Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Interestingly, I'd have thought this book:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoples-History-Science-Midwives-Mechanicks/dp/1560257482Which goes in the opposite direction to Rovelli would be more apt: Clifford argues that most great scientific discoveries were made by working people and common folk, and that the 'great thinkers' are mostly great appropriators.
One reviewer wrote:What Conner shows is rooted in the anthropologically sound understanding that science is a collective process of comprehending and changing the world around us. This is hardly to deny the fact that there have been outstanding and "craftsman-like" individuals who have sythesized the work of others to develop new insights and make exciting breakthroughs. (For every such genius, of course, there are a number of intellectual thieves — some of whom fare badly in Conner's book — but that it is another matter.) Unlike so many intellectual historians, however, Conner's focus is on the collective process, the unacknowledged heroines and heroes, Conner's "Miners, Midwives, and 'Low Mechaniks'" (as well as hunters and gatherers and early horticulturalists) whose efforts were essential to the forward movement of science.YMS Post #19 wrote:So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the other in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.Rovelli wrote:Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.Well, stuff me sideways, if that isn't exactly what i've been saying. It seems that Rovelli has been agreeing with me all along!http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certaintyAs I also said, the etymology of "Real" is "Royal" (i.e. real things hadve the royal seal of approval) and "true" just meant "loyal"). Those theories or ideas that are most loyal to our best efforts of experience are true. We have to live in the world, and act, and must treat our knowledge accordingly, else we'd be left tryign to walk through walls, ebcause we can never know that that is impossible.
I think I know what you think the problem is, but I don't know if what I think you think is what you think, I know only you know what you think, and I can only know what I think you are saying you think, but only if you think of saying it. So I say you should say what you think, then I'll have my say. Whaddaya say?
All I'm looking for is some argument, rather than assertion. In what way did Einstein undermine (rather than confirm) the scientific method?In the past I have internet arguments that have gone on for years, only for both participants to begind to realise we weren't arguing what we were arguing about, and that both sides had merits.I've tried discussing what science is, the historical evolution of the words real and true, the parable of the five wise monkeys. There must be some point of reference we can find that clarifies the matter at hand.
But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.
Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who propounds something called Morphic resonance (also he may be one of those misusing quantum physics for mystic purposes). He is also an anti-materialist. Read the wikipedia article, it's quite instructive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Well, basic logic suggests the Ass. Sec. is wrong. there is a restriction: "It is encouraged to use the abbreviated form 'The Socialist Party' in any other context where confusion with other similarly named organisations is unlikely." That is the restriction, and the "encouragment" of conference is quite a strong one, so the default is Socialist Party, and in exceptional circumstances, Socialist Party of Great Britain. The inclusion of our object and address on most publications is enough to render teh confusion exemption moot.
So, the human mind can make prime numbers non-infinite? Interesting. See, I introduced maths because the standard of proof in maths is very high, and when mathematicians say something is true, it is. So, Lbird chooses not to answer a straight question, such as are the number of primes infinite, because that opens up a field in which things are either true of not (there were several other options than bluster available, but bluster was chosen). Also, I note Lbird's comment early about Marx, Einstein Rovelli, etc. that clarified something that has been mniggling for a long time, because for such an anti-elitist, Lbird often puts forward what amounts to argument by authority, and very rarely puts forward propositions themself.Lets try this. If we held a vote on this board, and declared Lbird's positions to be wrong, what would be their response? Would they acfcept the democratic verdict of their peers, or would they stick to their guns, as an obstinate minority. I think we all know the answer: the the question becomes, why swhould anyone in socialism behave any differently?
LBird,can human thought make the number of prime non-infinite? Whether we invented numbers or found them primes are infinite, irrespective of the wishes or ideas of humans.
SP, well, it's actually arguable whether maths is entirely a human construct, or if it relates to something real (hence the unreasonable efficacy of mathematicsL: after all, Dirac predicted anti-matter through mathematics alone, and experiment had to follow). Further, since the discussion is about truth, and materialism, whether humans created maths is irrelevent, the fact is it is true that there are an infinite number of primes. Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.
Lbird,No, I don't think he is, but to my mind a mild variant on Russell's Teapot applies to any notion of a truth beyond the observable.So, back to prime numbers, is it true that there are an infinite number of prime numbers?
Lird is clearly a mind reader, since he knows what i think without having to wait for me to produce words to state what I think. Apparently.Anyway, a further quote:
Charlie & Fred wrote:We know only a single science, the science of history.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htmAnd back to the previous section of the economic manuscripts, Marx agrees with what I've been saying here all along (he had time travel and other useful stuff at his disposal):
Quote:Man is the immediate object of natural science; for immediate, sensuous nature for man is, immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical) – presented immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present for him. Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness for himself through the other man.Remember, I said it first.Science is an organised system of reliable knowledge.Anyway, Lbird, quick Q: are there are infinite number of prime numbers?
