To abstract or not to abstract

[Ghideon]

20 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

That's why in my view, the modern church is apostate.

It would have been interesting to compare that with those who were involved in selecting material for the churches made from bricks. I am not sure they would share your view.  

20 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

That's why the flood. 

As far as I know the churches has not been flooded. If the people that built them were to know that they would last for hundreds of years they might claim that to be "evidence" for their view rather than your view.  

A scientist may instead have look at climate, geology and other factors for an explanation that better suits the spirit of this forum. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Ghideon

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, joigus said:

As long as it's just a tool.

Where would we be, without tool's?

Chucking seed in the general direction of good ground... 🤪

Something Trump depends on, despite the fact that he is a tool...

[joigus]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Where would we be, without tool's?

Indeed.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Something Trump depends on, despite the fact that he is a tool...

Maybe we all are tools or someone who's someone else's tool. With no overriding handler of all tools.

Paraphrasing @dimreepr, imagine that...  

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

Maybe we all are tools or someone who's someone else's tool. With no overriding handler of all tools.

Paraphrasing @dimreepr, imagine that...  

You don't have too, to be content... 😉

Imagine the place's we could go...

[Bartholomew Jones]

On 12/21/2020 at 7:36 AM, John Cuthber said:

Joigus may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is on the list.
On the other hand you condemn him for saying 

 

which is a paraphrase of

Jeremiah 5:21
‘Hear this now, O foolish people,
Without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not,
And who have ears and hear not:

It is utter folly to say that I don't want to know the truth about any matter whatsoever.  There is a vast difference between that, and choosing better battles.  You preoccupy yourselves with several things including largely science.  I dont; as much as, I've decided, as an accountant, there are better things to account for than money.

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It is utter folly to say that I don't want to know the truth about any matter whatsoever.

Nobody said that. You don't want to learn science, that's all. Nobody said "any matter whatsoever". See how you are intellectually dishonest? Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bear false witness?

You put words in other people's mouths. Now, that doesn't surprise me, really.

[Bartholomew Jones]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Nobody said that. You don't want to learn science, that's all. Nobody said "any matter whatsoever". See how you are intellectually dishonest? Doesn't your Bible tell you not to bear false witness?

You put words in other people's mouths. Now, that doesn't surprise me, really.

Any matter whatsoever, as in, any particular matter, whatsoever.  There's not ever a matter I wouldn't love to know the whole truth about.  It's not dishonesty in any sense.  You're plain wrong.  I'm far more inclined to ponder and to study things majestic and of natural affections (nature itself) than of science, yes.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm far more inclined to ponder and to study things majestic and of natural affections (nature itself) than of science, yes.

Is that the same inclination that stirs you to continue posting here on a science forum?

[Bartholomew Jones]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is that the same inclination that stirs you to continue posting here on a science forum?

I was responding to his charge that I prefer not to know (something, science in particular).  I've stated quite liberally here, science fascinates me.  It doesn't fascinate me as much as living itself.  His charge was that I won't give liberal attention to science because I prefer ignorance, which statement I am judging, is liberally foolish.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[iNow]

Please elaborate on what you mean by liberal in that post

[Bartholomew Jones]

In the first case, I've stated twice or three times, "science is a very useful way of looking at nature," the antithesis included being that "natural discovery is of a higher order than science."  So, liberally in the sense that it is the fourth instance here.

In the third case, "liberally foolish," meaning foolish to the degree of folly.

The second is self-explanatory.

Maybe I took too much offense.  Sorry.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[zapatos]

Can you tell me what "natural discovery" is? Do you mean observations?

[Bartholomew Jones]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Can you tell me what "natural discovery" is? Do you mean observations?

Yes.  Acute observation without rigid scientific restraints.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yes.  Acute observation without rigid scientific restraints.

So, anecdotes inherently tainted and diminished by human bias and quite likely to be unreproduceable?

[Bartholomew Jones]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, anecdotes inherently tainted and diminished by human bias and quite likely to be unreproduceable?

You're forcing assumptions dishonestly.  Anecdotes ought to be considered case by case to see if they are acceptable as supportive evidence, yes; as much as generally accepted principles ought to be reviewed from time to time for obsolescence.  In both cases integrity will sometimes fail.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[zapatos]

45 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yes.  Acute observation without rigid scientific restraints.

I assume because you feel a rigid scientific restraint makes the data worse than a natural discovery. Is that correct?

Can you give me an example of a rigid scientific restraint that has a negative impact on the observation?

[Bartholomew Jones]

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I assume because you feel a rigid scientific restraint makes the data worse than a natural discovery. Is that correct?

Can you give me an example of a rigid scientific restraint that has a negative impact on the observation?

Are you trying to orchestrate that I get banned?

I'm going to answer you with due care.

No.  Rigidity makes it not fascinating, like a university lecture in monotone.  Rigidity has nothing to do with the quality of the data.

An example: always isolating microbes from their media when you study them.  Like in the paper included in the OP.  It's more interesting to me making varieties of kefir in the kitchen than it would be in a lab with strains of kefir culture that came on order.  It's more of an affection, an art, than an impersonal set of data.  Scientists like Newton seemed to have approached nature, before science.

But I had to study discoveries by science to get a sense how to ferment, then stumble upon my own homemade kefir and kombucha.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Are you trying to orchestrate that I get banned?

 

Calm down.

13 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

No.  Rigidity makes it not fascinating, like a university lecture in monotone.  Rigidity has nothing to do with the quality of the data.

Is natural discovery better than or equal to science with respect to quality?

What do you mean by "natural discovery is of a higher order than science"? 

[John Cuthber]

10 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I was responding to his charge that I prefer not to know

It's not a "charge"; it's an observation.

 

8 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Rigidity has nothing to do with the quality of the data.

What would your second guess be?

[joigus]

9 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Are you trying to orchestrate that I get banned?

I don't think Zaps, or John, are trying to get you banned. Sounds to me that they're trying to corner you logically. That is always something most people of reason, always in our hearts, thank our intellectual opponents for --or should--, and deeply regret if we ever don't, and get carried away. It's actually the highest compliment you can get from people like them or like me. It's like having it said to you: "You are no idiot, I'm sure somewhere in there is a reasoning agent".

I think you came closest to getting banned when you decided to drop reason and started applying names to other users (namely, myself and John, "fools").

You got it completely wrong. We'll never give up on you as long as you try to use reason and evidence, if I know what their motivation is. And I think I do.

I'm sorry, but the Bible, although a beautiful at times, valuable always, document, is not a valid source of reason and/or evidence in general.

Edited December 26, 2020 by joigus

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

there are better things to account for than money.

Indeed, you're just not making a very good case...

[Bartholomew Jones]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Calm down.

Is natural discovery better than or equal to science with respect to quality?

What do you mean by "natural discovery is of a higher order than science"? 

It's better; namely more pleasant.  The result is more like one glass jar of real maple syrup, rather that crafty plastic bottles of corn syrup with caramel color agent, or like a health-wise dietary pattern rather than pharmaceuticals or multivitamin programs.

Your second question will land me in trouble if I answer directly.  It's like comparing a 3rd generation chef at a tiny intimate restaurant in the Mediterranean to the head cook at an Olive Gardens restaurant.  The former is more obviously predominant.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It's better; namely more pleasant.

It’s quite arrogant of you to pretend you know what derives pleasure for people working in labs, and more so to pretend that the things which bring you pleasure are somehow superior to the things which derive pleasure for others. Didn’t Jesus say something about the importance of humility and not judging other people?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It's better; namely more pleasant

Is that your, objective view?

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Didn’t Jesus say something about the importance of humility and not judging other people?

Yeah, he tried to ban people from throwing stone's... 😇 

[Bartholomew Jones]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:59 AM, dimreepr said:

Where would we be, without tool's?

Chucking seed in the general direction of good ground... 🤪

Something Trump depends on, despite the fact that he is a tool...

Supposing there was a region on earth at its origin of a form as a perfect garden; you might not need tools; tools might breach the natural order, in that case.