Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
We approach things based on our own experiences.
This is wrong. Truth is independent of our selves. Selph is cluttered and not objective. To find truth you must remove yourself from the equation lest ye be led astray.
It is hard at first, especially if something personal is on the line. You will be tempted by your wishes to count the hits and ignore the misses. This is one of the easiest ways to make a bad decision, or do science poorly if you will accept the word science as a verb.
There are many other rules that you must follow, but observational selection is common here.
When Werner calls someone st00pid, that is known as an ad hominem attack. It is logically null. Werner doesn’t know this. He attacks the person rather than the argument. This is also.common. And wrong. Trump does it nearly every day
Ignoring the rules leads to bad science and poor discourse.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
No, you really are st00pid.
It's scientifically proven .....
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
"Truth is independent of our selves."
And what is truth? Perhaps you meant to say facts or data are independent of ourselves? Truth as I understand it has more to do with the values by which we live our lives. The old subjective vs. objective. Religions proclaim "Truth". Science proclaims observations, measurements and logical conclusions.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Truth as I understand it has more to do with the values by which we live our lives. -jan
Sheesh. Key phrase / qualifier: "as I understand it"
Truth... as others understand it... is markedly different. It would be hard to believe that some part of you doesn't know this. And you're a phd?
What's more, thanks Ed for shading the "truth" / blurring the "truth" with all that "provisional" bs with MikeL, Largo, etc.
No wonder there's so much confusion in the world. On the streets, on the the internet. If crazy postmodernists, grievance studies scholars and extreme idiosyncratic physicists or philosophers think practical folks like me are always going to qualify use of "truth" with "provisional" or else not use the term, they better think again. That's nuts.
I'm with Sagan to Dawkins to Dennett to Carroll to Harris to tens of thousands of other science and engineering types. They know what "truth" is and it's almost perfectly synonymous with "facts". And they do not need to condition the term with "provisional" except under special circumstances.
What a mess.
Regarding "biological truths" gee, maybe it's the liver that pumps blood. Regarding "historical truths" gee, maybe it was the Iranians who bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Regarding "physical truths" gee, maybe pluto has more mass than Jupiter and 2000 volts pumping several amps through my heart won't cook it. Regarding "chemical truths" gee, maybe NaCl is more toxic than NaCN.
Good luck with your truth systems, people. If I ever see you in a court of law, I'll know what to think and I'll know either to chuckle or facepalm when you take the oath to tell the whole "truth" and nothing but.
Curious, Jan, if you would be so bold: From what school did you get your PhD? Research university or liberal liberal arts college?
There is a so-called "personal truth" that pertains to a person's life story, worldview as he/she understands it, personal preferences, ambitions and morals - but this is decidedly different - categorically different - than either natural truths or scientific truths, the latter expressed in terms of facts. FACTS. FACTS. FACTS.
And what is truth? Perhaps you meant to say facts or data are independent of ourselves?
Lol.
No, you really are st00pid.... It's scientifically proven .....
You guys should hang out. In your defense, you don't have a head for science any more than Oprah and Gayle King have a head for climbing. Everybody's different, each with their own skills and talents.
Back in the day, I never imagined this amazing invention called the internet would wind up filling up with so so so very much bs.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Curious, Jan, if you would be so bold: From what school did you get your PhD? Research university or liberal liberal arts college?
I don't know about Jan, I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley in physics and Columbia U. in physics.
HFCS, where did you go to school, what degrees did you obtain in what fields?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I don't know about Jan, I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley in physics and Columbia U. in physics... HFCS, where did you go to school, what degrees did you obtain in what fields?
Electrical Engineering and Biochemistry. Stanford. My GRE scores were 740, 780, 680 and 760 (Biology). Ed Hartouni, your GRE scores and Subject score?
My MCAT scores across physics, chemistry, biology, math, and reading (1988) were all in the 96-99% range. Normally I know the numbers but tonight I can't recall, I could retrieve them though. Because the format changed in the 1990s I can't now remember them exactly. Except for the percentages.
They enabled me to apply for an MSTP. Medical Scientist Training Program (MD/PhD). AS I explained here before I left the program. For something at the time I felt was more important. My GPA in grad school when I left was 4.0, my concentration while there was neurobiology, pharmacology, biochemistry, and molecular biology - quite interdisciplinary multidisciplinary at the time because my interest first and foremost was biological mechanisms of action across the body's two control systems, those being endocrine and nervous. That's it.
Since WB made a thing out of anonymity here so many years ago, I thought I'd play along. It is what it is. It's got its benefits.
I wasn't going to post here anymore tonight but I broke the thought since your post was so poignant, to the point.
Your GRE scores?
...
Lastly, it's the 21st century now, I think Jan can defend herself.
I imagine you do not have any problem with her use of "truth."
...
Heck, if Jan would like to play along, I wouldn't mind seeing those GRE scores and subject score as well.
DONE.
...
Below: Go suck on a leaky electrolytic. One with some charge still, all the better. You're toxic, man.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Good luck with your truth systems, people. If I ever see you in a court of law,
You'd fail completely.
You have dead soul just robotic academia .....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
LOL:
My MCAT scores across physics, chemistry, biology, math, and reading (1988) were all in the 96-99% range. Normally I know the numbers but tonight I can't recall, I could retrieve them though. Because the format changed in the 1990s I can't now remember them exactly. Except for the percentages.
If you can't come up with your MCAT scores in a sealed envelope from a reputable university then your arguing privileges on this thread are finished. Luckily I've already sent mine in from Parkside Junior High in San Bruno, Ca. Ha. How bout photos of your degrees. Science? Too much.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I have no idea the meaning of the post, Paul. But I think the numbers from the 1980s format were 32, 33, 33, 29, 29 if that means anything to you. Probably not. Anyways, the numbers correspond to the percentages I posted.
Are you attempting to ridicule the MCAT, the posting, credentials, or just me? Hartouni wanted to know some truth (facts), I indulged him.
Tonight I'm thinking the organ we call he liver pumps blood and sound travels faster than light and Trump is the most honest, least crooked President we've ever had. How's that for truth, Paul?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I have no idea the meaning of the post, Paul.
With all that education that's hard to believe.
Do really think your education is a validation of your argument?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I don't recall my test scores,
I went to UCB with a state paid scholarship
I went to Columbia on an NSF supported fellowship
so I guess I must have done well enough
bottom line, you have an undergraduate degree in EE and Biochem from Stanford
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Well I interviewed at Columbia for the MSTP.
I don't recall my test scores,
bottom line, you have an undergraduate degree in EE and Biochem from Stanford
and six years hands on experience five days a week as a science associate (aka research associate) in a neurobiology dept - just as I've posted here before. You dissing that experience, hands on every day?
BELOW:
"Test scores didn't seem as important as learning to me."
Oh please. Right back at you: The story of my life.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I really do not.
Test scores didn't seem as important as learning to me.
not dissing anything, but sounds like an easy gig compared with post-grad research in high energy physics, which was pretty much around the clock every day while the accelerator was working. and then crunching the data after collection.
HFCS, you requested to know Jan's "credentials," having done so, you should certainly own up to your own, you have an undergraduate degree from Stanford.
Certainly Jan, and I and almost everyone else here have done quite a lot of work after obtaining our degrees. And we probably all feel that work was important to how we formulate our views.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I went to school during a particularly idealistic time, long before yours, when the scores did not matter so much.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
re: What Can Science Learn from Religion?
Follow-up to the NYT Opinion piece, by David DeSteno…
1. David DeSteno: I agree we won’t learn much from dogma. But being open to scientifically testing ways religious practices shape thought & behavior (for good or ill) can be fruitful. True enlightenment thinking means putting ideas to empirical test, not rejecting out of hand.
2. David DeSteno: It’s not that psychological mechanisms that religions use come from god or religious insight. Rather, it’s just that religious leaders may have “discovered” them since they’ve been in the business of trying to shape minds for centuries. Thus, it’s a fertile ground for inquiry.
3. Rebecca Goldstein: Of course it is & people have long been proposing hypotheses for why religions have such sway over minds--from David Hume's "On Miracles" to evolutionary psychology & memes. Of course such explanations powerfully undermine rel beliefs by showing it's not reason motivating them.
4. David DeSteno: Agreed. I’m not advocating religious beliefs. I’m advocating science doing more looking to practices for ideas to test. E.g, religions were using techniques for cognitive dissonance and meditation for long before scientists figured out how they work. What else might be there?
5. David DeSteno: Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science via @AAAS_DoSER is urging crosstalk.
6. David DeSteno: What I want is for scientists not to feel worried they’ll be looked at askance if they study such questions or use religion to develop hypotheses. Science arbitrates fact. But ideas can come from anywhere as long as ultimate proposed mechanisms find empirical backing.
7. Rebecca Goldstein: "Use religion to develop hypotheses" is vague. Many empirical hypotheses offered to explain why various religious rituals are variously effective. Seems what you mean by "developing hypotheses" might be more prescriptive than descriptive.
8. David DeSteno: Let me rephrase. Look to techniques religions use (intentionally or by habit) that might shape thought and behavior. But some might be prescriptive too.
9. David DeSteno: “Virtues” like gratitude and generosity are adaptive because of the social networks in which humans evolved (not because a deity says so). They foster direct & indirect reciprocity. But had scientists looked to test those virtues earlier, we could have discovered benefits sooner.
10. David DeSteno: Of course, many ideas won’t pan out, but commonalities across religions are suggestive of social function. But I suspect most fertile ground isn’t prescriptive, but more targeted mechanisms of ritual, etc.
11. David DeSteno: And trying to figure out why some elements are repeatedly used can suggest adopting mechanisms for secular interventions. After all, religion can be an extremely motivating force.
12. Rebecca Goldstein: Yes it is extremely motivating. But it's hard to see how, once drained of its ontological content, it could have the same motivating force. What motivates religious people more than their believing they are doing God's will & will be accordingly rewarded?
13. David DeSteno: That is certainly part of it, but techniques like motor synchrony (used in ritual) motivates group affiliation and performance. It also shapes compassion. Meditation increases empathy. So those techniques, even removed from theological context, motivate behavior. Others might too.
14. Michael Shermer: Please read Paul Bloom's book Against Empathy. He shows how these techniques for group affiliation, cooperation & pro-social behavior can also be used for tribalism, xenophobia, them v. us, in-group/out-group, even genocide (love my tribesmen so much I'll kill for them).
Source: Twitter feed, 7 feb 2019
What Can Science Learn from Religion?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/sunday/science-religion.html
...
What can science learn from religion?
Well, from just the above bit, it looks like from a scientific analysis / investigation of the world religions (much like any other scientific analysis of just about anything) we can learn a great deal about them: their basis for being, their evolutionary development over history, their functionality, their comparative performance. Last but not least, via "applied science" - resulting from such analyses - we can then test ways and then learn ways we might actually improve on religious systems (secular as they are, fully natural as they are, just as DeSteno admits) to optimize their system performance right along with ultimately human performance.
What's changed in the last 50 years most significantly is that religious systems (incl their ideas and attitudes) are now being looked at from a prescriptive pov with much less prejudicial (baseless) public criticism (that in some locales just a couple generations ago could have gotten one (e.g., a religious analyst or religious critic) ostracized or tarred and feathered if not worse). This is a very good thing, imo. It is the Age of Information, Science, Corrections, Improvements after all.
The scientific naturalization / scientific secularization of religion's basis for being is underway, and many (including some "atheistic" "faitheists") don't like it. Thems the facts (the truth).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There YOU go again with your brainwashing to yourself.
You have no actual real-life experience other than the brainwashing by other people to yourself that share your deluded biases.
You have no real clue and thus are you are not a real scientist just a brainwashed academic poser ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
August West: So instead of using scientific understanding of the strength of steel, and the wind forces from storms, or the lateral loads from earthquakes, we should design and build 30 story building on heuristics?
I’m somewhat of an artist.
I built the above 600-pound steel sculpture of an acacia tree in my front courtyard. I had to make an attempt to assess how much stress a cross bar would need to endure holding up about 70 pounds at different radii and in relatively heavy wind in southern Arizona. I took data from the industry’s association regarding tensile strength of different sized cold steel tubes and calculated the moments of inertia for them. Then I had a friend who is an engineer check my work. What I didn’t want is to see the sculpture “flap its wings” in a storm or god help me bend or break. I had to weld different thicknesses of metal together, and those welds were far from perfect.
I asked my engineering friend what I should do to make sure I’d have no crises in heavy winds. He told me that typical engineering practice would simply double or triple the requirements. I said to him, “isn’t that just a heuristic?” He smiled, and said, “sure; what else would you expect?” I told him I thought he and his peers would have much more accuracy than that. He said the practice was typical in every engineering field he had practice in (a few). He said that there was a difference between what scholarship said and what practicing engineers do. (I’ve found the same thing in my field, and the difference is not easy to explain . . . other than “we really don’t know.”)
Heuristics, I believe.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Can we see a close-up of your bead work?
How about at one of those crosspiece junctions there in the middle?
He said that there was a difference between what scholarship said and what practicing engineers do
Also a difference between low volume production and high volume production. Also a difference between high safety design requirements and low safety design requirement.
Anyways, you can bet your bottom dollar that any good practicing engineer has NOT ignored the underlying scientific/engineering wisdom (just as your last bit might imply to some).
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ha-ha, you mean my grinding with an angle grinder?
I'd have to go outside and take some pictures. Is it really important to you?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Use of a grinder is kinda cheating, no?
...
You do know what the other half of work for an analytical left-brain engineer is, right?
I'd have to go outside and take some pictures. Is it really important to you?
That's okay. Your piece looks nice.
Curious if you held yourself to a high (artistic) standard in your right angles and plumb lines. As you know, in many a (artistic) setting they are important too.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!