mooeypoo

The problem with this assertion is that reality doesn't go by what we believe, or by what we think is logical or what we think "makes sense". Instead, it goes by hard facts, observations, mathematical models and evidence. Einstein's SR and GR are well substantiated, proven, their mathematical models are sound and produce predictions. They're not very intuitive, but they describe reality MUCH better than Newton's description.

hehehe.

I suggest you used a logical fallacy. It happens. You said so yourself, and in the context of the astrophysics you pretend to know better than everyone else, anything less than actual studying under him is brief. Says the one who actually believes he knows better than *everyone*, without exception, always. That's why in science we don't go by the people who said something, but by the claims made. When you keep saying "Dr Tyson told me..." it is irrelevant. He could be wrong. You could have misunderstood. He could have thought that the context is different. A billion reasons could result in the assertion to be false. Read a bit about the fallacy "appeal to authority". It's a logical fallacy, a well known one, a very well defined one, and arguing that appealing to Dr Tyson's role as a scientist when you state answers is not an appeal to authority is like arguing a wooden spoon is not a wooden spoon. It's appeal to authority by definition. The fact you are shown to be wrong doesn't mean people attack you. Not sure how many more times to say it. Maybe in Chinese? ~moo

I know what you mean, I was tutoring middle-school kids for a while when I was in high-school. It's a matter of practice. The more your practice, the easier it is to see the 'tougher' problems and you gain experience on what to look for. That, by the way, is true for everyone in math and sciences (and probably in many other types of subjects). I see it today as a junior in College. Practice makes perfect - the more you deal with new types of problems, the more experience you gain to solve them in the future. What I would recommend, though, is to switch to fractions regardless; with fractions you can see patterns much better than with decimals, specially in the level of middle school. And practice. Practice practice practice. ~moo

Dr Tyson is a very knowledgeable Astrophysicist, but even he would tell you he doesn't know everything, nor is it possible that you got all the details in all accuracy from a brief conversation with him, or from an email exchange. Beyond that, repeating the fact that your data comes from him is an appeal to authority, and when the data is shown to be false, it's not doing Dr Tyson any justice. ~moo

Really, without any 'theory' at all? I find that hard to believe, but I would love to see references for it.. Regardless, though, When I posted my 'what is a model' post, I specifically talked about what is a scientific theoretical physics model - the models which describe the universe. What you describe is not a scientific theoretical physics model. As my example with the "LEGO" models, this has different properties, too. It's irrelevant to the case at hand which speaks of theoretical physics models, scientific ones, which must follow a very specific set of rules to be considered a 'model' or theory. ~moo

Your model is no longer under debate here pywakit. That thread was closed. Follow our rules, please. If you want to continue lecturing about your model, I suggest you open a blog. ~moo

Then go right ahead and see if you can find a "proper" mathematician and publish. Good luck. Now stop debating a closed thread and either get back to the original topic, which was (supposedly) about a general issue. Reopening closed threads is against the rules. ~moo

Your "model" isn't a model (read the definition of a model) and we explained why in a closed thread. It was closed for a reason. You refuse to accept it, that's your problem. We are NOT reopening the subject here again. ~moo

Your Insult->Apology routine is getting old. Even if Sayo was a woman, calling "her" "Miss", is derogatory. And I am speaking as a woman. This isn't the 1950s. "miss." My goodness. Instead of apologizing all the time, how about you just be respectful to begin with. ~moo

pywakit, if you don't stop being obnoxious when you speak to people, you will not continue to be here. Sayonara is not a "Miss" even if he *WAS* a woman (which he isn't), and no one here owes you anything. If you want a debate, that's fine, but you better start behaving like a human being and stop disrespecting the people who put the time to actually consider - and reply - to what you're saying. Go over our rules and our etiquette. Pronto. ~moo

Only if the model has no other flaws. If they have no flaws, and the fit evidence, they would get research grant. Similar research venues *do* get money "thrown at them" if they manage to demonstrate they actually have potential. That's the difference between investing money and wasting money. ~moo

Rational != Logical to human beings, or "makes sense", or "sounds true" or "fits in my mind".

Okay, let's discuss definitions for a second. If we were in a LEGO forum, a model would mean colorful building blocks arranged in a specific construct. A model might mean something different in philosophy. Or construction. This, however, is a science forums, and when we say "Model" we mean a scientific model. A scientific model requires very clear properties to be called a model. A model *describes* a phenomena scientifically and mathematically. Without math, a model is not a model, it is a hypothetical philosophy. So let's get our definitions straight here, please. We are in a science forum and not in a free-for-all philosophy forum. It's not about what you wish, or how you feel, or what your opinion is. Science isn't about feelings, or wishes or opinions. It's about empirical data and strict definitions. Let's start using them. This is not a model. It's an idea. It might one day turn into a model. It's not yet one. ~moo

I have to say, at first I didn't understand the issue at all (as was probably quite evident) but Mr Skeptic's post #43 finally drove it home, and I think I got the point. Something didn't add up for me, though, but I couldn't put my finger on what bugged me about that logic. But it did get me thinking, which I think is the point of a good debate. I even repped Mr Skeptic on that post. And I thought about it yesterday, trying to think of the examples of 'numbers' and other 'non-events' and are they comparable to the concept of God. Numbers, however, are definitions we created to describe the world around us. So, they might not be an event, but they do have a 'cause' -- us. We use base-10, but the Mayans are believed to have used base-8 (or 12? i am not sure, but not base-10). Same goes with the concept of "minutes" and "seconds". Those are *units* describing a phenomenon - time. They started by us; we are the cause of minutes, but we are not the cause of time. That doesn't mean time doesn't have a cause. I am not sure if I managed to convey this thought well enough, but I at least understand what Mr Skeptic is going for, and I have to say it's a good question. I think Hawkin'sDawkins' post summed up quite nicely the crux of what doesn't quite add up for me. ~moo

You came to us, pywakit, not the other way around. If you want us to leave tyou alone, you can simply leave. Don't expect us to absorb your model and not raise problems (yeah, there are problems, deal with it) just because you get personal about it. You want out? leave. Otherwise, follow the rules and stop being personal about things that aren't meant to be personal. They were not, but since you're also neither of the above, it's impossible to argue with you logically.

We aren't going to talk about your model, pywakit, because that would be reopening a closed thread. In the thread where your model was discussed there are enough things to read and think through. I wasn't referring to strictly your model, but it does seem to fit in as well. You just have a lot of trouble accepting it. Despite all that, we are *NOT* going to reopen a closed thread, as it is against the rules of the forum. And please (again) drop the attitude. We are suposed to have a discussion, not an emotional bashtime. Please don't make this personal. It isn't. ~moo

Keeping an open mind is great as long as you don't let your brain fall out. There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such. If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model. While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes. Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories. ~moo

Yes, Sisyphus that's a good point, I was talking about the academic subject of philosophy, seeing as the poster intends to publish in a philosophy publication, which should be related to philosophy in the context of the academic subject.

That wasn't the point of the original poster. We are dealing with classical physics and in a very PARTICULAR context in classical physics. And in classical physics, what I said in post #14 and onwards is true. It was before I was answering YOUR point which takes us out of classical physics and out of the thread's topic. ~moo

Hm the graph of 1/x contains an asymptote and doesn't quite look intuitive... I am not sure that it would help in this case unless the student knows to recognize such graphs....

Mr Skeptic, I don't plead God. Ever. Therefore, I don't plead it to be outside the realms of science, outside reality, outside the rules of everything else, and requiring somtehing all others do. I don't have a problem with claiming that everything must have a cause. Or that everything might not have a cause, I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards the second, but I don't quite care -- I don't make arguments where it's crucial that one item/object/instance/argument/object/event/thing/it/who/what/where/why/booboo must exist *separately* than the rest of everything. I don't know how to answer that question. I don't claim God's existence is special pleading, I'm stating that when people claim that everything must have a cause except god, they are special pleading. I seriously don't see what the problem is. IF your argument is that everything must have a cause, THEN you cannot set God outside of that argument. IF your argument is that not everything must have a cause, THEN your argument that God can exist without a cause is not special pleading, because it's not true "just for God". Where is the problem? ~moo

Sure there is. They criticize one another all the time, it's practically the point of philosophy. It might not be using empirical evidence, but it's still arguments testing the validity of the theory even if it's the philosophical validity. That said, it seems the theory is mixed in with some science, which does raises the (likely) option that people might argue against specific parts of it through contradictory evidence or what they think might be contradictory evidence. ~moo

I don't understand the point of the question. Or the question itself, for that matter. What?

We're moving a bit out of subject here. The question in the subject specifies special pleading. If you think that *all* events require a cause, without exception, that it's NOT special pleading (by definition). The problem is when people specify that ALL EVENTS require a cause *EXCEPT A SINGLE ONE*, usually refering to God. What that happens, that's special pleading. By definition. ~moo