Some 3-D Trig [was Re: Mar...]

'COMPTOND.BAS - a simple animation of the Compton scattering data.
'RUN INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOW
Reply to
KP_PC
Loading thread data ...
The programs address the most-Basic stuff of Tapered Harmony.
They are 'hacks', done only to correlate the SSWUES 'compression'-'expansion' harmonics with the Compton 'scattering' data, demonstrating that it's been Compton Refraction all along. [Not calculated in either of these Qbasic apps: The 'catenaries' in Compton-type experiments are close analogues of the stuff that underpins experimental data that is held [Erroneously] to 'substantiate Bells' Inequality.]
Tapered Harmony continues forever in the 'same' way - literally to Infinity in both directions [infinity-small, infinitely-big], al- ways using the Principles that are depicted in the two Qbasic apps i posted, and WDB2T, which is not depicted in either of these apps. I know of no experimental results in any Physical Science that are not already Rigorously-integrated within Tapered Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- orate new experimental results without 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC results in bionet.neuroscience about a week ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, Verified.
Happy New Future!
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
In article , KP_PC writes
This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, so I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go wrong in rephrasing the above.
You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains the results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to incorporate new experimental results without any problems.
Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper here but it seems reasonably obvious).
The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is unfalsifiable. It's untestable.
One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science.
Reply to
David Longley
| In article , | KP_PC writes | > I know of no experimental results in any | > Physical Science that are not already | > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | > orate new experimental results without | > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | > Verified. | > | > Happy New Future! | > | > K. P. Collins | | This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, so | I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go wrong in | rephrasing the above. | | You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains the | results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this | theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to incorporate | new experimental results without any problems. | | Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | here but it seems reasonably obvious). | | The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | | One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | | | -- | David Longley
You've just not read, sufficiently, with respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to be in what's quoted above.
As I've explained a couple of tomes in other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 years, and I write for folks who've been following the discussions all along.
I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's already been reiterated sufficiently - be- cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with my small resources what I Know is their best use.
It's well-documented that, if you'd've shown any interest in any approach other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing a question with respect to a particular experimental result - you'd've faired better in our 'interaction', David,
But all you do is this 'personal-attack' stuff.
I'm supposed to do what with respect to such?
So, I stand on what I've posted.
'go away'.
K. P. collins
Reply to
KP_PC
In article , KP_PC writes
It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new to you. What I say is said benevolently.
Be that as it may - in this post I'd just like to thank you for dispensing with the unconventional capitalisation and hyphenation. It makes reading what you write much easier.
Reply to
David Longley
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
| In article , | KP_PC writes
| >| In article | >, | >| KP_PC writes | >| > I know of no experimental results in any | >| > Physical Science that are not already | >| > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | >| > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | >| > orate new experimental results without | >| > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | >| > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | >| > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | >| > Verified. | >| > | >| > Happy New Future! | >| > | >| > K. P. Collins | >| | >| This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you write, | >so | >| I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go | >wrong in | >| rephrasing the above. | >| | >| You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already explains | >the | >| results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that this | >| theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to | >incorporate | >| new experimental results without any problems. | >| | >| Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite | >Popper | >| here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >| | >| The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory | >doesn't | >| already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | >| future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >| unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >| | >| One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting | >why | >| pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you | >have | >| pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | >| | >| | >| -- | >| David Longley | > | >You've just not read, sufficiently, with | >respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've | >realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to | >be in what's quoted above. | > | >As I've explained a couple of tomes in | >other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been | >discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 | >years, and I write for folks who've been | >following the discussions all along. | > | >I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' | >by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's | >already been reiterated sufficiently - be- | >cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with | >my small resources what I Know is their | >best use. | > | >It's well-documented that, if you'd've | >shown any interest in any approach | >other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing | >a question with respect to a particular | >experimental result - you'd've faired | >better in our 'interaction', David, | > | >But all you do is this 'personal-attack' | >stuff. | > | >I'm supposed to do what with respect | >to such? | > | >So, I stand on what I've posted. | > | >'go away'. | > | >K. P. collins | > | > | It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new to | you. What I say is said benevolently. | [...] | -- | David Longley
I stand on what I posted.
What you've 'said' is B.S.
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
| In article , | KP_PC writes | >"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
| >| In article | >, | >| KP_PC writes
| >| >| In article | >| >, | >| >| KP_PC writes | >| >| > I know of no experimental results in any | >| >| > Physical Science that are not already | >| >| > Rigorously-integrated within Tapered | >| >| > Harmony, and The theory is able to incorp- | >| >| > orate new experimental results without | >| >| > 'breaking-stride' [I discussed recent RHIC | >| >| > results in bionet.neuroscience about a week | >| >| > ago.] To the degree of such, TH is, of course, | >| >| > Verified. | >| >| > | >| >| > Happy New Future! | >| >| > | >| >| > K. P. Collins | >| >| | >| >| This is the sort of reasoning which permeates much that you | >write, | >| >so | >| >| I'd be grateful if you would spell out more clearly where I go | >| >wrong in | >| >| rephrasing the above. | >| >| | >| >| You seem to be saying that you have a theory which already | >explains | >| >the | >| >| results of known physical sciences. You then go on to say that | >this | >| >| theory is verified by the fact that this theory is able to | >| >incorporate | >| >| new experimental results without any problems. | >| >| | >| >| Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite | >| >Popper | >| >| here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >| >| | >| >| The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory | >| >doesn't | >| >| already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by | >any | >| >| future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >| >| unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >| >| | >| >| One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting | >| >why | >| >| pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you | >| >have | >| >| pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | >| >| | >| >| | >| >| -- | >| >| David Longley | >| > | >| >You've just not read, sufficiently, with | >| >respect to TH, 'cause, if you had, you'd've | >| >realized that TH is not as you 'claim' it to | >| >be in what's quoted above. | >| > | >| >As I've explained a couple of tomes in | >| >other posts here in c.ai.ph, I've been | >| >discussing both NDT & TH online for ~15 | >| >years, and I write for folks who've been | >| >following the discussions all along. | >| > | >| >I tend not to be 'led around by the nose' | >| >by folks who are 'fishing' for stuff that's | >| >already been reiterated sufficiently - be- | >| >cause I pay-my-own-way, and I do with | >| >my small resources what I Know is their | >| >best use. | >| > | >| >It's well-documented that, if you'd've | >| >shown any interest in any approach | >| >other than 'personal attack' - e.g. posing | >| >a question with respect to a particular | >| >experimental result - you'd've faired | >| >better in our 'interaction', David, | >| > | >| >But all you do is this 'personal-attack' | >| >stuff. | >| > | >| >I'm supposed to do what with respect | >| >to such? | >| > | >| >So, I stand on what I've posted. | >| > | >| >'go away'. | >| > | >| >K. P. collins | >| > | >| > | >| It's not personal attack - perhaps what I say is just news or new | >to | >| you. What I say is said benevolently. | >| [...] | >| -- | >| David Longley | > | >I stand on what I posted. | > | >What you've 'said' is B.S. | > | >K. P. Collins | > | > | | Ok Ken, have it your way - but unless your behaviour changes I reckon | you are going to find it very difficult to realise *any* of your stated | objectives.
"There you go again" - holding the 'sword of Damacles' over my head in the form of the Tryanny of the 'status quo' - 'advising' me to 'move away from' Truth because, if I don't, folks'll 'move away from' me.
That's not my 'problem'.
My Problem is to 'move toward' Truth.
Period.
| You don't seem to listen to anybody. This is always a bad sign. | | -- | David Longley
Read your last two sentences before a mirror :-]
While you do, Ponder the relative Values of Truth and bunches of oft- repeated words.
I Listen to Truth.
Period.
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
In article , KP_PC writes
But it *is* a problem for you. I was trying to suggest a solution to it. Surely that was clear?
The "status quo" is your (potential) audience surely?
Reply to
David Longley
| In article , | KP_PC writes | | | >| | >| Ok Ken, have it your way - but unless your behaviour changes I | >reckon | >| you are going to find it very difficult to realise *any* of your | >stated | >| objectives. | > | >"There you go again" - holding the 'sword | >of Damacles' over my head in the form of | >the Tryanny of the 'status quo' - 'advising' | >me to 'move away from' Truth because, | >if I don't, folks'll 'move away from' me. | > | >That's not my 'problem'. | > | >My Problem is to 'move toward' Truth. | > | >Period. | > | | But it *is* a problem for you. I was trying to suggest a solution to | it. Surely that was clear? | | The "status quo" is your (potential) audience surely? | | -- | David Longley
'my' potential audience' is anyone who's willing to 'move toward' Truth.
The 'status quo' is group-wise-consensus.
Truth doesn't 'care' about such.
'moving toward' Truth is Hard.
I'm not saying that it isn't.
I'm not saying that I'm 'oblivious' to the Costs inherent in 'moving toward' Truth.
I'm not oblivious to such.
It's just that it =Needs= to be done, David.
Folk've been Slaughtering one another, and if not that, then Ravaging one another, since the Beginning, be-cause NDT's stuff needed to be done, but wasn't.
So I did it.
There's no 'arguing' about it, David.
I can't 'move away from' Truth just to 'please' you or anyone else.
If you don't like it, go your way with my good wishes.
I Guard Free WIll.
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
This is getting really old. It's essentially the same exchange that has been taking place for many weeks by multiple posters and Ken. Is there some point (Yes/No)?
Ken is composing and writing his "message" while only reading yours (and similar from other posters). It's obvious he's reading but not listening. Regarding which message is programming Ken's brain most effectively, I'd give long odds to Ken.
Larry
Reply to
Acme Debugging
In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes
I think you should read Popper's responses to folk like Lakatos. If you take Feyerabend seriously you are making a big mistake. And Kuhn is doing a psychology of science. The cases made by Lakatos and Feyerabend were supposed to be healthy dialectic by two people who had great respect for Popper, Feyerabend makes the point that his polemic was supposed to be swatted by Lakatos, who died before he could do this. For a good treatment of the practical good sense of Popper's philosophy, see P E Meehl's "Theoretical Risks & Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology" J. Consul and Clin Psychol. 1978.
The basics of Popper's contribution are pretty unassailable. As conjunctions of observation statements become compounded (ANDed) the likelihood of one being wrong increases. As the power of a predictive theory increases, it risks being falsified more readily, as falsifying any one of it's founding observations or predictions is enough to bring the whole theory down. This is why the hard sciences derive esoteric predictions from their theories and try to test them.
What folk do to defend their theories etc is not necessarily good science. Kuhn provides a psychology of science, not a philosophy of science. Even so, most of what you find in Kuhn, you'll find in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (as others have remarked).
Quine endorsed Popper's logic of falsificationism in a number of *his* contributions regarding the philosophy of science.
But we don't.
Sure. You're serious about what? have you ever used a Skinner Box?
And what would that "experiment" predict or demonstrate? Don't you think you should at least read Ken's "AoK" first?
Reply to
David Longley
I'm not sure if this is the proper place to discuss philosophy of science but as a "hard" scientist I have a lot of respect for Feyerabend who cut through a lot of make-belief about science by bigots who were *not* scientists, both in psychology and philosophy of science. What I really want to know is those who came after Feyerabend. I've been told that the recent works on "theory of truth" are more sophisticated than both Popper and Feyerabend (while Feyerabend is admittedly much more sophisticated than Popper).
Doesn't the above sound to you like a simplistic account of the nature?
You won't find them in Popper's insufficient work.
The problem with Popper is that he cannot explain at all how revolutionary views are formed in science. And that is, for instance, the only reason I am doing science. I am not a mindless automaton following a few idealized forms of reasoning about science. I can compute in many ways IN ADDITION to that kind of logic. Also, I am wise enough to know that no theory is meant to explain everything AND that facts are DEPENDENT on other theories. These are all purported by Feyerabend and Popper lacks such a deep understanding. (Because he isn't a scientist)
I am saying Ken claims so.
I am serious that behaviorism is pseudo-science. It rests on a number of unhealthy _assumptions_ that is not the way of science.
AFAICT, Skinner Box is a prison. Not a box.
It is satisfactory that the experiment's prediction contradicts quantum physics OR it is something that quantum physics says nothing about. Then physicists will attend to his theory.
BTW, you sound as if you think "falsification" is something real scientists give credence to. This could only be thought by somebody who doesn't know how deeply physical theories of 20th century contradict and how wildly they vary.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Reply to
Eray Ozkural exa
In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes
Works like "Pursuit of Truth" W.V.O Quine perhaps?
No.
You won't find *what* in his work?
You're evidently very young - I'm suggest to you that normal science is the important stuff. Just imagine if *everyone* was busy doing revolutionary science - particularly when it wasn't called for. We frequently see examples of that even here in these newsgroups. Working as a scientist is, as has been said by many, largely perspiration and frustration.
Oh... silly old Popper - bit of a world changer though eh?
see Popper in "Objective Knowledge" on Hume's problem - poached eggs etc.
Try telling that to all the pharmaceutical houses that use the technology for behaviour assays, or the hoards of neuroscientists using it, or the clinical practitioners.......
Though I know I'm wasting my time here - it's all such hard work...it isn't a good read is it??
Same could be said about a cyclotron or fume cupboard.
if they don't "give credence" to falsificationism, then how do they ever learn Eray?
Don't tell me.... they're right all the time.......
Reply to
David Longley
| > Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | > here but it seems reasonably obvious). | > | > The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | > already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | > future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | > unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | > | > One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | > pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | > pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | | Not in defense of Ken's theory... I'm not a physicist and I don't | think I have the time to find out whether it is correct. | | Short. Popper's theory was naive. | | Falsifiability was evidently a wrong or insufficient notion as showed | by later philosophers of science who understood scientific theories. | (Popper not having too much insight about hard sciences didn't really | understand the extent of "fact" and "theory") | | In particular, if you have a new formulation of physics that can | explain everything known that's a wonderful thing. It is OF COURSE not | pseudo-science. | | A good example for pseudo-science is "behaviorism" a la Skinner. I am | quite serious. It's just like Alchemy. | | Ken merely claims to have something like superstring theory in a | sense. And also pertinent in his claims is a model of reality that is | based on continuous functions. That would likely result in phenomena | incompatible with a quantum formulation and it could be tested with a | proper experiment. He just needs to design one experiment if he is | serious. | | Thanks, | | __ | Eray Ozkural
Hi Eray, I'm serious, and I've done a lot of work explaining how the 'quantum' approach just approximates the Continuous physical reality that's described in Tapered Harmony - including pointing out Errors in interpretation.
It's been a pretty 'lonely' endeavor because, as you know, the 'quantal' approach has been refined over the course of the last 100 years, so all the Pros, who've invested a lot in comprehending the 'quantal' view are quite satisfied with its handling of physical reality - in a way that's exactly analogous to the way that adherents of Ptolemaic Astron- omy's Earth-centered view persisted in that view for 1,000 years, and 100 years after Copernicus established the Sun-centered view.
'quantal' calculations 'work' in a way that's analogous to the way that Ptolemaic calc- ulations 'worked' - at the cost of forcing a False view of physical reality upon adherents of either calculational method.
I've tested TH via every experimental result that I know of, and it's handled their data just fine. While doing this, I've also eliminated every 'fuzzy' thing - such as 'quantum weird- ness', resort to 'randomness' [making 'necess- ary' resort to statistical approaches], etc.
I think some folks've listened and heard, but it's also been clear to me that, because 'qm' is so generally accepted, folks have been a bit 'shy' about pursuing TH's Continuous view.
That's understandable.
Thus far, TH's greatest successes have been with respect to Reifying physical reality at all scales - 'bridging' what have been relatively- discrete 'specialties' within physical science.
TH has already proposed many new things within this realm, all of which are testable, but so far, all of these things can also be calculated via 'qm's techniques, so folks who have long- 'familiarity' with 'qm' tend to stick to its methods.
With respect to these things. the main difference between TH's and 'qm's approach is that TH imposes no 'weridness'.
In the end, I expect that folks will see this one thing as a sufficiently-substantial advance in understanding to accept TH on that basis alone.
But there's more that cannot even be imagined until TH is comprehended - so, after TH comes to be accepted because it eliminates all the so-called 'weirdness', it's then that the Revolu- tion that's in TH will begin.
All this said, I do understand your point about proposing an experiment that TH can handle but 'qm' can't.
I've done a lot of that already, in the context of existing experiments [trying to work from stuff with which folks are 'familiar']. The 'problem', thus far, has been that I've not been able to 'break through' folks' willingness to accept the 'weirdness' that 'qm' forses upon their comprehension of physical reality - folks =like= the 'weirdness'. It's kind of like a 'tonic' with respect to everything that doesn't quite work-out - "Hey, look! More quantum weird- ness!" - and the 'weirdness' 'validates' this or that conceptualization.
And woe to anyone who'd eliminate it :-]
There are several areas - way beyond the level at which I discuss TH publicly - which are converging nicely upon exactly the sort of convincing experiment that you point to.
With respect to practical applications of TH, there will definitely be new Electronics, new Chemistry, and, probably new 'propul- sion' technology, and any of these will be established via the sort of experiment that you point to.
I don't want to make excuses, but my per- sonal circumstances have been 'unsettled' for a while, and I've just been working quiet- ly, as I can, given those circumstances, while, basically, just doing what's necessary to stay Alive.
I'm not concerned because I've long experi- ence with such 'difficult' personal circum- stances, and understand that they are actually useful because they 'maintain the heat' that enables the doing of the work :-]
[They elevate the "volitional diminishing- returns decision" threshold as it's discussed in AoK, Ap7, which, given comprehension of NDT, is a good thing that allows one to see stuff that would, otherwise, be 'invisible' ['habit- uated-out-of-awareness] - but this is what also makes the doing a 'lonely' thing - folks in more- comfortable circumstances have no reason to exist at elevated "volitional diminishing-returns decision" thresholds, so things remain 'invisible' to them, which makes discussing stuff pretty- hard. [Note to casual readers: =Do not= venture into the "zone of randomness" [AoK, Ap4], which is part-and-parcel with elevation of one's "vol- itional diminishing-returns decision" threshold, without =first= comprehending NDT to at least the level that's given in AoK.]
Cheers, Eray,
ken [K. P. Collins]
Reply to
KP_PC
| In article , Eray | Ozkural exa writes
| >> Isn't this precisely a definition of pseudo-science? (I'd cite Popper | >> here but it seems reasonably obvious). | >> | >> The "theory" doesn't seem to say anything that current theory doesn't | >> already say, and it doesn't look like it can be contradicted by any | >> future evidence either. It tells us nothing new now, but it is | >> unfalsifiable. It's untestable. | >> | >> One of the things that Popper is appreciated for is highlighting why | >> pseudo-scientific theories *are* pseudo-science. As I see it you have | >> pretty much told everyone that your theory is as pseudo-science. | > | >Not in defense of Ken's theory... I'm not a physicist and I don't | >think I have the time to find out whether it is correct. | > | >Short. Popper's theory was naive. | > | >Falsifiability was evidently a wrong or insufficient notion as showed | >by later philosophers of science who understood scientific theories. | >(Popper not having too much insight about hard sciences didn't really | >understand the extent of "fact" and "theory") | [...]
| The basics of Popper's contribution are pretty unassailable. As | conjunctions of observation statements become compounded (ANDed) the | likelihood of one being wrong increases.
Nervous systems don't do simple "ANDing".
| As the power of a predictive | theory increases, it risks being falsified more readily, as falsifying | any one of it's founding observations or predictions is enough to bring | the whole theory down.
:-]
| This is why the hard sciences derive esoteric | predictions from their theories and try to test them.
:-]
| What folk do to defend their theories etc is not necessarily good | science. Kuhn provides a psychology of science, not a philosophy of | science. | [...]
The best book I've ever read in pure-Science is Kuhn's, =The Copernican Revolution=.
| [...] | > | >In particular, if you have a new formulation of physics that can | >explain everything known that's a wonderful thing. It is OF COURSE not | >pseudo-science. | > | | But we don't. | | >A good example for pseudo-science is "behaviorism" a la Skinner. I am | >quite serious. It's just like Alchemy. | | Sure. You're serious about what? have you ever used a Skinner Box? | | | > | >Ken merely claims to have something like superstring theory in a | >sense. And also pertinent in his claims is a model of reality that is | >based on continuous functions. That would likely result in phenomena | >incompatible with a quantum formulation and it could be tested with a | >proper experiment. He just needs to design one experiment if he is | >serious. | > | >Thanks, | > | >__ | >Eray Ozkural | | And what would that "experiment" predict or demonstrate? Don't you think | you should at least read Ken's "AoK" first? | | | -- | David Longley
Tapered Harmony is a theory in Physics. It's not discussed in AoK.
Its basics werethe original topic of this thread.
Frankly, I Agree with everything I've read of what Eray has posted [except some 'heat', which is understandable in light of what I've read of your posts, David.]
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
| > | > The basics of Popper's contribution are pretty unassailable. As | > conjunctions of observation statements become compounded (ANDed) the | > likelihood of one being wrong increases. As the power of a predictive | > theory increases, it risks being falsified more readily, as falsifying | > any one of it's founding observations or predictions is enough to bring | > the whole theory down. | | Though it's been said many times, many ways...some people just never | get it. And the one's who don't get it always seem to be highly | invested in philosophy. | | > This is why the hard sciences derive esoteric | > predictions from their theories and try to test them. | | More succinctly described as "hitting the run button." | | Larry
Just in case...
I don't reject Falsifiability.
If you [anyone] 'doubts', with respect to NDT, show me anything in any Neuros- cience experimental result that does not reduce directly to TD E/I-minimization.
I've been looking for such for ~32 years, and have found none of such.
With respect to TH, show me anything that does not reduce directly to WDB2T.
I've been looking for such for ~41 years, and have found none of such.
Of course, Falsifiability is in both positions, Robustly, and I long ago presented both Challenges Formally to the Neuroscience and Physics Communities.
And, BTW, the 'resort to Philosophy' to which you refer, above, as is explained in AoK, itself reduces directly to TD E/I-min- imization :-]
When things're taken down to their Fund- amentals, things're taken down to their Fundamentals.
I =do not= 'assert' that either NDT or TH are 'final' resolutions. I do Assert, however, that further Reification, of which there will be Plenty, will, in its respective Fields, go right- through NDT and TH.
That is, such further Reification will only augment the explanatory bases of NDT and TH.
If you think that there's 'great comfort' in having to be 'the lightening rod' with re- spect to all of this, you are Mistaken.
Having to be such is like "being roasted on a gridiron" [Homage to Saint Lawrence].
K. P. Collins
Reply to
KP_PC
Neither do I.
But my humble belief is that such a negative connotation runs contrary to the purpose of practicing science.
In fact, if you are a scientist taught by a certain scientific dogma everything you will say will automatically be "falsified" and the dogma will reign for eternity. So, in a way championing such a notion is destined to kill science if it is indeed adopted by all scientists. Luckily, scientists do not pay attention to any of the philosophy of science crap :) But maybe they should be listening to the wiser philosophers, that's another matter :) I'd say they should at least reflect on what they are doing, and what their conception of nature is.
Therefore, we would never have anything like theory of relativity if there were not free spirited scientists who saw through the limitations of Newtonian mechanics and gave credence to Einstein's work.
There are a lot of things we presuppose about what science is, but my feeling is that we do not really know how we are doing science. That is why we should not be imposing artificial boundaries on an intricate process that we cannot comprehend.
Let me show you another dogma. Become Chomsky's student and then argue that "innateness assumption" is totally wrong. See what happens.
However, I believe Neil is referring to "scientific practice" that I speak by "pragmatics of science". It is the experience of the scientist that contributes to scientific thought.
Thank you,
__ Eray Ozkural
Reply to
Eray Ozkural exa
---------------- What the fuck are you talking about?? You OBVIOUSLY do NOT know!
----------------- That's stupid. If you imagine such crap you'll NEVER even understand what Science *IS*!!
------------------- It isn't adopted by even a few.
----------------- You're ass-backwards, they ALL adhere to Philosophy/Theory of Science or they are NOT Scientists, by definition.
------------------ A Scientist has no "concept" of Nature, Science doesn't need one.
----------- Pure Tesla-ite blather. You guys are talking nonsense. Einstein was credible on his merits immediately upon being seen by several aomewhat more mainstream investigators in that field. It wouldn't have mattered if he had been a beagle!
------------ Garbage, you're couching your opposition to the process of peer-review in cushy feel-good crap. That's because you don't really grasp the process of Science or Theory of Science.
-Steve
Reply to
R. Steve Walz
Amusing, David. You should know better that I'm an AI researcher (at least in heart) and he is interested in neuroscience. We probably have quite different approaches to the problem.
Ken's remarks about agreeing with me were about philosophy of science, because he has read Kuhn and he understands it.
I didn't say I have verified or really understood Ken's claims. If you have noticed I don't talk about what I don't understand well enough.
I will come back to dissection of your futile theory later. Now I have more substantial work to do.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Reply to
Eray Ozkural exa
In article , Eray Ozkural exa writes
You mean you are an undergraduate student with aspirations to do research.
I'm not sure Ken understands much of what he reads. I'm sure most folk don't understand Kuhn at all. The sort of "understanding" one frequently sees in newsgroups and undergraduate essays is little more than an illustration of *ARROGANT* adolescent epistemological anarchism (without the rationale that Feyerabend claims to have had). It's the sort of "understanding" which is taken to justify some of the worst types of undisciplined, eclectic and worst of all, uninformed (by research) thinking which in my view is anathema to real work in science. We just don't need Ken's brand of revolutionary thinking I'm afraid - it's arrogant, ill-informed, neologistic, unfalsifiable metaphysics - and by taking the stance which you have towards it when others have tried (benevolently) to get Ken to see what's wrong with his behaviour will just reinforce his delusory behaviour - the evidence is here for everyone to see. Ken may well be hurt by the criticisms, but so he should be.
Wake up Eray.
I have noticed exactly the opposite - as I have said several times.
Oh.. *thank you* Eray!
Translated into reality-speak you mean you'll come back in the hope of getting some free education .
Reply to
David Longley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.