24 Jan 09
7 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…But we human beings have occasionally displayed a tendency to deny perpetually that we have seen evidence or been given reason for something. .…[/b]
[b]=========================================
….Do you object to calling an intelligence which is without limit a deity? ….
No. By definition it would be a "deity".
=========================================
Okay.
===================================
…Or is your attitude "Anything BUT ... a deity" can exist. And this is known by im to survive.
Let's play chess sometime. I'll challenge you. I'm easy to beat.
Yes -I have noticed -they are called Creationists ( + any other anti-science person -don’t mean to just pick on just Creationists)
….Is your beef for the existence of God weak reasons weak evidence or none at all of either? ….
If I do vaguely understand this question correctly, I think the answer is the reason I don’t think there is a god is because there is neither even a weak reason nor even a weak bit of evidence to believe the existential claim there is a god -I apologies in advance if I have totally misunderstood your question.
….Perhaps a more adaptable creature would be dumber and dumber rather than wiser and wiser....…
Unlikely because “dumber” usually means less likely to survive but, only just possible on rare occasions because there is a very significant biological cost of having a larger brain (mainly greater energy consumption).
…Let's play chess sometime. I'll challenge you. .…
ok.
...I'm easy to beat.. .…
-so am I -or at least when I play either sonhouse or black beetle, just look at my last 15 games -I have lost all of them!
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
….Suppose somebody seriously DID suggested that Santa is real?
Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.
….
So what is you answer to my original question?
Reminder of my question:
…Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
Would ...[text shortened]... g fact” -and it is not "pedantic" to say so because there is no simplier way of saying it!
I'll not waste my time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility.
So is it “suspect” that Saturn has moons?
No, it's just our thinking as it sits right now. It wasn't that long ago that the solar system had another member, if you recall.
And in what sense is the instrument and interpretation “tainted” by man?
That's a whole other ball of philosophical wax.
Can you give just one fully explained credible example of how it could be the case that the Earth stands still despite all the reasoning and evidence to the contrary?
Off the top of my head, sure. Do I believe it? No.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=============================
…But we human beings have occasionally displayed a tendency to deny perpetually that we have seen evidence or been given reason for something. .…
Yes -I have noticed -they are called Creationists ( + any other anti-science person -don’t mean to just pick on just Creationists)
….Is your beef for the existence of God weak reasons weak evi ...[text shortened]... play either sonhouse or black beetle, just look at my last 15 games -I have lost all of them!
….Perhaps a more adaptable creature would be dumber and dumber rather than wiser and wiser....…
Unlikely because “dumber” usually means less likely to survive but, only just possible on rare occasions because there is a very significant biological cost of having a larger brain (mainly greater energy consumption).
=========================================
… Whose more likely to survive as a species - one with knowledge enough to destroy all life on earth with the push of a few buttons or one without?
By the way, I have lost about two third of my games.
25 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…… Whose more likely to survive as a species - one with knowledge enough to destroy all life on earth with the push of a few buttons or one without? .…[/b]
[b]=============================
….Perhaps a more adaptable creature would be dumber and dumber rather than wiser and wiser....…
Unlikely because “dumber” usually means less likely to survive but, only just possible on rare occasions because there is a very significant biological cost of having a larger brain (mainly greater energy consumption).
...[text shortened]... a few buttons or one without?
By the way, I have lost about two third of my games.
Are you actually implying that intelligence is GENERALLY a bad thing for survival?
25 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…… …Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
[b]…Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
I'll not waste my time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility.
So is it “suspect” that Saturn has moons?
No, it's just our thinking as it sits right now. It wasn't that long ago that the solar system had anoth ing and evidence to the contrary?[/b]
Off the top of my head, sure. Do I believe it? No.[/b]
I'll not waste my time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility. .…
But you HAVE already “waste your time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility”!!! -for you spent time on the conjecture that there is a god because lots of people seriously DO suggested that God is real!!!
-do you see the sameness of the logic between the two now?
….So is it “suspect” that Saturn has moons?
No, it's just our thinking as it sits right now. It wasn't that long ago that the solar system had another member, if you recall.
….
So are you implying here that it is creditably possible that in the future that we could simply define the “moons” of Saturn as a misnomer?
-if so, what criterion could people plausibly be persuaded to use in this context that would naturally redefine them as not being moons?
25 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton-for you spent time on the conjecture that there is a god because lots of people seriously DO suggested that God is real!!!
…… …Suppose lots of people seriously DID suggested that Santa is real!!!?
I'll not waste my time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility. .…
But you HAVE already “waste your time on a fantastical conjecture which hasn't a hint of connection to plausibility and/or possibility”!! ...[text shortened]... be persuaded to use in this context that would naturally redefine them as not being moons?[/b]
To you it is conjecture; to me there isn't a shred of doubt. Instead, I receive nothing but comfort in considering not just the fact of His existence, but the depth of His character.
So are you implying here that it is creditably possible that in the future that we could simply define the “moons” of Saturn as a misnomer?
I am not implying it: I am certain of the uncertainty of man's so-called iron-clad knowledge.
if so, what criterion could people plausibly be persuaded to use in this context that would naturally redefine them as not being moons?
I'm not sure. What led to the subtraction of the last planet?
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…… -for you spent time on the conjecture that there is a god because lots of people seriously DO suggested that God is real!!!
[b]-for you spent time on the conjecture that there is a god because lots of people seriously DO suggested that God is real!!!
To you it is conjecture; to me there isn't a shred of doubt. Instead, I receive nothing but comfort in considering not just the fact of His existence, but the depth of His character.
So are you implying here that it is them as not being moons?
I'm not sure. What led to the subtraction of the last planet?[/b]
To you it is conjecture; to me there isn't a shred of doubt. Instead, I receive nothing but comfort in considering not just the fact of His existence, but the depth of His character. .…
Suppose lots of people not ONLY seriously claimed that there was a Santa but ALSO “receive nothing but comfort in considering not just the fact of His existence, but the depth of His character”, -then, by this ‘logic‘, would it be no longer just a “conjecture” that Santa is real but a certain fact?
….So are you implying here that it is creditably possible that in the future that we could simply define the “moons” of Saturn as a misnomer?
I am not implying it:
….
So I take that as a “no”? -but then you say:
….I am certain of the uncertainty of man's so-called iron-clad knowledge. ..…
So I take that as a “yes”? -which is it?
….if so, what criterion could people plausibly be persuaded to use in this context that would naturally redefine them as not being moons?
I'm not sure. What led to the subtraction of the last planet?
..…
Its size.
So do you think that, just with Pluto, people (mainly scientists actually) could plausibly be persuaded to use size in this context to redefine them as not being moons?
-I think this is extremely unlikely -don’t you? -I mean, Pluto lost its status as a ’planet’ because it is so small that, in terms of its size, it was long considered more like an asteroid than a planet by many astronomers including Patrick More.
But a typical moon is considered to be much smaller than a typical planet and Saturn has Titan, the second largest moon in Solar System -so it would be surely astonishing if all those “moons” where redefined as a misnomer because of their size! ( -so if not their size then what? )
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou recall incorrectly. The solar system has not lost any major members, and any members it has lost recently we probably knew nothing about anyway (small space rocks too small to have been detected yet).
No, it's just our thinking as it sits right now. It wasn't that long ago that the solar system had another member, if you recall.
Wikipedia says:
"The Solar System[a] consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity."
which is I think a reasonable definition. Obviously that leaves rather open the definition of a 'celestial object' but I can promise you that Pluto falls well within the definition.
Our knowledge of Pluto did not change when we reclassified it as a dwarf planet. All that changed was our classification system.
You are claiming that all scientific knowledge is subject to change - but your example does not demonstrate that in any way.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadSince you're obviously fond of quoting Wikipedia, you won't object to its use as an authoritative source. To wit:
You recall incorrectly. The solar system has not lost any major members, and any members it has lost recently we probably knew nothing about anyway (small space rocks too small to have been detected yet).
Wikipedia says:
"The Solar System[a] consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity."
which is I think a reasonable definit ...[text shortened]... ific knowledge is subject to change - but your example does not demonstrate that in any way.
"From its discovery in 1930 until 2006, Pluto was considered the Solar System's ninth planet. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, however, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered in the outer solar system, notably the scattered disc object Eris, which is 27% more massive than Pluto. On August 24, 2006, the IAU defined the term "planet" for the first time. This definition excluded Pluto, which the IAU reclassified as a member of the new category of dwarf planets along with Eris and Ceres. After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340. A number of scientists continue to suggest that Pluto should be reclassified as a planet."
In any book--- including that employed by those scientists suggesting that Pluto be "reclassified as a planet" --- relegation to anything less than a planet of the solar system qualifies as subtraction, nothing more, nothing less.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt qualifies as subtraction from 'the list of planets in the solar system'. It does not qualify as 'subtraction from the solar system' as per your original claim.
In any book--- including that employed by those scientists suggesting that Pluto be "reclassified as a planet" --- relegation to anything less than a planet of the solar system qualifies as subtraction, nothing more, nothing less.
Why not simply admit that you made a mistake?
Do you at least admit that as an example it does not in any way support your claim that scientific knowledge is temporal in nature. No knowledge of Pluto was 'lost' or found wanting during the reclassification process.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy not simply admit that you made a mistake?
It qualifies as subtraction from 'the list of planets in the solar system'. It does not qualify as 'subtraction from the solar system' as per your original claim.
Why not simply admit that you made a mistake?
Do you at least admit that as an example it does not in any way support your claim that scientific knowledge is temporal in nature. No knowledge of Pluto was 'lost' or found wanting during the reclassification process.
Did someone piss in your Wheaties, or are you just contrarian by nature?
My "original claim" was nothing more than--- as you put it more specifically--- the loss of a planet. If you were to put the question to 10,000 people, chances are better than great that 9,998 people would say that the solar system is made up of one sun and (now) eight planets. These are considered the principal players of the scenario by most people.
Those other two folks might name the 166 moons and five dwarf planets in their list, but even they aren't likely to remember to include asteroids, icy Kuiper belt objects, comets, meteoroids, and interplanetary dust. Most people just simply aren't that specific, at least most normal people capable of functioning socially.
No knowledge of Pluto was 'lost' or found wanting during the reclassification process.
Nowhere did I infer that knowledge was lost. If anything, I honed in on the fact that better information came to light in such a manner as to persuade the majority of those analyzing the same to change their minds.
It is this changing of ones mind that lends itself to my original contention, namely, the temporal nature of man's knowledge.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMost people are wrong.....
[b]Why not simply admit that you made a mistake?
Did someone piss in your Wheaties, or are you just contrarian by nature?
My "original claim" was nothing more than--- as you put it more specifically--- the loss of a planet. If you were to put the question to 10,000 people, chances are better than great that 9,998 people would say that the solar sy ...[text shortened]... t lends itself to my original contention, namely, the temporal nature of man's knowledge.[/b]
And definitions don't change just because X number of people have them wrong.....
Solar System The sun together with the eight planets and all other celestial bodies that orbit the sun.
Solar: As in sun, as in sun centric if you will, as in orbiting.
System: As in interacting or interdependent elements forming whole
We didn't loose a planet, that's extremely improbable and in most cases impossible. All we did was define the word planet for the first time, once we defined the WORD, pluto fell outside the definition and thus got demoted.
All this is is definitions and semantics, its got nothing to do with science being right or wrong, the celestial body is still there, that knowledge is "iron clad" as you put it.
You are wrong on this one.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. I just felt you were wrong and were trying to avoid admitting to it.
Did someone piss in your Wheaties, or are you just contrarian by nature?
It is this changing of ones mind that lends itself to my original contention, namely, the temporal nature of man's knowledge.
Then why not simply give an every day example of someone changing their mind? eg: I was going to have toast for breakfast today but changed my mind and had bacon and eggs. Therefore mans knowledge is temporal in nature.
Instead you chose to imply that we had lost some knowledge of Pluto or found our former knowledge wanting neither of which is true in the slightest. Rather we discovered more objects orbiting the sun of similar size to Pluto or larger and decided to redo our classification system.
The real problem with your claim however is the idea that all mans knowledge is temporal leads to the obvious conclusion that you can have no certainty whatsoever in anything and further that all facts are subject to change. For example either your knowledge of Gods existence is either not temporal (contradicting your claim) or at one point in time your current knowledge of the existence of God is guaranteed to be false.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by MexicoMost people are wrong.....
Most people are wrong.....
And definitions don't change just because X number of people have them wrong.....
Solar System The sun together with the eight planets and [b]all other celestial bodies that orbit the sun.
Solar: As in sun, as in sun centric if you will, as in orbiting.
System: As in interacting or interdependent elements forming whole ...[text shortened]... is still there, that knowledge is "iron clad" as you put it.
You are wrong on this one.[/b]
Amen.
And definitions don't change just because X number of people have them wrong.....
Not true. Definitions change all the time. Essence is another story.
Solar: As in sun, as in sun centric if you will, as in orbiting.
Apparently you are behind the times, as the center of the solar system is widely held to be based on something other. That the sun is the principal player, there is no doubt. However, each planet's orbit is based in part on the sun's mass; the sun is not the geometric center of the same.
We didn't loose a planet, that's extremely improbable and in most cases impossible.
Quick: what is nine minus one?
All we did was define the word planet for the first time, once we defined the WORD, pluto fell outside the definition and thus got demoted.
As far as I was aware, the Greek term "wandering star" is where we got our word for planet, thus an ancient definition. Hardly a first for us, I would think.
All this is is definitions and semantics, its got nothing to do with science being right or wrong, the celestial body is still there, that knowledge is "iron clad" as you put it.
Not at all the argument, and you likely already know that.