Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 243
  1. #16
    CC International Master Kaitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inventor of the Surströmming opening
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    Perhaps ... but starter's signature is in the negative ... not quite the same observation.
    Yep I know ... and i spent ages last nite looking into the dark before i went to sleep trying to think of sumtn you cant measure... and I could only come up with
    - something that is one of a kind that there is nothing to compare it to and
    - things that havent finished yet.

    I did think of 'fashion' and 'communication' but i scraped them

    Sooooo... looks like starter gets a "A" for his signature saying

    Oh and I like your Artvar thing Frosty... its kewl
    oh Whiteelephant called me a fruit loop ->... hmmm your lucky my boots have a crack in the sole and ive been haveing to wear my vollies so I dont get wet socks ... my vollies have become my philosopie shoes but I can still wear my dress boots if its not rainning
    .. this Caketin is full of little spiders and watermelon seeds.....

    ..Chess is all about fear and psychology

    ..Chess is like an exam..... you havent studied for

    ..If you're good at Chess it means you are very intelligent and could potentialy do great things
    ..... but that you might have wasted that playing way too much chess

  2. #17
    CC International Master Kaitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Inventor of the Surströmming opening
    Posts
    1,416
    Measurement confines us by its illusion... wat if there wasnt days of the week like Monday Tuesday Wenesday Thursday... The actual days are no different(except some are a bit longer or a bit colder or wetter), if they werent named they would be each like each other. People who created measurment also created bad Mondays and boring Tuesdays .

    And wat if for A/c and... "Well I am certainly not going to hold my breath in a dark room being unable to see my watch to find out!" .... his watch had a light in it. So he could press it and see the hands of his watch going around.. is that time? ... wat if his watch was going faster than it should have been ... is that still time?

    Theres only one way to find out ....... hehe
    .. this Caketin is full of little spiders and watermelon seeds.....

    ..Chess is all about fear and psychology

    ..Chess is like an exam..... you havent studied for

    ..If you're good at Chess it means you are very intelligent and could potentialy do great things
    ..... but that you might have wasted that playing way too much chess

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Perhaps you need to consider how the average reader would interpret your writing. Maybe I am atypical, but I certain got the impression you were using the first statement as justification for the second. Perhaps I went too far in thinking you were trying to portray it as deductive reasoning. But it certainly seemed to have that form to me.
    Okay, but I would have thought that anyone who thought about what I was saying enough to see it does not follow through as being logical would have at least considered it was never supposed to be logical. I believe both of the statements I wrote are logical conclusion of my beliefs, along a similar vein. Of course you believe my beliefs to be false and illogical so you would not agree with the conclusions. By the way I am going to change my signature because it makes me sad, not because I think their is anything wrong with what it says. It also might be a bit strong to appear below posts to do with chess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Regarding your logic.

    I accept that the SUM of all human thinking is flawed. However it does not follow that a life based purely on human thinking is flawed. What would follow is that a life based purely on the SUM OF ALL human thinking is fatally flawed. This is a basic syllogistic error. It even has a name I believe but it escapes me for now. Theoretically at least it would be possible to base one's life on just the unflawed parts of human thinking. In fact, that is the goal of the scientific method. It provides a way of separating the flawed from the unflawed which works. Of course just latching onto a book and saying it is right and anything which disagrees with it is wrong takes less effort. But ultimately I find that solution less satisfying and it didn't put man on the moon or probes on the surfaces of other planets, develop the field of immunology or contribute in the fight aganist cancer, etc.
    Well back to you original posts, I feel there is a couple of more specific points I would like to address briefly.

    Firstly you say that the scientific method is an attempt to get the unflawed parts of human thinking from the flawed parts. Well this is a noble persuit but it does seem to assume that there is unflawed bits of note that are capable of basing ones life on. It also assumes that the scientific method, something thought up by erring humans, is unflawed. I am not sure you can be confident of either.

    Secondly you say that latching onto a book, I assume you mean the Bible in my case, is easier. Surely the ease or lack of ease it takes to decide whether things are right or wrong is irrelevant. It is whether the process you use to decide whether some is right or wrong is right or wrong that matters. You have to make sure the thing you are measuring other things by is correct otherwise you just end up with incorrect answers.

    Scott

  4. #19
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840

    calling kaitlin ... emergency ... emergency ...

    ... your lighthearted? thread is being hijacked by pedants!!



    eclectic
    .

  5. #20
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Firstly you say that the scientific method is an attempt to get the unflawed parts of human thinking from the flawed parts. Well this is a noble persuit but it does seem to assume that there is unflawed bits of note that are capable of basing ones life on. It also assumes that the scientific method, something thought up by erring humans, is unflawed. I am not sure you can be confident of either.
    Well flawed is a rather imprecise word. You could say much of science is flawed since almost all knowledge is accurate to within some threshold. We know the speed of light (say) in free-space to maybe 12 digits of accuracy (BTW I'm making this up, could be more or less). This is something we will never know exactly as the meter is an arbitrary length scale and the second an arbitrary time scale. Therefore we would not expect to ever get a definitively exact answer.

    Assuming you are not talking about that sort of 'flaw' then you have a much smaller subset of knowledge which might be completely wrong, just we don;t know it yet. However, for it to be accepted as part of mainstream science it must provide a reasonable explanation of the data we have collected to date. It might just be that we don;t know very much about that subject yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Secondly you say that latching onto a book, I assume you mean the Bible in my case, is easier. Surely the ease or lack of ease it takes to decide whether things are right or wrong is irrelevant. It is whether the process you use to decide whether some is right or wrong is right or wrong that matters. You have to make sure the thing you are measuring other things by is correct otherwise you just end up with incorrect answers.
    So how have you determined that the bible provides a good measure of anything? Have you calibrated it with anything else?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Well flawed is a rather imprecise word. You could say much of science is flawed since almost all knowledge is accurate to within some threshold. We know the speed of light (say) in free-space to maybe 12 digits of accuracy (BTW I'm making this up, could be more or less). This is something we will never know exactly as the meter is an arbitrary length scale and the second an arbitrary time scale. Therefore we would not expect to ever get a definitively exact answer.

    Assuming you are not talking about that sort of 'flaw' then you have a much smaller subset of knowledge which might be completely wrong, just we don;t know it yet. However, for it to be accepted as part of mainstream science it must provide a reasonable explanation of the data we have collected to date. It might just be that we don;t know very much about that subject yet.
    Actually I was thinking of an even more fundamental error than that. I was just musing that maybe the human mind/humans thinking is flawed, or errant in such a way that we have no hope of ever discovering what is right. Anything humans think up is contains errors fundamentally which no matter what we do we can not fix. The human mind and anything it thinks up is not fit to have anything measured against it. Even though by humans best efforts we might think we have found something out it can never be true, because we are all imperfect.
    Scott

  7. #22
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Actually I was thinking of an even more fundamental error than that. I was just musing that maybe the human mind/humans thinking is flawed, or errant in such a way that we have no hope of ever discovering what is right. Anything humans think up is contains errors fundamentally which no matter what we do we can not fix. The human mind and anything it thinks up is not fit to have anything measured against it. Even though by humans best efforts we might think we have found something out it can never be true, because we are all imperfect.
    This is a rather negative view of things, Scott.

    Tell me how your fundamentally flawed mind (the output of which is not fit to have anything measure against) determined that the Bible is the inerrant work of a superior intellect?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,444
    Barry, not a negative view I tend to believe, I was just putting it forward as an idea, a line of thought my mind went down, mainly to see if you would refute it straight out. If true it could be seen to be anti-religious as well.
    Scott

  9. #24
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Freddy
    Barry, not a negative view I tend to believe, I was just putting it forward as an idea, a line of thought my mind went down, mainly to see if you would refute it straight out. If true it could be seen to be anti-religious as well.
    Scott
    Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this point. But to me to accept a priori that nothing which is the fruit of the human intellect could ever be right seems negative. Moreover, if we accept this, it then begs the question: how can you be sure that your 'choice' of faith is correct? Since there are a number to choose from I assume some thought process must have taken place to accept one faith and reject most (if not all) others.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Poor Scott, he's had some pretty unpopular signatures!
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    Kaitlin, wait till Rincewind and Bethasr come back, they have degrees in psychology and philosophy - they will answer all your existentialist questions.

    These other dudes don't share your brilliant intellect.
    I could decipher some of it but if you want me to answer I'd really prefer if you structured those questions a little better.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  12. #27
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840

    ...

    as to my signature line

    PMandEMAILbothOFF

    as on 15 aug 2005

    no correspondence will be entered into!!







    eclectic
    .

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Alan Shore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Crane, Poole & Schmidt
    Posts
    3,871
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    as to my signature line

    PMandEMAILbothOFF

    as on 15 aug 2005

    no correspondence will be entered into!!







    eclectic
    Can't say I like yours 'e'. It's just too.. anti-social.
    "I can't go back to yesterday because I was a different person then."
    - White Queen, Alice through the Looking-Glass

  14. #29
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitlin
    You can measure time.... but can you improve it
    Nonsensical question because.

    c+c = c-c = c

    QED

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    Nonsensical question because.

    c+c = c-c = c

    QED
    Given that the speed of light is always constant relative to the observer, I wonder it its possible to construct an experiment where the speed of light could be measured by someone who is NOT an observer?
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Galileo (sf. picking at the stitches)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 01-09-2018, 05:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •