Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Deep Space Tracking Station > A Matter of Balance

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14-11-2008, 03:25 PM   #21
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Known Space View Post
... science is for mere foolish mortals while philosophy is the province of all things of singular genius.
Actually, since science is founded on logic (unless one is claiming science is illogical), science is necessarily dependent upon the grasp and practice of particular principles of particular philosophies. If one gets the related aspects of philosophy wrong (such as logic), then one will necessarily get the science wrong as well (ie if the foundation is bad, the whole house collapses).

That is certainly the case in the example provided. No 'peer review' group would ever seriously consider Tony's (intentionally) arbitrary idea. It would never be reported as rational, let alone 'scientific'. Yet an idea which is just as arbitrary (in this case, explicitly admitted to be such - by the man presenting the idea himself!) is seriously being considered and reported as a 'scientific'.

That is not the practice of science, because that is not the practice of logic. Any child can simply make up ideas. But just 'making up ideas' is not 'science'.

Put simply, the mere fact that some call themselves scientists does not make their ideas 'scientific'. And one certainly doesn't have to be a scientist to realize that fact.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2008, 06:04 PM   #22
Known Space
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Up North! Well, Yorkshire!
Posts: 587
Default

I am constantly reminded of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy here where the two philosphers threaten to strike because Deep Thought dares to work out what the Universe is all about. Centuries later, their progeny are still at it without having reached any conclusion.
BrianS, firstly do me the service of quoting the whole sentance, not part of it to suite your own purposes. You do this constantly and it leaves a misleading impression.I shall correct this.

"Only last time it was me who was somewhat denounced for daring not to believe that science is for mere foolish mortals while philosophy is the province of all things of singular genius."

In that thread the arguements used are exactly the same as the ones you wish to employ here.
BrainS, while I have every sympathy for the circumstances which have forced you to sell part of your collection ,I have very little respect for your apparent inability to recognise just how your style of debate impacts on other people.
It is extremely frustrating and annoying just to get quotes thrown back all the time.It smacks of sophistry and a total inability to objectively realise a different point of view may exist in this world other than your own.
It borders on extreme rudeness at times, it becomes monotonous, repetitive and ultimately it is worthless as a tool of debate because it builds on "nothing" ,adds "nothing" and becomes "nothing " but a self excluding act of self aggrandizement.
If somebody closes the thread , no one will ever engage in the topic up for discussion, the arguement is lost, because nobody wishes or can contribute anything else towards it.
Fortunately in a world that has six billion other minds there is still alot of free thinking to be had and alot of different and interesting points of view to be listened to. People generally help other people to come to an understanding.Thats why we invest so much effort and time in our educational systems.
I feel somewhat emboldened to mention the fact that it appears that whilst there are many different types of scientific study that constitute a major proportion of the teaching curriculums around the world today , philosophy does not get much of a look in.
But I am willing to be persuaded by solid evidence to the contrary.
Any child can make up ideas. That is one of the most heartening things about the human race. The willingness of the imagination of youth to take up the teachings of the older generations and dare to improve upon them. They openly engage with others and accept that although their views may differ, they maybe as equally valid to that person as to the other,and that learning is a flexible process that can modify and continually change and develope.
As a Brit I watched the American elections with great interest. And for once I really admired both of your candidates and felt that although they opposed eachother, they did so in a way that commanded huge respect. John McCain, even though he lost, was clearly a man worthy of being a president for the way he handled his defeat and ultimately the grace and maturity he showed by wishing to work with Obama to find a way get the US (and possibly the rest of the world) out from benieth the huge weight of all the troubles we now face.
And thats what bothers me about your style Brain.Its this total lack of recognition that any arguement is valid on any level except on your very self limiting terms of reference. It doesn't add to the arguement, it often doesn't acknowledge what the arguement may be about, it just endlessly deconstructs every thing the last person says like a teacher with a fat red marker pen, and thats not helpful to anyone involved, most pointedly your self.
I hope you recover from whatever misfortune has come your way.But if you continue to act like this towards anyone who is willing to try and engage in a constructive conversation with you , nobody eventually will bother.

Last edited by Known Space; 16-11-2008 at 04:29 PM.
Known Space is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2008, 06:51 PM   #23
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

That is quite a lot of words. But I don't see them addressing any of the arguments I put forth on the topic. If you are interested in a discussion of those ideas, I am more than happy to participate. If you are simply interested in talking about your view of me, I will pass.

So - if you are interested in the discussion of the actual ideas presented, I will begin: is science properly based on the epistemological laws of logic? Or can science violate the laws of logic?
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2008, 07:34 AM   #24
Known Space
Eagle Pilot
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Up North! Well, Yorkshire!
Posts: 587
Default

Yes BrainS. That really was quite a lot of words. And each and everyone of them was somewhat sadly wasted.
I could be rather rude but as I don't particularly want to be banned from the forum I shall look for guidance in other role models.
I shall instead invoke John Mc Cain, for his gracefull ability to move on and remain good humoured and Spock ( as in the Star Trek character) whose own Vulcan philosophy would probably point out to me that to continue any conversation with you today, tomorrow or at any point in the future would be "totally illogical."
Live long and prosper Brain.
In your own particular way that is.
Known Space is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 15-11-2008, 02:30 PM   #25
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

So no discussion of the actual ideas put forth on the topic. Just personal attacks on me. Okay.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 16-11-2008, 02:29 AM   #26
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Let's actually start a new thread for a discussion of science & philosophy (which may encompass logic, faith and so on), and keep this thread about the 'Dark Flow' topic.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-11-2008, 02:58 AM   #27
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Well, its about time! Now we finally get to seriously discuss Tony's speculation that Dark Flow is the result of the universe "hanging from a chain around the neck of a cat that belongs to the leader of yet and other universe who travels around in the a body he's piloting"?

BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-11-2008, 05:41 AM   #28
Bishop
Chief Science Officer
 
Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Australia
Posts: 11,796
Default

Well to be truthful I borrowed it.
Bishop is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-11-2008, 03:31 PM   #29
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Scientific plagiarism?!? What will the 'peer review' board say now?!
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 16-11-2008, 04:18 PM   #30
pjskeldon
Communications Officer
 
pjskeldon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 752
Default

I'm not as intelligent or as articulate as you folks, but the 'dark flow' debate seems to break down to this:
  1. Someone set out to observe the movement of distant objects
  2. They expected to see results that would fit the currently accepted model regarding the development of the universe
  3. The results didn't fit
  4. They looked for causes that could explain this
  5. They found none
  6. So they started imagining causes
  7. One of which is the 'action at a distance by an object unseen'
  8. They accept they can't prove it yet

Does that sum it up?

If so, that sounds fine so far. It demands imagination to suggest explanations for unexpected results and courage to publish them for peer review. Nobody seriously suggests that atoms are made of brightly coloured beads, but that's how we introduce and explain them in schools.

I hope they can develop ways of proving/disproving this theory soon. However, just as poking at strings (if they exist) is currently (and quite possibly inherently) impossible at that scale and beyond the veil of probability that the quantum world exhibits, perhaps the barrier of the 'visible universe' may never be broken.

In other words, we may never know what's on the other end of the 'cosmic rope'.

I wonder when the creationists will seize upon this?

Phil.
pjskeldon is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 16-11-2008, 11:22 PM   #31
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjskeldon View Post
...So they started imagining causes...

If so, that sounds fine so far.
Except for the fact it violates the laws of logic. And, unless the claim is that 'science' may violate the laws of logic (ie that science is illogical), then what they are practicing is not science.

Your question wondering "when the creationists will seize upon this" is the perfect indicator of this fact. When men drop the laws of logic (and thus the principles of reason), they enter the realm of caprice. Of whim. Put simply, when men make arbitrary assertions, they are indulging in emotionalism. They are practicing mysticism.

These are not the stuff of science. These are the opposite of science. And that places them in the same category as the creationists.
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 17-11-2008, 06:06 PM   #32
pjskeldon
Communications Officer
 
pjskeldon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 752
Default

I'm not sure I follow you.

If by imagining a solution they are breaking 'logic' then I can't see how we're expected to solve puzzles we've never encountered before. I think you're relying on semantics.

What's wrong with suggesting something you cannot (yet) prove, so long as it fits with known behaviour. In other words they haven't invented a new force (or invoked a mutant star goat*), but are simply saying they think there's an unseen object influencing visible objects via gravity.

If we apply logic in the sense I understand it, they've ruled out visible and known causes for whatever reason and are left with no definitive solution. So the next step, logically, is to use past experience to blend known facts into a plausible situation. No laws have been broken. No new effects need to be invented. Applying the logic backwards (assume unseen body; does that generate seen effect?) seems fine to me. I've come across at least one mathematical proof (root 2 is non-rational) that depends on assuming a situation and using logic to show it was a false assumption.

As they don't claim to be absolutely convinced of their theory, I don't think they've transgressed. If they felt they'd proved it, THEN you and I would be in agreement that this was poor science. Maybe it will turn out to be something completely different. I think you have a different definition of logic to mine and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Incidentally, all these 'dark' things (flow, matter, energy) - it seems S99's mysterious forces are BACK!

Phil

* Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
pjskeldon is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 17-11-2008, 09:25 PM   #33
BrianS
Communications Officer
 
BrianS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 1,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjskeldon View Post
...they haven't invented a new force (or invoked a mutant star goat*), but are simply saying they think there's an unseen object influencing visible objects via gravity.
Actually that is not what they said. If you read the articles, they invent universes outside the universe (a contradiction in terms) in which "our" universe is " just a small bubble of space-time", they invent new physics (the fallacy of 'rewriting reality') for these 'different universes' where "space-time might be very different", and they invent entirely new structures which somehow 'tug' at the things in our 'universe' in some unidentified way.

I'm sorry but that is a lot of 'invention' - ie a lot of arbitrary assertions. And the person making them admits this quite explicitly, saying it is all "pure speculation" - 'pure' here meaning undiluted by fact, by evidence.

Quote:
As they don't claim to be absolutely convinced of their theory, I don't think they've transgressed.
It doesn't matter if they are "absolutely convinced" of their ideas or not. The 'transgression' here is the acceptance of the arbitrary. They want ideas for which they have no evidence to be treated as if there is evidence for them (conclusive or not). They want ideas which are not about reality to be treated as if they were about reality.

Truth, falsehood, and arbitrary identify three types of relationships an idea has to reality:

Truth - the idea corresponds the facts of reality (evidence)
Falsehood - the idea contradict the facts of reality (evidence)
Arbitrary - the idea is held without relation to reality (without evidence)

Truth and falsehood therefore identify that the idea a man holds pertains to reality. Arbitrary identifies that the idea a man holds pertains to (literally) nothing. Such ideas inhabit the realm of fantasy, not reality.

Logic is the non-contradictory identification of reality. As such, when a person divorces his ideas from reality - ie just starts making stuff up - then he is practicing something other than logic in reference to something other than reality.

That is not science. That is mysticism derived from emotionalism.

An astrophysicist who is quoted in one of the articles has it right: "It's suggestive that something's going on, but what exactly is going on? It basically tells us to investigate."

In other words, the observations indicate that there is something to be identified. But not even remotely enough information has been collected to even begin to make that identification.

Consider this analogy if it helps. A dead body is discovered in New York. How did he die? Was it suicide? Murder? An accident? These questions CANNOT be rationally answered without further investigation (ie the acquiring of additional facts - more evidence). So it would be illogical, on the basis of these facts alone, to claim you murdered him. And it would be irrationally absurd - if not bordering on the mentally deranged (ie insane) - to invent an alien conspiracy in which beings from an unknown galaxy killed him for defaming the Holy Knees of their Supreme Being, Zarquon.

Both are completely arbitrary assertions. Neither suggestion would be considered rational, let alone scientific. Yet it is exactly this type of irrationality which is being accepted and reported as if it were 'science' here.

Last edited by BrianS; 17-11-2008 at 11:26 PM. Reason: Corrected some grammar
BrianS is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com