Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread

[fresh_42]

And it becomes confusing because sometimes people switch in their usage between technical and colloquial within the same conversation, but they don't make it clear in what sense they are using their words, in the informal sense or in a formal/rigorous sense. It can become really confusing. It is an art to navigate between the two, and few are good at it.

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians. The tiny word 'smooth' is difficult to hear, as well, at least to me.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, and in this case it is first used colloquially, as in everyday language and then it is used in its more formal way. So I think it does fall into that category of equivocation. Like one I hear or read a while back: "My Achilles heel is not my Achilles heel" , with the first one used figuratively and the second one used literally, as in the body part. Without explanation, it seems like a contradiction: A is not A..

I disagree. People who say, "Evolution is just a theory," aren't jumping from one definition to another, from rigorous to casual. They actually just don't have a good rigorous definition at their disposal.

For my money, Karl Popper gave the first rigorous parameters for what should be considered a theory:

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:[5]

1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

Popper summarized these statements by saying that the central criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."[5] Echoing this,Stephen Hawking states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He also discusses the "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories, which is a necessary consequence of inductive logic, and that "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."[42]

 

[dkotschessaa]

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians.

Ah yes, the old modus bonehead. (In contrapositive form).

 

[fresh_42]

For my money, Karl Popper gave the first rigorous parameters for what should be considered a theory:

Unfortunately Sir Charles isn't very popular.

 

[Ibix]

Not to mention well intentioned but misguided advice like "don't eat something if you can't pronounce the ingredients!"

I know some people who need to see this graphic...

 

[Ibix]

I always got to hold on me when I hear the words: almost always, or if they conclude $(A⇒B)⇒(\bar{A} ⇒ \bar{B})$, which is very popular among politicians.

Related: the Thatcherite Syllogism:

1. Something must be done.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, this must be done.

 

[fresh_42]

Here there exist only and exact three arguments on the side of administration employees:
1. If that everybody would do, ...
2. We've always done it this way ...
3. I have my rules. Alternatively: There is a sign which says it.
It's amazing what people find in order to avoid thinking on their own.

 

[dlgoff]

Prepare for very gentle butt whoopings!

This may be a little too graphic for the mentors. If so, please remove with my apologies.
Anyway, my daughter posted this on her schools FB page for the not so gentle butt whoopings.

 

[WWGD]

I disagree. People who say, "Evolution is just a theory," aren't jumping from one definition to another, from rigorous to casual. They actually just don't have a good rigorous definition at their disposal.

<Snip>:

Of course, I was referring to the fact that even when people are being honest, it can be confusing to understand them, because they may be switching in-and-out between informal and formal talking modes. Of course, when someone is being dishonest, all bets are off.

 

[WWGD]

Here there exist only and exact three arguments on the side of administration employees:
1. If that everybody would do, ...
2. We've always done it this way ...
3. I have my rules. Alternatively: There is a sign which says it.
It's amazing what people find in order to avoid thinking on their own.

That may just be the transactional-type leadership which may be in its last breaths in the modern world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadership. EDIT: Although there are combinations of transactional and transformational.

 

[DiracPool]

Why do fat, old, and ugly people laugh a lot? Is it because they are so happy being fat, old, and ugly? I think not. I think by laughing a lot they are trying to distract you from noticing that they are fat, old, or ugly

 

[WWGD]

Why do fat, old, and ugly people laugh a lot? Is it because they are so happy being fat, old, and ugly? I think not. I think by laughing a lot they are trying to distract you from noticing that they are fat, old, or ugly

Are you referring to people who are all three? Where can you find em/ how do you run into so many of them?

 

[rootone]

It's not unknown for thin young pretty people to laugh a lot as well.

 

[WWGD]

It's not unknown for thin young pretty people to laugh a lot as well.

Except for bulimic models, I guess.

 

[fresh_42]

Except for bulimic models, I guess.

Nope. Even they can laugh a lot. Experienced it.

 

[WWGD]

Nope. Even they can laugh a lot. Experienced it.

Guess you hang out with the hip crowd; I am more of a loner, I guess.

 

[fresh_42]

Guess you hang out with the hip crowd; I am more of a loner, I guess.

Nope. I once had a friend in a clinic where they treated eating disorders. It wasn't hip, just kind of normal. (If you knew my actual time right now ... guess I'm a loner, too.)

 

[WWGD]

Nope. I once had a friend in a clinic where they treated eating disorders. It wasn't hip, just kind of normal. (If you knew my actual time right now ... guess I'm a loner, too.)

Maybe you're right, there may be more of those around than one suspects. I guess in many countries being into science and Math may make you an outsider.

 

[dlgoff]

guess I'm a loner, too.

Which may not be a BAD thing...

 

[WWGD]

Which may not be a BAD thing...

Maybe we are all loners, here in PF -- the largest community of loners around.

 

[dlgoff]

Maybe we are all loners, here in PF -- the largest community of loners around.

Thank goodness for PF!

 

[fresh_42]

Thank goodness for PF!

What really is amazing are our actual physical locations. Talking simultaneously to people literally around the globe, sharing basically the same thoughts, that's something my grandma wouldn't have believed. No way.

 

[DiracPool]

Are you referring to people who are all three? Where can you find em/ how do you run into so many of them?

Yes, I am talking about my wife and my two mistresses: one is fat, one is old, and one is ugly.

And, to answer your second question, I didn't find them, somehow, tragically, they found me

 

[dlgoff]

What really is amazing are our actual physical locations. Talking simultaneously to people literally around the globe, sharing basically the same thoughts, that's something my grandma wouldn't have believed. No way.

Sometimes it's hard for me to believe. Science SHOULD bring the world together; IMO.

 

[WWGD]

Yes, I am talking about my wife and my two mistresses: one is fat, one is old, and one is ugly.

<Snip>

Maybe they started laughing when they saw what each other looked like?

 

[fresh_42]

Sometimes it's hard for me to believe. Science SHOULD bring the world together; IMO.

And it makes a lot more fun to argue at the chalkboard.

 

[fresh_42]

I've just read that dkotschessaa wants to hold a lecture on knot theory. As a student I once visited a casino with two friends of mine whose special subject was knot theory. I was the only one who could bind the ties which were mandatory ...

 

[WWGD]

I alw

I've just read that dkotschessaa wants to hold a lecture on knot theory. As a student I once visited a casino with two friends of mine whose special subject was knot theory. I was the only one who could bind the ties which were mandatory ...

I have always wanted to understand why knots are always codimension-two.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

...
And, to answer your second question, I didn't find them, somehow, tragically, they found me

 

[dkotschessaa]

Maybe we are all loners, here in PF -- the largest community of loners around.

 

[Borg]

My indoor-outdoor thermometer quit working a few weeks ago. I tried changing the batteries, adjusting the connections, etc. and nothing worked. After about two weeks, I finally ordered a new one online. I didn't disconnect the old one though. Of course on the day that the new one arrived, the old one started working again.

 

[DiracPool]

Guess you hang out with the hip crowd;

Haha. I get it, meaning bulimics are "hip" because their pelvic bones are the only thing on their bodies that aren't emaciated and wasting away?

 

[PWiz]

My indoor-outdoor thermometer quit working a few weeks ago. I tried changing the batteries, adjusting the connections, etc. and nothing worked. After about two weeks, I finally ordered a new one online. I didn't disconnect the old one though. Of course on the day that the new one arrived, the old one started working again.

Too bad it's not a guitar, otherwise you could just sit on it for a couple of decades and then sell it as a vintage to make a small fortune.

 

[WWGD]

Haha. I get it, meaning bulimics are "hip" because their pelvic bones are the only thing on their bodies that aren't emaciated and wasting away?

Hip Hip, Hooray, you got it. And, BTW, nothing hip about a fracture.

 

[Ibix]

I got a new phone recently. It has a predictive text function, which seems to remember both new words and new combinations of words (I think it's just ordered pairs for the latter). The result of me posting here from my phone is that it could make a pretty good stab at answering frequent questions in the relativity forum all on its own.

If you ever see a paper authored by a phone, please look to see if I at least get an acknowledgment.

 

[DiracPool]

I got a new phone recently. It has a predictive text function, which seems to remember both new words and new combinations of words (I think it's just ordered pairs for the latter).

I think the miracle of the smart phone is in it's voice recognition capacity. I talk to my smart phone all day long. I ask it questions and it gives me answers. However, it does expose itself as a "dumb bomb." What do I mean my this? Well, you can clearly see the logic of it's operation unfold real time. It begins by taking the literal translation of your words, which are typically poorly translated, but then, what I'm guessing, is that google has an algorithm that scans the popular media to match your query to popular news sources, searches, etc. It's pretty clever and effective, but it's not how the brain abstracts such knowledge, and therefore we can't really call it artificial intelligence.

 

[fresh_42]

If you ever see a paper authored by a phone, please look to see if I at least get an acknowledgment.

So you will upload voice records soon instead of writings? Ibix' black box?

 

[WWGD]

I think the miracle of the smart phone is in it's voice recognition capacity. I talk to my smart phone all day long. I ask it questions and it gives me answers. However, it does expose itself as a "dumb bomb." What do I mean my this? Well, you can clearly see the logic of it's operation unfold real time. It begins by taking the literal translation of your words, which are typically poorly translated, but then, what I'm guessing, is that google has an algorithm that scans the popular media to match your query to popular news sources, searches, etc. It's pretty clever and effective, but it's not how the brain abstracts such knowledge, and therefore we can't really call it artificial intelligence.

I would say that to be really intelligent it would have to use an algorithm adapted to _your_ data . So intelligence comes with more specificity; it is easier to make general rules than to do something adapted to a situation at hand.

 

[WWGD]

I keep making the mistake of buying these "natural sausages"; sausages with vegetables (or fruits) added to them (cooked or prepared with the sausage),
though I invariably never like them and just force myself to east them to avoid throwing them out. Don't know why I just don't seem to get it,
and it doesn't register that I don't like that combination.

 

[fresh_42]

Don't know why I just don't seem to get it,
and it doesn't register that I don't like that combination.

Perhaps you can repair it with tabasco. Much tabasco.

 

[WWGD]

Perhaps you can repair it with tabasco. Much tabasco.

Or Soy sauce, or giving them away to a neighbor/friend, a double whammy: you come off looking generous (which I would not be in this case)
while getting rid of the unwanted sausage.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I keep making the mistake of buying these "natural sausages"; sausages with vegetables (or fruits) added to them (cooked or prepared with the sausage),
though I invariably never like them and just force myself to east them to avoid throwing them out. Don't know why I just don't seem to get it,
and it doesn't register that I don't like that combination.

If you search your soul with scrupulous honesty, I think you'd find out you do like that combination on some important level; probably the theoretical level, a level at which that combination makes good sense and seems better than sausage alone. Your problem, if you'll pardon the unsolicited psychological analysis, is that you seem not to be properly demoting the theoretical appeal in light of the contrary evidence of repeated practical testing. Despite the fact the 'sausage with vegetables = good' theory has been repeatedly falsified, you cling to it. In other words: you are a sausage crackpot.

 

[fresh_42]

Apropos tabasco. I wonder whether the recipes of your sauces differ when they are sold in the south? I once had a hot Heintz ketchup in Spain and when I came home and bought the same one here it turned out to be far less hot.

 

[WWGD]

If you search your soul with scrupulous honesty, I think you'd find out you do like that combination on some important level; probably the theoretical level, a level at which that combination makes good sense and seems better than sausage alone. Your problem, if you'll pardon the unsolicited psychological analysis, is that you seem not to be properly demoting the theoretical appeal in light of the contrary evidence of repeated practical testing. Despite the fact the 'sausage with vegetables = good' theory has been repeatedly falsified, you cling to it. In other words: you are a sausage crackpot.

I agree, I either like the novelty aspect of having the vegetables there or I think I would benefit from the vegetables, but the taste factor seems to overwhelm and dominate both these two options.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree, I either like the novelty aspect of having the vegetables there or I think I would benefit from the vegetables, but the taste factor seems to overwhelm and dominate both these two options.

A common human foible. We like the idea of something and so, keep returning to it despite the fact the practical manifestation of the idea is less than satisfying.

 

[WWGD]

A common human foible. We like the idea of something and so, keep returning to it despite the fact the practical manifestation of the idea is less than satisfying.

Yes, Mr Spock, I am not; maybe I should settle for EDIT being like Dr. Spock instead.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, Mr Spock, I am not; maybe I should settle for Dr. Spock instead.

Just watching Into Darkness on TV

 

[dlgoff]

Don't know why I just don't seem to get it,
and it doesn't register that I don't like that combination.

Coloring maybe?

image compliments http://www.ec21.com/product-details/COLOURING-Monascus-Red-Color-for--8618219.html

 

[HomogenousCow]

 

[WWGD]

Coloring maybe?

image compliments http://www.ec21.com/product-details/COLOURING-Monascus-Red-Color-for--8618219.html

Gotta keep em separated:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/come-out-and-play-keep-em-separated-lyrics-offspring.html