|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jan 24, 2022 21:20:39 GMT
There's a quote from a religious philosopher Alvin Plantinga's article called "The Dawkins Confusion":
Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.
So, Plantinga seriously thinks we should trust more to some philosophers' thoughts more, than to the scientists' lab and other words? I can't see why the science is taken at so plain level. If Stephen Hawkings said something, I think people listened to him, because he was a scientists. And usually people listen to them who does something, not just think.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 3, 2022 23:26:36 GMT
Asserting your own greatness is the same thing those who you condemn do/did. my calculations are the only assertion required, the rest is Dunning-Kruger a paradoxical syndrome like no other if i said i was less than that i would be lying i felt a little guilty too and had to recall Hubble, though he was an astronomer of circumstance more than a logician when you can program and publish a 3d-n-body gravity algorithm then you have something meaningful to contribute to that theme but you dinna even trydit didja, laddie? And those people you condemn say the same thing (ie "my calculations are the only assertion required"). Calculations are subject to the angle of observation one is trying to box a part of the totality of phenomena within, they are subjective because of this. Your calculations are a perspective much like a formulated test is the perspective of the test maker. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 7, 2022 11:21:23 GMT
my calculations are the only assertion required, the rest is Dunning-Kruger a paradoxical syndrome like no other if i said i was less than that i would be lying i felt a little guilty too and had to recall Hubble, though he was an astronomer of circumstance more than a logician when you can program and publish a 3d-n-body gravity algorithm then you have something meaningful to contribute to that theme but you dinna even trydit didja, laddie? And those people you condemn say the same thing (ie "my calculations are the only assertion required"). Calculations are subject to the angle of observation one is trying to box a part of the totality of phenomena within, they are subjective because of this. Your calculations are a perspective much like a formulated test is the perspective of the test maker. Real math is not a perspective. It is pure logic. Had you ever written, compiled and deployed an algorithm, you would know this. Some math is computable, other is not. Einstein's evaluation of the orbit of Mercury ignored the z-axis. That factor is greater than his claim of adjustment to Newton's formula. Thus his method was faulty by a simple factor greater than his own answer. That is not perspective. Just facts, and the cold reality that people worship popularism and media idols. And that can only lead to devastation and social collapse. It has been decaying into mindlessness at an ever decreasing rate. One day in the smoldering ashes you will weep "why?" But you ignored the basics, so maybe this will echo when its too late. Proof is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htm |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2022 23:13:50 GMT
And those people you condemn say the same thing (ie "my calculations are the only assertion required"). Calculations are subject to the angle of observation one is trying to box a part of the totality of phenomena within, they are subjective because of this. Your calculations are a perspective much like a formulated test is the perspective of the test maker. Real math is not a perspective. It is pure logic. Had you ever written, compiled and deployed an algorithm, you would know this. Some math is computable, other is not. Einstein's evaluation of the orbit of Mercury ignored the z-axis. That factor is greater than his claim of adjustment to Newton's formula. Thus his method was faulty by a simple factor greater than his own answer. That is not perspective. Just facts, and the cold reality that people worship popularism and media idols. And that can only lead to devastation and social collapse. It has been decaying into mindlessness at an ever decreasing rate. One day in the smoldering ashes you will weep "why?" But you ignored the basics, so maybe this will echo when its too late. Proof is here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htmIf all math is logical and some math is computable and some is not then there are logics beyond computation thus one cannot limit reasoning to an algorithm. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 11, 2022 17:03:34 GMT
To what is real and truthful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 11, 2022 20:07:34 GMT
To what is real and truthful. Agree. Sometimes both of them: as scientists so philosophers may be wrong. |
|
