2. You believe that your stupid mistake is not a stupid mistake. On Sep 20, 8:37 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Is this an answer to "Name One?" > > Bizarre!!! > > On Sep 20, 3:24 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1. You replied to a post I made to achoka by asking, "Do you really > > think I need to consult Wiki for these topics??" instead of "Do you > > really think achoka needs to consult Wiki for these topics??" > > > On Sep 19, 10:20 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Name ONE! > > > > On Sep 18, 7:14 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am not the one with a recent history of many stupid mistakes. > > > > > On Sep 17, 1:08 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > ... > > read more »- 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.
