|
U-Know! Forum » Lying for Columbine |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 19:43
|
||
|
"twat! lets break it down. The sarcasm is humour, sorry if you cant handle the stuff." Cunt, twat, fuck you . . . man that's some funny stuff! You are soooo hilarious! "Analysis, thats the word that should be used, not thought. It's analysis we're dealing with here, not thought types." Absolutely right. Or to borrow a term from the article, "heuristics." A process for reaching a conclusion. "Right. Lets assume there are different types of thinking (there aren't, but lets just play along)." The rest of this becomes kind of irrelevant if we're actually talking about "analysis" doesn't it? Would you say there is only one way to analyze a problem? Or that whatever analysis you use, you will reach the same conclusion? Or that all conclusions reached will be equally "wrong"? Let's use specific examples. We'll compare "the scientific method" to "fundamentalist christian orthodoxy" in analysing the problem of the origin of the human species. You can figure out which one is "magical" and which one is "rational". The Scientist gathers reems of data from observing the real world -- fossils, different sub-species from neighboring island econsystems, plate techtonics, etc. The Scientist concludes that the most rational explanation for the data is a gradual evolution of species over several billion years. The Fundamentalist says "God made man in his image on the sixth day. Any evidence you might find that contradicts this explanation is the work of Satan the Great Deceiver." Are these equivalent explanations?
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:03
|
||
|
cunt twat etc, hey you accused me of chasing demons, you started the immaturity mate not me. erm.. yeah. They are equivalents. A system is a system, and none are perfect. A system is correct within it's own terms of reference, as it's method of analysis of a given set of observations creates its functionality. If it works, it's valid, yeah ? maybe. You cannot say however that its results must be right simply because it's self fulfilling. There are plenty of incompatible theories in the world that function after all. The science/religion argument is kinda childish though. Especially when you look at quantum physics, remember, even the particles are theoretical constructs based on observation, not definite as in these-are-particles-ok? . So, as I said, there is only approximations within the range of an acceptable tolerance. We do however change our levels of tolerance, our acceptable levels of accuracy, religion --> science. But fundamentally nowts changed in terms of understanding. I mean, as Science now talks about a field of probability at the root of creation they may as well be talking about a god tbh. Also, this was a discussion of somebodies cod philosophical theories on political polemics. Which is very different to the road you're taking this. But I see where and why based on what I said. Analysis, abstraction, nothing definite, blah, blah, how did what you posted in reply challenge this ? R u Grufty Jim btw ? Just wondering.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:05
|
||
|
And in response to your first question, proper like, as you can't see thru my pisstaking so it seems. no. I didnt have a point. Because its fundamentally impossible to actually have one.. kinda.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:20
|
||
|
"erm.. yeah. They are equivalents. A system is a system, and none are perfect. A system is correct within it's own terms of reference, as it's method of analysis of a given set of observations creates its functionality." I get the existential argument you're making here -- any given "system of thought" is internally logical if you accept the assumptions. "The science/religion argument is kinda childish though. Especially when you look at quantum physics, remember, even the particles are theoretical constructs based on observation, not definite as in these-are-particles-ok? . So, as I said, there is only approximations within the range of an acceptable tolerance. We do however change our levels of tolerance, our acceptable levels of accuracy, religion --> science." Quantum theory is a model for describing the "behavior" of things we label "particles." Check. It's a very accurate model compared to previous models, and as we get better at measuring stuff the models will continue to get more accurate. It doesn't matter if there's a "real particle" in there, it's all models. The map is not the territory. And of course this is all very rational and non-magical. It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around. A magical model explains everything for all times, and contradictions are explained away ("de devil done it.") A scientific model can be disproven and replaced -- scientific/rational analysis evolves over time to get more accurate. "But fundamentally nowts changed in terms of understanding." "Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand." "I mean, as Science now talks about a field of probability at the root of creation they may as well be talking about a god tbh." What does "probability" have to do with a deity? One is a model, the other a "mechanism." "Also, this was a discussion of somebodies cod philosophical theories on political polemics. Which is very different to the road you're taking this. But I see where and why based on what I said. Analysis, abstraction, nothing definite, blah, blah, how did what you posted in reply challenge this?" I already said it would have been a better article if he stuck to the "philosophy" and left his political positions out of it. Although I do think you can draw political conclusions from "philosophy" (people do it all the time, including you I'm sure.) In fact I'm only just starting to "challenge" anything here. You're the one who posted 3 replies to my initial vague comment with a bunch of sarcastic twat-shit. You fucker! (That was a joke btw.) ;-) "R u Grufty Jim btw ? Just wondering." Don't know who that is.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:20
|
||
|
"erm.. yeah. They are equivalents. A system is a system, and none are perfect. A system is correct within it's own terms of reference, as it's method of analysis of a given set of observations creates its functionality." I get the existential argument you're making here -- any given "system of thought" is internally logical if you accept the assumptions. "The science/religion argument is kinda childish though. Especially when you look at quantum physics, remember, even the particles are theoretical constructs based on observation, not definite as in these-are-particles-ok? . So, as I said, there is only approximations within the range of an acceptable tolerance. We do however change our levels of tolerance, our acceptable levels of accuracy, religion --> science." Quantum theory is a model for describing the "behavior" of things we label "particles." Check. It's a very accurate model compared to previous models, and as we get better at measuring stuff the models will continue to get more accurate. It doesn't matter if there's a "real particle" in there, it's all models. The map is not the territory. And of course this is all very rational and non-magical. It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around. A magical model explains everything for all times, and contradictions are explained away ("de devil done it.") A scientific model can be disproven and replaced -- scientific/rational analysis evolves over time to get more accurate. "But fundamentally nowts changed in terms of understanding." "Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand." "I mean, as Science now talks about a field of probability at the root of creation they may as well be talking about a god tbh." What does "probability" have to do with a deity? One is a model, the other a "mechanism." "Also, this was a discussion of somebodies cod philosophical theories on political polemics. Which is very different to the road you're taking this. But I see where and why based on what I said. Analysis, abstraction, nothing definite, blah, blah, how did what you posted in reply challenge this?" I already said it would have been a better article if he stuck to the "philosophy" and left his political positions out of it. Although I do think you can draw political conclusions from "philosophy" (people do it all the time, including you I'm sure.) In fact I'm only just starting to "challenge" anything here. You're the one who posted 3 replies to my initial vague comment with a bunch of sarcastic twat-shit. You fucker! (That was a joke btw.) ;-) "R u Grufty Jim btw ? Just wondering." Don't know who that is.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:24
|
||
If you don't have a point . . . what are we talking about? Why did you post anything in the first place?
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:32
|
||
Passing the time I guess. I carried on posting as you challenged me with 'did you have a point' as if it actually mattered that anyone has to in here really. Anyhoo, hang on, will finish this after your big and good post.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:41
|
||
|
"It's a very accurate model compared to previous models, and as we get better at measuring stuff the models will continue to get more accurate. It doesn't matter if there's a "real particle" in there, it's all models. The map is not the territory. " Agreed. As I was saying, relating this to the guys article, his map is as flawed as any other. I also dont believe applying many maps gets you closer to anything. But thats just me. "It FLOWS FROM OBSERVATION, not the other way around." Same with magical models I'm afraid, they're based on experiences. They didn't come out of a vaccum. Ah well, yeah, they did, there was summing that needed explaining so someone made something up. hey-ho. Doesnt matter though does it. Science fills gaps the same way, thru observations and measuring tools. so ? "Understanding" . . . that's very philosophical. The point is "rationality" makes the Internet work and airplanes fly. All magic ever does is make you "feel better about things you don't understand." This makes no sense in regard to anything I said. I dont care about defining a difference between magical or rational in terms of thought. Or in terms of anything else for that matter. I was saying it's irrelevant, and a futile way of looking at thought, for the reasons I detailed earlier. "What does "probability" have to do with a deity? One is a model, the other a "mechanism." soz, this is a semantic thing. I fail to see the difference between model and mechanism personally. I've built plenty of models in my career, could be my own personal perceptually problem here. God is a model too u know ? not one that can be quantised, but heck there are shitloads of things that can't be quantised, which is my point. "I already said it would have been a better article if he stuck to the "philosophy" and left his political positions out of it." And I at no point disagreed with you saying this, if you think I did, you're wrong. Look. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong working with approximations. What I am saying is it is wrong to say 'its right, it's the truth' simply because its self fulfilling. No sensible scientist or philosopher would talk that way.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:44
|
||
|
And I dont believe our models will get to the accuracy of perfect perception. whatsitcalled the planck limit yeah ? The point below which we will never be able to measure. sure, I am flying on instinct here, but I dont think that we'll ever find that higgs-bosun thing, because it is the er... (really dont have the words).. root probable and therefore doesnt exist as such.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Oct 08, 2003, 20:46
|
||
Yep, I see no difference between experience and observation either. Sure, I am probably completely fucking mad, but I can live with it . ;)
|
| Pages: 10 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
