Science: Are You Consistant in Your Views?

[mansr]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

 

[mansr]

@mhardy6647 I suspect you'd like this.

Also my rule of thumb: any field that tacks the word "science" onto its name is not actually science.

Like "democratic" in names of countries.

 

[mhardy6647]

@mhardy6647 I suspect you'd like this.

Also my rule of thumb: any field that tacks the word "science" onto its name is not actually science.

I just LOLd.... although I am not sure I'd go quite that far. I'd probably pay a little extra attention to details, though, were I perusing such subjects.

Maybe I should mention that I do believe in climate change, just in case I was too coy earlier!

Like "democratic" in names of countries.

Oy, and I just LOLd again!

 

[SIY]

Maybe I should mention that I do believe in climate change, just in case I was too coy earlier!

It's never been static, but then we get into other areas...

 

[MattHooper]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

That was great!

 

[RayDunzl]

Also my rule of thumb: any field that tacks the word "science" onto its name is not actually science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_branches_of_science

There are certainly some there that are new to me, as a distinct branch, and named.

 

[mhardy6647]

It's never been static, but then we get into other areas...

egg-zack-a-tack-ly.
Hard to do a controlled experiment.
and I'll gladly drop this topic, posthaste -- better safe than sorry!

 

[mhardy6647]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_branches_of_science

There are certainly some there that are new to me, as a distinct branch, and named.

Indeed.
Confuse hematology, hepatology, and herpatology only at one's peril.
Two of those I know a little about, but not that third one.

 

[gikigill]

The theory of ether is back - but dressed in drag, as the Higgs Field.


and BTW, "Higgs Field Cables with Gravitonic Connectors" would be an xlnt marketing plan...

Ether isnt proven, Higgs is.

The theory matches the practical so not sure how they are the same or even equivalent unless someone proves Ether.

 

[Tks]

I don't think I've ever met one of those, and that view is a tad more extreme than what I had in mind. Whereas I would like to be fully consistent in my beliefs, I have no way of knowing whether I actually am. To do that, I'd have to make a list of everything I believe to be true and cross-check all the items. That's not possible, so it is probable that something I have at some point learned or deduced is in fact, without my realisation, contradicted by something I have learned at a different time. Due to the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, it simply isn't practical to trace out every implication of everything one hears so as to find any conflicts with existing beliefs.

The biblical phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is a rough translation. More accurately it says, "Thou shalt not murder" which has quite a different meaning. The act of killing in and of itself isn't necessarily morally wrong. You might encounter a vicious animal (or human) that is immediately threatening the lives of several people, and only way you can stop the threat will unfortunately kill the aggressor. In that situation, killing isn't necessarily wrong, and in fact it might be morally wrong to choose not to stop (kill) the aggressor if you had that power.

But replacing "kill" with "murder" doesn't get us out of the woods. The term murder applies to a killing that is not justified by law. But the law itself might not be morally right. The law may allow killing that we consider to be immoral, or it might condemn killing that we consider to be morally justified. Just because it's legal doesn't imply it's moral, and vice versa.

So whether it is right or wrong depends not only on the act, and not only on the law, but on the motivation or purpose of the person acting, and on his moral code. Furthermore, different people will disagree on what is moral or justified.

Precisely my point as to why this thread's existence is virtually pointless. With semantics and rhetoric you can eventually reach breaking points with all topics if you press on with reducing words to such a low level, intuition then takes over.

Though I think OP raises a point (what I think he actually wanted to say) was people's epistemology (if held constant) should yield consistent views in rational people.

Like if I say I generally demand evidence of some sort, to believe in claims another person is making. And then I go off and start believing people that don't provide evidence at all (and I do this without any justification) for any and all claims, then that is the sort of thing that would entail someone pragmatically having plausibility for calling me out for inconsistency.

 

[Sal1950]

I love it when you guys start trying to out-philosophy each other, spitting out reams of sentences that make no sense. LOL

And BTW,, God Bless Ya'll

 

[Wes]

Ether isnt proven, Higgs is.

The theory matches the practical so not sure how they are the same or even equivalent unless someone proves Ether.

both posit fields that pervade all of space

 

[mansr]

both posit fields that pervade all of space

Ether was supposed to be a substance, not a field.

 

[Tks]

I love it when you guys start trying to out-philosophy each other, spitting out reams of sentences that make no sense. LOL

And BTW,, God Bless Ya'll

Heard there was some drama with you or something, everything good? I don't know anything about it, but I thought you might've taken a break or something.

 

[Sal1950]

Heard there was some drama with you or something, everything good? I don't know anything about it, but I thought you might've taken a break or something.

No big shakes, it was the OP that started this thread for the sole purpose of throwing bricks at me. He started a battle of wits but arrived unarmed. I didn't take any break though? He's forever gone and I'm still here. Case closed. LOL

 

[RayDunzl]

He's forever gone

Again?

 

[Wes]

Ether was supposed to be a substance, not a field.

ah... but what is a field?

it is just a substance that can pop in and out of existence periodically with a bunch of vectors drawn to entice the no-particularists...

people thought we were on a giant turtle, but NOW we realize we are riding on the back of a giant porky-pine whose quill tips emerger here and there, quantized one way or another

it is a charming thought, and you can spin it anyway you want

 

[mansr]

ah... but what is a field?

A convenient mathematical model, mostly.

Field/wave/particle models aside, the aether theory wasn't that bad given what was known at the time. Experiments proved it wrong, new theories were formulated, and science moved on. Nothing remarkable there.

 

[MRC01]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, ...

It is surely obvious to some, yet perhaps not all, so it's worth attributing this quote to Emerson.

 

[gikigill]

both posit fields that pervade all of space

Difference is one is proven to exist at a given set of parameters, the other just doesn't come into existence no matter what theoretical or mathematical or physical model you construct.

Ones real, the other a work of fiction. You could replace Ether with Unobtainium and it would make no difference.