- #1
Maaruk
- 5
- 4
So, I'm not here to peddle my pet theories. I came here for the community because my knowledge is, and always will be incomplete. I have a question, maybe multiple questions about whether or not this proof I'm thinking about will work. Basically if the hypothesis matches up with reality then I would feel comfortable moving forward more strongly with the hypothesis. I have tried with my limited knowledge of probability and statistics to come up with a model but it doesn't seem to be working out. I'm certain it's my lack of knowledge of the subject, and at this time in my life, and likely into the future I'm not going to have time to go back to school to learn a whole new field although I may. My hesitance is that I'm 39, I can feel my scheme of information already calcifying so I don't know how effective it would be to go back to school, I digress.
So, the point being is I am new here. I don't want to put anyone off. I've done it in the past. I know very well the plethora of pet theories out there and the people who imagine them (myself included) have a strong sentimental attachment to them. PF has good values, I have to stare at them every time I post and I'm certain the community holds one another accountable to them. So I am aware of the first point, that the community values science published in real journals and textbooks and as far as I know I haven't gained any information from any unreliable sources. (I will admit an intense sympathy for the new age QM crowd.) This is I hope a quality hypothesis. I am an educated philosopher, I did my undergrad but have continued with my studies for 4 years now. I read and write more now than I ever did during my undergrad and I have chosen not to pursue further education as there is no course study for my main area of interest (although there will likely be one in the next few years if my ideas catch on). Philosophy, and especially political philosophy is somewhat of a bullshit degree for most people. It's interesting to study and it has limited usefulness for most people. It has much more utility for myself as I have an agenda.
So, I'm not even going to post it until I have a better feeling for how I should go about it. I've been struggling with how I could ask my question without explaining why I'm asking it. So there you have it, any suggestions are welcome up to and including telling me I need to piss off. I would have put it in the Set Theory, Logic, Probability and Statistics section since the proof (I use the term with hesitance knowing my audience) requires knowledge of probability and statistics.
So, the point being is I am new here. I don't want to put anyone off. I've done it in the past. I know very well the plethora of pet theories out there and the people who imagine them (myself included) have a strong sentimental attachment to them. PF has good values, I have to stare at them every time I post and I'm certain the community holds one another accountable to them. So I am aware of the first point, that the community values science published in real journals and textbooks and as far as I know I haven't gained any information from any unreliable sources. (I will admit an intense sympathy for the new age QM crowd.) This is I hope a quality hypothesis. I am an educated philosopher, I did my undergrad but have continued with my studies for 4 years now. I read and write more now than I ever did during my undergrad and I have chosen not to pursue further education as there is no course study for my main area of interest (although there will likely be one in the next few years if my ideas catch on). Philosophy, and especially political philosophy is somewhat of a bullshit degree for most people. It's interesting to study and it has limited usefulness for most people. It has much more utility for myself as I have an agenda.
So, I'm not even going to post it until I have a better feeling for how I should go about it. I've been struggling with how I could ask my question without explaining why I'm asking it. So there you have it, any suggestions are welcome up to and including telling me I need to piss off. I would have put it in the Set Theory, Logic, Probability and Statistics section since the proof (I use the term with hesitance knowing my audience) requires knowledge of probability and statistics.
