Jack Egerton Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 Hi all We had another thread open that got to the 'need' for science, technology, engineering, and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma The three links above are 'pro' advancement in tone. Three things against advancement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_bird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Discuss...
koti Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: Discuss... Is this going to be graded? When is the final?
Jack Egerton Posted April 21, 2018 Author Posted April 21, 2018 Haha, no, sorry for the pedagogical tone. It makes more sense in the context of this...
koti Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Jack Egerton said: Haha, no, sorry for the pedagogical tone. It makes more sense in the context of this... Yes i’ve seen that thread briefly. It was quite pleasing to see the „Egertonian cosmos” having its bottom handed to you by Strange & Mordred. One would assume a less condscending tone by the OP in the next thread but hey, not the first time I was wrong. What did you want to discuss by the way?
koti Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: The topic at hand. I don’t necessarily view Eugenics as a thing against technological advancement. After all we’re already doing cancer treatments involving genetic modifications, that surely is a good thing. GMO’s are a good example for a pro rather than a con for technological advancement. Tradition on the other hand I see in most cases as the opposite of „pro advancement in tone” as traditionality delays advancement. So whats your take on this, what did you want to discuss, do you have anything to add besides listening to your class discussing from your pulpit? Edited April 21, 2018 by koti
Jack Egerton Posted April 21, 2018 Author Posted April 21, 2018 Besides the three examples each way? We could discuss anything in another thread. Link me to it if you want.
swansont Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: Hi all We had another thread open that got to the 'need' for science, technology, engineering, and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma The three links above are 'pro' advancement in tone. Luddite is pro-advancement? Please explain.
Strange Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Luddite is pro-advancement? Please explain. And dogma? And tradition? Quite the reverse, I would have thought. And I can't see how the others are against advancement, either. Either I am confused or the OP is ...
Lasse Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 Dogmas are false theories or half truths which ones are forced to be accepted even doubts appear. Tradition: learned behavioural patterns.
swansont Posted April 21, 2018 Posted April 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, Lasse said: Dogmas are false theories or half truths which ones are forced to be accepted even doubts appear. Tradition: learned behavioural patterns. Neither of which lend themselves to progress.
Jack Egerton Posted April 21, 2018 Author Posted April 21, 2018 I was suggesting that a negative view on the first three topics would be justification for advancement, though it was not made clear. In any case, many other examples exist for and against, that I would quite like to hear, if they seem significant to yourself.
John Cuthber Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 22 hours ago, Jack Egerton said: Hi all We had another thread open that got to the 'need' for science, technology, engineering, and medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma The three links above are 'pro' advancement in tone. Three things against advancement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_bird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Discuss... Science didn't kill the elephant birds in medieval Madagascar. Science is what shows you why Eugenics is a bad thing - the term "biodiversity" was coined by scientists. If the term "Anthropocene" ever makes it into science then it will still be wise to recognise that the problems were cause as much by politics as by science and that, where solutions are found, they are based in science. The biggest single driver to the changes that characterise the epoch are due to the increasing population of a particular species (ours). The only paths that are sensible going to reduce that growth are founded in science. It's going o be a short discussion.
Jack Egerton Posted April 22, 2018 Author Posted April 22, 2018 If you compartmentalise (Aristotelian) science away from other elements of human behaviour, with barriers, then you suggest science is in need of defence, when, in fact, no assault may necessarily have been launched upon it. Let us use compartments in this case. So... science is a thing in and of itself that is blameless and unaccountable. Maybe this is OK, because science is not a person or people it is a compartment of human behaviour that we have just defined. How about people working in science? If science is suggested to be a means for achieve good or ill then how about those who create/popularise/disseminate science? We have carrots: acclaim/renown/respect/accrediation and physical or digital credit such as money, and other things We have sticks: moral obligations, legal obligations, etc Are these balance in favour or out of favour of people working in science? How important is the intended use of the science and technology to any obligations or rewards, etc? Etc... I am just ad-libing with my fingers here, so there must be more to consider.
swansont Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 44 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: Etc... I am just ad-libing with my fingers here, so there must be more to consider. It's still not at all clear what you're trying to discuss.
Strange Posted April 22, 2018 Posted April 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: If you compartmentalise (Aristotelian) science away from other elements of human behaviour I don't think that is possible or sensible. 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: Let us use compartments in this case. So... science is a thing in and of itself that is blameless and unaccountable. Science itself is blameless and unaccountable. This doe not imply compartmentalisation. It just means that you don't blame a tool for the purpose people put it to. 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: it is a compartment of human behaviour that we have just defined In what way is science a "compartment of human behaviour"? (I ask, because you haven't defined it.) 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: How about people working in science? If science is suggested to be a means for achieve good or ill then how about those who create/popularise/disseminate science? What about them? What are you asking? 1 hour ago, Jack Egerton said: We have carrots: acclaim/renown/respect/accrediation and physical or digital credit such as money, and other things We have sticks: moral obligations, legal obligations, etc Are these balance in favour or out of favour of people working in science? Are you asking if those are the motivations for people choosing to do science? (If so, then it probably varies enormously. Different people do science for different reasons.)
Jack Egerton Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) The thing is, if you write a full stop after every logical conclusion before writing the next then you do not get anywhere. Written language inherently cannot be 100% explicit, because there is human or machine learning of implication behind each word and the construction of the sentence. So... when you ask me the above questions, you seem to seek a sentence format greater than 99% explicit and less than 1% implicit. The problem is, that is not how the English language, or any other textual language works. The same is true for mathematics. We use mathematics to encode logic and logic can always be stated in written language, else it is illogical. Therefore, maths or English or any language necessarily has implicit knowledge or 'unsaid things' in it. I find it near impossible to discuss when there is nothing assumed from what a person has said, and not much desired to extend thought beyond the exact words that were stated by said person. Hence, I am not motivated to answer those questions. The aim of starting this thread was to spark up an interesting conversation with seemingly intelligent people to see what is discussed. I am yet to see the development of such. Edited April 23, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Strange Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: So... when you ask me the above questions, you seem to seek a sentence format greater than 99% explicit and less than 1% implicit. Not really. More than 0% explicit would be useful. 32 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: The aim of starting this thread was to spark up an interesting conversation with seemingly intelligent people to see what is discussed. I am yet to see the development of such. It seems that several people have no idea what you want to discuss. But let me make a stab at it: what do you think of the price of bananas today?
Jack Egerton Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) Though I will happily talk with myself through the medium of written English. This is known as a mind dump. Anyway, my opinion on the language of mathematics is this: it is multilayered, i.e. a latin/greek/etc character encodes some logic, then another character encodes logic on that logic, etc. So it is seen as efficient, yet implicit. So maths seems superficially to be a good candidate for encode rich logic. However, there is one major risk I can see associated with this, compared with textual logic: the layer-upon-layer-upon-layer logical structure can lead to confusion over the exact initial meaning of the base layer, akin to the old English game called 'Chinese whispers' -- though I am not sure of the origin of that name. We can also analyse maths through propagation of error that I will do in words, not maths, so as to not be circular in my reasoning. If there is a small error in encoding or decoding of knowledge on one layer, and then that knowledge is used to encode the next layer, potentially with its own associated error, and then decoded, maybe with further error, then the error magnifies to the point of distorting the intended meaning of the logic. Another second issue that can occur, and does occur for example when one provides a proper noun to one layer of knowledge, e.g. Einsteinian, is that one may forget some or all of the limitations of such a theory and apply it more generally than it should be or was originally intended to be. Again, such super-generalisation of knowledge magnifies with layers such that such use of said knowledge is close to meaningless on a logical level. There are obviously other reasons to be VERY careful when encoding and decoding logic and understanding in mathematics, else it becomes something taken on FAITH not COMPREHENSION. I do not state or imply here that there are issues with faith per se, but I state that maths is suggested and intended to be comprehension-based not faith-based and to take any encoded logic on faith is to do a disservice to the very meaning of SCIENCE. By writing this reply I will state that Strange's reply is not worthy of any further reply. Edited April 23, 2018 by Jack Egerton -1
Lasse Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: Though I will happily talk with myself through the medium of written English. This is known as a mind dump. Anyway, my opinion on the language of mathematics is this: it is multilayered, i.e. a latin/greek/etc character encodes some logic, then another character encodes logic on that logic, etc. So it is seen as efficient, yet implicit. So maths seems superficially to be a good candidate for encode rich logic. However, there is one major risk I can see associated with this, compared with textual logic: the layer-upon-layer-upon-layer logical structure can lead to confusion over the exact initial meaning of the base layer, akin to the old English game called 'Chinese whispers' -- though I am not sure of the origin of that name. We can also analyse maths through propagation of error that I will do in words, not maths, so as to not be circular in my reasoning. If there is a small error in encoding or decoding of knowledge on one layer, and then that knowledge is used to encode the next layer, potentially with its own associated error, and then decoded, maybe with further error, then the error magnifies to the point of distorting the intended meaning of the logic. Another second issue that can occur, and does occur for example when one provides a proper noun to one layer of knowledge, e.g. Einsteinian, is that one may forget some or all of the limitations of such a theory and apply it more generally than it should be or was originally intended to be. Again, such super-generalisation of knowledge magnifies with layers such that such use of said knowledge is close to meaningless on a logical level. There are obviously other reasons to be VERY careful when encoding and decoding logic and understanding in mathematics, else it becomes something taken on FAITH not COMPREHENSION. I do not state or imply here that there are issues with faith per se, but I state that maths is suggested and intended to be comprehension-based not faith-based and to take any encoded logic on faith is to do a disservice to the very meaning of SCIENCE. By writing this reply I will state that Strange's reply is not worthy of any further reply. I quess there is a reason why you present your idea here and not in science related papers or as a phd on a good university. Everything worth a thought, and you could explain through your theory the advances and differences, compared to the old one, in the given scenario. So Strange were kind to use his time to respond, and set questions related to your thoughts and theory (you present the theory of everything if I got it right) and you with an arrogant, irritating attitude neglect it rather than express yourself intelligently, clearly, shortly... Bit more value recognition and respect please. So to see your capabilities, and how deep you understand your topic, and for me to understand clearly, could you please comply the similarities and differences between your theory and relativity. 5 short sentences. Edited April 23, 2018 by Lasse
Jack Egerton Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 I have done so. Read the thread, please. Thank you for reflecting questions back at me, though, Lasse.
Lasse Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) Sadly I do not understand from the thread and that is why I asked a for of clarification. Edited April 23, 2018 by Lasse
Jack Egerton Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 Clarification would only be repeat at this stage and therefore unfruitful in its entirety.
Strange Posted April 23, 2018 Posted April 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, Jack Egerton said: Clarification would only be repeat at this stage and therefore unfruitful in its entirety. If it was a repetition, it wouldn't be a clarification. Quote clarified; clarifying transitive verb 1: to make understandable clarify a subject The president was forced to clarify his position on the issue. 2: to free of confusion needs time to clarify his thoughts https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clarification
Jack Egerton Posted April 23, 2018 Author Posted April 23, 2018 (edited) Lasse, if you have every heard a sky diver or some such person say, "the ground was coming up on me pretty fast", or something like that. Or, the apple that fell on Newton's head could say, "that head was coming up on me pretty fast". What would you say to that (besides crude wordplay)? The frame of reference of the person, e.g. in a Solipsistic universe, sees the ground moving towards it in freefall on Earth. The above would be a reason for thinking, on a base level, that my Hypothesis was intuitive and logical. (Conversely, if someone said, intuitively, "the Earth is flat", I would say "not true, one can see ships sailing over the horizon" or provide another such example for base intuition.) Beyond base intuition, the simplicity and seeming generality of the Egertonian cosmos is hard to fault and I have said that it could readily provide the same results as from relativistic equations and other mathematical descriptions of empirical observations of nature. Edited April 23, 2018 by Jack Egerton
Recommended Posts