|
On August 22 2015 04:23 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 01:53 OtherWorld wrote:
Why do Americans find oval racing so exciting compared to road racing? There was an episode of Top Gear that made me appreciate some of the skill involved in Nascar. I would guess there is no real attachment to F1 here in the states, Nascar just grew organically and took over.
Yeah I guess it's just historical reasons. After all there hasn't been any big dominance by US manufacturers in a European race series since Ford at Le Mans 66-69.
|
On August 22 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote:
If god made everything, shouldn't everything be sacred? After all, everything is a genuine expression of gods exact will, how could anything not be sacred? How can you, as a mere human, dare to show the utter arrogance to judge the value and importance of any of gods creations?
This is gonna differ depending on what religion you're talking about. In Christianity, the idea is that the world was created good (perfect) but that in some literal or metaphysical way, humans chose to inhabit a world of choices between good and evil. The universe in Christianity is a love factory, and the point of the universe is to provide a venue for self-sacrifice and courage.
Other religions are different. Buddhism and Hinduism and Manicheism all take the view that the universe is fundamentally illusory/evil and that our religious goal is to get past the material world and awaken to a spiritual reality.
Zoroastrianism takes the interesting position that God created perfectly, but that God's power is not unlimited, and God must contend with an antagonistic force that works within creation to try to destroy it. This, incidentally, is a common spiritual setup for video games.
|
Is it stupid to post a challenge on tl
(something like this)
?
|
On August 22 2015 18:23 fluidrone wrote:Is it stupid to post a challenge on tl (something like this) ?
No post is stupid I guess, but self promoting cross posts sound dangerous.
|
On August 22 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote:
If god made everything, shouldn't everything be sacred? After all, everything is a genuine expression of gods exact will, how could anything not be sacred? How can you, as a mere human, dare to show the utter arrogance to judge the value and importance of any of gods creations?
I don't think you can go really far applying reason to religious dogmas.
|
On August 22 2015 22:32 oGoZenob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote:
If god made everything, shouldn't everything be sacred? After all, everything is a genuine expression of gods exact will, how could anything not be sacred? How can you, as a mere human, dare to show the utter arrogance to judge the value and importance of any of gods creations? I don't think you can go really far applying reason to religious dogmas.
Sure you can.
Scholasticism
|
On August 22 2015 00:56 Djzapz wrote:
What if quantum physics don't even fucking exist and the concept was actually invented specifically for new-age fuckwits to use the word "quantum" haphazardly in their seminars while nonchalantly peddling their quantic crystals to simpletons?
I know you are joking, but it touches on an interesting question: how can a non-expert in today's internet age reliably separate new-age fuckwits from solid science? Yeah, you can read popular science, but how do you know it isn't a new-age fuckwits popular science magazine? You can read scientific publications, but if you're not an expert it is hard to tell a crafty fuckwit from solid science. It can be hard to tell serious peer reviewed scientific journals from fake new-age journals that publish whatever. You can ask scientist, but how do you know you are not talking to a new-age fuckwit?
|
On August 22 2015 05:33 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 00:20 Acrofales wrote:On August 22 2015 00:19 domane wrote:
Every sperm is unique. Is every egg unique as well? Yes. But every sperm is sacred. Monty Python said nothing about eggs. Unique is a strong word. Random mutations not taken into account, there are 23 chromosom pairs, which makes 2^23 possibilities (8 million). Since there are ~250 million sperm cells released, a number of them are the same. (probability of one of the possible combinations not to in the 250 million is close to 0) For eggs, a woman produces only 500 mature eggs or so during her lifetime (out of a few million available). Probability of having twice the same egg is low, but surprisingly enough >1%
You got crossover as well, where part of a chromosome is from one parent, part from the other. Not sure exactly how frequent they are (but I think typically a couple per chromosome or so), so you may still get genetically identical sperms. Not sure.
On August 22 2015 23:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 22:32 oGoZenob wrote:On August 22 2015 05:42 Simberto wrote:
If god made everything, shouldn't everything be sacred? After all, everything is a genuine expression of gods exact will, how could anything not be sacred? How can you, as a mere human, dare to show the utter arrogance to judge the value and importance of any of gods creations? I don't think you can go really far applying reason to religious dogmas. Sure you can. Scholasticism
I think what he meant to say was "not really far in a reasonable direction". 
|
On August 23 2015 00:37 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 00:56 Djzapz wrote:
What if quantum physics don't even fucking exist and the concept was actually invented specifically for new-age fuckwits to use the word "quantum" haphazardly in their seminars while nonchalantly peddling their quantic crystals to simpletons? I know you are joking, but it touches on an interesting question: how can a non-expert in today's internet age reliably separate new-age fuckwits from solid science? Yeah, you can read popular science, but how do you know it isn't a new-age fuckwits popular science magazine? You can read scientific publications, but if you're not an expert it is hard to tell a crafty fuckwit from solid science. It can be hard to tell serious peer reviewed scientific journals from fake new-age journals that publish whatever. You can ask scientist, but how do you know you are not talking to a new-age fuckwit?
Are we willing to say that we need to have faith in the peer review and that we ourselves are quacks?
|
On August 23 2015 00:37 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 00:56 Djzapz wrote:
What if quantum physics don't even fucking exist and the concept was actually invented specifically for new-age fuckwits to use the word "quantum" haphazardly in their seminars while nonchalantly peddling their quantic crystals to simpletons? I know you are joking, but it touches on an interesting question: how can a non-expert in today's internet age reliably separate new-age fuckwits from solid science? Yeah, you can read popular science, but how do you know it isn't a new-age fuckwits popular science magazine? You can read scientific publications, but if you're not an expert it is hard to tell a crafty fuckwit from solid science. It can be hard to tell serious peer reviewed scientific journals from fake new-age journals that publish whatever. You can ask scientist, but how do you know you are not talking to a new-age fuckwit?
All perceptions are based purely on faith. You need to believe the logic being given by the source providing it. There is no true "honest" source of truth, merely a variety of truths that we, as consumers of information, choose to believe for arbitrary reasons.
|
Canada11355 Posts
|
I didn't want this to turn philosophical. For example, from a purely practical standpoint, how can a non-physicist convince themselves that quantum mechanics is a real thing?
|
Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people.
b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people.
c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things.
d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
|
On August 23 2015 15:32 Cascade wrote:
I didn't want this to turn philosophical. For example, from a purely practical standpoint, how can a non-physicist convince themselves that quantum mechanics is a real thing?
basically read a bunch of books about it, of course you'll have to trust the books that their actually citing actual math and real experiments but if it's written by a physicist their probably not making anything up. whether it's a real thing is tricky but it's currently the best and most accurate description of the way the world works that we have.
If anyone's actually interested in the difference between science and pesudoscience from a philosophy standpoint here you go
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
|
On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote:
Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people.
b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people.
c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things.
d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need.
I like the textbook idea. If something is in textbooks used by major universities, chances are that it is pretty solid. It's never 100% of course, but you'll be wrong in very good company at least if the textbooks have to be modified. 
I think it is important to stick to textbooks used in teaching at (multiple) real universities though, as there are people writing all kinds of books, and some of them have bought a phd to stuff in the author title, and pretend they are telling the undisputed truth.
How about Wikipedia?
|
Really nice discussion.
Science teaches us how to do things perfectly, which in our minds is a very stabilizing/helpful "factor" to face the fact that we will never know everything or master everything within our own lifetime (us or even our "peers").
One of the hardest lessons we have to learn, besides accepting death.
Then, when it is done satisfying our "petty" questions/pet peeves, science teaches you that "science" lied to get you to understand / accept certain half truths, in order to (later?) understand or (in most cases/people) barely grasp at larger issues ("too" complex to deal with at first or ever)
These new "items" are in turn to be detailed / analyzed by this "2nd" science wave, while no real statement is ever done on this "lie" business.
Science teaches you to harshly try to put into context what "law" is being "taught" to you through science.
Science teaches you to warmly embrace the ridiculous and the awesome alike.
Science is a nice religion, it only ever tells you one thing: "there is always something else".
Science is the most brutal and dangerous religion ever, worse than capitalism.
On August 23 2015 18:55 Cascade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 23 2015 16:14 Simberto wrote:
Multiple possibilities, depending on how much effort you are willing to put into it:
a) Accept that everyone in the field thinks it exists, and that those are very smart people.
b) Try to understand how it works on a superficial level, and get some basic ideas from these very smart people.
c) Take a textbook on quantum mechanics, and understand it. Most of the introductory ones have a few chapters with experiments that show that classical mechanics fail to accurately describe small things. Typical points are the fact that atoms don't collapse (According to the Bohr atom model and classical mechanics they should), Black Body radiation and a few other things.
d) c), but also perform some of the experiments to prove that the stuff you calculate actually fits reality.
This way, you can convincingly prove to yourself that quantum mechanics describe reality better than classical mechanics in some cases.
Basically, the more effort you are willing to put into it, the less faith you need. I like the textbook idea. If something is in textbooks used by major universities, chances are that it is pretty solid. It's never 100% of course, but you'll be wrong in very good company at least if the textbooks have to be modified. I think it is important to stick to textbooks used in teaching at (multiple) real universities though, as there are people writing all kinds of books, and some of them have bought a phd to stuff in the author title, and pretend they are telling the undisputed truth. How about Wikipedia?
I hate wikis and ooglesearch! People should know that the first answer is just that: the first answer to come out of a "must be" very biased system ; never the only answer, the opposite of a "complete picture", not the answer.
|
On August 23 2015 21:34 fluidrone wrote:
Really nice discussion.
Science teaches us how to do things perfectly, which in our minds is a very stabilizing/helpful "factor" to face the fact that we will never know everything or master everything within our own lifetime (us or even our "peers").
One of the hardest lessons we have to learn, besides accepting death.
Then, when it is done satisfying our "petty" questions/pet peeves, science teaches you that "science" lied to get you to understand / accept certain half truths, in order to (later?) understand or (in most cases/people) barely grasp at larger issues ("too" complex to deal with at first or ever)
These new "items" are in turn to be detailed / analyzed by this "2nd" science wave, while no real statement is ever done on this "lie" business.
Science teaches you to harshly try to put into context what "law" is being "taught" to you through science.
Science teaches you to warmly embrace the ridiculous and the awesome alike.
Science is a nice religion, it only ever tells you one thing: "there is always something else".
Science is the most brutal and dangerous religion ever, worse than capitalism.
you litteraly have no idea what science is, and how it works.
|
On August 23 2015 22:43 oGoZenob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 21:34 fluidrone wrote:
Really nice discussion.
Science teaches us how to do things perfectly, which in our minds is a very stabilizing/helpful "factor" to face the fact that we will never know everything or master everything within our own lifetime (us or even our "peers").
One of the hardest lessons we have to learn, besides accepting death.
Then, when it is done satisfying our "petty" questions/pet peeves, science teaches you that "science" lied to get you to understand / accept certain half truths, in order to (later?) understand or (in most cases/people) barely grasp at larger issues ("too" complex to deal with at first or ever)
These new "items" are in turn to be detailed / analyzed by this "2nd" science wave, while no real statement is ever done on this "lie" business.
Science teaches you to harshly try to put into context what "law" is being "taught" to you through science.
Science teaches you to warmly embrace the ridiculous and the awesome alike.
Science is a nice religion, it only ever tells you one thing: "there is always something else".
Science is the most brutal and dangerous religion ever, worse than capitalism.
you litteraly have no idea what science is, and how it works.
I am in no way sure, but he may be talking about the incremental kind of teaching that is often done in natural sciences. Like the math teacher will tell you that you can't take the square root of negative numbers. Then they introduce imaginary numbers, and some may feel that they've been told lies (even though you strictly speaking still quite can't). The start of his post bear some resemblance to that kind of argument maybe. With the waves of science?
After that, I don't really follow anymore. :/ can't really say I recognise any of those statements in science.
Also not sure how to read all the quoted words... How is "2:nd" different from plain old 2:nd?
|
well if his experience with science is third grade science class then yeah, the beginning kinda makes sense
|
I don't think we can assume everyone on TL got university education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/dialogWithAMadman_one.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/dialogWithAMadman_two.jpg)
