Jump to content

Philosophy of Light Visibility (from Light: visible or invisible?)


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Can you tell me what your cat looks like?

Also, it seem you were too busy telling me I don't listen to see this.

 

No. There are different interpretation of invisible, just as there are different interpretation of the word light. Light and heavy, light and dark and electromagnetic radiation "light". Invisible could mean "never visible" or "not currently visible". They need to be used in context. 

image.jpg

Posted
7 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

No. There are different interpretation of invisible, just as there are different interpretation of the word light. Light and heavy, light and dark and electromagnetic radiation "light". Invisible could mean "never visible" or "not currently visible". They need to be used in context. 

image.jpg

2

Tailor-made for the phrase 'no shit Sherlock'...

Not so good as an explanation.

Posted
Just now, dimreepr said:

Tailor-made for the phrase 'no shit Sherlock'...

Not so good as an explanation.

To some people it's not that obvious "My good doctor"!

Posted
3 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

To some people it's not that obvious "My good doctor"!

Clearly, and despite the repeated attempts by other members to teach you otherwise.  

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Clearly, and despite the repeated attempts by other members to teach you otherwise.  

In the land of the blind, a person who sees, is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools. 

They have nothing to teach, but much to learn.

Edited by Furyan5
Clarifying
Posted
5 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

In the land of the blind, a person who sees, is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools. 

They have nothing to teach, but much to learn.

Galileo! Long time no see!

Posted
Just now, Furyan5 said:

In the land of the blind, a person who sees, is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools. 

Fortunately, we're in the land of science, a person who studies is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools; FTFY, now they both make sense (do I need the sarcasm emoji?).

Posted

"The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma." Steven Novella

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong." Quietuus

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

 

Posted
1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Fortunately, we're in the land of science, a person who studies is often seen as a lunatic and mocked by fools; FTFY, now they both make sense (do I need the sarcasm emoji?).

Lol, nice one. I must admit I wasn't impressed by your previous attempts, but you've outdone yourself. 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

"The chief problem with the Galileo gambit is the failure to understand the difference between a well-established scientific law and religious dogma." Steven Novella

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then in a surprisingly high number of cases it turns out you're still wrong." Quietuus

When a highly reputable book says you're right, the answer is obvious. 

 

 

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

Lol, nice one. I must admit I wasn't impressed by your previous attempts, but you've outdone yourself. 

Yep, we both need to use an emoji...

Posted
19 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

When a highly reputable book says you're right, the answer is obvious. 

Citation needed.

But, again, I am not saying you are wrong (or right), just that you have given up intelligent discussion in favour of "I am right, you must believe The Truth" and now "they are laughing at me so I must be right". Both of which are ridiculous fallacies.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Citation needed.

But, again, I am not saying you are wrong (or right), just that you have given up intelligent discussion in favour of "I am right, you must believe The Truth" and now "they are laughing at me so I must be right". Both of which are ridiculous fallacies.

https://books.google.com/books/about/QI_The_Book_of_General_Ignorance_The_Not.html?id=uCgRY6llQpYC

Actually I'm just having some fun. I love to see people swallow their own words when they realize they're wrong. 

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Furyan5 said:

I love to see people swallow their own words when they realize they're wrong.

So your best source of support is a comedy show on TV? Is this related to using the Galileo Gambit to "prove" you are right?

Edited by Strange
Posted
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

So your best source of support is a comedy show on TV? Is this related to using the Galileo Gambit to "prove" you are right?

Comedy show? I said book. Can you read?

Posted
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is that a trick question?

Do you know what a book is?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm glad, I'd hate to take the piss out of an innocent...

Have no fear. I've been called a lot worse by people who's opinions actually matter. I quite enjoy a bit of intellectual bantering, provided I'm not faced with an unarmed opponent. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

Comedy show? I said book. Can you read?

You've never watched it then? You should. It is very good. But quite often factually wrong ... (which is fine; it's a comedy show)

I see no reason to think the book is either funnier or more accurate.

Also, citing an entire book as a reference isn't terribly helpful. "Hey I'm right; it says so in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica."

Posted
18 minutes ago, Strange said:

You've never watched it then? You should. It is very good. But quite often factually wrong ... (which is fine; it's a comedy show)

I see no reason to think the book is either funnier or more accurate.

Also, citing an entire book as a reference isn't terribly helpful. "Hey I'm right; it says so in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica."

I must admit, I've never watched the show, so I wouldn't know. 

The book, however, is neither humorous, nor factually inaccurate. Pg 122 states that light is invisible. I realized this, before reading about it. It's actually pretty obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it, but most adopt a dogmatic approach. I'm curious though, what exactly does your preferred book have to say on the matter? Does it say we can see light? Or that our eyes detect light?

Posted
12 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I must admit, I've never watched the show, so I wouldn't know. 

The book, however, is neither humorous, nor factually inaccurate. Pg 122 states that light is invisible. I realized this, before reading about it. It's actually pretty obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it, but most adopt a dogmatic approach. I'm curious though, what exactly does your preferred book have to say on the matter? Does it say we can see light? Or that our eyes detect light?

Who knows

Posted
29 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

The book, however, is neither humorous, nor factually inaccurate. Pg 122 states that light is invisible.

So what?

Why should we take this book as an authoritative source (especially when we know that the authors have been wrong in the past)?

Is it deemed to be "factually accurate" because they agree with The Truth According to Furyan? Or do they actually provide some logical argument?

31 minutes ago, Furyan5 said:

I'm curious though, what exactly does your preferred book have to say on the matter? Does it say we can see light? Or that our eyes detect light?

I don't have a preferred book on the subject. Or any book on the subject. (I suppose I could use the crackpot claim that I prefer to "think for myself" but I think the irony would be lost.)

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.