studiot

Possibly a lot of problems, but also many benefits. However the origins of philosophy, science and technology are uncertain at best and unknowable at worst. These origins would make a worthwhile discussion thread in their own right.

Be fair, we are discussing in a Philosophy thread. So the matter can finally be considered settled. Phew! Really ? (pun intended) I have just posted this in another philosophy thread So beware false logic.

Thank you both for your thoughts. Yes, we have discussed deHavilland before. Geoffrey was one of the most talented aircraft designers ever. But he obviously worked without the benefit of Roark or Klein-Logel. And for fatigue, stresses don't have to be extreme, they just need sufficient repetition. I had always understood that the worst comet failures were fatigue at the root of the alloy wings. I can't say I am keen on knowing that our most advanced and recent trains were designed in such a way as too need 'monitoring' well before much more elderly trains have been withdrawn from service.

Apart from the lack of commonsense demanding an answer to the above question (what is more logical) that can only be offered as yes or no, there is the philosophical difficulty of my answering 'yes'. Consider The true statement 'there are no pigs flying past my window at the moment' The false statement 'there is a cat in my garden at the moment' Which is more logical ? Which makes more sense ? Does being true or false make any difference to these ? And finally this statement which makes perfect sense, but contains no logic whatsoever, whether it is true or false 'She opened and then shut the green door.'

How can one statement be more or less logical than another if there is no scale ?

[math][math]\frac{{\sqrt m }}{{\sqrt {{M_u}} }} = \frac{r}{{{R_u}}}[/math][/math] The parser in this forum doesn't like one or both of your square brackets for some reason. This is what I saw when pasted your original into a proper parser. When I pasted it back into the forum it added another set of math tags. I am not sure why. So I removed one set of them in the forum.

I know I usually say that folks are too quick to demand binary choices, but I didn't know there was a scale of logicality

[math]\frac{{\sqrt m }}{{\sqrt {{M_u}} }} = \frac{r}{{{R_u}}}[/math] There should be no space between [math] and \frac

The preliminary report on why the UK's most recent high speed trains had to be withdrawn from service has been published. Apparently metal fatigue and stress-corrosion cracking were the causes of cracking in different components. Amazing that such design mistakes can still occur. What a good job they were found before any accidnets were caused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-58494275 Hitachi train cracks due to fatigue and corrosion, report says

Please note this is not the complete equation. This is [math]{E^2} = {\left( {m{c^2}} \right)^2} + p{c^2}[/math] I await the derivation of this with interest. However I am not a cosmologist so cannot verify your other statements. Hopefully those more interested in that subject will come forward with answers.

I would listen to Charony's comment on this when it comes as hsitology is not my subject. I would just say that in Science generally it is always right to say what you mean exactly. Experts in a particular area may take short cuts but they may also then be misunderstood. Here is a humerous sketch that really shows this.

Since you were speaking in Everyday English and not philosophical techspeak, how was I to know these things ? FYI We used to sell sweets in the Somerset Rural Music School tuckshop. Some of these sweets comprised some sort of foamed jelly stuff made into shaped and multi coloured comestibles. One type of these was called 'poached eggs' - (for 'obvious' reasons) Thanks for the new expression. I had to look it up. +1

1) Please point me to a correct reference to the term "screamingly obvious" in Philosophy. Or even just 'obviously'. 2) Why is S2 obviously true ? This morning, when I had my poached egg for breakfast I named it Frank Sinatra. Just as yesterday I named my egg Shirley Bassy and will probably name tomorrow's egg Annie Lennox. Considering the length of your opening post, I would be very interested in your response to this recent post from another of our general philosopher members. A well thought out and rounded response. +1

+1 Just a note of additional explanation to add here. In many (if not most) presentations of relativity/gravitation (particularly Physics ones) it is stated that a geodesic is the shortest line. This is actually only half the story because a geodesic is a line of extremal values. And extremal values may be maximum or minimum (as Markus has here). Applied Mathematicians have therefore started to use the term extremal or state both maximum and minimum. This is further complicated in that the standard calculus technique to indentify such points and lines also identifies 'points of inflection' which are neither a maximum or a minimum.

Nor does it needed to be presented as hyperbole. Makes perfect sense to me that you have not read Dag1's post so I have added another + 1 to draw your attention to it.

This is not correct as it is 5 in 505 which is not the required ratio 1 : 100. This is correct as it is the required ration of 5 in 500 or 1:100. There are several ways to work this out: Here are same example calculations working out the same example by different methods.

Yes and furthermore you also pointed out a while back, but drew no more attention that that from myself, that physicists are also human and sometime act in other human capacities than as physicists. So just a philosopher may do some science, some physicists may do some philosophy. But that brings us the question Physics is not the only Science, or the oldest. The Royal institute of Astronomy is senior by half a century and the Royal Institute of Chemistry contemporaneous. And the OP is about Science, not just Physics, monolithic or not. If we could all widen our horizons from 'Physics v Philosophy' to 'Science compared to Philosophy' perhaps this otherwise excellent thread could become less contentious. Yes both Science and Philosophy have developed and run into many brick walls. Though not necessarily at the same rate. In fact if you consider it, matching rates is far less likely than differential rates. So whilst the scientists are shown to have put forward erroneous theories from caloric and phlogiston to Hoyle and Bondi's steady state theory the philosophers should remember that alchemy (philosopher's stone) , numerology and astrology all grew out of Philosophy. So perhaps here we have another difference since I suggest Modern Science has progressed faster and further than Philosophy, though I also think that Modern Philosophy has progressed further than its pundits here allow.

Do you not think Physicists would be delighted if this goal was achievable? Do you not think this has not already been attempted ? I would be interested in your calculation of the temperature of these two charges that swansont asks about.

[tex] \frac{kg\cdot m^3}{s^2} [/tex] [math]\frac{{kg\cdot{m^3}}}{{{s^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{kg\cdot{m^3}}}{{{s^2}}}[/math]

Thank you also, +1 If this translator is any good (better than google) it might come in handy one day.

I did not misunderstand your point, I just did not reply to it. Edit : I actually think it a good philosophical example of meaning, but not of difference. /Edit I was noting your introduction of a vague notion of probability (not incorrectly since this is philosophy) and contrasting this with a fuller but more complicatd scientific version (since that was the op question). Vive la difference. In general I agree with the sentiments/sense of all of this particularly the last paragraph. +1 But is it about differences ? If a philosophical line of thought is added to or taken on by a scientific one are they then different ? I fully admit to having been seduced into off topic posting in some of my posts in this thread, it is very easy to do.

Oh dear. @Gees and @beecee I was going to say that I am glad you two have managed to discuss my words without actually swopping red cards, but I see that one appeared a few posts back. Since neither of you seem to have fully appreciated my words (probably my fault) I will level the playing field and explain my words further. 'greater' is definitely a scientific term used to purely indicate size, as opposed to any value judgement such as 'better'. Indeed I gave a semi scientific (geographic) example in some place names. I have now realised that the obvious examples are from the life sciences where greater and lesser abound. For example the greater spotted woodpecker and the lesser spotted woodpecker. No implication is made that the smaller bird is in any way 'inferior'. Now to substantiate my claim that today the buld of scientific knowledge exceeds that of the philosophic. I do not think the name of the academic qualifications awarded by some older institutions is an appropriate measure. The number of DPhil awarded by say Cambridge for scientific studies is greater than the number for philosophic studies. But then newer institutions award qualifications that reflect their scientific nature. BMedSci, MPharm, Dsc and so forth. Many of these do not have a philosophy department. And, of course, we should also look at other academic systems. Central Europe used to aspire to Privat Dozent as its pinnacle qualification, before professor. OK so that deals with academic qualifiacations. What about output ? It used to be said that the were 7 miles of shelves of dissertations on"the influence of Shakespeare on Coleridge" at Oxford. This of course is English literature, not Science or Pholosophy. But today think of the library space devoted to Scientific subjects v the space devoted to philosophy and also the number of students in each discipline. Now look to the wider world. How about the warehouses full of scientific specimens belonging to the many museums ? Or the stores of records from scientific observatories around the world, from ice core logs to oceanographic measurements to atronomical observations to mineral and oil company prospcting to meteorological data to genetic studies to flora and fauna observations to ... the list just goes on and on. Is far as I know the corresponding list attributable to Philosophy is minute. So more people are engaged in obtaining and processing more data every day in Science than Philosophy. So Science is now the 'greater' activity.

If you stand accused of any crime at all I would gently suggest that it is the one of not addressing a philosophical question. Or perhaps I should say the set philosophical question. The OP made it crystal clear that his question (you are right it was deliberately posed as a philosophical question) was about differences between Science and Philosophy. In fact the OP only mentioned difference in the singular and I have asked if folks think there is only one difference, a point which has generally been ignored. It was was not the question (in many eyes here including mine) you seem to be addressing which could be roughly phrased What does Philosophy think of Science and Science think of Philosophy ? This difference between the OP question and the one you appear to be addressing is probably the reason for all the pushback.

One more thought occurs. Much use is made of the Greek alphabet so get yourself a copy and keep it handy to refer to and become familiar with (unless you already speak Greek of course). Both upper and lower case are used. https://www.rapidtables.com/math/symbols/greek_alphabet.html

I normally find some books or other material to refer when folks ask. But this is a really tall order that all but has me stumped. But welcome anyway and if you have queries this is a good place to just ask. In the hope that your basic algebra included at least simple equations and their rearrangement I suggest you look into this book. The maths is very gentle and there is a glossary/explanation of all the (astro)physics you will need, plus lots of photos and full colour diagrams. The books covers a good range of topics without being too difficult. Science books are expensive and astro stuff goes out of date very quickly so you might like to look into a second hand copy. I also suggest you initially beware of material on relativity, gravitation particle theory. These will draw you down a never ending rabbit hole/warren of increasing complexity that you will not have the maths to understand so will gain entirely the wrong impresion. Go well in your study enterprise.