- #36
Tenshou
- 153
- 1
I don't think I will take the chance of getting banned, Because no matter how much insight I may gain from 3 or four post ,I do not wish to get banned. PF still has some resources that I must use to my benefit.
Tenshou said:I don't think I will take the chance of getting banned, Because no matter how much insight I may gain from 3 or four post ,I do not wish to get banned. PF still has some resources that I must use to my benefit.
Borek said:This thread about philosophy becomes a "philosophy" and should be locked.
jackmell said:As a courtesy to all of you I read every single post and sadly to say I remain undeterred in my beliefs about the matter but of course will abide by the rules of PF.
"What would it be like to ride on a light beam?" On the surface, some might think that sounds stupid or ridiculous. "Why does the apple fall from the tree?" Same dif.
ZapperZ said:As for this "discovery" that can come out of nowhere, all I can say is: hockey puck!
https://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=2979 [Broken]
Zz.
jackmell said:Longitude. You know this story? Harrison came from no where and solved it didn't he? All the great academians were against him but his passion for the matter was stronger then their arrows.
ZapperZ said:Nope. I don't. The only Harrison that I know is Walter Harrison of Stanford.
We ARE talking about physics, aren't we?
Zz.
jackmell said:It is a wonderful story if you can imagine 18th century shipping and a bunch of pendulum clocks in the captain's quarters swinging synchronously to the waves of sailing across the atlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book [Broken])
ZapperZ said:So you really didn't even read my rebuttal at all in that link. 18th century? Really! Why stop there? I hear the cavemen discovered a lot of stuff out of nowhere as well!
Zz.
jackmell said:I did read your blog at the time you posted that link up there. My courtesy to you sir. However, I must respectfully disagree with some of what you stated. Surely the problem of longitude and it's solution is one counterexample?
ZapperZ said:So is that a valid situation for the same argument in physics? I would say no. During the last 50 years, let's say, how many "amateurs" have made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics? Think about it. We're not talking just a small number here, we're talking about either a negligible number, or a non-existent quantity! In other words, a forum to cater to these people implies that we are providing an avenue for people to do something that doesn't occur. That is like keeping a broken vase, rather than throwing it out, with the hope that it will reassemble into its original self! Sure, the phase space for that happening isn't zero, but I'll be darn if it has happened before! There is a difference between "optimism" and "delusional", and you can guess which one I am categorizing this one.
ZapperZ said:Then you have a problem in comprehension:
It is utterly misleading to think that something from the "18th century" is a valid lesson and can occur again, especially when nothing of that nature has occurred since at least the middle of last century! No significant advancement in the field of physics have been made by amateurs since that time period.
So I take it that you must be hoarding a lot of broken vases in your home.
Zz.
jackmell said:Ok, to be fair to me, no one said anything about the discussion being just physics. Rather, the discussion is about science although one I suppose could argue that a method for preventing getting lost at sea is not a valid scientific inquiry. But isn't navigation a science?
I must return the focus of discussion to the main premise of the thread: give them the freedom to discuss interesting things about Nature and science because just as I said in another thread just a few minutes ago, the smallest of perturbations in thinking can lead to the most dramatic change in directions and sometimes lead to a solution.
ZapperZ said:And I asked you for specific evidence to back your claim, within the context of what has happened in today's scientific world.
Zz.
jackmell said:I've done a few things Zapper and I'm pretty much a nobody. But I don't want to discuss them publicly. So yes, some nobody today can do what no one else in established science can.
I read the book, but its been a while. My understanding is that all he did was invent a good clock, he didn't actually do any science. The scientific problem had already been figured out, they just didn't have the tool they needed. So there was no controversy, no "academians" "against him" that I'm aware of. That's not an issue of science, it is an invention.jackmell said:Longitude. You know this story? Harrison came from no where and solved it didn't he? All the great academians were against him but his passion for the matter was stronger then their arrows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#Overview_of_the_problemMany solutions were proposed for how to determine longitude at the end of an exploratory sea voyage and hence the longitude of the place that was visited (in case one would want to revisit it, place it on a map, or more urgently, avoid known marine hazards). The practical methods relied on a comparison of local time with the time at a given place (such as Greenwich or Paris). Many of these methods relied on astronomical observations relying on the predictable, "clockwork" nature of motions of heavenly bodies. By measuring locations of the fixed stars, local time could be reckoned. The remaining problem was to accurately estimate the time at the given (now distant) place.
Harrison set out to solve the problem in a direct way: by producing a reliable clock that could keep the time of the given place across a long sea journey.
The purpose of this book is to explore the intersection of science and philosophy, specifically in the context of nature. It aims to challenge readers to think critically about the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries and how they shape our understanding of the natural world.
This book is intended for anyone with an interest in science and philosophy, from students and researchers to general readers. It does not require any prior knowledge in either field, making it accessible to a wide range of audiences.
The book covers a variety of topics, including the nature of reality, the role of observation and perception in science, the relationship between science and religion, and the ethical implications of scientific advancements. It also delves into specific scientific fields such as biology, physics, and astronomy.
This book offers a unique perspective on the relationship between science and philosophy, encouraging readers to think critically about the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries. It also highlights the importance of considering ethical and moral implications in scientific research.
Yes, this book can be used as a teaching resource for courses in philosophy of science, science and society, or ethics in science. It provides thought-provoking questions and discussions that can stimulate classroom debates and critical thinking among students.