🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 2, 3:54 am, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 3:15 pm, nonsense <nonse...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> >>If you are afraid to reply to each paragraph
> >>on its own merits you can justify that. In fact
> >>you can justify just about anything.
> > Since you are so in-tune with Max Keon, why don't you explain to me
> > the merits of that paragraph?
>
> Cheapshot. WTF is the matter with you? The paragraph
> stands on its own two feet.
>
> > My interpretation is that he sees conventional physics as having the
> > kind of "militant faith" that which Dawkins was alluding.
>
> That's true. Ever heard the old adage "We have to outlive
> our teachers?"
>
> This discussion grows out of the earlier question posed to
> the public, "What do you believe is true even though you
> cannot prove it?"
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_comparingdawkinsflew.htm
>
> You've replied with a mathematics that models a universe
> that you cannot prove is true other than by propping it
> up with more models, finally claiming there must be some
> continuity because if one part works this way then all
> the rest must as well. Don't get burned out on this
> tidbit because there's some redeeming discussion below.

Cosmic redshift is a start. It depends what you will accept as
evidence, and whether you will acknowledge that you cannot prove
things with the scientific method. The best you can hope for is
consistency with observation, which modern cosmology qualifies. The
only niggle is that cosmology suffers from lack of experimentation -
we don't have another universe to toy with.

>
> In fact I don't agree with Keon in his details, but the
> simple fact of the matter is that there is merit to some
> parts of his thesis.

No, there is not. The background radiation /is/ redshifted and we
observe it to /be/ redshifted. If he wants me to not laugh is
assertion that the CMBR should have a blackbody temperature measured
in microkelvins, he is going to have to do better than "because I say
so."

>
>  > However,
>
> > what he fails to realize is that he simply does not have the
> > background required much less the desire required to understand the
> > explanations given to him.
>
> Ah, the priesthood thing? If you actually would like to
> teach him anything, you could.

Again, no.

Look on this newsgroup for a minute. Is it _our_ fault that nobody has
managed to teach Ken Seto anything for nearly 15 years? At what point
does the burden shift away from the people trying to teach and onto
the people who are unwilling to learn?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5ab9a16224bf8063?dmode=source

>
> > Back to the science - he repeatedly tried to make use of an analogy
> > between gravitational red shift from a point mass and the expected
> > redshift since the big bang. I kept pointing out that there is no
> > analogy because the situations are wildly different. Am I being
> > militant because I think hes a moron for ignoring the explanation?
>
> Have you tried to write to your audience, that being Keon?

Repeatedly. This is not the first time I have pointed out his flaws,
I'm just not nice while doing it anymore.

> The two of you are talking past one another.
>
> >>>Is someone a pioneer because they refuse to understand, or just an
> >>>idiot?
>
> >>>If you don't want to argue science, that's fine. Just don't expect me
> >>>to play ball with you on it.
>
> >>That's a copout and you know it. But that's OK,
> >>I really didn't expect better. You're still
> >>seeing red. Just remember that "being right"
> >>is not a valid justification for all sorts of
> >>misbehavior.
> > No, I'm not "seeing red". I have no idea where get
>
>  > this, but it won't become more valid by repeated
>  > assertions that I am.
>
> Because your armwaving and yelling have all the
> hallmarks that you're angry.

What armwaving? What yelling?

>
> > Being right and being nice don't have to overlap.
>
> I'm usually not very nice myself, but most of the time
> I think I can get my point across. That's not happening
> here and I think you can do much better than you have.
>
> The Uncle Al school of teaching is ineffectual. Please
> try not to follow in his footsteps in any way. A
> yelled at student winces, shuts down, and goes into
> defensive mode.

The Uncle Al school comes after a demonstration of stupidity.

>
> Keon has attempted to argue for his points. His math
> skills exist but are weak. You complain about my
> "repeating" a strategy. Guess what, your arguing has
> failed for that very reason. There are other ways
> to explain why Keon's analogy is wrong.

Which I also tried, but I haven't seen a reply to yet.

I asked him if the gravitational field outside a point source is the
same as the field inside an extended source.

>
> Keon is not your peer no matter how much you treat
> him as though he were as well invested in mathematics
> as you are. Now you need to take the next step in
> your own development and explain the differences to
> him in terms he can understand. It can be difficult
> learning to address such matters in plain English
> after years of living in a world where the people
> you are dealing with day in and day out explain
> everything in terms of a succinct equation.

The problem is that I have found that it doesn't matter how it is
explained - I am assumed to be wrong regardless because I am
"parroting" [pick your word, there are many] the status quo. It
doesn't matter how I explain it, how much evidence I bring to the
table, or how patient I am in explaining things.

>
> This paragraph applies to many of the sci newsgroup
> posters. There is life outside of grad school. Lots
> of it.
>
> Now here's the punch line that brings it all home:
> How would Carl Sagan have dealt with the discussion?
>
> Your "militant faith" error lies in the fact that
> you believe that mathematics is the only medium
> of communications where science is concerned.

If he wants to be _quantitative_, then unfortunately mathematics is
the only choice.

>
> It isn't. It is the best and the fastest for those
> who live in the disciplines. Try throwing equations
> and the sorts of arguments you've been making here
> into grants.