When your ideas fall in here ,be of great courage!

[walkntune]

Just to give an example, there is a logical explanation for why some faces appear more beautiful than others: for example, beautiful faces correlate with intelligence

 

Hmmmm! Have you really listened to some of the contestants at a beauty pageant?

I have met some pretty dumb blonds before! Sure were hot though!

So I don't believe they work hand in hand but one might have to rely on one more than the other and would agree they are both part of survival!

Charisma also plays it's role but for now I will keep my intuitive thoughts simple!

But yes we cry for attention even as babies! Others energy is what we thrive on!

 

Like the sky being blue!

 

That is due to scattering of light by air molecules; the shorter wavelengths are dispersed more. The same explains the colors of the sunset. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...os/blusky.html

______________

Sorry I meant to say "Like the sky being beautiful"

[HOMER-16]

So are you saying that it is impossible to make a computer program that can determine that something is beautiful? I would disagree. (a computer program is based on logic).

 

Nope. It takes the data it recieves and compares it to what it perceives to be beautiful. Logic is not based on concept, really just facts.

 

Psuedoscience is merely theories based upon or are relating to concepts that cannot (yet) be proven with logic. Does that make them nonexistant? Impossible? Wrong? No, merely the scientific community in general does not accept them.

 

I'm just speaking for myself here but, before I condemn something to be entirely impossible, I'd make myself absolutely sure of that. And if it's still possible in whatever way, I would recognise that and accept it.

[walkntune]

I'm just speaking for myself here but, before I condemn something to be entirely impossible, I'd make myself absolutely sure of that. And if it's still possible in whatever way, I would recognise that and accept it.

 

I really respect this attitude!

If we search for failures we may just find what we search for so imagine when we search for possibilities!

After all if you are searching for something don't you hope to find what you are looking for?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm just speaking for myself here but, before I condemn something to be entirely impossible, I'd make myself absolutely sure of that. And if it's still possible in whatever way, I would recognise that and accept it.

 

Agreed. On this forum we are very tolerant of theories that are not impossible nor irrelevant.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[JillSwift]

Psuedoscience is merely theories based upon or are relating to concepts that cannot (yet) be proven with logic. Does that make them nonexistant? Impossible? Wrong? No, merely the scientific community in general does not accept them.

Sorry, but this is not correct.

 

Pseudoscience is discarding methodology in favor of seeking ways to convince others of the validity of an idea or phenomenon without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.

 

What you describe is more like speculation.

[Phi for All]

I described accepted scientific theory once to a friend as the solid ground you can confidently walk on without fear of it breaking beneath you. The terrain changes constantly as new evidence is discovered, but you're still on firm ground. Speculation is a sheet of ice. It's OK to walk on it when it's close to the solid ground, but the farther you go out on it without the proper methodology, the thinner the ice becomes. Scientific method, when done properly, makes the ice thicker and safer, and when your speculation goes through the proven steps, it may even become a theory and thus you've created more solid ground.

 

When you use pseudoscience or rely solely on intuition and speculation, however rational it seems, you're walking on thinner and thinner ice. Many people who post their ideas here have already fallen through, and the resulting hypothermia seems to suppress the normal warning signs one should experience when in grave danger. They defend their intuition as science as they slowly turn blue and sink.

[HOMER-16]

Well said Phi for All. To me if the ice breaks, I just let it go. If it's wrong it's wrong.

 

You can't use only intuition but it does help for a starting place. And speculation will only work if there's reason backing it.

 

Unfortunately, scientific method sometimes cannot prove some concepts (yet at least). I should say that if it cannot be tested by the scientific method to prove or disprove, it should be regarded as a possibility at least.

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately, scientific method sometimes cannot prove some concepts (yet at least). I should say that if it cannot be tested by the scientific method to prove or disprove, it should be regarded as a possibility at least.

Scientific method can be used for every natural phenomena. If something can't be observed in a scientific fashion, then it is not a natural phenomena and must be considered supernatural. When the supernatural becomes observable, then scientific method can test it.

[walkntune]

Scientific method can be used for every natural phenomena. If something can't be observed in a scientific fashion, then it is not a natural phenomena and must be considered supernatural. When the supernatural becomes observable, then scientific method can test it.

 

This is a good example of why there are so many religion and belief systems in the world!

But yet science might be on it's way to discover the mysterious energy forces that people intuitively sense!

 

I would be interested in a scientific explanation of what faith is and why it evolved(we must remember it's not a feeling)even though it can be felt!

[padren]

Just wanted to encourage those whose ideas fall into this forum!

Most of Einsteins work would have fallen in here first before he worked out the math 10 or so years later! The same with Newton and all great scientist who start out with intuitive thinking and imagination first!The intuitive mind always has to take the scrutiny of the logical mind but its the intuitive mind that always leads the way!

 

I just want to be clear on something with regards to the thoughts you've compiled in that statement.

 

1) Einstein among others, did use intuition to lead towards great breakthroughs. However, you must accept that they discarded a huge number of intuitive theories as well, because they could not survive even their own scrutiny. Had Einstein blindly trusted his intuition, we would never have had the theory of relatively or special relatively, because he'd have spent his life trying to convince people of his earlier, faulty concepts.

Through scrutiny, and the scientific method, he was able to discard the intuitive but false ideas, and remain open to new ideas that contradicted his older hypothesis.

 

If you want a great example of a scientist with brilliant intuition, and probably the best example of someone unfairly criticized, I would recommend researching Nikola Tesla. The man was absolutely brilliant, and even designed an alternating current motor while still a student - he was heckled by his professor and accused of trying to build a "perpetual motion machine" which had nothing to do with his design.

By the same token, you should research some of Nikola's failings - especially his wireless energy transmission ideas. They were absolutely genius, but failed for very basic reasons and it is now well established the principles were flawed for any sort of real long distance transmission of electrical power.

 

Imagine for a second, if he had been critical enough to realize that in his lifetime - what he could have achieved if he wasn't chasing that impossible goal? He very well could have come up with another method for the same thing on sound principles but the world will never know because the certainty that allowed him to bring so many great inventions to life also became his curse.

 

2) Remember that Einstein, when he conceived these thought experiments, rightly classified them as such. He did not argue with people "But history will prove me right!" when he did not have the math to back it up. With humility, he saw his ideas for what they were - ideas. He worked with them, tested them, tried to falsify them, tried to make predictions with them that would lend weight to them, and eventually build sound mathematically solid theories with them. He was not an advocate of "Cowboy Science" and just thinking things up and calling it reality. He was committed to the rigorous works needed to demonstrate the validity of a theory, and showed humility along the way as he developed his ideas.

 

 

Please remember that the majority of criticism people face here is directly proportional to the claim made: If you have done a thought experiment, and wish for help to see if your experiment is self consistent, you will be well received. If you want to know if a hypothesis is consistent with current observations of phenomena, you will also be pretty well received. Of course, you may not like the answers you get - the internal logic of your idea may be faulty or a hypothesis may expect observations that contradict actual observations made of the universe at large. However, if you are simply asking those questions, people will respond pretty well.

 

On the other hand, if you have a theory you believe is true, yet it contradicts known observations and you insist your theory is accurate you will be asked to reconcile these issues to satisfy your insistence. At that point you are not refining an interesting idea and testing it but making the claim your idea passes all the tests. If you take the criticism personally and get emotional, you'll get some rather frustrated responses. I want to point out if you meet this sort of resistance, you are not following in the footsteps of Einstein - I would bet my last dollar he'd be critical of both your theory and your methods of arguing as anyone here. Never overestimate what you have and never get emotionally attached to your ideas. All great scientists have thrown out more ideas than they've kept. A great many no one ever saw because they were disproved by themselves before they ever even made it to an open discussion.

 

That, is how I would recommend dealing with your ideas "falling in here" within the "pits" of PS&S.

[Ophiolite]

Walkntune, earlier you offered this quote from Einstein.

 

"There will come a point in everyone's life, however where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why but one must accept intuition as a fact."

 

What several posters have said in this thread, often with excellent metaphors (e.g. phi for all) or a tightly reasoned exposition, is in full support of Einstein's statment. Look again at it:

 

"There will come a point."

 

This is not the starting point. This is at a crossroads on the journey to understanding. This point is reached by innovators after they have gobbled up all the existing knowledge on a topic, thoroughly masticated it, yet found it indigestible. (Excuse the mixed metaphors.) This is the point where intuition comes into play.

 

Much of what lands up here started with intution, has intuition in the middle, intution at the end, and is embedded in a sea of intution. There is no sign of any observation, experiment, or logical thought process anywhere. Sayonara made the pertinent observation: your intentions were honourable, your chosen form of execution misses the mark.

[walkntune]

2) Remember that Einstein, when he conceived these thought experiments, rightly classified them as such. He did not argue with people "But history will prove me right!" when he did not have the math to back it up. With humility, he saw his ideas for what they were - ideas. He worked with them, tested them, tried to falsify them, tried to make predictions with them that would lend weight to them, and eventually build sound mathematically solid theories with them. He was not an advocate of "Cowboy Science" and just thinking things up and calling it reality. He was committed to the rigorous works needed to demonstrate the validity of a theory, and showed humility along the way as he developed his ideas.

 

I believe what you are saying in your post is correct!

Your use of the word humility stands out very strong and shows the importance of integrity behind knowledge!

I wrote a longer post to reply to all but sorry I lost it so will reply later!

In the mean time imagine if we as humans had the ability to work together like a colony of ants instead of a crab mentality!

Instead of one wanting to get to the top we wanted all to get to the top!

Instead of one being fed, we wanted all to be fed!

There would be no bridge we could not cross! We could reach destines so much easier.

Imagine if people understood that joy has the ability to spread like a rapid fire through a crowd of people!

Unfortunately so does pain and fear like a cancer!

Even if you are on top, if the ones you are standing on fall, so will you!

Ants understand this simple philosophy! I wonder when mankind will!

Imagine if we really did use the sciences to study what is around us and how we could better ourselves as humans!

Even if we just started from a colony of ants!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Intuition without knowledge is just random guessing.

 

 

Also wanted to point out intuition is not random guessing!

 

in·tu·i·tion (ĭn'tōō-ĭsh'ən, -tyōō-)

n.

 

1.

 

1.

 

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

2.

 

Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

2.

 

A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

Some people are born more logical and others are born more intuitive!

Not everyone is born to be a scientist and not everyone is born to be a musician!

Nature does not bow down to either logic or intuition but exists as a truth and we come to an understanding of it through both aspects (logic and intuition)

 

Guessing would be not leaning on intuition or logic!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

It's not as simple as that," replied Einstein. "Knowledge is necessary, too. An intuitive child couldn't accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone's life, however where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why but one must accept intuition as a fact."

 

 

 

This is not the starting point. This is at a crossroads on the journey to understanding. This point is reached by innovators after they have gobbled up all the existing knowledge on a topic, thoroughly masticated it, yet found it indigestible. (Excuse the mixed metaphors.) This is the point where intuition comes into play.

Much of what lands up here started with intution, has intuition in the middle, intution at the end, and is embedded in a sea of intution. There is no sign of any observation, experiment, or logical thought process anywhere. Sayonara made the pertinent observation: your intentions were honourable, your chosen form of execution misses the mark.

Just wanted to state that this is not necessarily the starting point of when intuition comes into play but is the point of where only intuition can come into play!

There seems to be a lot of confusion between what is intuition and what is guess work or someone led by feelings!

Although intuition can be felt as a gut feeling or sometimes called the heart of a person, it doesn't mean those led by their feelings or guess work is intuition!

Intuition is something I think needs to be studied deeply and is a great tool for science once it is truly understood.It helps one understand causes instead of just learning and understanding reactions! To Einstein it was the most important part of his thinking! He made mistakes sure and so will all scientists! Especially those with the courage to advance knowledge forwards!

Again there will always be an uncertainty to what the results will be from our actions!Where logic can't give you any conclusions at least intuition can lead you in a direction of what will bring a more positive or negative result even when the original choice doesn't lean one way or the other!

Edited November 9, 2009 by walkntune
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Instead of one wanting to get to the top we wanted all to get to the top!

Instead of one being fed, we wanted all to be fed!

 

Vote Democrat?

[walkntune]

Actually no! I find politics to be a game of immorality where we have to pick the lesser of the two evils!

[Klaynos]

Also wanted to point out intuition is not random guessing!

 

in·tu·i·tion (ĭn'tōō-ĭsh'ən, -tyōō-)

n.

 

1.

 

1.

 

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

2.

 

Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

2.

 

A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

So maybe not random guessing, but something close to it, unless our brains have already built into it how the universe works, which if we consider things like relativity or quantum mechanics we know is not true as they are counterintuitive.

[walkntune]

So maybe not random guessing, but something close to it, unless our brains have already built into it how the universe works, which if we consider things like relativity or quantum mechanics we know is not true as they are counterintuitive.

 

I do not consider science to be counter intuitive but a tool that goes hand and hand with intuition to discover the truth of nature!

People are naturally born more logical or intuitive or somewhere between and this being so makes them go hand and hand with nature!

You will always find those you agree with and those you don't!Those who have the same or relative perception and those who seem opposite!

 

To say intuition is bad because people are randomly guessing is the same as saying logic is bad because of so many illogical people!

 

Just remember you will be limited by the amount of tools you bring to the job!

[Mr Skeptic]

Actually no! I find politics to be a game of immorality where we have to pick the lesser of the two evils!

 

Haha, you should see my sig then.

[Phi for All]

I do not consider science to be counter intuitive but a tool that goes hand and hand with intuition to discover the truth of nature!

My intuition leads me astray constantly. For natural phenomena, I'll take science as the right tool. Speculation starts the process, not intuition. Intuition is not some psychic ability to leap over rational hurdles to get at the truth.

 

People are naturally born more logical or intuitive or somewhere between and this being so makes them go hand and hand with nature!

You will always find those you agree with and those you don't!Those who have the same or relative perception and those who seem opposite!

Platitudes do not become more interesting when followed by an exclamation point, especially when used with every sentence.

 

To say intuition is bad because people are randomly guessing is the same as saying logic is bad because of so many illogical people!

Intuition isn't random guessing, it follows a cognitive process. Sometimes you don't consciously seem to follow all the steps, and this makes it feel like you're not relying on your senses and experiences, but you are.

 

Just remember you will be limited by the amount of tools you bring to the job!

It's not the amount of tools, but their applicability to the job at hand that is important. Use science for natural phenomena, including things you feel are intuitive. If you go too far on intuition alone, how can you know your ideas are well-grounded?

[Sisyphus]

People are naturally born more logical or intuitive or somewhere between and this being so makes them go hand and hand with nature!

 

This seems to be the main problem, here. Logic and intuition are not opposite ends on some scale. Having an intuitive grasp of something just means understanding it on a level wherein implications are evident without the need to explicitly state reasoning. People with highly rational, logical minds (like Einstein) have an easier time grasping scientific concepts "intuitively," and clearly the firmer your understanding of, say, physics, the more intelligently you'll be able to speculate about further implications and problems.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[Zolar V]

if you would like to see some real intuitive thinking that follows a logical basis, just like einstein, look at my posts. (seriously) "is the speed of light really constant" and "Deep space spacecraft" and the one about time in the relativity forum , + probably others. also, hence my quote.

personally i believe that einstein even when making his theories of relativity still wondered about the speed of light really being constant.

[mooeypoo]

if you would like to see some real intuitive thinking that follows a logical basis, just like einstein, look at my posts. (seriously)

The above sentence alone serves as a contradiction to its meaning.

[CharonY]

As I mentioned before, intuition generally only yields useful results if the required knowledge base is there. How much really may be necessary depends on the complexity of the problem at hand.

[Phi for All]

As I mentioned before, intuition generally only yields useful results if the required knowledge base is there. How much really may be necessary depends on the complexity of the problem at hand.

In my experience here, when people claim their ideas are the results of "Einstein-like intuition", it means they don't have the math skills to help show them where they are mistaken.

[walkntune]

Originally Posted by walkntune View Post

 

Also wanted to point out intuition is not random guessing!

 

in·tu·i·tion (ĭn'tōō-ĭsh'ən, -tyōō-)

n.

 

1.

 

1.

 

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

2.

 

Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

 

Wow I am finding myself in some kind of circular argument with logic when I am just trying to keep the morale up of those who are intuitive and imaginative.

Once I again I will say the the scientific method is a great method for studying what we observe and coming to logical conclusions!

Intuition is an ability we have to observe the world itself also!

If you only depend on Your logic and led astray by intuition then great do what works for you!

I am interested in learning about intuition and it's capabilities and why Einstein said it was the most important part of his thinking!

2.

 

A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

if you would like to see some real intuitive thinking that follows a logical basis, just like einstein, look at my posts.

 

I put the meaning here again to show that this is not the context of which intuition is used. If it followed logical basis then that would be the use of rational processes.

The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

[Zolar V]

when i said "follows a logical basis" I obviously was pointing to the fact that any intuition must start at a logical base. Imagine dirt being the logical basis and a flower being intuition. You cant have a flower without dirt. Without a foundation intuition just doesn't happen.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Zolar V
cuz some1 will over analyze and egotrip