An interesting way to crawl back under your rock!
On Sep 17, 5:26 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Since you confused yourself with achoka, I do now. > > On Sep 16, 12:29 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Do you really think I need to consult Wiki for these topics?? > > > On Sep 9, 4:33 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Some categories of (semi, quasi, barely) scientific study of humans > > > have been termed, "anthropology," "sociology" and "psychiatry." See > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... > > > . > > > How are these "inadequacies of human cultural expression" and how are > > > they "bogging" me down? I do not confuse these with human history, > > > either. > > > > On Sep 8, 10:31 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Humans--let us proceed with care---without allowing the *tyranny of the > > > > inadequacies of human cultural expression* (language)--to bog us down. > > > > Call > > > > them laws, or orders---nature does have a pre-existent organizing > > > > principles > > > > within which humans are (also) just but an element. > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:02 PM, aruzinsky > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > 1. I did not say or imply "eternal and absolute." I said SUBSTANTIAL > > > > > spatial and temporal generality. > > > > > > 2. What you are calling "laws" were, in fact, models. Whereas many > > > > > past scientists falsely believed that their models were laws, I > > > > > suspect that modern scientists tend to no longer believe in laws (I > > > > > don't know because I haven't taken a poll.). See > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling. The practical > > > > > difference between a law and a model is that a user, who knows the > > > > > model is not a law, isn't disgraced and does not whine when a better > > > > > model is discovered. Probably, engineers took the lead in scientific > > > > > modeling but that history isn't as important as the current popular > > > > > state of thinking. > > > > > > 3. It is not the belief in the model that must have substantial > > > > > spatial and temporal generality, as you seem to wrongly assert, but > > > > > the applicability and accuracy of the model that must have substantial > > > > > spatial and temporal generality. Note at the bottom of the above > > > > > reference, > > > > > > "Ability to explain past observations" > > > > > > "Ability to predict future observations" > > > > > > That is what is meant by "temporal generality." > > > > > > 4. Apparently, your perception of reality is distorted by a type in > > > > > insanity called "anthropocentrism," see > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism, > > > > > because you confuse > > > > > > 4.1. human history and science > > > > > > 4.2. ... generality of human belief in laws/models with ... generality > > > > > of laws/models. > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:47 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think I have made my position clear on this elsewhere. Laws are > > > > > > not > > > > > > eternal and absolute. Many are discarded and reinvented in the light > > > > > > of new information, some persist despite that. But some laws that > > > > > > are > > > > > > now fully abandoned served mankind for 100s of years and were "know" > > > > > > to be true despite their eventual dismissal. > > > > > > If scientists are unaware of the historical contingency of the laws > > > > > > that assert, as so many are, then they will remain intransigent and > > > > > > resisting of modifications to their own beliefs, and treat > > > > > > innovation > > > > > > with inertia. > > > > > > > On Sep 7, 1:19 am, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Science is the study of laws or models with substantial spatial > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > temporal generality. Who did what at a specific time and place > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > a science because it lacks spatial and temporal generality. > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 12:06 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 5:20 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 3:04 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Every country does that. American too. They claim to have > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > example of an electric light, but this is false. The first > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > > electric light was invented by Farraday in 1859. The South > > > > > Foreland > > > > > > > > > > Lighthouse was the world's first ever man made electric > > > > > > > > > > light, > > > > > and got > > > > > > > > > > its power from another of Farraday's inventions the > > > > > > > > > > electrical > > > > > > > > > > generator. > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 4:52 pm, aruzinsky > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 10:17 am, Awori <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there such a thing as an original idea? Can ideas > > > > > originate from > > > > > > > > > > > > without? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is imitation the opposite of your concept of "original > > > > > > > > > > > idea"? > > > > > Many > > > > > > > > > > > ideas are repeated without imitation, e.g., reinventing > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > wheel. It > > > > > > > > > > > used to be a joke that the Soviet Union/Russia claimed > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > things were invented by its citizens before famous > > > > > > > > > > > American > > > > > inventors > > > > > > > > > > > such as Thomas Edison. Many of those claims were true. > > > > > > > > > > > Since > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > is no way of knowing whether something was previously > > > > > > > > > > > invented > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > intelligent life on another planet, there is no point on > > > > > dwelling on > > > > > > > > > > > the concept of first idea. Instead, you should > > > > > > > > > > > concentrate on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > concept of imitation. For example, look at all the people > > > > > jumping on > > > > > > > > > > > the DNA bandwagon in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > "As each organism is unique, then all DNA arrangements are > > > > > original." > > > > > > > > > > > - Identical twins are not unique in any way related to > > > > > > > > > > > DNA. > > > > > Any > > > > > > > > > > > uniqueness of identical twins should be attributed to > > > > > environment. > > > > > > > > > > > Same for organisms that reproduce asexually.- Hide quoted > > > > > > > > > > > text > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > Small talk: > > > > > > > > > > As a child in the early 1950s, while watching a quiz show on > > > > > > > > > TV, a > > > > > > > > > contestant selected "Science" as a topic. The question was, > > > > > > > > > "Who > > > > > > > > > invented the steam engine?" I shouted at the TV, "That's not > > > > > > > > > science. That's history!" Apparently, some immoral history > > > > > > > > > buffs > > > > > > > > > had wormed their way into positions of authority on that TV > > > > > > > > > show > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > to shove history lessons, disguised as science, up my ass. > > > > > Probably, > > > > > > > > > the same kind of assholes who like to say, "Those who do not > > > > > > > > > learn > > > > > > > > > from history are doomed to repeat it." Regardless of my > > > > > > > > > learning > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > history, I am not doomed to reinvent the steam engine. > > > > > > > > > I'm not so sure I'd so easily disregard history of science as > > > > > > > > part of > > > > > > > > science. As a piece of trivia Newcomen's (or was it Watt's) > > > > > > > > achievement on a developmental level is highly significant to an > > > > > > > > understanding of science which is far more contingent on > > > > > > > > historical > > > > > > > > interests than scientist would like to admit. Steam Power > > > > > > > > massively > > > > > > > > enhanced our understanding of the nature of heat, energy and its > > > > > > > > relation to fuel and power.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > > Groups > > > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > > > > groups.com> > > > > > . > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
