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



Most excellent, sprayed tea into keyboard, ROFLMAO :o) :o) :o) etc.
best regards
Robin G Hewitt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks :-) But to be honest, I was trying to type the Gettysburg Address.
Sorry about the keyboard. If it persists or progresses to the vomiting stage, you may want to consult Dr. Longley. Just tell him you are laughing at Larry jokes. No, wait. Better to say Larry has entered your environment and caused your tea to exhibit unusual behavior.
Larry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have you done as I suggested?
Have you read "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" yet?
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
&#65279;All you do is assert that behaviorism is wrong. You are either too stupid or too cowardly to offer any substantive criticism. Indeed, you, like little Danny Michaels, appear to have little clue as to what constitutes legitimate argument. Which of "Skinner's theories" are false, and why? Debate the issues or shut up.
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Glen M. Sizemore) wrote in message

By default, I avoid going into a discussion with somebody like you who is lacking average social skills and philosophical character. However, I will not leave your accusations unanswered this time.
I didn't assert that behaviorism is wrong. I basically said I agree with forthcoming philosophical criticism of behaviorism that deny it the status of a valid theory of mind. From that point on, usually, I could choose to filter out the behaviorist non-sense I am confronted with on this list.
However, there are two compelling reasons for me to continue investigation:
1. Some newbies tend to believe your behaviorist rants. Why is that? Is it because behaviorism sounds nice to somebody who knows nothing about philosophy of mind? What is the source of this common sensical illusion? 2. Longley's continuing efforts to a. establish every theory of Quine to be correct b. claim that behaviorism derives from Quine's view of science, and therefore it *must* *be* correct
Reason 2 is particularly interesting because I believe I have done better than Quine in some respects when it comes to philosophy of mind and I don't think Longley's "magical" assertions rest on Quine. I am trying to decide to which extent I agree with Quine on philosophy of science, probably not too much. I will explain in a reply to David.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > | > 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eray Ozkural exa wrote:

---------------- 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
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is nonsense. There is no such definition.
Sure, scientists adhere to the scientific method. But that is not at all the same as adhering to what goes under the name "philosophy of science".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well put. I couldn't do any better.
Note that it was this distinction between "practice" and "philosophy" of science that made me curious in the philosophy of science in the first place :) [1]
When we're doing science at the institute, we don't give a damn about what the spirit of Popper might have to say about it. We just want to produce some good ideas, and tell it in an excellent way. Solve some problem. Maybe define a new problem. Design and implement an experiment. Discuss with other scientists. That sort of thing.
For instance, *several* times we *think* we have *falsified* a theory. But then it crops up back again and we see that our falsification was false, and it was really better at the core than this seemingly more advanced theory. So, we don't proceed at all like some naive philosopher of science might suggest. Sorry to dispel the illusion for Longley and other "soft" scientists, but science doesn't work at all like what some earlier philosophers might tell us.
I really think, in order to notice this, you have to work in a field like physics or mathematics. Not psychology or sociology.
Regards,
[1] And another thing, it was because I found those diagrams of "how to do science" that they taught us at secondary school infinitely stupid. In fact, those "flowcharts about how to do science" are almost always wrong. There was this imbecile girl representing Oracle (graduated from our CS dept!) that tried to *market* *us* their stupid data mining product. She had a "flow chart" of "how to do data mining" that she probably stole from one of the papers about KDD in a well known survey paper. When I showed her how many more arcs there should have been in the diagram, she understood exactly nothing. It's funny how this sort of naive idealization of complex processes come up everywhere. They are, I believe, for fools to believe in.
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I doubt that *real* scientists will pay much attention to such a prescription coming from a discipline as ineffectual as behaviorist psychology.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Whilst not really what I said, I'll agree to that. But why would that have any implications for a prescriptive thesis which had its roots in 'behaviorist psychology'.
Lots of people still smoke - does that have any implications for how effectual we should consider oncology?
Incidentally, what are your criteria for an "effectual" physics or an "ineffectual" biology?
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
&#65279;Behavioral psychology constitutes the most effective behavioral technology of all time.
By the way, Neil, what would you know about being a "real" scientist?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Glen M. Sizemore) wrote in message

Real scientists have mathematical theories, not a bunch of fuzzy words and cheap philosophy. UNLIKE you, shall we say. Tell us about any theoretical work you have done or you have on your mind that is not stamp collecting and which relates to *intelligence*. *then* we'll talk.
[See? This group is about artificial intelligence and philosophy. We're certainly not interested in which hormones are secreted when a person is subjected to X or stupid shit like that]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
&#65279;...
Eray: Real scientists have mathematical theories,[...]
GS: So you're saying that mathematical models are a prerequisite for a science? I guess that we would have to say the original statement of evolution by natural selection wasn't science.
Eray: [...]not a bunch of fuzzy words and cheap philosophy.
GS: You'd have to point out which words are fuzzy. Off hand, I'd say the fuzziest is "mind;" but I don't use that one. Actually, the philosophy doesn't come cheap. Wrong or right, it takes a long time before one can offer interpretations of complex behavior in terms of known behavioral processes. You, for example, can't do it.
Eray: UNLIKE you, shall we say. Tell us about any theoretical work you have done or you have on your mind that is not stamp collecting[...]
GS: You're even too stupid to think up your own insults.....Eddington, wasn't it?
Eray: [...]and which relates to *intelligence*. *then* we'll talk.
GS: But you claim that behavior has nothing to do with "intelligence" (even though you don't understand the position that makes the claim that "all is behavior, the rest is naught") so, obviously, you have already defined "intelligence" in such a way that I can't be "right." So why should I address this particular issue?
Eray:[See? This group is about artificial intelligence and philosophy. We're certainly not interested in which hormones are secreted when a person is subjected to X or stupid shit like that]
GS: I'm not much interested in that either, but that doesn't make it unscientific.
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I really like the way you distort the whole reality and substantial philosophical theories so they fit your preconception of the world. You do it all the time.
The events that I referred to above are exactly the kind of practice that a real scientist lives, talks about, experiences and breathes.
The explanation of scientific practice is probably not achievable by reading Popper and Quine. I will give a reference to a quite nice and comprehensible *philosophical* article that summarizes how complicated a realistic philosophy of science gets. (In reply to somebody who has actually asked an intelligent question) In fact, it gets so complicated that it no more presents a simple methodology: no flow-charts for animals who want to feel as if they are scientists.
I will also be glad to tell you that you likening Feyerabend's theories to ideas of "adolescent anarchists" is like a middle age priest likening Renaissance thinkers to "young devilists". In fact, anybody who has read Feyerabend would know that the "knowledge anarchy" of Feyerabend has nothing to do with stupid "political anarchy". He says that himself in the first chapter of Against Method. A book that could enlighten you if you could understand, but I doubt you can digest a single argument in that book. It is quite advanced analytical philosophy that requires one to think logically.
It had actually the first philosophical argument I have seen that applies the principle of inclusion and exclusion. I was amazed at his mathematical insight.
Thanks,
__ Eray Ozkural
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok, I'm just about to draw an end to all of this.
Look again at "Against Method" - do you realise that Feyerabend was setting up a case to be knocked down by Lakatos - but that the latter died before this dialectic could be established.
Sorry Eray - I've had enough of all of this.
I wish you good luck with your revolutionary thinking.
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, but you have to see that it is more in the way of advancing than knocking down and I don't believe for a moment that "falsification" was the basis of scientific progress. Feyerabend's epistemological views remain strong to day IMO. Not necessarily all of his views are to be idolized. That should never be the case with any thinker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read the Introduction to Popper's 1982 "Realism and the Aim of Science".
--
David Longley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message

Right, you proceed like some sophisticated philosopher, such as Lakatos, suggested.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.