🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38a07fb5.24407240@news.rica.net>,
  jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >  jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>
> >> It has been the sad history of trying to interpret the world
through
> >> verbal language that such language is much more ambiguous and
> >> imprecise than mathematical modeling.
> >
> >Then we are in agreement that we should let our senses five
> >interpret the world, and use our languages to build marvy dreams
> >we can awake after full of thrills & chills... and nary a doubt
> >they were but dreams!
>
> Not so, but I don't expect you to understand why.
>
> >> And you have not addressed
> >> the issue of intelligent theorists devising mathematical models
which
> >> apply very well to the reality they observe.
> >
> >That's because anybody (even the really, really dumb theorists)
> >can devise mathematical models which apply very well to the reality
> >they've never seen in their lives! And if they can do that quite
> >wonderfully, I can't imagine them not being able to model anything
> >mathematically, I can tell you that!
>
> Pointing out that I cannot run a marathon in under 3 hours says very
> little about those who can.

O my God: Do you realize you've just said the same thing I did
only in other words? (Nope. I don't suppose you realize this, though
you now do, don't you!)

> >> All you have said is that someone can perversely claim that a given
> >> mathematical model is working for them.
> >
> >That's rather short-changing them! No: Look thee to history
> >on this: Any manner of someones have all throughout history
> >quite sincerely and honestly devised any given number (ho!) of
> >mathematical models that worked very well for the entire world
> >but which later on proved to be utterly nutty! Do I really have to
> >mention any of them here?!?!?! Was Aristotle a bad scientist?
> >Was Ptolemy a perverse cosmologist? Was Columbus, who actually
> >sailed "around the world" honest in his claim that he had indeed
> >"sailed around the world?" (He only got as far as Ohio.)
>
> I wouldn't classify Newtonian physics as "utterly nutty," even by
> today's standards.  Of course, in past times, scientists relied more
> upon written language than they do today....more ambiguity.
>
> One way to separate the real deal from the wannabes is to examine
> their attempts at rigor and disambiguation.

I adhere to a more rigorous standard: If thy mathematics leads
one to conclude Santa Claus created the universe, thy mathematics
is a fraud (as opposed to the BB proponents' contention that if
their mathematics leads one to conclude Santa Claus created the
universe, then Santa Claus must have created the universe in some
mystical/magical manner we can never know--since mathematics is
a higher reality than Reality).

> >> So?  There seems to be no
> >> great limitation on people making perverse assertions.
> >
> >People who make perverse claims are soon found out, Jeff:
> >It's the people who take the time to establish some preliminary
> >consistency who cause the most trouble... they just don't
> >realize they are guessing (when they "rationalize" the existence
> >of results which do not really exist). Or they're simply fooling
> >themselves into believing they are good people who can judge
> >these matters impartially. It's human nature to fudge a few little
> >principles which might fudge the bigger picture. This is why
> >science must return to a stricter discipline! This is why we must
> >stop looking for confirmation of our pet theories and instead go
> >back to interpreting results with the strictest impartiality--even if
> >this requires that scientists with strong opinions on a matter
> >remove themselves from the process of interpreting results which
> >touch upon those matters they hold strong opinions on exactly
> >in the same way judges and jurors do in the justice system.
>
> You won't see much in the way of peer review in this forum.  Of
> course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't work "in real life."

I have no peer (so seeking one any place would be a waste of time).

> If you wish to change humanity as a whole, try changing smart1234
> first, just to experience a little of what you are up against.

I don't think I'd want to change humanity: It's worked quite well
for me. Oh, there are a couple of lunatics here and there, but
so damn few for the number of us!

> >I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
> >the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
> >superior to guessing from postulated beliefs:
>
> This is an entirely different subject than the original one.
>
> > I have no objections
> >to modeling that reality which we have established as true
> >mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
> >ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
> >every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
> >establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have given us
> >a false reality.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean here.  Very few credible
> scientists think that the mathematics dictates reality.

Unfortunately, there are more fools than scoundrels in there:
You know when you've been robbed, but it's a little harder
to understand when you've been fooled.

> Some think
> that mathematical elegance may suggest possible models.  Most
> understand the need for empirical verification.  Maybe you've been
> reading wacko-nutjob posts in this forum for too long?  ;-)

Nope: I've been studying mainstream physics--That's enough
right there to get the drift of the problem.

> The examples you did give supported the notion that we theorize to the
> best of our ability, at the time, using the available data.  And as
> long as we know that everything is subject to change, where's the
> harm?

If a good theory supplants reality with a fable, what harm is there
in that?!?!? My journey is the belief that there is a great amount
of harm done indeed.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://members.aol.com/prebigbang


> JeffMo
>




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.