|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Aha! Now you have changed the question. My claim was not that nothing is known about gravity. Much is known about gravity. Example: things fall down. I said that nobody understood gravity. That is entirely different.
And that is in fact wrong as well, do how about you stick to analogies that actually do work. "Things fall down" was already stated by Newton, and he did in fact know nothing about what made it fall down. And that's what you need to explain gravity.
(It's not analogous, by the way. The analogy to what you said would be, "why would anyone be a gravitational physicist when they know that things fall down?".... on second thought not a bad question;) )
Just wondering, are you purposely being dense, to bait comments - or do you actually mean things like that? Gravitational physicist don't sit in front of a tree all day watching apples fall down. Black hole dynamics, gravitational radiation, relativistic astrophysics - these are all topics under "gravitational physicist".
On the topic of intelligence, you said you can judge intelligence if you see it. Which, to me, kinda points out ignorance and way too big of an ego. You can not judge Intelligence. Neither can science for now. What you can do, is state an observed impression.
You know.. Pretty much how alot of science starts.
|
On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
Gravitational physicist don't sit in front of a tree all day watching apples fall down..
Yes, this was precisely the point I was making. Thank you for clarifying.
On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
You can not judge Intelligence.
Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill.
|
On October 30 2015 12:27 notesfromunderground wrote:
...
So far, all you have managed to say is that there must be because you assume there must be. This is tantamount to a declaration of faith that the epistemological traction of this thing you call 'science' is such that it covers all possible objects of inquiry. There is absolutely no philosophical ground for such a claim, as far as I can tell. You're welcome to give it a shot! But to this point you have failed to understand the question and so you cannot possibly hope to give an answer.
Are you trying to help other people understand the question, or are you just enjoying running circles around them?
I'm sure you have the intellectual capacity to dissect what other people mean by "understand gravity" and point out to them where that idea might be flawed or incomplete.
|
I for one automatically think someone with a posh British accent is somewhat intelligent. They could say something totally incoherent but it still sounds 'smarter' D:.
Maybe its because I have a thing for brits? who knows~
|
On October 30 2015 12:38 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
Gravitational physicist don't sit in front of a tree all day watching apples fall down.. Yes, this was precisely the point I was making. Thank you for clarifying. Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill.
Sounds like you actually mean the word educated.
|
On October 30 2015 12:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 12:27 notesfromunderground wrote:
...
So far, all you have managed to say is that there must be because you assume there must be. This is tantamount to a declaration of faith that the epistemological traction of this thing you call 'science' is such that it covers all possible objects of inquiry. There is absolutely no philosophical ground for such a claim, as far as I can tell. You're welcome to give it a shot! But to this point you have failed to understand the question and so you cannot possibly hope to give an answer. Are you trying to help other people understand the question, or are you just enjoying running circles around them?
Several times in the course of the discussion Thrasymachus had made an attempt to get the argument into his own hands, and had been put down by the rest of the company, who wanted to hear the end. But when Polemarchus and I had done speaking and there was a pause, he could no longer hold his peace; and, gathering himself up, he came at us like a wild beast, seeking to devour us. We were quite panic-stricken at the sight of him.
Socrates - POLEMARCHUS - THRASYMACHUS
He roared out to the whole company: What folly. Socrates, has taken possession of you all? And why, sillybillies, do you knock under to one another? I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honour to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy.
I was panic-stricken at his words, and could not look at him without trembling. Indeed I believe that if I had not fixed my eye upon him, I should have been struck dumb: but when I saw his fury rising, I looked at him first, and was therefore able to reply to him.
Thrasymachus, I said, with a quiver, don't be hard upon us. Polemarchus and I may have been guilty of a little mistake in the argument, but I can assure you that the error was not intentional. If we were seeking for a piece of gold, you would not imagine that we were 'knocking under to one another,' and so losing our chance of finding it. And why, when we are seeking for justice, a thing more precious than many pieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend, we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that we cannot. And if so, you people who know all things should pity us and not be angry with us.
|
Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill.
So how often did you speak to Trump, to be able to deduct that he is intelligent, and not the brigade behind him?
Paint me curious.
|
On October 30 2015 12:47 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 12:38 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
Gravitational physicist don't sit in front of a tree all day watching apples fall down.. Yes, this was precisely the point I was making. Thank you for clarifying. On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
You can not judge Intelligence. Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill. Sounds like you actually mean the word educated.
An excellent point! But not the case. Many of my most intelligent students have been quite uneducated. But it would certainly be possible to mistake two; this is a most important point you are making.
|
On October 30 2015 12:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +
Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill.
So how often did you speak to Trump, to be able to deduct that he is intelligent, and not the brigade behind him? Paint me curious.
Good question! I feel like it has to do with the rhythm when he talks. When the others talk, you can tell they are reciting. But when Trump talks, his rhythm is more natural, and you can tell that he's actually saying it himself.
|
On October 30 2015 12:48 notesfromunderground wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 12:47 Slaughter wrote:On October 30 2015 12:38 notesfromunderground wrote:On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
Gravitational physicist don't sit in front of a tree all day watching apples fall down.. Yes, this was precisely the point I was making. Thank you for clarifying. On October 30 2015 12:37 m4ini wrote:
You can not judge Intelligence. Oh yes I can! I watch them and listen to them speak and maybe I ask them a question and then I can tell how smart they are. It's sort of a professional skill. Sounds like you actually mean the word educated. An excellent point! But not the case. Many of my most intelligent students have been quite uneducated. But it would certainly be possible to mistake two; this is a most important point you are making.
What makes you think you got it right? Who "judges your judgement"? And based on what did they agree/disagree? In fact, what convinced you to state with confidence "it's easy to mistake them - but i don't!"?
Good question! I feel like it has to do with the rhythm when he talks. When the others talk, you can tell they are reciting. But when Trump talks, his rhythm is more natural, and you can tell that he's actually saying it himself.
Pretty much like a good actor then, yes? Since there's actors where not even professionals in terms of micro movements can tell if they're playing or being straight?
|
Do you think it is ever possible to feel reasonably sure about your assessment of something in the absence of ironclad, objective proof?
Certainly, what you raise are important considerations. Certainly they would need to be considered when making such an assessment. Trump is not an actor - he is a reality star. Those are totally different things.
Politicians are actually NOT actors, by the way. Don't you notice how bad actors they all are? They are acting, sure, but they are terrible at it as a rule.
|
Noted.
On October 30 2015 12:50 m4ini wrote:
What makes you think you got it right? Who "judges your judgement"? And based on what did they agree/disagree? In fact, what convinced you to state with confidence "it's easy to mistake them - but i don't!"?
I rarely, if ever, make mistakes in judging who I think is intelligent. Then again, the only statement I would make about such people is "I think they are intelligent".
Whom that viewpoint is in accordance with I would not venture to guess.
|
You don't have any confidence that the things you think are correct? When you think X, you don't just think X, you think "I think X"?
|
On October 30 2015 12:54 notesfromunderground wrote:
Do you think it is ever possible to feel reasonably sure about your assessment of something in the absence of ironclad, objective proof?
No, i actually don't. If i can, i prepare for two outcomes. I'm in the "always a Plan B" Department. In rare cases where i can't, i just hope for the best. I actually wonder what "reasonably sure" is supposed to mean. If you're not 100% sure, then there's doubt.
Certainly, what you raise are important considerations. Certainly they would need to be considered when making such an assessment. Trump is not an actor - he is a reality star. Those are totally different things.
Politicians are actually NOT actors, by the way. Don't you notice how bad actors they all are?
I never said politicians are actors. I said Trump is. And yes, i'm implying that Trump isn't a politician, and never will be one. Of course he is an actor. He sells "himself". Do you think these reality shows are non-scripted?
But since you so convinced about your "method", or whatever you want to call it: ever wondered if it may be bias that leads you to that assumption? Because to me, everything Trump says is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't need a genius to play on fears to get votes. I can do that, easily. Being a populist is pretty much the easiest thing in the world, you just harp on issues that are known but have no easy solution - and then propose an easy solution (which doesn't work).
The only thing i'd give him is, that he's more intelligent than the people he actually convinced to vote for him. That's not a sign of his genius though, tells you more about the people that vote for him.
edit: i btw have yet to meet an "unintelligent" person.
|
On October 30 2015 13:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 12:54 notesfromunderground wrote:
Do you think it is ever possible to feel reasonably sure about your assessment of something in the absence of ironclad, objective proof? No, i actually don't. If i can, i prepare for two outcomes. I'm in the "always a Plan B" Department. In rare cases where i can't, i just hope for the best. I actually wonder what "reasonably sure" is supposed to mean. If you're not 100% sure, then there's doubt.
So now you are the radical skeptic. You realize that, right?
Show nested quote +
Certainly, what you raise are important considerations. Certainly they would need to be considered when making such an assessment. Trump is not an actor - he is a reality star. Those are totally different things.
Politicians are actually NOT actors, by the way. Don't you notice how bad actors they all are?
I never said politicians are actors. I said Trump is. And yes, i'm implying that Trump isn't a politician, and never will be one. Of course he is an actor. He sells "himself". Do you think these reality shows are non-scripted?
I don't think Trump is an actor. That's his actual personality. He's a celebrity, so there's some serious mirror stage formation going on, but what you are seeing is the truth of Donald Trump. He is not an actor.
But since you so convinced about your "method", or whatever you want to call it:
I don't have a method! I'm just thinking about it!
ever wondered if it may be bias that leads you to that assumption?
Sure, that's another thing you would have to consider when you are thinking about it.
But to conclude that because you might be wrong, you should assume that you ARE wrong, is a skepticism of a much more naive sort :|
Because to me, everything Trump says is pretty ridiculous.
Oh yes, clearly. Trump is a ridiculous person.
It doesn't need a genius to play on fears to get votes. I can do that, easily. Being a populist is pretty much the easiest thing in the world, you just harp on issues that are known but have no easy solution - and then propose an easy solution (which doesn't work).
Sure. But combined with all this he has some pretty honest insights into the American reality that are much less delusional than all the others, including most democrats.
The only thing i'd give him is, that he's more intelligent than the people he actually convinced to vote for him.
Oh yes, Trump voters are morons. But I mean, honestly, to be fair, I think anyone who isn't voting for Bernie Sanders is a moron 
(jk I love all of you. WWBD)
|
Of course i do. I'm also rational, and realistic. I'm german, after all. 
"But to conclude that because you might be wrong, you should assume that you ARE wrong" is nothing i said, so i don't know where that comes from - and i won't let you derail in that direction. What i actually said, to be clear and sort it out: you should not assume "i AM wrong because i might be" (which is a stupid thing to do, again, no idea where that is supposed to come from), but actually just: "i might be wrong". Which also leads to me stating: if you're only "reasonably sure", it's stupid to assume you actually ARE right. That's where your ironclad proof comes in.
And i don't think he is more or less delusional than other politicians. There's no such thing as an honest politician. To be fair, there can't be, actually. He just chose a different approach than others.
|
Ok, what practical consequences follow from "I might be wrong."? Practical epistemological consequences. Since you would tack it on to literally every thing you might think, wouldn't it be a strictly meaningless statement?
You can perform a reductio ad absurdum on this. You can't actually say "I might be wrong." You have to say "I might be wrong, but I might be wrong about that." But you can't say that either... etc ad nauseam.
So actually this is a sort of skepticism which is incoherent
|
On October 30 2015 13:25 notesfromunderground wrote:
Ok, what practical consequences follow from "I might be wrong."? Practical epistemological consequences. Since you would tack it on to literally every thing you might think, wouldn't it be a strictly meaningless statement?
You can perform a reductio ad absurdum on this. You can't actually say "I might be wrong." You have to say "I might be wrong, but I might be wrong about that." But you can't say that either... etc ad nauseam.
So actually this is a sort of skepticism which is incoherent
No, that's what i'd call "overthinking for the sake of it".
I can say "I might be wrong, but i might be wrong about that - and that could be wrong too". All that matters though, is the initial "i might be wrong".
"I'm sure i can jump this fence."
"I'm pretty sure that i can jump this fence, but i might be wrong."
And now:
"I'm pretty sure that i can jump this fence, but i might be wrong | - but i could be wrong about that.
Everything after | is irrelevant for the thought process. It doesn't change anything. It feels like you're trying to point to the "which glass is poisoned" situation (is that a thing? the "if he poisoned my glass, i need to switch them to survive - but what if he assumed that i knew he would poison that glass and i try to switch - did he poison his own glass?), but that's simply not the case. It's irrelevant to the initial thought/problem.
edit: and that's pretty much the scientific way of life (/to live).
edit2: but we're getting into a lengthy discussion about something that kinda has nothing to do with the topic that was given (us politics). If you want, we can continue that via PM. It's also 4:45 AM here, so bedtime, finally.
|
Real question: notes, how are you a grad student who TA's classes but has quizzes...
Also you're fundamentally saying unless someone is capable of explaining every detail about something they don't truly understand it. Taking that line of reasoning in extremis we are all infinitely clueless about everythiing (though I recall reading a fine mathematical proof stating that some infinities and bigger than others). For philosophy, you'd have to understand how the brain works, which would require knowledge of molecular biology, biochemistry, physics and more.
|
On October 30 2015 13:03 notesfromunderground wrote:
You don't have any confidence that the things you think are correct? When you think X, you don't just think X, you think "I think X"?
Assuming this was a reply to me... I don't think the concept of "correct" is meaningful in this instance.
+ Show Spoiler +Returning to the concept of models representing reality from earlier, it is possible to be "correct" about a valid model. Given the rules of a model (forces on the ball, initial position and velocity, etc.) there is a correct answer to a question about that model (where the ball will be after it bounces off the wall). + Show Spoiler +Some questions about a model have more than one correct answer, but this can be represented by a single answer which is the set of all correct answers. Moving on... I have no reason to believe it is possible to be "correct" in the same sense about reality. Depending on how you define "correct" your mileage may vary. + Show Spoiler +Depends which model you use to interpret reality, I suppose.
Now, in practice I might say "so-and-so is intelligent" without any reference to it being my opinion, and perhaps even with the intended implication that it is simply a fact. Inter-person communication takes many shortcuts to convey information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
