John Cuthber

What definition of the word "math" are you using there? Because what you have posted is gibberish.

I was giving philosophy the "benefit of the doubt" (considerable doubt). It was a summary of this "But philosophy can clarify this by trying to find out when e.g. in science a statement or theory is accepted. And that is not the sociological question (when does a group of scientists accept a theory) but the methodological question: when is it justified to accept a theory." If you say that philosophy achieves less than that, fair enough: I'm not going to argue. You also said "Also in morality people know very well what to think. But to find out how they think might again be a task for philosophers" As far as I can tell, that's a matter for some mixture of psychology, anatomy, physiology (possibly computer science) and a few other things- but those are all science ad it has been clearly stated (though not rigorously shown) that science isn't philosophy. That we have reached 5 pages without anyone actually answering the question "what-problems-does-philosophy-solve" rather gainsays the notion that philosophy provides clarity. At root, you say " If a problem disappears under this intellectual clarity, then it could be called 'solved'.". Name one.

What you describe as it "offering more" Is essentially the invention of the "Scientific Method" which happened some time ago. That's a problem which (arguably ) philosophy "solved" not "solves" What are the circumstances where someone says "Help! I need a philosopher!"?

In principle, with a diode, the current direction doesn't change. it's "forward" or zero. (Pace Zener diodes and back diodes if you like) The words were not invented for electronic engineers, but for electro-chemists and so i don't mind much if they use them differently, but this is a discussion about electrochemical cells..

Not if it's the refractive index of a unicorn. Do you plan to actually answer the question? Can you show that the things that are unprovable are important or might they all refer to things like the refractive index of a unicorn?

Is philosophy an art and do we expect it to "achieve" anything beyond being enjoyed by some people? If it's an art- comparable in some way to things like music and sculpture- then it has a purpose, but I'm not sure it solves a problem apart from the ones put forward earlier as jokes- it may be a pleasant enough way to waste some time.

And, as the song goes, "let's go round again". Nobody has disagreed with that assertion that " a more complex model as Reality is will have even stronger limitations in the possibility of describing it completely by a finite set of principles." OK? So repeating it adds nothing to the discussion. There's no doubt that some ideas will remain unprovable in any system of maths that's even remotely complex enough to describe the universe. Can you show that the things that are unprovable are important or might they all refer to things like the refractive index of a unicorn? .

You too have missed the point. I did say there were a finite number of possible entries. If those entries include 10.4 then you have to scale the input s so that 10.4 doesn't map to the same location as 10.3. No computer really deals with decimals- the numbers all get represented as binary. Once you have that binary, you can use it as a memory address and look up the output from that memory without any further calculation- so there's no need for ant If statement. That's easy enough to do. The only thing Sensi seems to have been right about is the memory penalty and, since that was mentioned in the first post it's not an issue. The question is can it be done in principle, and the answer seems to be yes.

Why?

Yes, or you could just use an engine.

We both agree (rightly or wrongly) Arc meant "Philosophy and astrology are both useless." or something close to that. However you leapt from that to " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong.". And I pointed out that nobody had declared anything like that. Someone said that two specific things (which happen not to be science) were useless. Your idea only makes sense if, for some bizarre reason, you think that everything which is not science is philosophy (and vice versa). I pointed out that, for example, music is neither science nor philosophy. Arc didn't comment on the value of music (and nor did anyone else until I mentioned it). Yet you implied that he declared it useless (along with everything else that isn't science) As I said, it's a straw man.

You say "yes it does", but I explained why it doesn't. “If you start with the balloon further up it has already acquired potential energy but it still has some more to acquire. " It doesn't acquire energy by giving it away as electricity. "Your argument is like saying “if I start with a half full tank I can’t get as much energy from the tank." Well, saying “if I start with a half full tank I can’t get as much energy from the tank." is, of course, right. So you agree that my argument is right.

OK, for a start, we need to clarify what an anode and cathode are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode They are not the positive and negative electrodes respectively.

Start by writing down what the reactants and products are.

Can we agree that the best way to treat many or most (non trivial) symptoms is to take them to a doctor (or a pharmacist/ nurse/ paramedic), and find out what's gone wrong and that asking on a web page isn't a very good way to deal with such symptoms?

With all due respect to your profession, should anyone ever suggest treatment of a condition where the patient doesn't have a qualified diagnosis? (outside of emergency and first aid care) You are, of course, right about the over-use of antibiotics. There's every chance this "strep" throat is a viral infection. In the absence of any other information, antibiotics for this individual have a better chance of causing an upset stomach than of treating the illness.

I recommend ignoring people who give medical advice on-line without credentials and an examination.

Does the wholesale cost of kerosine quoted include tax/ duty? If so do the power stations pay that same level of tax? Also, if this is true http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29903666 then crude oil is currently about $82 per barrel There are about 7 barrels to the tonne so crude oil costs about $570 per tonne. The heat of combustion is probably not that dissimilar What oil fired power stations burn is more like crude oil than like kerosene. So that's a factor of roughly $570/$743 That brings it down to about 55%. Still rather high.

"And in this regard appears to be going down the same dead end road as astrology." Among other things, I interpreted it as not including music. So Music is an example of something which: is useful Is not science and is not astrology (or, indeed, philosophy) Did you think you had a point?

It may seem that way to you, but not to others. If you read a paper in the "journal of made up stuff" (Guaranteed 99.9% dross) would you really believe it? (especially when someone points out that it's a climate model that forgets the effects of the oceans) There is nothing unethical in pointing out that someone's argument is wrong on a discussion forum; that's the point of discussion. (There is something unethical about falsely accusing others of unethical behaviour)

If IQ mattered, then it would matter how well it correlates with things like skull size.

Dear me, I would have thought that anyone daring to enter this thread would have avoided obvious straw manning. " to declare everything useless that is not science might be very wrong." Just as well that nobody got even close to doing that . In general it's risky to declare anything useless, when someone asks, nobody can actually show that it has a use. Incidentally, is it just me or does this remind anyone else of a child, asked a question to which they don't know the answer, saying "I know- but I'm not telling you"?

Posting an abstract will almost always count as "fair use" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use be sure to include a reference so that any of us who wish to can follow it up- by buying access in necessary.

How much of a length do I have to go to in order to discredit something which, even the guy who cited it accepts that there's no more reason to believe it than, for example, some teenager's blog?

Well, I guess it's true that we would need to know what philosophical questions are. And it also seems that they are the only problems that philosophy can solve. And the whole tread;'s purpose is identifying such problems. And rather than doing so you seem to be running away. Another possibility isa that philosophy solves precisely zero problems of any note.