Happy Halloween

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
What Do You Want To Communicate?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on June 2, 2003 04:19:16 UTC

Harv,

I asked you five simple questions and, after wading through the obfuscation, I believe I have the essence of your answers. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1) Does the pipeline I refer to exist?

****
Harv: Its existence is of no interest as neither it or any illusions created by it are relevant! The issue is, it is non-sensible!
****

2) Do scientists take the existence of such a pipeline into account in their analysis?

****
Harv: No, as neither its existence nor the existence of illusions are relevant to their work!
****

3) Can the existence of that pipeline have real consequences?

****
Harv: Suppose instead of directly answering the question, I just run up a cavil on the meaning of "real".
****

When I say real, I mean objective pragmatic consequences which can be documented! But I'll just let that one go as I believe your real answer to #3 is "No, at least I am not going to look for any!"

4) Is the pipeline an aspect of the universe subject to analysis?

****
Harv: Again, instead of directly answering the question, I'll just run up another cavil.

Harv: But, how do you deal with the fact that our concept of self-consistency is itself part of the 'pipeline' as you call it, and apparently as likely to be wrong about reality as anything that our pipeline directly tells us?
****

The cavil is fundamentally equivalent to "well, if you are going to take that position, then everything is illusion", the single most common cavil put forth by almost every scientist I have ever met. It appears to be very effective at cutting off debate.

I believe Harv's answer is, "No, at least I am certainly not going to think about it!"

5) Is it reasonable to assume that everyone's pipeline (their subconscious) works exactly the same as everyone else's?

****
Harv: It doesn't matter!
****

Harv, your answers to those questions are exactly why no one else has discovered what I have discovered. And they probably won't for at least another few thousand years. What I cannot understand is why you keep posting to my comments when you have utterly no interest at all in understanding what I am saying.

Though I am very tempted to just drop the rest of your post since you make it quite clear you have no interest in understanding my discovery anyway, I will respond to your other comments as I think some people might be interested in what I think of those comments.

****
Harv: How do you know that you have properly set-up the parameters of the problem such that the right answer has been produced?
****

That question is immaterial as we all function off a world view produced by our subconscious: i.e., they are all personal constructs anyway. The only difference between the one I put forward is that it is analytically constructed and therefor examinable from a logical perspective. How will I know that I am wrong? My answer to that question is, how do you know when the solution generated by your subconscious is wrong? At least mine is more examinable than yours.

****
Harv: I don't think anyone has agreed that mathematics and logic are the sole means of discovery for pragmatic knowledge about the world.
****

Neither have I, but I think mathematics and logic are issues not to be lightly dismissed.

****
Harv: Why should we be concerned of failure to take your approach?
****

If you don't, how do you know that your subconscious has properly set-up the parameters of the problem such that the right answer has been produced? What if the pipeline is much more complicated than what you have in your subconscious mind when you set-up the parameters of the problem: yours being, "it is direct contact with reality (unless someone proves it's an illusion). How would you know that you were wrong, and how would you know that you were right? Why don't you think the issues are worth thinking about?

****
Harv: Our theories at least rest on pragmatic justification, so why do we need to worry about what the theories rest on as long as we pragmatically justify them?
****

Define this pragmatic justification! What part of it is based on unthoughtout assumptions?

****
Harv: Why should we need to worry about this issue since we have pragmatic justifications for our uses of the scientific methods?
****

Astrologers give me exactly the same justification! Note the end of Chapter 2:

"Even if you do not believe my model represents anthropomorphic reality, I have still shown that it is possible that classical mechanics is true by definition as my definitions have led to that result. If you consider your definitions to be sufficiently different from mine that they do not predefine the results of your experiments, I suggest that you need to prove your case."

That is precisely the problem with astrology!

****
Harv: Also, I know of few pragmatic justifications for using your kind of unique method at discovery, so why should we even concern ourselves with it?
****

"Method of discovery?" All I ask is that one examine what their ideas are based on. Astrologers don't concern themselves with probability either! They have no idea that their arguments are circular.

****
Harv: It is a valid epistemological approach to use pragmatic justification for scientific research and not get too involved in scientific realism of theories and/or scientific entities (e.g., are quarks real?). Are you saying that science can only work if it can justify its theories and entities beyond a pragmatic justification?
****

I think that one should get a little better at defining "pragmatic justification"!

****
Harv: Why do you find a need to define reality? Can you define the nature of quantum gravity in a manner that makes it easy for us to understand all that is involved with it? If not, then why do you think defining reality is even feasible if you can't even answer basic problems facing theoretical physics today much less in 100 years or 500 years? Defining reality should at least wait until we understand physics a little more, don't you think?
****

I think one should do their best to make what he is talking about as clear as possible. I think your position is "I'll just take my subconscious intuitive definition as correct!"

****
Harv: Or, are you one of those people that has to understand the most complex of all things even though you lack understanding of many of the new theories and problems confronting many in physics today?
****

I was firmly convinced forty years ago that the theories and problems confronting many in physics were very poorly thought out. And I believe exactly the same is true today. They certainly are not thinking about the stuff I bring up. And their belief that their definitions are not circular is an utterly ridiculous unexamined postulate.

****
Harv: Just write up your predictions and what the correct measurement results should be with many of the experiments that are now probing the deep cosmos. I'm sure you can predict a value that will be dead on that you can later show to scientists worldwide. Or, are they too dumb also?
****

I just gave you one. Their definitions are circular. Someday they will discover that! Also, just as an aside, my result for general relativistic solutions of celestial orbits is slightly different from Einstein's. The problem is, the difference is not detectable within the accuracy of current measurements. Check out part III of chapter 4. Now, I will cavil that no one has checked my math so I could very well have an error in that section. With regard to that comment, I will also point out that Newton's original solutions deviated from the experimental observations of celestial orbits at the time and that he originally attributed the difference to a possible error. Turned out he was wrong; his answers were correct, not the experimental values. So, I could be right, I could be wrong! Only time will tell.

What is important is that I have considered issues which the academy has simply refused to consider.

I won't even comment on your "ad hominem" reference to Lord Kelvin!

Again, I have no idea why you even post under my comments if you have no interest in the subject! I am seriously tempted to use the "hide" command. The only reason I don't is that your comments generally provide me with points to make.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins