by space expansion.

There are at least 4 assumptions that with care could be whittled down but there is the reality that there will be a day when distance grows so large that only immortal beings could make the stellar trip. (organic robots?) or (hot rod gods)

This is how a science fiction writer could wrap some morsels of fiction in the grape leaf of reality and sell the plot device as the foundation for a novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 16 - 09:55 AM

> valid and current, but not equally so.

That would be better phrased as "valid and often used."

"Not current" implies "on the way out," but broader/narrower sense relationships, like other kinds, can last for a very long time.

U.S. (and possibly U.K.?) example:

"Guy" mostly means male person. But it also applies to a group of made up of either or both sexes: "you guys" (often used by young women to young women, as well as by anybody to a mixed group).

All these usages are equally valid and current, despite the theoretical inconsistencies - which have been made much of by academic feminists.

As for "carnal," its unique known record, in the ballad, suggests that it was a rare, regional term that is now obsolete, except as it appears in the song.

Had they found another example, the Oxford editors would have included it. Nor is there another in the multi-volume "English Dialect Dictionary." Or anywhere, so far as I can tell.

Not even Oxford is certain that it meant "crow," but it's a reasonable guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jul 16 - 07:52 AM

"The bad news is nothing lasts forever,
The good news is nothing lasts forever."
 J. Cole

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 16 - 03:51 AM

Your final four words are the crucial bit of your post!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jul 16 - 02:32 AM

i don't know of any bulletin board that copes well with this, but this discussion about the role and nature of dictionaries is worth exploring, even though it has nothing to do with the thread title. I am not complaining about thread drift, but am just aware that anyone interested in dictionaries is unlikely to realise it is being discussed.

I see dictionaries are records of word usage, far more than definitions. If I was at home I'd look it up in something more extensive: the online dictionaries tend to be much more about current usage, in my limited experience. Not that that always works: if you are wondering what a Carnel is in the Child Ballad "The Carnel and the Crane" I can tell you that the 20 volume Oxford English Dictionary gives precisely one reference: the Child Ballad.   Well, that's helpful.

I don't know, but assume France still has an authorative approach to dictionaries when a learned committee pronounces on each word and there is the 'right' meaning of the word, all others being 'wrong'. English dictionaries don't define words like that: they record a common and shifting representation of what the consensus usages of a word are. This is one reason why Lighter's easily overlooked qualification of "often earlier" meanings is important. English words frequently refer to a very wide set and then with usage this narrows down. That is what, to me, the "especially" is about: is denotes this process of moving from a wide definition to a narrower one. Eventually it changes and the narrow definition is all there is, with perhaps the older usage still there but recorded as 'Obsolete'. While we are still in the "especially" stage, both meanings are valid and current, but not equally so.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 06:32 PM

Hmm. "Especially" pops up so suspiciously frequently in dictionaries that one can't help thinking that it's no more than a utilitarian word, lacking nuance, very handy because it saves the compiler the trouble of explaining shades of definitions so fully that the tome would end up being twice as thick. It also exonerates them from criticism from pedants in a way that using "usually," "normally" or "mostly" wouldn't. It also carries the implication that using the word in any sense other than the "especially" sense would be capricious. For example, if I called a chap I saw kneeling to pray in a cathedral I happened to be visiting (and I visit many) a "religionist," you'd think I'd gone mad, though there's no doubt that he's a believer. Yet "especially" allows me to call him just that, given your interpretation of it. Even with dictionaries you have to read between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 04:57 PM

> "Especially" is dictionary-speak used by lexicographers in order to cover their arses

I can assure you from extensive experience that you are quite wrong about this.

"Especially" is used when the narrower nuance appears more frequently in the dictionary's corpus than the broader (and often earlier) one.

It is a descriptive and not a prescriptive label. (It does not say, as one might erroneously believe, that "religionist" "properly" means "a religious zealot," only that it does so by a significant margin. Both nuances are equally "correct.")

M-W maintains a continually updated corpus of millions and millions of examples of actual usage. So does Oxford.

The cited M-W definition of "religionist" should be clear and unambiguous to anyone other than Derrida who knows what "especially" means.

When meticulously edited dictionaries like M-W and OED dictionaries make mistakes, it's almost always in the case of a rare or obsolete word or phrase for which little printed evidence exists. "Religionist" isn't one of those words.

Of course, it's always possible to insist that the dictionary is "wrong" if it contradicts one's own perceptions.

As did Humpty Dumpty.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 02:31 PM

Well I'm just as cynical. Perhaps I was describing how things should be rather than how they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 02:11 PM

"I should have said in the UK and US, we have an adversary legal system. It probably sounds cynical, but at heart the legal system is not, fundamentally, about uncovering the truth but about whether (a) the prosecution's argument is solid and (b) that all due process has been followed"

I could wish that my own evaluation of our legal system didn't tend to be more cynical than that a lot of the time. I fear that the point is often which of the adversaries can score more career points by any manipulative tactics available.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 02:01 PM

I should have said in the UK and US, we have an adversary legal system. It probably sounds cynical, but at heart the legal system is not, fundamentally, about uncovering the truth but about whether (a) the prosecution's argument is solid and (b) that all due process has been followed. Some other countries have legal systems which are much less about argument and much more about discovering what actually occurred. I think these are ones rooted in the Napoleonic legal system system, but having already admitted by limitations on all matters historical, that could be quite wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 01:12 PM

I agree with that, Steve. That's why I said it was an interesting question. We in the UK have of course just had the experience of someone concerned with winning an argument and not being over concerned with the truth. So whether it is a 'valid ploy' is far from simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 08:33 AM

Legal cross-examinations or interrogations frequently push provocation to the limit where the judge or solicitor has to step in. The general idea of them is to get at the truth. Sometimes, getting at the truth may require provoking a person who you think isn't being straight with you. I'd also add that anyone who comes here hoping to win a debate is as mad as a box of frogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 08:28 AM

Coincidence! Steve's post about popular science weasel words like, it is possible, if so then, experts claim...

Science fiction is a valid reservoir of ideas but it is for beginning an inquiry but not for ending up with conclusions.

Rupert Murdoch is busy rewriting history with his dozen news, science and history cable TV channels. On a history channel of his a show called ancient aliens has excellent video of archeological sites but a soundtrack of gibberish about aliens doing everything and adding or leaving out epochs to suit their purpose.

When they said we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon in just 60 years, they conveniently ignore 3 thousand years of scientific discovery and Newton to boot. On the Ancient Alien Show one can hear every minute rhetoric like " ( incredible stupid claim) followed by, IF TRUE THIS EVIDENCE IS PROOF OF ( incredible stupid claim )".



People like Vielikovsky and Joseph Cambell have organized folklore for their own purposes to unravel what ancient writings intended.

A worthy but difficult pursuit full of pithy postulations and pitfalls. Ptooey.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jul 16 - 02:06 AM

I'd also add that being provocative is a perfectly valid ploy in debate

An interesting point.

[Very long post deleted, largely about whether one's objective is to 'win', or 'determine truth'. I have spared you all it; but feel free to ponder if ploys about being provocative are about winning a debate or discovering truth]

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 06:38 PM

I'd also add that dictionaries can and do get things wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 06:27 PM

forced on these poor souls

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 06:23 PM

Well as a matter of fact I also saw that one in Merriam-Webster, and similar in several other online dictionaries. "Especially" is dictionary-speak used by lexicographers in order to cover their arses (you may have noticed that I have a reasonable vocabulary, and I can reveal to you that extensive recourse to dictionaries, rather than native talent, helped me to get there). I have some sympathy with them, as conciseness is forced in those poor souls. The point here is that Donuel's use of "religionists," whilst appropriate, is very likely to get the antennae of believers a-twitching furiously. I knew exactly what he meant, and my antennae stayed put, but then I'm not a believer. The first thing that anyone should do if they feel irritated about what someone has typed is to double-check that they actually understand, in all its nuances, the term that has raised their hackles. Fatally, Joe Offer failed to do that in this instance. I'd also add that being provocative is a perfectly valid ploy in debate. Don't underestimate Donuel. He's better than almost everyone else here at the sort of provocation that can't attract criticism. That's dead clever, is that.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 01:43 PM

I really don't want to get onto specific instancaes when I was talking about how easily a sentence can pick up an assumed 'all' if we are not careful. I am certainly not picking on either Donuel or the phrase he used.

But, Steve, I am sure you agree that just about every word in English has multiple meanings and overtones. 'Religionist' is no different. I did look the definition up on line and the first that came up was from Merriam-Webster, and it says "Definition of religionist. : a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot". Note that 'especially'; in their definition that is not essential; adhering to a religion is enough.

As I say, I really don't want to start debating what specific words mean, and I certainly don't want to get onto That Subject Which Is Forbidden In This Thread, even if it does seem to be prising its way in of late. Let's stick to the point: Universals can be dangerous things in informal language and are easily assumed and misunderstood. It is worth the effort to avoid them where possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 11:19 AM

You are describing weasel words. "Experts have discovered... Scientists have proved that... Most people claim that... It's been said that..." These expressions belong in the gutter press and popular science articles (I could weep sometimes). But "religionists" was specific enough to escape that criticism. Had he said "believers" or "the God Squad" you'd have had him bang to rights, but he didn't. "Religionists" has its own clearly-implied qualification that separates the people in question from the mass of religious believers. You wouldn't really deny that most, or all, religionists, people who are outspoken and zealous about their belief system and who go into attack mode against their critics, "take the weakest assumptions...to discredit the whole Big Bang theory," would you? I've yet to come across one who doesn't behave in that way. (Speaking as I am shortly after my regular visit from or local Jehovah's Witness. He knows better than to take me on, and he's a smashing old boy. He cadges my apples in the autumn). Now excuse me as I have Awake! and Watchtower to read, which I always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Lighter
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 08:32 AM

People are also tend to assume that "all" or at least "most" or "many" are implied when there's no qualifier before a claim:

"Scientists say the earth is only one hundred and twenty-five years old."

"Critics are raving about 'Abbott & Costello Meet Brexit'!"

In fact, such a claim is literally true if only *two* individuals hold the position.

And if the speaker is even more unscrupulous, *one* might do.

But *none* would simply make him or her a liar.

The point, however, is that it's hard not to think of "all" scientists and critics or whomever when we first encounter such statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 06:32 AM

All true but mainly for me, I am just not up to playing devil's advocate for religionists who advocate nonsense.
I am sort of at a solar minimum.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 06:31 AM

The word "religionists" is a perfectly good one in the context of Donuel's post. It doesn't just mean persons of faith. It means persons of faith who are also touched by zealotry regarding their beliefs and who may be militant about defending them. Do look it up. It's often helpful to do that before going on the attack. Picking Donuel up for using it is an unworthy deflecting tactic. Neither Donuel nor I, seeing people streaming into Sunday Mass, would say "Hey, just look at that bunch of religionists." It would be nice if you were equally vigilant about Pete calling perfectly respectable and honest scientists "evolutionists."

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Jul 16 - 02:06 AM

Before we get entirely off the subject of logic, a brief word about the universal qualifiers (to use the jargon) - 'All' and its partner 'There (does not) exist'. These are the basis of solid logic in science, and the cause of much of the error and anger in informal language. If you are trying to hold a civil conversation, they need to be used with extreme care, or better still never used without appropriate qualification.   We could easily be on the point of such an outbreak.

"What religionists do is take the weakest assumptions ..."

"But then the question is, whom do you classify as "religionists"? All people who practice a religious tradition?"

You see? That implicit 'All' in the first sentence immediately rubs people up the wrong way. But it is not about religion, most of the time. Much racial, sexual and other prejudice is about what 'they all' want or think. Bad laws cover 'all' situations of a specific kind, when they only intended to cover 'some'. The first company I worked for required original, potentially profitable ideas to be patented. After the lawyers had been at my first such idea, in their desperation to cover 'all' opportunities to exploit the work they ended up at a point where even I could not recognise my invention.

It is a good self-discipline, then, to watch yourself for those 'alls' and 'does not exists' and make sure you genuinely mean them.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 11:33 PM

Donuel says: What religionists do is take the weakest assumptions regarding time and unknown singularities to discredit the entire big bang theory.

But then the question is, whom do you classify as "religionists"? All people who practice a religious tradition? I'd say your assumptions are too broad, Donuel.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 09:08 PM

In the beginning the universe was opaque. (darkness was upon the face of the earth /oops the earth came 9 billion years later) In the evolution of the expanding energy of the universe from small to large with temperatures cooling enough to allow sub atomic particles group into Hydrogen atoms took a near eternity of star formation and ignition of the first light of stars.(let there be light) That was hard avoiding the use of the word time just now.

There is much said about the first second of the Big bang. This pretend second is divided into plank times to give order to processes that may have had to happen for this resulting universe to exist. As you know in the presence of a huge gravitational field time is virtually stopped. Time took some time for time to begin.

What religionists do is take the weakest assumptions regarding time and unknown singularities to discredit the entire big bang theory.

Their desperation for opposing science is as though we are taking food out of the mouths of their children. It really might be a money issue more than an insistence on their myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 06:41 PM

Vigilant good. Strident bad.

The whole social contrast between re ligion and sci ence is asymmetric.

I know of no scientific community that goes out of their way to assault, condemn or jihad against religious sects.

I can site propaganda or violence against apostates, atheists, heretics and infidels by people of faith.

That is the slippery slope I am vigilant about.

Without a doubt it is getting better. well a bit better.

http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2016/06/yet-more-miracle-cures-from-on-high/

religion still has their snake oil salesmen.

Believe it or not there are some scientists who partake in a drop of the oil of the snake.

To make holy water you boil the hell out of it and say some incantations by an employee of god.

To ponder a glass of water to the scientific minded is to me much more fascinating. The H in the H2O is 13.7 billion years old while the age of the oxygen atom varies greatly and is much younger.
That is some sell by date !

As for logic it is the height of scientific folly to anthropomorphize certain relationships in the cosmos. By nature of our mind processes it is too easy to propose similarities to ourselves. But this might a case as Amos said when we could throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 05:35 PM

Tell me more, Donuel. What I'm trying to say that no-one, not the Pope, not the chief Rabbi, not the mightiest ayotollah, can claim even the slightest smidgeon of truth without evidence. If any philosophies did nail certain phenomena, either they did it by accident or they did it with evidence. Let there be light indeed. There is no light without evidence, at least not the kind of light that can illuminate truths for our children. I'm pretty vigilant about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 05:17 PM

Fair enough Steve but...
you know that certain philosophies that we think of as being religious in nature really did nail certain phenomena that we have verified with the philosophy and tools of science.

let there be light. In scientific terms light did not come first either. o o computer prob

Joe there are some religious texts by phd scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 04:46 PM

So does science, infinitely better and infinitely more imaginatively.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 04:01 PM

Donuel, I consider all the various creation stories to be fascinating folklore. I don't think they are intended to explain how the universe came to be, although they might be considered to be speculations about how the universe came to be. I think they are valuable in describing how various peoples valued the world that surrounded them.

In the Hebrew Bible, I think the most important words in the Genesis creation story are, "And God saw that it was good." I think that means that the Hebrew people saw their world as good, and saw their world as a gift to be treasured and held sacred.

As for how the world came to be, I respect only scientific views. To understand the process of whatever, I would always choose the scientific view. Religious thinking explains various understandings of the value and meaning of things.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 03:29 PM

Robomatic
bravissimo, touche'. gaarhanxfurtgarten!

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 02:40 PM

Professor Walter von der Vogelweider- Metaphysics

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 12:45 PM

A fair point, in its way, Ed T. Of course, a lot depends on the purpose of the posts. If it is about trying to show how clever we are, that would be pretty awful. On the other hand, I very much appreciate it when Bill D, or Lighter, or another says something that makes we think "Oh, I hadn't looked at it like that".

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Jun 16 - 11:01 AM

Anither quote from Life of Brian that could also be extended to blokes who prefer to discuss/share/display (mostly among themselves) their wisdom on logic, science, religion among themselves, mostly in isolation, on a thread, on a "use to-be-read" andobscure folk music website:

"Brian's mother: Who are you?

Wise Man #2: We are three wise men.

Brian's mother: What?

Wise Man #1: We are three wise men.

Brian's mother: Well, what are you doing creeping around a cow shed at two o'clock in the morning? That doesn't sound very wise to me."

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 16 - 05:11 PM

Joe suppose you manage to use logic to unite all the creation stories you can form Lao Ts to Buddhist to Genesis to Hindu like Joseph Campbel do you expect to link the results with a particular scientific creation theory or many? I would suggest the many universe creation hypothesis. Some of this kind of speculation has been done before and tends toward the popular.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jun 16 - 07:09 PM

Monty Python's Life of Brian could challenge that.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

well there are the roads.

That goes without saying.

and the food and wine.

Besides the roads and food what have they done? nothing

There are the schools and medicine and courts.

hmmph

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 16 - 06:26 PM

Great point about the lack of smartness concerning the war on terror. Donuel, you are one of the most un-dumb people on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jun 16 - 05:25 PM

On the nature of intelligence:

What has intelligence brought us?
comfort technology and weapons.

Anything else?   Well there is art, architecture , music and literature but some of the greatest examples of these things are ancient or very old.

One of Einstein's best friends invented and deployed mustard gas on people.
Albert wrote a letter to FDR urging the use of an atomic bomb before Germany made one. Once we made them we and others set off well over 300 of them from the oceans to the edge of space. How smart was that?

yup some people think they are pretty smart and demand our trust, respect and obedience. Like a teenager I could think I'm smart and know everything I need to know. Or I could assume I have the best faith based intelligence others may be ignorant about.

Assuming we are intelligent is dangerous as the Donald proves daily.
Believing in our own intelligence closes the mind and the gates of creativity slam shut. The only thing closed is the mind when we proclaim we re really smart.

Some think the war on terror is smart between the Muslims whose religious faith is indestructible against western greed which is irresistible. Its not.   

So for the purpose of expanding my curiosity and new thinking,
I will continue to believe I am dumb along with the rest of us who don't want to admit it. Its the safest thing to do.

all I can do is seek intelligence and manage the damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Logic and the laws of science
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jun 16 - 12:17 PM

I have made genuine declarations regarding the heights of my ignorance and the abyss of my intelligence many times. I do not deny it. I pronounce it is true. (with the exception of one or two days a month)
It is just the way it is BUT it does raise the question of 'what is the excuse for the base comments by Lighter Snails of 7 Stars', as well as the many cretins in the Congressional Science Committee.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1084045/