Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-24-2015, 07:22 AM   #136
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,951
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
Science rests on a philosophy of reason, and sadly reason is being undermined. " -it is philosophy that lays down the epistemological criteria of all special sciences." Mysticism and Skepticism are the alternatives turned to when science and reason are ignored. Here is another quote in this regard:
"In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have . . . taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism)"
Good quote. I've had philosophers (=with a PhD in philosophy) tell me that philosophy created scientific logic, that philosophy was responsible for all scientific advance because it was the iron rock of reason. There are many ways to distinguish philosophy and science. Philosophy relies on "in my mind:" infallible reasoning will yield the Truth. Science relies on objectively testable predictions from something reasoned: if what I think is true, then this should happen. That is the core of science, the "if-then" that leads to an experiment or test. No matter who does the test, no matter where, the results should/will be the same if the original theory is correct. Philosophers reasoned that water was one of the four basic elements (they thought everything came in fours because that was how the universe worked: four elements, four seasons, four cardinal directions that produced four winds, four humors that determined human health, four stages of life, etc.). Science predicts that water is not an "element" but rather is made of two elements: two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. IF that be true, THEN water can always be broken down yielding hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 ratio. Then someone says: I broke down water and got 2H to 1O but I also got sodium, calcium, chlorine, iron, sulfur and many other things, so water is more than just hydrogen and oxygen. Scientist replies: you should not start with sea water. BUT, the scientific assertion that water is made of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen is for some people "just a theory" that will some day be overturned, and water can go back to being one of the four elements of which all things are made. We can also discard all of modern medicine, which is based on science - antibiotics, vaccines, antiseptics - and return to getting our four humors balanced with doses of St John's Wort and ginseng.

08-24-2015, 07:48 AM   #137
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
I guess I wouldn't say "never," in the sense that if our understanding of the universe changes, then maybe there would be a way to circumvent the speed of light as an obstacle to reaching the stars.

The reality though is that it won't be in our life times, or even the next 100 years. Stuff that may work, even in thought experiments, isn't always as easy to put into practice. Twenty years ago, all the clean energy was going to come from fusion reactors. But it hasn't been as easy it sounds on paper to make that sort of a reactor work.

In the end, most speculative science fiction has more in common with fantasy, than it does with science. People postulate all sorts of fun things to think about, but practically have little to do with the universe as we know it.
08-24-2015, 10:15 AM   #138
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Stuff that may work, even in thought experiments, isn't always as easy to put into practice.
A message from Otis....

"Yep, I agree......daydreams don't always work out like you plan."


".....they sure didn't for old Frank!"


Regards!
08-24-2015, 06:42 PM   #139
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 224
Don't forget the limitless supply of Doritos.

08-25-2015, 11:02 PM   #140
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Nakedgun's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1,347
QuoteOriginally posted by DAZ Quote
We have also acquired a new trait, intelligence.

DAZ


Rubbish. This has never been demonstrated.
08-26-2015, 03:57 AM   #141
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,951
QuoteOriginally posted by Nakedgun Quote
Rubbish. This has never been demonstrated.
A problem: is there a uniform, widely accepted definition of "intelligence" with some objective, universally applicable test to measure it? I used to argue this with colleagues who blandly spoke about the "intelligence" of dinosaurs. How did you measure that? What is intelligence in an animal?* If you can measure intelligence in an animal, here are five LIVING animals whose behavior you know: penguin, opossum, emu, porcupine, alligator. Set them in sequence, most intelligent to least, and explain to me WHY.

*Intelligence in an animal = the extent to which the animal will do things that a human wants it to do.
08-26-2015, 06:04 AM   #142
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by WPRESTO Quote
What is intelligence in an animal?*
What sets the other animals apart from man, is that man can think conceptually. Animals can be very intelligent, but their intelligence works on the perceptual level. A dog can do tricks with two balls, but cannot abstract the concept "two" from them. Just the other day I watched a program on dogs, where one dog kept bringing a stick for a man seated on a bench, for him to throw. The perception of a man was quite enough, and the fact that it was a bronze statue was of no significance. Another clip illustrated how dogs are highly responsive to (motivated by) emotions. A dog greeting a long absent owner was so overcome by emotion that it fainted, likely caused by not breathing fully. Certainly displays of intelligence can be remarkable, and it is tempting to assume they are using the same reasoning we do. Every scientific 'proof' I have seen to show animals can think conceptionally has been flawed. Remember the counting horse who could add numbers tapping his hoof? Turned out the horse would stop tapping when everyone looked up once the correct number was reached, which signalled the horse to stop counting.

08-26-2015, 07:21 AM   #143
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,951
"Clever Hans" I think was the name of nickname of the counting horse. I thought they determined that the horse was getting some sort of visual cue from its handler, not necessarily intentional on the latter's part. I do not wish to open a discussion, much less argument on the definition of "intelligence" in humans or animals. Been there, done that, for many years, and because "intelligence" is a human conceptual thing (like "beauty" or "justice"). there is no objective way to determine what it is or how much exists in this organism versus that one. "Intelligence" is unlike some scientific concepts such as force, matter, gravity, light, sound - these have existence outside human thought and are subject to measurement with totally unemotional, unbiased machinery.

Last edited by WPRESTO; 08-28-2015 at 12:47 PM.
08-27-2015, 03:15 PM   #144
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA
Posts: 870
This printed me to think outside the box. Do some searching. There are a whole lot of people that say the sun revolves around the earth. Even Einstein said it is equally likely it just depends on a different coordinate system ( short summary ). In fact if the earth is at the center you don't need to add in the 99 percent dark matter mass to make your formulas work. They propose that the corniprius equation is only one theory of many. I personally have never agreed with dark matter. I discounted the flat earth theory as I did not understand their math and it seems nature prefers spheres over flatness.

If you assume an earth centered universe things are A LOT closer than the capurnicus model predicts.

I did not finish my research. But some proposed models assume nasa is all a huge conspiracy. However, something about electro magnetic planes intersecting vastly support an earth centered universe.

I'm not saying I have decided either way. Just that my mind is open.
08-27-2015, 04:25 PM   #145
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,951
Don't go that direction, Condor, You'll fall off the edge of the Earth. If you want to entertain the idea that all theories are equal, go back to the claim that the Earth is actually a hollow sphere and we are living on its internal surface. The Sun, which is actually much smaller than the Earth, is suspended in the center of this hollow sphere. The stars come and go, somehow (not well explained). A community of believers in this theory was built in the USA. It's now a state-owned park with all its various living, dining, gathering, and worshiping buildings.
08-28-2015, 10:37 AM   #146
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 224
I like the idea that our solar system is really one tiny atom that is part of a
08-28-2015, 12:51 PM   #147
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
WPRESTO's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 58,951
The idea that the Solar System is an atom that is part of a dust speck on the shoulder of a policeman in a vastly larger universe has been around for many, many years. The problem is, the Solar System DOES NOT behave like an atom, nor are the forces that interact with it the same as those operating within an atom.
08-28-2015, 12:57 PM   #148
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
An open mind isn't particularly useful in this discussion. Practical concerns have to be addressed and nebulous philosophical issues are pretty unimportant when you think about trying to staff and equip a ship to travel this sort of distance. Trying to postulate the earth as then center of the Universe is kind of silly, but it doesn't change the fact that the distance to the nearest star, other than the sun is really, really far and currently we don't have any way to travel fast enough to reach it.

My guess is that if there ever is travel faster than light possible (warp space or whatever), it will only be by machine entities. Human bodies are way to fragile for something like that.

Last edited by Rondec; 08-29-2015 at 02:24 AM.
08-28-2015, 10:54 PM - 1 Like   #149
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,292
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
An open mind isn't particularly useful in this discussion.
Indeed, since an open mind says nothing about what it is open to. There is no virtue in being open to unevaluated absurdity. I prefer advocating an inquiring mind over an open mind.
08-28-2015, 11:01 PM   #150
Veteran Member
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 962
Good lord. This thing is still going?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
calvin, crew, destination, discussion, drives, earth, folks, food, freeze, generations, ideas, interstellar travel, jobs, light, logistics, multi-generation, people, planning, positions, problem solving, reality, ship, snip, space, star, system, time, topic, travelers, trip
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would be a good macro or close-up lens for me? (Details inside) Frog_Botherer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 02-17-2014 10:26 AM
what would be a prime setup for sports? Reportage Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 06-17-2010 07:18 AM
What would be a fair price on this group of lenses? timstone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 03-28-2010 03:03 PM
What would be an upgrade for a *istD? DavidF Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-22-2009 11:33 PM
What would be a good lens to get for a wedding? creoleart Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 68 08-01-2009 08:49 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top