If their was no Religion.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Religious people are opposed to science. Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?

[capinyourasspitalism]

I don't believe will we ever eradicate religion. it naturally arises out of the human condition. Also I believe progress will slow at we reach the wall of things we can empirically study and test. At one point we will reach some sort of stalling point.

[Kitty_Paine]

Religious people are opposed to science. Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?

I'm sorry but what? Are you talking about the Amish or something?

Okay well... maybe I should ask you what you mean by "are opposed to" first. Because this statement is sounding completely ridiculous at the moment.

[Prometeo liberado]

If there was no religion then I wouldn't have wasted valuable drinking time on my wedding day.

[AmericanCommie421]

Religious people are opposed to science. Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?
I am sorry, but many of the founders of modern science were devout Christian and Muslim men, not to mention the various other cultures across the world with other dominant religions that have made great advancements to science. I suppose you mean the Catholic church supporting geocentrism in the middle ages, modern day right wing Christians opposing modern science such as evolution and the big bang and supporting idealism, anti evolution leaders in Islam, Judaism, etc. But ultimately this has been no more than idealist philosophy vs materialist philosophy, with major religious organizations supporting the established power structure. To generalize all religious organizations and more importantly religious people is absurd.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Religion inherently goes against materialism, thus it is my enemy.

Also, religion is always used as a tool of control over the masses by ruling classes. Always!

Class consciousness would be easier without religion and there would be more peace and unity around the world. I am sorry supporters of religion, but that is just the truth. Prove me wrong, if you can.

[Ostrinski]

Religion inherently goes against materialism, thus it is my enemy.

Also, religion is always used as a tool of control over the masses by ruling classes. Always!

Class consciousness would be easier without religion and there would be more peace and unity around the world. I am sorry supporters of religion, but that is just the truth. Prove me wrong, if you can.Isn't declaring war on an idea kind of idealistic

[RedAtheist]

Isn't declaring war on an idea kind of idealistic

No, it's only idealistic if you do so with the impression that it will lead automatically to a revolution or if you do so while failing to struggle against the material conditions that give rise to the idea (e.g. the impoverished conditions that make people turn to religion.) Marx argued against ideas all the time.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I'm sorry but what? Are you talking about the Amish or something?

Okay well... maybe I should ask you what you mean by "are opposed to" first. Because this statement is sounding completely ridiculous at the moment.

Evolution, Stem-cell research, dark matter, universe expansion, quantum mechanics, climate change to name a few.


I am sorry, but many of the founders of modern science were devout Christian and Muslim men, not to mention the various other cultures across the world with other dominant religions that have made great advancements to science. I suppose you mean the Catholic church supporting geocentrism in the middle ages, modern day right wing Christians opposing modern science such as evolution and the big bang and supporting idealism, anti evolution leaders in Islam, Judaism, etc. But ultimately this has been no more than idealist philosophy vs materialist philosophy, with major religious organizations supporting the established power structure. To generalize all religious organizations and more importantly religious people is absurd.

Hannes Alfvén, Philip W. Anderson, Julius Axelrod, John Horton Conway, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Fritz Zwicky etc, all are modern scientist who are Atheist, I could list over 100 prominent scholars, but I believe you grasp the concept. Indeed, Galileo, Newton, and the such were religious, but didn't use biblical or religious axioms as foundation to their studies. I understand the generalization aspect, but let's be fair, most of your modern religious individuals do not accept science over religion as it is contrary to their doctrines. Actually the former pope said he believed in evolution. I'm talking about all religious demographics.

[roy]

If there was no religion, we wouldn't be humans living on the planet Earth. Spirituality has always been ingrained in human society, so speculating about a world where religion doesn't exist is completely pointless as we can only speculate through the lens of a society where religion is pervasive. Besides which, every religious person I know accepts evolution, so it's clearly not the case that religion causes people to be anti-scientific. Perhaps you should apply some Marxian analysis here.

[Kyu Six]

If there was no religion, we wouldn't be humans living on the planet Earth. Spirituality has always been ingrained in human society, so speculating about a world where religion doesn't exist is completely pointless as we can only speculate through the lens of a society where religion is pervasive. Besides which, every religious person I know accepts evolution, so it's clearly not the case that religion causes people to be anti-scientific. Perhaps you should apply some Marxian analysis here.

You call it "spirituality"; I call it "superstition and myth". And it has thrived in human society in a degree inversely proportional to the degree of scientific knowledge in that society. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. As for Marxian analysis, Marx dealt in materialism. There is no room for spirituality in a materialist worldview. Materialism is itself the affirmation of the real and the negation of the spiritual. Even just 100 years ago, I would understand religiosity a little better, but in a world where we know quantum physics, can synthesize new elements, and have mapped the entire human genome, there simply is no room left for this nonsense! :rolleyes:

[Agent Ducky]

2 things:
Wrong use of "their" in the title... Someone should edit that. It's really bothering me.

And religion and science aren't completely antithetical. Yes, most people who aren't religious turn to science to explain things that religion would otherwise. But they are not on opposite poles to one another. There are plenty of moderately religious people who accept science. Yes, maybe religion goes against materialism. But unable to coexist with science? Not quite.

[roy]

You call it "spirituality"; I call it "superstition and myth". And it has thrived in human society in a degree inversely proportional to the degree of scientific knowledge in that society. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. As for Marxian analysis, Marx dealt in materialism. There is no room for spirituality in a materialist worldview. Materialism is itself the affirmation of the real and the negation of the spiritual. Even just 100 years ago, I would understand religiosity a little better, but in a world where we know quantum physics, can synthesize new elements, and have mapped the entire human genome, there simply is no room left for this nonsense! :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed. Just spit in the face of every religious worker in the world. If someone's personal faith doesn't impinge upon you, why do you go out of your way to attack it? When I mentioned Maxian analysis, I meant that Marx would never have said, "bad things happen because religion lol", like so many on this forum seem to think. It seems like there are more threads on this forum attacking religion than there are attacking capitalism.

[NGNM85]

You call it "spirituality"; I call it "superstition and myth". And it has thrived in human society in a degree inversely proportional to the degree of scientific knowledge in that society. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. As for Marxian analysis, Marx dealt in materialism. There is no room for spirituality in a materialist worldview. Materialism is itself the affirmation of the real and the negation of the spiritual. Even just 100 years ago, I would understand religiosity a little better, but in a world where we know quantum physics, can synthesize new elements, and have mapped the entire human genome, there simply is no room left for this nonsense! :rolleyes:

I'd like to think so. However; obviously, this is not the case. Unfortunately; while the human brain is capable of conceiving of logic, and functioning logically, especially with training, it is, often, spectacularly illogical, and capable of frightening degrees of congitive dissonance.

[Azraella]

Religious people are opposed to science. [1] Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?[2]

1. I'm a religious scientist. I am hardly "opposed to science", I just think it has limited explaining power. (And I am only religious in a non-literalist way - I certainly don't believe religion is literally true*.)

2. Hilarious fact: Most early scientific discoveries were done by devoutly religious folk.


*Also, the idea of 'one true religion' is a very recent concept in terms of human history. I could go into details but I have no real desire to give a history lesson. The tl;dr version: religions reflect cultural values and interpretation about the world and occasionally syncretism happened.
---

This thread is a shining example of what annoys the piss out of me from both atheist and Christian colleagues. Like seriously. Is it really hard to not make sweeping statements about heterogenous groups? Do I think all Chrsitians are fundamentalists and bigots? No. I don't view all atheists as anti-religious jerkwads by default either.


I'm just getting tired of these threads where only some warped black and white view of the world is presented.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah comrade it is unfortunate that the Christ meme has totally robbed me of the ability to perform historical inquiry methodologically and systematically while you wise secularists of revleft dot com have achieved so so much with your superior secular meme complex

Lol

[Franz Fanonipants]

You call it "spirituality"; I call it "superstition and myth". And it has thrived in human society in a degree inversely proportional to the degree of scientific knowledge in that society. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. As for Marxian analysis, Marx dealt in materialism. There is no room for spirituality in a materialist worldview. Materialism is itself the affirmation of the real and the negation of the spiritual. Even just 100 years ago, I would understand religiosity a little better, but in a world where we know quantum physics, can synthesize new elements, and have mapped the entire human genome, there simply is no room left for this nonsense! :rolleyes:

All of human history is a pageant of myth and superstition including positivism and the scientism crap that you do wholeheartedly believe is superior to primitive human superstition

[MotherCossack]

1. I'm a religious scientist. I am hardly "opposed to science", I just think it has limited explaining power. (And I am only religious in a non-literalist way - I certainly don't believe religion is literally true*.)

2. Hilarious fact: Most early scientific discoveries were done by devoutly religious folk.


*Also, the idea of 'one true religion' is a very recent concept in terms of human history. I could go into details but I have no real desire to give a history lesson. The tl;dr version: religions reflect cultural values and interpretation about the world and occasionally syncretism happened.
---

This thread is a shining example of what annoys the piss out of me from both atheist and Christian colleagues. Like seriously. Is it really hard to not make sweeping statements about heterogenous groups? Do I think all Chrsitians are fundamentalists and bigots? No. I don't view all atheists as anti-religious jerkwads by default either.


I'm just getting tired of these threads where only some warped black and white view of the world is presented.

well do i agree with you!!!!
thankyou and thankyou !
i was just attempting to crank my grey matter into gear ...when i read this....
does the job well...
i'd just add a bit....
my grandpa is the right reverend Bishop C---G. He is 99 and currently lives in a home for the retired and enfeebled clergy.
He is fluent in arabic and , in his time, preached in both english and arabic. He is an expert in pretty much all holy books and quotes from them all all the time.[especially the koran, which seems to be his prefered choice.]
I have never met a more elegant soul, his view of the world is so devoid of ugliness and his thoughts are of great interest and an inspiration to me.
He would never deny the power of science and in fact it forms part of the basis of his thinking. he believes that god is us... i think... that god made us and the world out of himself and to worship god is to worship all of us and the world.
His faith is about faith in the world and us.
When he talks of it his eyes light up, i swear, even at his age... it is amazing... and all of our world is part of his vision... the new stuff... the bad stuff.... especially the science and the arts.
anyway hope this is relevant...but like you say....
no more black and white , sledgehammer nonsense.... we are better than that ... surely.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

It's hard to Imagine...though it's probably easy if you try..:thumbup1:

Anyway, however much I personally dislike religion and the institutions that promote it, i can't fathom a world without it, in one form or another it's always been here

[Ocean Seal]

I'm pretty sure no one knows what the world will look like in 1000 years, religion or not.

[fabian]

OT

First thing first, it's not religion that's the problem it's fideism. All the theisms and atheisms are fideistic, whereas deism and agnosticism are rationalist.

And secondly, the official science of today is a new religion. What Christianity was in medieval Europe, MOS (modern official science) became today. Doubt relativity or quantum physics (which would the rationalist thing to do, being that those two theories are in conradiction with logic and empiricism) in front of proponents of scientism and you'll see.

[JustMovement]

How are relativity and quantum physics in contradiction with empiricism?

When you state that they are in contradiction with logic I assume that what you mean is that parts of quantum physics are impossible to conceptualise as anything but mathematical formulas? But this is not the same as being a logical contradiction.

[Left Leanings]

Religion at one time was actually regarded as a science. For example, theology was referred to as 'the queen of the sciences'.

Elizabethan metaphysicists, used to address questions like, 'how many angels can you balance on the end of a needle'. Cos they accepted without question, the existence of gods, angels and other supernatural notions, it was to them, a scientific question.

Also, peeps often think that science is always a good and progressive thing. But what about eugenics? And sociobiology? And then, in psychiatry, practices such as lobotomy, insulin coma and focal sepsis, to treat 'mental illness'?

[fabian]

How are relativity and quantum physics in contradiction with empiricism?
Emipiricism = Euclidean space, curvature of space exist as a purely theretical concept; rationalism = presentism, the relativity of time is an unfalsifiable concept.


When you state that they are in contradiction with logic I assume that what you mean is that parts of quantum physics are impossible to conceptualise as anything but mathematical formulas?
Concretly, the concept of quantum superposition is in contradiction with the Second law of thought.

[JustMovement]

I wasn't aware that empiricism presupposes euclidean space, although I'll admit I am limited to Hume and Locke on the matter. The curvature of space can be inferred thru effects such as gravitational lensing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

I am unfamiliar with the second law of thought.

[dodger]

Yes, indeed. Just spit in the face of every religious worker in the world. If someone's personal faith doesn't impinge upon you, why do you go out of your way to attack it? When I mentioned Maxian analysis, I meant that Marx would never have said, "bad things happen because religion lol", like so many on this forum seem to think. It seems like there are more threads on this forum attacking religion than there are attacking capitalism.


On Vatican orders, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and his top bishops in England, Wales and Scotland have attacked Britain's abortion laws, likening them to Nazi-style policies.

The World Health Organisation estimates that 68,000 women die every year from abortions performed illegally because of the Vatican's policy. The Vatican opposes abortion for rape victims.

[Bostana]

DCX3ZNDZAwY

[Rafiq]

Religious people are opposed to science. Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?

At this rate, we are on now, with no changes occuring other than Religion, in 1,000 years the world will be exactly the same, or much worse.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Azraella]

On Vatican orders, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and his top bishops in England, Wales and Scotland have attacked Britain's abortion laws, likening them to Nazi-style policies.

The World Health Organisation estimates that 68,000 women die every year from abortions performed illegally because of the Vatican's policy. The Vatican opposes abortion for rape victims.


That's an issue with organized religion not religion in of itself.

[Revolution starts with U]

If the evidence is clear yet contradicts your logic, it's your logic that's wrong, not the evidence.

[fabian]

The curvature of space can be inferred thru effects such as gravitational lensing.
To conclude that light bending implies space curvature is not science, that an example of the so called "dialectical jump", that's not even philosophy, it's the same thing as the "leap of faith". In order for a conclusion to be logical, it must necessarily follow from the premises.


I am unfamiliar with the second law of thought.
Three laws of thought are the basis of logic.
The law of identity: "Whatever is, is."
The law of non-contradiction: "Nothing can both be and not be."
The law of law of excluded middle: "Everything must either be or not be."


If the evidence is clear yet contradicts your logic
There's no such thing as "your logic", "my logic", "non-classical logic" or any simiral stupidity. There's logic, and something can be either logical or illogical.

[JustMovement]

To conclude that light bending implies space curvature is not science, that an example of the so called "dialectical jump", that's not even philosophy, it's the same thing as the "leap of faith". In order for a conclusion to be logical, it must necessarily follow from the premises.


Three laws of thought are the basis of logic.
The law of identity: "Whatever is, is."
The law of non-contradiction: "Nothing can both be and not be."
The law of law of excluded middle: "Everything must either be or not be."


There's no such thing as "your logic", "my logic", "non-classical logic" or any simiral stupidity. There's logic, and something can be either logical or illogical.

I think most scientists would look at you strangely if you told them that they were conducting a "kierkegaardian leap of faith"

Hume on necessary connections (i.e. following from the premises):

It is certain we here advance a very intelligible proposition at least, if not a true one, when we assert that, after the constant conjunction of two object- heat and flame, for instance, weight and solidity- we are determined by custom alone to expect the one from the appearance of the other... all inferences from experience, therefore, are the effects of custom, not of reasoning.

(Later on)... we only learn by experience the frequent conjunction of objects, without being ever able to comprehend anything like Connexion between them.

Empiricism does not claim that we understand the world through the relentless application of logic. If one hypothesizes the curvature of space to account for how light bends, this is based on a combination of empirical observation, and theoretical abstraction that we use to make other predictions. If these empirical predictions are falsified, then the theory is abandoned or revised.

To be fair I think Kuhne is right that science is not some mountain of facts that is expanded one experiment at a time. We have scientific paradigms that give us context to make experiments intelligible and to direct further research.

As for logic, I profess ignorance.

[fabian]

I think most scientists would look at you strangely if you told them that they were conducting a "kierkegaardian leap of faith"
Or a hegelian dialectical jump, which is essentialy the same thing claming- that your conclusion has a truth value when it does not follow logically (/necessarily) from the premises. And their strange looks would not be a supprise, being that modern official science is a religion surrogate, and not science, it has neither method nor results. Look up Feyerabend and read a little of his explanations on that topic.


Empiricism does not claim that we understand the world through the relentless application of logic
Of course not, because empiricism itself is in essence a "leap a faith" when methodical doubt is applied, only rationalism itself (existence of self and the laws of logic) is self-evident; but that's another topic.


If these empirical predictions are falsified, then the theory is abandoned or revised.
But theory in the first step should not have been propositioned because it is not logical. And also- it cannot be falsified, exactly because it is in essence a "leap of faith".

You cannot infer speace curvature from light bending because you "leap over" explanations that focus on gravitational pull effecting light, and go straight to the space curvature effectiong light which light bending does not necessarily imply.

It's the same with the "two airplane experiment" where different durations are measured. There is no way to logically claim that time is relative based on that data, becase you "jump over" a miriad prevous conclusions that focus on the effect that gravity and acceleration have on matter (the timing equipment), and not on time itself.

So, as I said, those conclusions and theories are in essence "dialectical jumps" or "leaps of faith" and not science (from latin "scientia" - knowledge).

[zoot_allures]

There's no such thing as "your logic", "my logic", "non-classical logic" or any simiral stupidity. There's logic, and something can be either logical or illogical.
There are plenty of non-classical logics. I assume your view is that classical logic is the "correct" or "objective" logic or something? Why do you hold that view?

[fabian]

There are plenty of non-classical logics.
No. There are non-classical "logics".


I assume your view is that classical logic is the "correct" or "objective" logic or something?
No. Classical logic is not the "correct" logic, it is the only logic.


Why do you hold that view?
Three laws of thought.

[zoot_allures]

No. There are non-classical "logics".

No. Classical logic is not the "correct" logic, it is the only logic.

Three laws of thought.
How are you defining "logic"? Why is it, exactly, that classical logic is the only logic?

Okay, and why are you putting the "three laws of thought" on a pedestal? Also, there is not just one form of classical logic. How do you choose which is the "real" logic? Or are they all equally legitimate?

What about extensions of classical logic (e.g. modal logic)? Do you consider those to be forms of logic?

[fabian]

How are you defining "logic"?
Logic is the systematization of correct thinking.


Okay, and why are you putting the "three laws of thought" on a pedestal?
Because they are the basis of logic.


Or are they all equally legitimate?
They are all just different ways to formulane propositions and deductions or are applications of logic to externalities (to which the Three laws do not relate directly).


What about extensions of classical logic (e.g. modal logic)? Do you consider those to be forms of logic?
Of course, modal logic doesn't deny or violate the Three laws.

[zoot_allures]

Because they are the basis of logic.
Hahaha, well I guess there's not much point pursuing this.

[fabian]

I'd say. Self-existence and the Three laws logic are the first axioms that are evident when applying methodical doubt (also called skepticism, or critical thinking).

[zoot_allures]

They are all just different ways to formulane propositions and deductions or are applications of logic to externalities (to which the Three laws do not relate directly).
Different classical logics are not all compatible. The differences are minor, but to give a popular example: on the Aristotelian view, the following argument would be valid: "All C is A; therefore, some A is C". That argument isn't valid on the modern view, though, because the modern view allows empty terms (so if we say that that argument form is valid, we'd end up having to accept arguments like "all unicorns are animals; therefore, some animals are unicorns").

Also, I changed my mind about not pursuing your views on the three laws. I'm genuinely interested if you could expand on your views there - I already know that you consider the three laws to be the basis of logic (and in the context of the previous posts that argument is circular, hence my exasperation). But why? Why put them on a pedestal? How do you respond to people who want to trash them, who say that actually there are other species of logic that are totally legitimate and that aren't constrained by the three laws (I'm one of those people, by the way).

If you're only going to bother responding with a seven word sentence then I'm not interested. But you clearly have quite unusual views, and I'd love to know how they work.

[SpiritiualMarxist]

If you think spiritualism is contradictory towards materialism, your understanding of spiritualism is lacking. Plenty of fields of spiritualism are grounded in the physical world, to some, it just means reaching altered states of minds, to others it can be more of a personal psychological thing or introspective exploration, and to others it could be purely philosophical.

The field of spiritualism is obviously dominated with superstitious dogma and crap. But to dismiss the who field because of dominating ideologies would be like saying you're writing off all politics because all you see in the news is centrist bullshit.

[Revolution starts with U]

To conclude that light bending implies space curvature is not science, that an example of the so called "dialectical jump", that's not even philosophy, it's the same thing as the "leap of faith". In order for a conclusion to be logical, it must necessarily follow from the premises.

That may be necessary to prove its validity. It is not necessary to prove its truth. To prove its truth, one must only observe a thing.

For example:
All faces are rounded
The moon has a face
The moon is rounded.

I just came to a correct conclusion using wild and crazy false logic. The premises are correct, they lead to the conclsion, and the conclusion is correct. Yet, if you think this intellectual exercise helps us understand the moon, you're crazy.

Spacetime curvature as a theory existed before it was verified. It's not that, as was implied, gravitational lensing proves STC. What it does is give the theory of Relativity observational merit.

Theories are abstractions.



Three laws of thought are the basis of logic.
The law of identity: "Whatever is, is."
The law of non-contradiction: "Nothing can both be and not be."
The law of law of excluded middle: "Everything must either be or not be."

Law one, right there. Evidence trumps reason, every time. Whatever is, is; regardless of its logical validity.



There's no such thing as "your logic", "my logic", "non-classical logic" or any simiral stupidity. There's logic, and something can be either logical or illogical.

There are non-classical logics. I don't know where you got the idea that there weren't.

Oh, and non-aggression axiom touting logician... and yet claims not to be an ancap? :lol:

A thing cannot be both A and B, and yet all the evidence says that an electron can be both wave and particle at the same time. Logic is overrated.

[fabian]

Different classical logics are not all compatible. The differences are minor, but to give a popular example: on the Aristotelian view, the following argument would be valid: "All C is A; therefore, some A is C". That argument isn't valid on the modern view, though, because the modern view allows empty terms (so if we say that that argument form is valid, we'd end up having to accept arguments like "all unicorns are animals; therefore, some animals are unicorns").
The example you gave is invalid. "all unicorns are animals" is a false premise, because unicorns are not animals, they are imaginary animals (which is not a type of animal, but a type of an imaginary object).


Also, I changed my mind about not pursuing your views on the three laws. I'm genuinely interested if you could expand on your views there - I already know that you consider the three laws to be the basis of logic (and in the context of the previous posts that argument is circular, hence my exasperation). But why? Why put them on a pedestal?
They are axioms of thought. Being that- you cannot base axioms on or defend axioms by the system that is based on that axioms; and that basing ideas on anything or defending them is an act of thought- three laws of thought are (together with the axiom of self-existence) the most basic axioms out there.


How do you respond to people who want to trash them
How should one respond to ravings of idiots? If someone starts to trash empiricism or existence of self, or reallity, you cannot continue talking with them because their ideas trash the concept of talking. If someone denies three laws of logic they deny thinking, how can anyone be expected to respond to that?


For example:
All faces are rounded
The moon has a face
The moon is rounded.

I just came to a correct conclusion
No you didn't. The statement that is the third line of this deduction is true, but being that in this deduction the conclusion does not follow from the premises the conclusion itself is invalid. You made no point.


Spacetime curvature as a theory existed before it was verified.
It is not verified, nor can it be verified.


Evidence trumps reason, every time.
Reason and evidence cannot be in contradiciton.


There are non-classical logics.
No. There are non-classical "logics".


Oh, and non-aggression axiom touting logician... and yet claims not to be an ancap?
I am against both anarchy and against capitalism.


A thing cannot be both A and B, and yet all the evidence says that an electron can be both wave and particle at the same time.
An electron can have both have wave-like and particle-like properties, but it cannot be both wave and particle.

[Revolution starts with U]

How should one respond to ravings of idiots? If someone starts to trash empiricism or existence of self, or reallity, you cannot continue talking with them because their ideas trash the concept of talking. If someone denies three laws of logic they deny thinking, how can anyone be expected to respond to that?

Should say something about axiomatic views of the world, eh? Maybe not...



No you didn't. The statement that is the third line of this deduction is true, but being that in this deduction the conclusion does not follow from the premises the conclusion itself is invalid. You made no point.

How does it not follow? Do you even know logic? (I don't think so, or you wouldn't say logic helps us find truth values).
All As are B
C is A
Therefore C is B

That is perfectly valid.


It is not verified, nor can it be verified.
It could be, were there a material "spacetime." This is a question still being debated in the physics community; what exactly IS spacetime and what is curving.




Reason and evidence cannot be in contradiciton.

Reason, perhaps. That's a smokey definition in the first place. Logic and evidence clearly can be.

No. There are non-classical "logics".



I am against both anarchy and against capitalism.

How is a non-aggression tool against anarchy? Isn't the state inherently aggressive? This is unrelated tho, don't respond, or PM me.



An electron can have both have wave-like and particle-like properties, but it cannot be both wave and particle.

I don't think you understand QM theory.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I don´t see how bourgeois reason (the enlightenment etc.) is any less of a mythology and superstition than religion is.
Religion´s role in shaping human history and social conditions is overrated anyway.

[gorillafuck]

this is an impossible thing to theorize about.

[fabian]

All As are B
C is A
Therefore C is B
That is perfectly valid.
This may be. But "all As are B, C has an A, therefore C is B"- is not.


It could be, were there a material "spacetime." This is a question still being debated in the physics community; what exactly IS spacetime and what is curving.
Space cannot curve because it has no structure. Space is infinite emptiness that call be filled with something that has structure.



Reason, perhaps. That's a smokey definition in the first place. Logic and evidence clearly can be.
No, they cannot. Correctness of thinking cannot be in contradiction with factualness.


How is a non-aggression tool against anarchy?
Without state we'd have a market of competing laws, which would mean that non-agression axiom would be optional, therefore a state is necessary to uphold it.


Isn't the state inherently aggressive?
Method of elimination shows anarchy as incompatible with the non-aggression axiom, and beceause when you "eliminate the impossible, whatever is left is correct", state is the only way to uphold the axiom.

[/quote]I don't think you understand QM theory.[/QUOTE]
I understand it enough to know that it is contradition with logic.


I don´t see how bourgeois reason (the enlightenment etc.) is any less of a mythology and superstition than religion is.
Argumentation, checking the validity of conclusions and systematizing the correcness of thinking began in Ancient Greece. Even if they began in the "bourgeouis enlightenment" a few centuries ago, that shourly would not make them false by default.

[Revolution starts with U]

This may be. But "all As are B, C has an A, therefore C is B"- is not.

Ya, except it is, seeing as how the context of my "has" is interchangeable with "is." The moon "has" a face, or "is" a face really don't mean anything different.



Space cannot curve because it has no structure. Space is infinite emptiness that call be filled with something that has structure.

No. You need to do more research. Most physicists will even say that it is absurd to talk about a time before the big bang, which means "space" isn't some thing that existed before existence popped into it. It means "space" came about at the same time as matter; that space is finite, it actually "fills" the universe (expansion, homie), and may have a structure of its own.

You should at least read a few pop physics books before you start acting like an expert.


No, they cannot. Correctness of thinking cannot be in contradiction with factualness.

Logic != correctness of thinking. I know they called it the "laws of thought." But unlike real scientific laws, these are unverifiable non-observations. They're woo woo and gibberish.
That's not to say that logic is spurious. It's important. Not as important as evidence.


Without state we'd have a market of competing laws, which would mean that non-agression axiom would be optional, therefore a state is necessary to uphold it.
:thumbup: I'm not sure how well that goes over at the Mises forums, but I actually agree (at least in the context of capitalism).


I understand it enough to know that it is contradition with logic.
Do you?




Argumentation, checking the validity of conclusions and systematizing the correcness of thinking began in Ancient Greece. Even if they began in the "bourgeouis enlightenment" a few centuries ago, that shourly would not make them false by default.

False... or do you think Imhotep thought up the specs for pyramids through magic? We just think the Greeks started all this because of white supremacist educational systems.



It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry), which originally meant the same as "land measurement".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#cite_note-2) In particular, the ancient Egyptians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) had empirically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) discovered some truths of geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_mathematics), such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustum).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#cite_note-Kneale3-3)
Another origin can be seen in Babylonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia). Esagil-kin-apli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esagil-kin-apli)'s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) and assumptions,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#cite_note-Stol-99-4) while Babylonian astronomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy) in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_logic) within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#cite_note-Brown-5)

from wiki.

Evidence trumps logic, always, no matter how important is that logic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religious people are opposed to science. Where do you see the human race 1,000 years from now if we disregarded religion for science?Extinct if capitalism wasn't overthrown by workers.


I don´t see how bourgeois reason (the enlightenment etc.) is any less of a mythology and superstition than religion is.
Religion´s role in shaping human history and social conditions is overrated anyway.

I agree, if Religious institutions had been abolished during the French Revolution and then later abolished in the rest of the capitalist world, then the bourgeois would have just tied their morality to rhetoric about "nature" (as they often do anyway) rather than religious values, specifically Christian virtues. Just compare Islamophobia by the US elite vs. the French elite: it's almost identical except that for one Islam supposedly threatens "Christian Values" and in the other instance it is said to threaten "Secular values/society".

As to the point about capitalist reason: I also agree that science is not free from ideological class entanglements. I generally think postmodernism is useless, but actually many of the issues that they raise (though not the conclusions they draw) are very valid. So po-mo observations about science are very useful IMO but the conclusion they draw is that then there can be no such thing as universal knowledge or objective truth. I think there's a synthesis between the general modernist attitude of science being above ideology and the po-mo criticisms of bias and ideological influence in science: that science can potentially reveal universal truths but that in practice today it is not set outside the class system and the ideologies around this organization of society. Sorry, a bit of a digression, but I've been interested in the subject of scientific knowledge under capitalism lately.

[fabian]

Ya, except it is, seeing as how the context of my "has" is interchangeable with "is." The moon "has" a face, or "is" a face really don't mean anything different.

has =/= is. (even more when taking into consideration that "has" is used methaforically in your example)


You need to do more research.
You need to start thinking.


Most physicists will even say that it is absurd to talk about a time before the big bang,
As I said, you need to start thinking, and not accept these fideistic nonsence. Space cannot not-exists, or be limited, or have a structure. As I said- space is infinite empiness. How can "space expand"- into what? Into empty fucking space?


Logic != correctness of thinking. I know they called it the "laws of thought." But unlike real scientific laws, these are unverifiable non-observations. They're woo woo and gibberish.
Most idiotic thing you could say. Science is based on Laws of thought, which are the most basic axioms.


Do you?
Yep.


False... or do you think Imhotep thought up the specs for pyramids through magic? We just think the Greeks started all this because of white supremacist educational systems.
Imphotep built pyramids, he didn't write about logic. Aristotle was the first to name the three laws of logic (although they were talked about philosophers before him).


Evidence trumps logic, always, no matter how important is that logic.
Logic: Systematization of correct thinking. Evidence: Anything used to demonstrate truth. Giving evidence presuposes correct thinking. Logic > Evidence.

[Revolution starts with U]

has =/= is. (even more when taking into consideration that "has" is used methaforically in your example)

1. To express "does not equal" symbolically, it is generally agreed that the term is "!=" not "=/="

2. If I "have" a face, my face "is" a face. You know my point. I can just as easily say "The moon is a face" and the analogy still stands. It is still a valid logical argument.



You need to start thinking.

Ya, well I was my logic professor's favorite student so...



As I said, you need to start thinking, and not accept these fideistic nonsence. Space cannot not-exists, or be limited, or have a structure. As I said- space is infinite empiness. How can "space expand"- into what? Into empty fucking space?

"Into" is the problem you're having. Again, you need to do more research. (It's funny that you, saying logic trumps evidence is telling me to think more. ANd me saying evidence trumps logic is telling you to do more research. I am showing you evidence that no matter how valid your thinking is, it is incorrect. But you're just continuing on as a logical dogmatist.
In this interpretation, which is probably the most common one held by the general physics community, there is no "into." Space and the matter that fills it popped into existence at the same time, at the big bang. And space can certainly have a structure, which would go far to explain dark energy and cosmic inflation.
Besides, there's really no "space" in the sense you're thinking. The vacuum is not a vacuum, as there are particles likely popping in and out of existence continuously.
You're just asserting space as infinite emptiness, with no evidence, let alone reasoning to back your claim. Many physicists think if you went in a straight line through the universe you would come back to where you started; meaning not infinite. And it's not empy, seeing as how you live on a fucking planet right now.



Most idiotic thing you could say. Science is based on Laws of thought, which are the most basic axioms.

No, it's really not. Science is based on evidence, and uses reasoning to interpret the evidence. The "laws" of thought are outside the scope of science... unless you can show me how to quantify "is-ness."



Yep.

I really don't think so. You're making some very basic mistakes here, that you would know if you had just read a pop physics book or two. So, the answer you were looking for was.. "no."



Imphotep built pyramids, he didn't write about logic. Aristotle was the first to name the three laws of logic (although they were talked about philosophers before him).

We don't know if he ever wrote (or talked, come on. It's not like spoken word retainment of knowledge wasn't the most popular form of the day) about it. But we do know that he had knowledge of logic and reasoning. So it's not like the greeks "invented it" out of a vaccum like a white supremacist historical narrative would have you believe.



Logic: Systematization of correct thinking. Evidence: Anything used to demonstrate truth. Giving evidence presuposes correct thinking. Logic > Evidence.

So if I punch you in the face, with no words said, you have to go through a logical process to realize that it hurts? No. You seen the evidence, and later rationalized it as pain and a thing to be avoided.

There is no thought in the first place without the evidence that the thinker exists. Evidence is reality, and exists independant of people. Logic is a mental phenomenon, and cannot exist without a mind.

[fabian]

2. If I "have" a face, my face "is" a face.
And yet you are not a face. "All faces are rounded, You have a face, You are rounded" is not a valid deduction.


Ya, well I was my logic professor's favorite student so...
Logic professor that probably accepted non-classical "logics".


But you're just continuing on as a logical dogmatist.
Telling someone he's a logical dogmatist is like saying he's a reality dogmatist or truth dogmatism.


n this interpretation, which is probably the most common one held by the general physics community, there is no "into."
Which is idiotic. Rationalism (by Occam's razor) leads us to the space = infinite emptiness = void / place (that can be occupied with something corporeal/ material). The "most common" view of space is pure fideism and pure idiocy.


You're just asserting space as infinite emptiness, with no evidence, let alone reasoning to back your claim.
And space curvature has a reasoning behind it? The theory of space curvature is the epitome of fideism and the leap of faith.


No, it's really not. Science is based on evidence, and uses reasoning to interpret the evidence.
Actually, it is, being that thinking is based on the three laws of thought, and science is based on thinking.


There is no thought in the first place without the evidence that the thinker exists.
The thought is the evidence the thinker exists.

[RGacky3]

Fabian, as too your rediculous claims about claims in science (quantum physics, space curvature and so on).

Its called inference to the best explanation, its not that difficult, you take the evidence, put it all together, and find the best explination, and until a better explination comes up (which has happened, for example for a lot of neutonian physics), then you revise it.

But to claim its "not scientific" is rediculous.


The thought is the evidence the thinker exists.

errr, no, a thought is always a thought about something, that something is the evidence.


Which is idiotic. Rationalism (by Occam's razor) leads us to the space = infinite emptiness = void / place (that can be occupied with something corporeal/ material). The "most common" view of space is pure fideism and pure idiocy.


Not at all, Occam's razor only applies to 2 theories that account for all the evidence, are both equally coherant, and so on. What your saying about space being infinate emptiness does NOT account for all the scientific evidence and observation, so it does'nt matter that its simpler.


As I said, you need to start thinking, and not accept these fideistic nonsence. Space cannot not-exists, or be limited, or have a structure. As I said- space is infinite empiness. How can "space expand"- into what? Into empty fucking space?


Take a physics class ....

Right now all your appealing too is naive intuition, not logic, your using logic ONLY with your naive intuition and ignoring the rest of the evidence from modern science.


Logic: Systematization of correct thinking. Evidence: Anything used to demonstrate truth. Giving evidence presuposes correct thinking. Logic > Evidence.

Not at all, logic is only as good as the evidence postulated, just like an argument is only as good as its premises. Its not that one is better than the other, you need both.


Reason and evidence cannot be in contradiciton.


Well if there is a contradiction you have to adjust certain axioms, or you have to question the evidence, or the interpretation of the evidence.

Now if the evidence is overwhelming, has resulted in many many true predictions you can't adjust that, now you could adjust the interpretation, but then you'd have to come up with another one.

Now you might say that certain logical axioms should be the LAST thing you give up, but logical axioms are derived ... ultimately .... from human experience, i.e. evidence.

Either way, CORRECTLY understood quantum physics and relativity theory does'nt even contradict the most basic logical axioms, the only way they do is if you.

A: Misunderstand them, or
B: Misunderstand the physical definitions/laws.

Your problems with these scientific theories comes from a misunderstanding of them and naive intuition, you sit down and are SURE that space must be eternal and a void, yet space when used in physics is relative, and has been proven to be so, as has time, space is measurable and infact has properties, whatever exists beyond physical measurable space (which includes the quantum vaccume) is not of concern to sciencists because its really not knowable, but calling that "space" is essencially useless, anytime space is used in common language or science its a measurable area.

[fabian]

Its called inference to the best explanation, its not that difficult, you take the evidence, put it all together, and find the best explination, and until a better explination comes up
Space curvature is not the best explanation. Eg. in the case of gravitational lensins- the best explanation is that object's gravity affets light, not that object curves space, and then light travels through the curved space. That's a pure dialectical jump, making a clame that doesn't follow from any premise, it simply opens new questions and asks for new explanations- how can space curve in the first place when it is not corporeal and thus has no structure, etc.


errr, no, a thought is always a thought about something, that something is the evidence.
Cogito ergo sum.


Not at all, logic is only as good as the evidence postulated
Logic: Systematization of correct thinking.


Now if the evidence is overwhelming
And the oppossite is true in the case of space curvature or time relativity.


has resulted in many many true predictions
Everything predicted by Einsteinian relativity was also predicted by Lorenzian relativity.


and has been proven to be so
Not even close.

[RGacky3]

Space curvature is not the best explanation. Eg. in the case of gravitational lensins- the best explanation is that object's gravity affets light, not that object curves space, and then light travels through the curved space. That's a pure dialectical jump, making a clame that doesn't follow from any premise, it simply opens new questions and asks for new explanations- how can space curve in the first place when it is not corporeal and thus has no structure, etc.


Well then write to physics departments in universities, and get your work publicshed.

I really doubt your the first one that thought of the gravity explination.

BTW, einstien claimed that space DOES have structure, and that space and time were actally one spacetime, and that spacetime is relative, which has been proven.

Again your objections to Einstine are nothing more than semantic and nothing more than appealing to naive intuition.


Cogito ergo sum.


Yes, but all thought is thought of something, i.e. evidential.


Logic: Systematization of correct thinking.


Again, thought is always the thought of something, that something is the evidence used.


And the oppossite is true in the case of space curvature or time relativity.


Then publish something, because if its true, then almost all of physics has it wrong, because somehow you know something they don't ...


Everything predicted by Einsteinian relativity was also predicted by Lorenzian relativity.


Not exactly, Einstein had a theory of gravity, Lorentz did not, as well as different things specific to relativity.

I'm not a physician, and I don't think you are either, but if you have HONESTLY found real problems in quantum physics and relativity theory, and problems that are beyond semantics and toutology (which I claim is your only point), then by all means write to a university and get your ideas published.

[fabian]

Well then write to physics departments in universities, and get your work publicshed.
That is not possible, because being that MOS (modern official science) is a surrogate religion and a substitute for medieval christianity, it's instutions act similarly to those of medieval christianity, without violence, but with the same absolute truth stance of excommunicating and labeling as pseud-scientist (modern substitute for heretic) anyone who say anything different. How could I write to official "scientific" instutions when someone like Fritz Zwicky, who was given enormous respect as one of the fathers of modern astronomy as long as he said what they wanted to hear- when he said that alternative theories (concretly the Stable state universe) make more sense in the light of data available they called him a pseudo-scientist.Or Thomas Van Flandern, who was respected, not as much as Zwicky, but a lot, for his scientific work- was treshed and labeled as a pseudo-scientist when he (similarly like Zwicky) said that relativity of space-itself and time-itself do not follow from the observed phenomena normaly interpreted to mean space curvature and time relativity. That being said, and also taking into consideration the prevalence of credentialism, my writting to "scientific" institutions would be more then pointless.


Yes, but all thought is thought of something, i.e. evidential.
Possibility of the floating man thought experiment shows that mind can self-contemplate, even without any external object to think about.


Not exactly, Einstein had a theory of gravity, Lorentz did not
He did, and it was pretty much the same as Einstein's the differences being that his incorporated the existance of "ether" as a prefered frame (as something coproreal that "curves" thus avoing the idiocy of space curvature) and a universal time (thus avoiding the idiocy of time relativity).
Metaresearch website has some esseys by Van Flandern on that topic.

[RGacky3]

That is not possible, because being that MOS (modern official science) is a surrogate religion and a substitute for medieval christianity, it's instutions act similarly to those of medieval christianity, without violence, but with the same absolute truth stance of excommunicating and labeling as pseud-scientist (modern substitute for heretic) anyone who say anything different. How could I write to official "scientific" instutions when someone like Fritz Zwicky, who was given enormous respect as one of the fathers of modern astronomy as long as he said what they wanted to hear- when he said that alternative theories (concretly the Stable state universe) make more sense in the light of data available they called him a pseudo-scientist.Or Thomas Van Flandern, who was respected, not as much as Zwicky, but a lot, for his scientific work- was treshed and labeled as a pseudo-scientist when he (similarly like Zwicky) said that relativity of space-itself and time-itself do not follow from the observed phenomena normaly interpreted to mean space curvature and time relativity. That being said, and also taking into consideration the prevalence of credentialism, my writting to "scientific" institutions would be more then pointless.

I see, so its a scientific conspiracy, scientists are using realtivity theory to control the masses.

As far as Zwicky, yeah he had contemporaries that didn't like him, but some of his theories proved to be true, others did not.

Anyway, the idea that science is some huge conpiracy is just rediculous, who has what to gain by pushing relativity theory???


Possibility of the floating man thought experiment shows that mind can self-contemplate, even without any external object to think about.

That thought experiment does'nt prove anything, and infact it flies in the face of most modern philosophies of mind.

It does'nt demonstrate anything, all thought is still thought of something, the self is just a collection of senses and brain activity.


He did, and it was pretty much the same as Einstein's the differences being that his incorporated the existance of "ether" as a prefered frame (as something coproreal that "curves" thus avoing the idiocy of space curvature) and a universal time (thus avoiding the idiocy of time relativity).
Metaresearch website has some esseys by Van Flandern on that topic.

So then why did most of science go with Einstein's theory??? Is it they all forgot aristotalian logic???

[fabian]

I see, so its a scientific conspiracy, scientists are using realtivity theory to control the masses.


Anyway, the idea that science is some huge conpiracy is just rediculous, who has what to gain by pushing relativity theory???

"The Roe v. Wade opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part.

A change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry."

The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics by Laurence Tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe).

This acticle (http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24222/) is mistaken only in that it's not secularism that's behind this tendency, but primarily neoliberalism.


the self is just a collection of senses and brain activity.
As the mentioned thought experiment suggests- it is not.


So then why did most of science go with Einstein's theory???
You'll have to ask them that. I'm that big on conspiracy theories, I think the root problem is in the slowness of human evolution towards rationality, based on the (primarily intellectual) lazyness of people; coming to rational conclusions, thinking rationally, and living rationally all take effort. The theory about neoliberal conpiracy is interesting, there obviously are individuals who are motivated by that ideology.


Is it they all forgot aristotalian logic???
They forgot logic, and accepted "logics". As I said- rationality requires effort, and I guess logic reminds them of that, Idk..

[Revolution starts with U]

And yet you are not a face. "All faces are rounded, You have a face, You are rounded" is not a valid deduction.

If streets are wet it has rained recently.
The streets are wet.
It has rained recently.

I'm sorry I tried to make up my own false premise, and it lead to this diversion. The point is that the first thing you learn in a logic class is that logic is not a be-all end-all. Things can be perfectly valid and wildly untrue. This is elementary logic.



Logic professor that probably accepted non-classical "logics".

Well, valid logics (like Boolean, with which our computers depend on) are valid logics.



Telling someone he's a logical dogmatist is like saying he's a reality dogmatist or truth dogmatism.

If the shoe fits...
(But that's false, because logic doesn't establish truisms. It only establishes, validity.)


Which is idiotic. Rationalism (by Occam's razor) leads us to the space = infinite emptiness = void / place (that can be occupied with something corporeal/ material). The "most common" view of space is pure fideism and pure idiocy.


Says the guy with no experience in the field, who thinks logic establishes truth values.
Show me your argument for how OR leads us to this definition of space necessarily.


And space curvature has a reasoning behind it? The theory of space curvature is the epitome of fideism and the leap of faith.

Ya, except it has been expirementally verified... dummy. :rolleyes:


Actually, it is, being that thinking is based on the three laws of thought, and science is based on thinking.



The thought is the evidence the thinker exists.

Thoughts come after evidence. Evidence exists independant of us. Thought does not.

[Revolution starts with U]

Space curvature is not the best explanation. Eg. in the case of gravitational lensins- the best explanation is that object's gravity affets light, not that object curves space, and then light travels through the curved space. That's a pure dialectical jump, making a clame that doesn't follow from any premise, it simply opens new questions and asks for new explanations- how can space curve in the first place when it is not corporeal and thus has no structure, etc.


Light is massless, meaning gravity cannot effect it directly. The so-far only explanation for lensing is Einsteinian relativity, meaning gravity bends space AND TIME, and the light follows that path. Relativity is also inferred by the slow aging of people's and things in space (which it predicted).


Cogito ergo sum.

This just shows how outdated you are, buddy. Your thinking could just as easily be a part of the demon's spell.



Logic: Systematization of correct thinking.

Yep. What they does not say is "establishment of truth value."



And the oppossite is true in the case of space curvature or time relativity.


Actually the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of relativity.


Everything predicted by Einsteinian relativity was also predicted by Lorenzian relativity.

Source




Not even close.

:rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

That is not possible, because being that MOS (modern official science) is a surrogate religion and a substitute for medieval christianity, it's instutions act similarly to those of medieval christianity, without violence, but with the same absolute truth stance of excommunicating and labeling as pseud-scientist (modern substitute for heretic) anyone who say anything different. How could I write to official "scientific" instutions when someone like Fritz Zwicky, who was given enormous respect as one of the fathers of modern astronomy as long as he said what they wanted to hear- when he said that alternative theories (concretly the Stable state universe) make more sense in the light of data available they called him a pseudo-scientist.Or Thomas Van Flandern, who was respected, not as much as Zwicky, but a lot, for his scientific work- was treshed and labeled as a pseudo-scientist when he (similarly like Zwicky) said that relativity of space-itself and time-itself do not follow from the observed phenomena normaly interpreted to mean space curvature and time relativity. That being said, and also taking into consideration the prevalence of credentialism, my writting to "scientific" institutions would be more then pointless.


Actually, the scientific community makes many of these same points against the peer-review process. Scientists are generally very open to being honest... not always, they are people after all. They recognize credentialism (a term that started amongst them btw), and modernism (meaning thinking what we know is true now will be true in the future).
They are very open to different interpretations that better account for the evidence too. There's a Discover article about this in last month's issue actually (not that Discover is the pinnacle of science or anything :lol:). The issues of relativity are acknowledged by virtually every scientist in the world. Your caricature of bishop-like dogmatists ruining people's lives is simply untrue.
I mean look at String Theory for christ's sake! ST has virtually no evidence in its favor, but it is respected and allowed to be toyed around with because it can account for the evidence as well as what we think currently.
Or for example, Piltdown Man. Sure, British anthropologists jumped on that with vigor; that humanity started in England?! What a breakthrough. American and German anthropologists were immediately sceptical, and a decade later when they could finally get at the evidence, they proved it a hoax. The current scientific method is the most open, honest, non-dogmatic system ever etablished in written history.
And that's the problem. You think peer-review has issues? What do you propose? How can we best get at the truth value of a person's claim? The whole point of science is not to say it knows what is right. It attempts to best explain the evidence, until something better comes along. We can go back to just using logic, or whatever, but the problem with that is that it did NOT recently rain on the streets, somebody went down it with a hose (see post above).


Possibility of the floating man thought experiment shows that mind can self-contemplate, even without any external object to think about.

Mind can objectify mind? Ya, I think that's its prime purpose...
Mind has to "observe" mind to self-contemplate. It has to have things existing, which is evidence. Existence comes before thought, necessarily and by definition; for if there is thought, thought exists.



He did, and it was pretty much the same as Einstein's the differences being that his incorporated the existance of "ether" as a prefered frame (as something coproreal that "curves" thus avoing the idiocy of space curvature) and a universal time (thus avoiding the idiocy of time relativity).
Metaresearch website has some esseys by Van Flandern on that topic.

I'll look it up. Meanwhile, Nassim Haramein has a theory of existence that does away with these too, postulating that the basic structure of the universe is a 3d star of david/egyptian pyramid and a black hole. How do we tell the difference between Harameinian theory and Lorentzian and Einstenian theory? What is the best method to get at which of them is "true?"

[Revolution starts with U]

The Roe v. Wade opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part.

A change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry."

The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics by Laurence Tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe).

This acticle (http://www.wnd.com/2004/04/24222/) is mistaken only in that it's not secularism that's behind this tendency, but primarily neoliberalism.

So what you are saying is that neoliberals are pushing Einstenian relativity because they can use it to show that the law is "bendable," and thus push their agenda?



As the mentioned thought experiment suggests- it is not.

Or... let me make this wild jump, as you would call it... I AM, ie, thinking, IS a sensory phenomenon, and it is archaic to suggest first there's thought, then the universe happens.
If thought exists, then thought exists. A=A. To put it in logical terms.

But most importantly; where is the evidence that thought can exist independant of electrochemical reactions? It would seem the evidence strongly suggests the opposite, that it cannot.


You'll have to ask them that. I'm that big on conspiracy theories,
Freudian slip? :lol:


I think the root problem is in the slowness of human evolution towards rationality, based on the (primarily intellectual) lazyness of people; coming to rational conclusions, thinking rationally, and living rationally all take effort. The theory about neoliberal conpiracy is interesting, there obviously are individuals who are motivated by that ideology.

If one threatens my being, then I should get rid of them.
If I am a human, I require food.
If food exists, it is scarce.
If it is scarce the consumption of it threatens my being.
I should get rid of food eaters.

Tell me where I'm wrong, without checking the evidential value of my claims.

This is the point:
All ienfei are bleian
All rogor are ienfei.
All bleian are rogor

Is valid.

It's fine to say
All men are mortal
All Greeks are men
All Greeks are mortal.

But then you have to go check this. Are all men mortal? Are all Greeks men? If so, then yes, all Greeks are mortal. If not, this was just a waste of time.

Nobody is suggesting people live or think illogically. We're asserting that if the evidence contradicts your logic, your logic is wrong.

[zoot_allures]

The example you gave is invalid. "all unicorns are animals" is a false premise, because unicorns are not animals, they are imaginary animals (which is not a type of animal, but a type of an imaginary object).
Although usually it might be kinda pedantic to point this out, I think it's relevant, because it maybe says about your knowledge of the topic:

No argument is invalid by virtue of a premise being false. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. For example, the following argument is totally valid: "if the moon is made of cheese, then Frank Zappa is still alive; the moon is made of cheese; therefore Frank Zappa is still alive". You can choose whatever premises you want. As long as you plug them into a valid form, like the modus ponens I just gave, then you've got a valid argument.

Anyway, you can debate the example I gave, but the general point still holds. On the modern view empty terms are permitted, on the Aristotelian they're not, and that does have an impact, however slight. Arguments which are valid on the Aristotelian view might not be on the modern view.


They are axioms of thought. Being that- you cannot base axioms on or defend axioms by the system that is based on that axioms; and that basing ideas on anything or defending them is an act of thought- three laws of thought are (together with the axiom of self-existence) the most basic axioms out there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you suggest putting the three laws on a pedestal because in your view that's how thought literally works? (and if not, in what sense are they "the most basic"?)


How should one respond to ravings of idiots? If someone starts to trash empiricism or existence of self, or reallity, you cannot continue talking with them because their ideas trash the concept of talking. If someone denies three laws of logic they deny thinking, how can anyone be expected to respond to that?
Well, obviously, people who don't support dogmatically adhering to those "three laws" would disagree that logic or thinking has to work that way. I sure don't see any reason to suppose that those "three laws" constrain either logic or thought.

Since you've described the opposing view as the "ravings of idiots", I'd be interested to know just what books you've read about non-classical logics.

[fabian]

Such zeal in defending science with isn't science. As I said- modern official "science" is just a surrogate religion and a replacement for medieval christianity, so it's not supprising to see the religious-like reactions here. And I also said that there's no point in talking with someone who denies the validity of thinking and thus talking, so I'm not going to that, maybe when some post something sensible I'll reply. Cheers. :thumbup1:

[Tim Finnegan]

You guys realise that "science" and "religion" are both ideological constructs, right? They're not actually things.

[Revolution starts with U]

I fail to see how "evidence reveals truth," expirmentation, and peer-review are ideological constructs. I mean, science can be used as such. But in its own right, it is neutral, and necessary.

Nobody is denying the the three logical "laws" of thought. What we're denying is that if the evidence contradicts our logic that it is the evidence that is wrong. What we are NOT denying is reality.

But you go ahead and slink out of discussions you look like a fool in. You're only fooling yourself, comrade :cool:

[Tim Finnegan]

There's a distinction between scientific methodologies, and "science" as a discrete sphere of knowledge distinct from and contrary to "religion". You won't see that sort of distinction made anywhere in human history until the Renaissance, and even today nobody's really sure where "science" actually begins or ends. (Is psychology a science? History? Architecture?)

[Revolution starts with U]

You're saying it's not "science" that is ideological, but when it becomes "a Science?"

I mean, I can sort-of agree with that. I read an article by a physicist (I think Tyson) arguing that we should just drop the moniker "scientists" and just refer to them by their specific professions; physicist, chemist, psychologist.

So ya, you can't really consider things a "science," rather than just seeing if they use scientific methodology.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also I love how pointing out someone's fundamental misunderstanding of logic is "religious like reaction!" lulz :laugh:

[Tim Finnegan]

You're saying it's not "science" that is ideological, but when it becomes "a Science?"

I mean, I can sort-of agree with that. I read an article by a physicist (I think Tyson) arguing that we should just drop the moniker "scientists" and just refer to them by their specific professions; physicist, chemist, psychologist.

So ya, you can't really consider things a "science," rather than just seeing if they use scientific methodology.
That's pretty much what I'm getting at, yeah. All fields use scientific methodologies to some extent (is a market researcher a "scientist", because his work involves an examination of empirical evidence and making predictions on that basis?), so to make any firm delineation between "science" and "not science" is an ideological claim, rather than a simply descriptive one.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Revolution Begins With U -

dear dummy,

have you read thomas kuhn y/n

[Revolution starts with U]

n. but i would be happy to

[Franz Fanonipants]

n. but i would be happy to

stop posting until you do

structure of scientific revolutions

[Revolution starts with U]

stop posting until you do

structure of scientific revolutions

No. Hut thx. I'm not sure I like you're implied "if you read this you would agree with me" tho.

[fabian]

thomas kuhn
I'd also suggest Paul Feyerabend as a must read.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No. Hut thx. I'm not sure I like you're implied "if you read this you would agree with me" tho.

1 don't try and Internet speak because you are either a too old or b insufficiently mentally spry enough to do it right

2 shut up and read stupid

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't try net speak, and prefer good grammar actually. The occasional typo may slip bye.

But uh... you do a lot of terrible posts, so I'm not sure that the amount or type of reading one does really effects the quality of thought that much...

[Revolution starts with U]

Idk, I just went through a quick outline of Kuhn, and I really don't see what the big deal is, or how this dismisses scientific progress at all. Whether or not progress has been linear, it is clear that there has been progress. I have also acknowledged the role of conservatism in science, which most scientists acknowledge as well, and which Kuhn distinctively claimed was "necessary."

I've also seen the criticisms of Kuhn (did you ever look those up?) the first, not because it is the most crushing or anything, but because I'm surprised, based on your post history, that you even would read this guy... the first being that it is "eurocentric;" that he distinctively says that only white capitalist europe could have provided the atmosphere for modern science to develop...

The most important being that he misrepresents the history of science; that " a more realistic picture of science than that presented in SSR would admit the fact that revisions in science take place much more frequently, and are much less dramatic than can be explained by the model of revolution/normal science." This would be "not accurately describing the evidence" and therefore "not science" in the first place :lol:

Regardless, I look forward to the book when I get my hands on it. If anybody knows where I can get it free, that would be great. If not, I'll probably just get it from the library.

The question remains; how are we to distinguish between Einstenian physics, Lorentzian physics, and Harameinian physics? What exactly about the peer-review process do you think could be done better, and how?

[fabian]

how are we to distinguish between Einstenian physics, Lorentzian physics, and Harameinian physics?
You cannot objectively put paradigms against each other and try to determine, well, anything, because they are different systems with different accounts of reality and objectivity.

As I said- I, as someone how accepts the logical axioms known as the "Three laws of thought" cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone who denies them, because our views of reality differ. If I think that something can either exist or non-exist, and somone thinks that something can both exists and non-exist at the same, what's there to talk about?

[Revolution starts with U]

You cannot objectively put paradigms against each other and try to determine, well, anything, because they are different systems with different accounts of reality and objectivity.

As I said- I, as someone how accepts the logical axioms known as the "Three laws of thought" cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone who denies them, because our views of reality differ. If I think that something can either exist or non-exist, and somone thinks that something can both exists and non-exist at the same, what's there to talk about?

In all reality you just can't have a conversation with an individual holding a firmer grasp of the nature of logic than you. I don't deny the 3 laws of thought; what I deny is that they are "laws" in the sense you're making them out to be.

The question remains; how is a person rationally supposed to decide if a physicist like Einstein and Lorentz, and a quack like Haramein are on the same level? You can't answer that because they're all logically sound.

What's there to talk about in that scenario? Well, if we've both established a logically sound proof for our assertion, what we would talk about, if we wanted to be scientific, would be the evidence and who it agrees with more.

[fabian]

What's there to talk about in that scenario? Well, if we've both established a logically sound proof for our assertion
Then one of us using false logic.

[Revolution starts with U]

Then one of us using false logic.

Define and give me a short synopsis of logic, dummy. It's pretty clear you don't even have an elementary understanding of the process, but merely read a few Roderick Long posts about the need for logic, and became a left-libertarian mutualist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Or Carson, or whatever "thick" libertarian you prefer..

[fabian]

I already posted the definiton of logic- systematization of correct thinking. In the mentioned case- someone of does not have the right systematization.

And although I the support Lockean theory of property (Labor theory of property), which someone could say means I support left-libertarian economics (which I do as a base of an economic system), that (and the exceptence of NAP) is pretty much all I have in common with libertarians of any kind.

[Revolution starts with U]

I already posted the definiton of logic- systematization of correct thinking. In the mentioned case- someone of does not have the right systematization.

Now give me a short synopsis of the logical process.


And although I the support Lockean theory of property (Labor theory of property),
You support homesteading? I can claim unowned property for myself?

which someone could say means I support left-libertarian economics (which I do as a base of an economic system),
Market socialism?

that (and the exceptence of NAP) is pretty much all I have in common with libertarians of any kind.

That and your dogmatic reliance upon logic over empiricism.

[fabian]

You support homesteading? I can claim unowned property for myself?
No, homesteading prlinciple refers to and (and natural recourses). The labor theory of property says that everyone is entitled to the full product of his labor (thus denying legitimacy of profits).


Market socialism?
Yes, "freed market" constituted of self-employed and people in (worker owned and worker menaged) cooperatives, but (libertarians wouldn't agree with me her) I'm also for the existence of nationalized army, police, fire department, health-care education, and the natural recources industry, and some regulations (such as banning pollution, drugs and toxic consumables in general).


That and your dogmatic reliance upon logic over empiricism.
If something in the sphere of empiricism contradicts logic, that means the interpretation of the facts is false.

[Loony]

I personally have no problem with religion. My grandmother always used to say: I don't have a problem with God, I have a problem with the ground crew.

That is the way I see it too. I am not a religious person per se. I don't go to church, nor do I believe in any one faith really. I do believe that there is a God and do believe that it (God) is a positive force. And as long as we are good people and stick to our conscience then all is well. Everyone has an innate knowledge of what it good and bad. We don't need a Bible or Koran or Torah to tell us this.

We inherently know that it is wrong to steal, that one should respect one's elders.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, homesteading prlinciple refers to and (and natural recourses). The labor theory of property says that everyone is entitled to the full product of his labor (thus denying legitimacy of profits).

Fair enough.


Yes, "freed market" constituted of self-employed and people in (worker owned and worker menaged) cooperatives, but (libertarians wouldn't agree with me her) I'm also for the existence of nationalized army, police, fire department, health-care education, and the natural recources industry, and some regulations (such as banning pollution, drugs and toxic consumables in general).

So basically you support capitalism but with a worker friendly face. That's what this is. The cooperatives are now the capital, workers the capitalist, and still to trade on the market. And now the unemployed and underemployed have become the proletariat, still in a position of alienation and class antagonism.
True, I think we should leave open the possibility of a little market socialism during the transition. I hope this isn't your end-call?


If something in the sphere of empiricism contradicts logic, that means the interpretation of the facts is false.
So if something that actually happened contradicts an idea, it's reality that's wrong?

[fabian]

So basically you support capitalism but with a worker friendly face.
Free market =/= capitalism. It cannot be called be capitalism if profits don't exist.


And now the unemployed and underemployed have become the proletariat
Why would there be unemployed when it would be super easy to become self-employed? Underemployment would also be nonextant for the same reason.


So if something that actually happened contradicts an idea, it's reality that's wrong?
What happened? Space curved? That's not a fact, just an interpretation of facts. Time slowed/ got faster? That's not a fact, just an interpretation of facts.

If you think something happened, but that something contradicts logic, then you thought wrong.

[Tim Finnegan]

Free market =/= capitalism. It cannot be called be capitalism if profits don't exist.
"Free market" is a right-wing ideological fiction. No serious theorist employs the concept.

[Revolution starts with U]

Free market =/= capitalism. It cannot be called be capitalism if profits don't exist.

In fact it does, and will have profits. Namely, the profits the workers make through "ownership" of their capital; the cooperative. (It's funny that I, one of the people who defends cooperatives, is having to take this stance. But hey, I defend cooperatives as a more progressive form of capitalism, not as socialism.)
Capitalism is not defined solely by profits, but by "generalized commodity production" which provides the foundation for those profits to be made.
But hey, you and Dinodude will find good company together.


Why would there be unemployed when it would be super easy to become self-employed? Underemployment would also be nonextant for the same reason.

Why would it be super easy to become self-employed? Are not these cooperatives going to have maintain market dominance, by restricting the free flow of labor? In other words, are they not going to have to have less people working longer hours in order to keep costs down so that they can gain a positive exchange value for their goods?


What happened? Space curved? That's not a fact, just an interpretation of facts. Time slowed/ got faster? That's not a fact, just an interpretation of facts.

They're both fact which have been observed. The predictions made by GR just would not work within a flat spacetime, they would all be wrong. Seeing as how many of its predictions turned out to be true, it is reasonable to assume that spacetime is at least partially curved, and definitely not flat.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/


If you think something happened, but that something contradicts logic, then you thought wrong.
Yes, because ideas without verification are more essential to understanding reality than reality itself :lol:
Besides it's not as if GR actually contradicts logical principles, rather than classical interpretations of logical principles.

[zoot_allures]

I'd also suggest Paul Feyerabend as a must read.
An interesting recommendation coming from you. Feyerabend spent much of his career attacking the kind of dogmatic attachment to theories and principles that you display regarding your "three laws of thought". What Feyerabend have you read?

Feyerabend is, for a variety of reasons, my favourite philosopher, by the way.

[zoot_allures]

Such zeal in defending science with isn't science. As I said- modern official "science" is just a surrogate religion and a replacement for medieval christianity, so it's not supprising to see the religious-like reactions here. And I also said that there's no point in talking with someone who denies the validity of thinking and thus talking, so I'm not going to that, maybe when some post something sensible I'll reply. Cheers. :thumbup1:
What zeal? In any case, I'm not "defending science", rather I'm challenging your views on logic.

[fabian]

In fact it does, and will have profits.
It has earnings. There are no capitalist profits, because there are no capitalists, and everyone recieves the full product of one's labor, and because everyone recieves the full product of one's labor, there's no exploatation.


They're both fact which have been observed.
Gravitatinal lensing and Two planes experiment are facts. Space curvature and time relativity are theories based on that facts that are non sequitur. Non seqiutur argument = fallacy.


An interesting recommendation coming from you. Feyerabend spent much of his career attacking the kind of dogmatic attachment to theories and principles that you display regarding your "three laws of thought". What Feyerabend have you read?
Yeah, Fayerabend spoke about dogmatic attachment to classical priciples, but not about modern science, that's something different entirely, because, in contrast with classical logic and mechanics- it IS the truth, knowledge and facts. Fck you, sir.


rather I'm challenging your views on logic.
You need to have some First principles. If you don't, there's no point in talking about anything, you're just going around and trolling people with your relativism/nihilism.

[zoot_allures]

Yeah, Fayerabend spoke about dogmatic attachment to classical priciples, but not about modern science, that's something different entirely, because, in contrast with classical logic and mechanics- it IS the truth, knowledge and facts. Fck you, sir.
Did you make some sort of typo there? Feyerabend spoke about modern science all the time. That was one of his primary concerns as a philosopher.

He constantly attacked the notion that there is or should be a "one true way" in the practice of science. That's what "Against Method" is all about - he argues for the proliferation of different theories and methods, he denies that science is or should be constrained by any universal rules. Your dogmatic attachment to the "three laws of thought" is a total anathema to Feyerabend's project.

Again, what Feyerabend have you read? The reason I'm asking is that he held quite different positions at different times, and I don't know how familiar you are with him.


You need to have some First principles. If you don't, there's no point in talking about anything, you're just going around and trolling people with your relativism/nihilism.
I'm not a nihilist, but I'm a fairly extreme relativist in a variety of ways. Throughtout my life, I've been able to have very productive conversations with a wide variety of people about a number of subjects. If you're unable to understand and engage with beliefs that doesn't operate according your narrow, dogmatic perspective, that's your problem. It's not a problem most people share.

I'm already aware of what your views are. It'd be more interesting if you bothered to put some effort into defending them.

[fabian]

Did you make some sort of typo there? Feyerabend spoke about modern science all the time. That was one of his primary concerns as a philosopher.
Exactly. And you come to this topic, and you say nothing to (anyone from the bunch of) people defending modern science, but you go at me (the only one acceptics classical principles) and refer to me as dogmatic.


. It's not a problem most people share.
Frankly, that because most people are idiots. I can count on the fingers of my hands the number of people that I've met who have thought about their views and actions (including a bunch of high school and univeristy professors I know and heng out with), and being conscious on what they base those, can argument them and connect them with some basic principles they accept. Barely anyone knows even what schools of eg. epistemology or ethics exist, let alone what they represent.


I'm already aware of what your views are.
You don't, because they're complex, as philosophy itself is. I have a list/ systematization of my views, but I doubt that something interesting..

[Revolution starts with U]

It has earnings. There are no capitalist profits, because there are no capitalists, and everyone recieves the full product of one's labor, and because everyone recieves the full product of one's labor, there's no exploatation.

The propertyless are still coerced into a job with them, because they operate in markets, and markets work on a "as able to be paid for" basis, rather than an "as needed" basis. New entries are still wage laborers to the full time workers. And they still operate on generalized commodity production, which robs everyone of the "full value" of their labor.


Gravitatinal lensing and Two planes experiment are facts. Space curvature and time relativity are theories based on that facts that are non sequitur. Non seqiutur argument = fallacy.

How are they non-sequiter? Gravitational lensing, etc, only works within a non-flat spacetime. Time relativity is explicitly observed fact tho, and I have no idea where you got the idea that it wasn't. We know time is relative because we have to account for it for our GPS systems to work.
For more information on the tests of GR see here (even tho the likelihood of you actually clicking and reading this link are low);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

(Don't worry, this guy never read Freyerband, or probably anyone else for that matter. He read a few blog posts about the stuff and is now an expert)


Yeah, Fayerabend spoke about dogmatic attachment to classical priciples, but not about modern science, that's something different entirely, because, in contrast with classical logic and mechanics- it IS the truth, knowledge and facts. Fck you, sir.
Cusswords are unhealthy for the mind and create lasting anger which causes all kinds of stress-related physical ailments. It is recomended by this board that Fabian spend no less than 3 months in intensive therapy, and 1 year probation. ;)

[zoot_allures]

Exactly. And you come to this topic, and you say nothing to (anyone from the bunch of) people defending modern science, but you go at me (the only one acceptics classical principles) and refer to me as dogmatic.
I didn't "go at you". I don't approach debates like boxing matches, where I'm trying to "win" or "prove myself right" or anything like that. Instead, I favour exploring possibilities. I'm interested in understanding other people's views and expressing my own views.

So why did I start talking to you? Because your views seemed interesting to me. They're extremely unusual, and I'd like to learn about them. Unfortunately, you've put very little effort into explaining them or responding to challenges, and your general attitude is also pretty off-putting.

You are dogmatic. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic; it's just not an approach I share. It's also odd that you'd recommend Feyerabend given your dogmatism (and your apparent love of systemization, of connecting all your views to "basic principles" - Feyerabend was always more of an anti-system builder in that sense).


Frankly, that because most people are idiots.
The ability to understand and engage with views very different from your own is not a sign of idiocy, in my opinion.

[fabian]

And they still operate on generalized commodity production, which robs everyone of the "full value" of their labor.
Nothing to do with each other. Producing something for sale and selling something doesn't robe anyone of the product of their labor, capitalist owner giving wage to worker does. No capitalists- no denying the full product of one's labor- no capitalism- co exploatation.


Gravitational lensing, etc, only works within a non-flat spacetime
No, it doesn't. Gravitational lensing has other explanation, gravitational pull (not space curvature) effecting light, or object's mass curving Lorenzian ether (not space). Being that there are explanations that do not contain the idiocy of space curving (which is on the line with the idiocy of space being finite), that theory does not follow from the facts. Save with the time relativity idiocy.


We know time is relative because we have to account for it for our GPS systems to work.
As I already said- that's a myth. I already mentioned Van Flandern, whose work with physics department at the University of Maryland on the GPS was his motivation to start with publishing material refuting einstainian realitivity.

You're not only shockingly idiotic, you're making me repeat myselft, and I'm not gonna feed your troll ass any more. Cheers.


You are dogmatic. There's nothing wrong with being dogmatic; it's just not an approach I share. It's also odd that you'd recommend Feyerabend given your dogmatism (and your apparent love of systemization, of connecting all your views to "basic principles" - Feyerabend was always more of an anti-system builder in that sense).
Feyerabend was a help (together with some other philosophers, including Kuhn) to stop believing in modern science. After that I started from scratch, using methodical doubt on not just my science views, but also religious, political, ethical and in general- all philosophical views. I started reading works of classical philosophers from which I came to accept some First principles, and from there grew (among other views) my support for the classical view of science.

[Revolution starts with U]

Van Flandern:

As science progresses we will eventually unravel the mystery of our origins, and the solution will come sooner if our minds are prepared to accept the truth when it is found, however fantastic it may be. If we are guided by our reason and our scientific method, if we let the Universe describe its wonder to us, rather than telling it how it ought to be, then we will soon come to the answers we seek, perhaps even within our own lifetimes.[18]
Yup.

His work on GPS was to counter SPECIAL relativity, not General.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
It also was to show that there was relativity in timing, just not in time itself. It does nothing to actually counter the notion of relative time, in that sense.
But:

Van Flandern was hired to do some consulting work for the physics department at the University of Maryland on the global positioning system (GPS), the ring of 24 satellites circling the Earth, which, among other convenient attributes, are able to pinpoint precise locations for befuddled automobile drivers and bushwalkers anywhere on the planet. According to him, the confusing "rigmarole" of relativity isn't needed to maintain the GPS, even though in theory it should be.

Einstein's theory of relativity says that, for something moving very fast, such as a satellite, time would seem to move more slowly compared with something standing still on the Earth. Van Flandern has argued that clock rates on GPS satellites should therefore need to be adjusted continuously to keep them synchronised with users on Earth. But they're not, he told Tom Bethell, a senior editor of The American Spectator magazine and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. The GPS programmers don't need relativity. "They have basically blown off Einstein," Van Flandern said.

Is this true? Could this be a real crack in the 'temple' of Einstein's theory? Neil Ashby, a professor of physics who works at the University of Colorado and specialises in theoretical general relativity with practical applications, doesn't think so.

"It is incorrect to claim that no relativistic corrections are used after launch. Actually, because GPS satellites are in eccentric orbits, they suffer frequency variations due to their varying speeds and varying heights above the Earth's surface. Information is transmitted down to the receivers from each satellite, which enables receivers to make a relativistic correction, which accounts for these effects."

He adds: "Einstein has not been 'blown off'. On the contrary, a great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if they are predicted to be big enough to be important."
Yup


I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists. There is one free parameter, but it's just Newton's gravitational constant, G, and is fixed completely by the requirement that the theory reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field, low-velocity limit. Once you've fixed that, everything else is completely determined." According to Carlip, "Van Flandern seems to be under the impression that there are a bunch of adjustable parameters in general relativity that can be fiddled with. This is certainly not true." He added, "As far as I can tell, Van Flandern simply doesn't understand the Einstein field equations."
Not surprising from a crank that thinks the "face on mars" is a lost relic from the "planet" that orbited where the asteroid belt now is.


It doesn't seem to make any difference to point out to anti-relativists that, second to quantum mechanics, relativity is the most tested theory on the books. In fact, in one famous case, as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose pointed out, it meets predictions to an accuracy "to one part in 1014 (and this accuracy has apparently been limited merely by the accuracy of clocks on Earth)."
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162/full


The very next day, 1999/05/03, Steve Carlip (a mathematical physicist,
and one of the world's leading experts on gravitation physics) posted an
article in which he said, in part:
"If Tom were to say, "I have a new theory of gravity, in which gravity
propagates much faster than light," we would be having a completely
different discussion. There are a set of interesting questions that one
can ask of such a theory, that relate directly to observation. (What does
your theory predict for the Nordtvedt effect? How does it determine the
coefficients in the post-Newtonian equations of motion? Etc.)"
"When I have asked these questions, though, Tom has responded that he
isn't talking about a new theory, but merely about a reinterpretation
of general relativity. This is a nice dodge---it means that he can
answer any questions about predictions and observation by referring
to existing computations in GR---but it only works if such a new
"interpretation" is consistent. In particular, it must be consistent
with the field equations of general relativity, since ultimately the
predictions of GR all come from the field equations."
"In fact, Tom's "interpretation" is *not* consistent with the field
equations. This is not at all hard to show if one actually knows
something about the field equations. From my point of view, much of
the discussion has revolved around my attempt to get Tom to recognize
this fact. The case of electrodynamics came up because it's much
simpler mathematically; one can actually write down the exact solution
of Maxwell's equations for a moving charge, and read off from that
solution the fact that in Maxwell's theory, all electromagnetic effects
propagate at the speed of light. (This doesn't mean that they really
do, of course---that's a question for experiment. But it does mean
that one can't have it both ways---one can't appeal to Maxwell's
theory whenever there's an effect that it successfully explains,
and at the same time ignore it whenever it suits one's prejudices.)"
"If Tom would stop hiding behind general relativity, and admit that
his "interpretation" really is a new theory, which does not include
(and is not consistent with) the Einstein field equations, then we
could end this particular discussion and move on to issues that
might be of wider interest."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/eb5b0e6fde11daf2/30ba1f0b7f5a91df?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author:[email protected]+%2Bflandern&pli=1

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c11a799a1c8d4723/3a44aed4a8629c25?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author:hillman%40math.washington.edu+%2Bflandern #3a44aed4a8629c25

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=author:hillman%40math.washington.edu+%2Bflandern&sa=X&oi=spell&spell=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
(In case you're wondering, I've grown tired of switching back and forth quoting pages. I'm just linking the stuff directly now)

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/more-physics-woo-the-einstein-cranks/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles


Again, I don't expect you to read any of these Fabian, a common trait of cranks and their supporters. But the audience can pick through them at their leisure.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nothing to do with each other. Producing something for sale and selling something doesn't robe anyone of the product of their labor, capitalist owner giving wage to worker does. No capitalists- no denying the full product of one's labor- no capitalism- co exploatation.

And yet all cooperatives only make their workers into worker-owners when they are hired in full time, and as such the bulk of their work is done by part-time wage laborers, at least in industrial cooperatives.


No, it doesn't. Gravitational lensing has other explanation, gravitational pull (not space curvature) effecting light, or object's mass curving Lorenzian ether (not space). Being that there are explanations that do not contain the idiocy of space curving (which is on the line with the idiocy of space being finite), that theory does not follow from the facts. Save with the time relativity idiocy.

See above.


As I already said- that's a myth. I already mentioned Van Flandern, whose work with physics department at the University of Maryland on the GPS was his motivation to start with publishing material refuting einstainian realitivity.

See above.

You're not only shockingly idiotic, you're making me repeat myselft, and I'm not gonna feed your troll ass any more. Cheers.

Please don't project your traits onto me.