|
Racism
May 29, 2013 19:58:44 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 29, 2013 19:58:44 GMT 1
Obviously there is no widely-accepted scientific definition of race, mrsonde is clearly unable to provide one. Explain what is wrong with the one I've already given you eight times? You don't seem to appreciate that scientific definitions are operational. You seem to believe they describe entities. Do a search and provide us with the scientific definitions of space, time, energy, field, force...please. Citation needed! The reason for this putative scientific revolution is totally inadequate - there's not a scientist in the world that counts the number of genes involved in a change in phenotype before granting it significance. Is it, is it. So in my hypothetical line-up, you're able to distinguish an aborigine from a Chinaman because you've absorbed a "social construct", are you? You don't think it might be because they look different? And: why do they look different, do you suppose? Nonsense. How the hell do you think racial origins are identified? You have an absurdly over-confident estimation of articles you dredge up from the internet. The scientific definition of race is the one I've given you. If you wish to refute it, all you have to do is tell us that you would not be able to recognise racial categories, and explain how this recognisiton does not in fact coincide with genetic differences. If you can't do that, it doesn;t matter a jot how many texts you present stating the contrary - experience trumps ideology, anyday, in any field, in any science. Are you as completely clueless as the writer of this article appears to be? Do you seriously believe for a minute this has anything to do with the matter? This woman's a moron. She can't even write prose that supports her own case. Utter bollocks. Modern researechers have no difficulty whatsoever in identifying racial origins. It's how migrations are traced, and historical evolutions of populations are analysed. These sort of Stalinist pronouncements are not "science". Can you distinguish an Aborigine from a Causcasian or can you not? Do you agree this distinction is due to classifiable differences in their genomes or not? A simple yes or no will suffice. I've answered the ludicrous book review you think is so worthy elsewhere, but I'll copy it here because you're obviously confused enough already: All of that is utter politicised nonsense - its claims are based on simple misunderstandings of how the genome works, that's all. Races have never been distinguished on the basis of blood group - though such racial differences undoubtedly do exist. That there is variation between individuals is obvious. The variation between humans and chimpanzees is about 3% of the genome. This means nothing: and these people know it means nothing: it's merely smoke and mirrors designed to fool and comfort wishful idealists like you and fascinating, who for some reason think the world would be better if everybody hid their eyes and pretended "races" don't exist. What matters is the specific gene groups that distinguish those races - and of course "we would expect" these to be a tiny minority of the overall genome. Anyone who understands the first thing about the subject would, anyway - anyone who knows that a difference in the genome doesn't mean two alien species! What "virtually" means in the "no significance" claim there should be obvious - it's that "virtually" that enables anyone to instantly and "unambiguously" distinguish an Australian Aborigine from a North European caucasian. Venter claiming in his usual iconoclastic and unscientific manner that this difference has "no genetic basis" is as absurd as most of his other deliberately provocative polemical pronouncements. One minor mistranslation in one specific gene results in cystic fibrosis, for example - to claim that because this is about one millionth of the size of the entire genome and therefore "has no significance" or "no basis in genetics" is not only absurdly non-scientific and ignorant of the whole subject, it's also deeply offensive and dangerous. If he doesn't think these differences have no genetic basis, what on earth does he suppose they're caused by? Or you, indeed? How do you think these "traits" such as skin colour, hair form, nose shape, blood type (Huh? Some mistake, surely?), muscle protein, cell shape, cell type, etcetera etcetera - the list is actually endless - happen to "cluster in specific populations" if they're not down to genetic proximate similarity? Diet, is it? All this is reminiscent of Stalin and Lysenko, or Hitler and his attitude to "science", for that matter. Keep such totalitarian nonsense to yourself, thanks.
|
|
|
Racism
May 29, 2013 20:02:10 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 29, 2013 20:02:10 GMT 1
One can only regret that (a) Thomas Kuhn's "eminent" physicist had been so poorly educated (he would have failed A level chemistry in the 1960s) and (b) that the statement of one physicist, however eminent, should be considered definitive of the working terminology of all of us. ;D ;D ;D "Us"! Not if you've studied science you wouldn't.
|
|
|
Racism
May 29, 2013 23:49:31 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 29, 2013 23:49:31 GMT 1
Do I smell a historian or philosopher of science?
|
|
|
Racism
May 30, 2013 7:03:27 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on May 30, 2013 7:03:27 GMT 1
Philosophy of Science would constitute my "credentials", yes. ;D But I strongly suspect I've done a great deal more practical "science" than you have, alan! Not that I'm dissing business in any way - or you. But please don't give us any of this "I'm a scientist" or "I've read physics textbooks" bullshit. There's no one stupid enough here to believe that means a thing.
|
|
|
Racism
May 30, 2013 7:53:28 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on May 30, 2013 7:53:28 GMT 1
Firstly it is that it is not widely-accepted in science as a definition of race. Remember, I said that there was no widely-accepted definition of race in science. As I said many times before, if you disagree with that, all you have to do is provide the widely-accepted scientific definition with citation. Secondly, your attempted definition is inadaquete because it simply does not tell us what a race is. If you want I will explain further, but only if you point out to me exactly where those 8 definitions (or 8 times of one definition) are. OK, just point out 3. YES. (But that is just my opinion. There is no evidence that there is a widely accepted scientific opinion). As said before, I would much rather there was a scientific definition of race. I also look at people with obvious physical differences, which are obviously inheritable, over many generations. So I say - "how can it be that they cannot be classed in different racial groups by their genes, since their obvious characteristics must have genetic basis?" But I try to find a widely accepted scientific definiton of race and I cannot find any. But, as shown, I can find plenty of places which say that there isn't any real scientific definition of race. Maybe all those biologists are talking "utter bollocks" or whatever, maybe the whole of science has been taken over by politically-correct campaigners for the Socialist Workers Party. But if that is the case take it up with them not with me. I am only saying that science, for whatever reason, does not now have a widely accepted definition of race. I was thinking of forensics - surely there are scientists working in law-enforcement who, when presented with a blood sample found at the scene of a murder, believed to be from the murderer - surely they can take that blood and then, using genetics, make an assessment and determine which race the person belongs to? But with a quick search I was unable to find any information regarding this. I surmise that a blood sample may allow for the some kind of probablilty percentage of a person being of a certain race, but I am not even sure about that. I only found this discussion, but that is only about someone determining race from a skeleton. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.htmlAddendum: Found this: "forensic scientists use various color and nitrate tests, as well as heredity principles to estimate things like age, sex, and race. No exact determinations are possible [my emphasis], but clotting and crystallization help estimate age, testosterone and chromosome testing help determine sex, and certain ( controversial) racial genetic markers involving protein and enzyme tests helps determine race." From faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/425/lecture13.htmSpace is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction. Of course physicists use the concept of spacetime. Don't have time right now to look up the others.
|
|
|
Racism
May 30, 2013 8:16:36 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on May 30, 2013 8:16:36 GMT 1
Philosophy of Science would constitute my "credentials", yes. ;D That explains quite a lot, in my experience. The inverted commas are duly noted. Thank you.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 3, 2013 16:44:29 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 3, 2013 16:44:29 GMT 1
Firstly it is that it is not widely-accepted in science as a definition of race. Remember, I said that there was no widely-accepted definition of race in science. As I said many times before, if you disagree with that, all you have to do is provide the widely-accepted scientific definition with citation. Nonsense. It's not only widely accepted, it's universally accepted. I do not need to give you a citation - I gave you a hypothetical test which you, every scientist, and everyone you know would pass, demonstrating beyond any question that this is how "race" is defined, and understood to be defined. What you need to do is provide one citation, from anywhere, of any scientist that disagrees with this definition. You will not, I guarantee it, find one scientist, anywhere, who has ever been willing to go on the record with a statement contradicting my definition. One that says, for example, that Australiian Aborigines are not more genetically related to each other than they are to, say, a Chinese person, or a North European - all of whom are more closely genetically realted to each other in the same way that Aborigines are. Not one. That is not what they're disputing. Yes it does. As I've pointed out to you before, twice, you simply fail to understand what a definition is. You're not asking for a definition, what a word means, how it is significantly used, but for an exhaustive encyclopedia entry. And I've told you - if you want a course on genetics, and how they're used to identify and trace racial orgins, feel free to learn about it. I told Jean when she made the same fatuous point: In one of the first dictionaries of the world, in 1604, Cawdrey's definition of crocodile was: a type of beast. The same as his definition for lion. Not wrong, and fundamentally no different from what modern dictionaries do - just not as specific as it might be, that's all. What you are demanding for adequacy is a definition that distinguishes from every other classification we might use on the basis of genetics. This could indeed be given - to differentiate from Jean's red haired or blue eyed, or tall or fat or whatever. Hundreds of specific genes and thousands of gene markers, used to distinguish racial origins. But as I've told you - go and learn about it yourself! Why you expect me or anyone else should provide you with education on demand, without the slightest indication you're putting any effort in yourself (on the contrary - you already know all about it!) - is quite beyond me. You just go round and round and round. If anyone is stupid enough to answer your repetitive queries, you simply ignore the response - then ask the question again a week later. It's not your "opinion". Or if it is, it's everybody else's "opinion" too. And it is completely supported by science - the reason you CAN is because there's a genetic differentiation that you're recognising: otherwise you wouldn't be able to do it. It is incumbent on you to find evidence that there is no widely accepted scientific opinion to this effect. Such evidence needs to be substantive, not just some ideologue's political rantings - it needs to consist of thousands of scientific papers successfully arguing why those racially significant gene markers are not in fact identifying racial origins, as the whole of science now believes - how such an error could possibly have been made. Who cares what you'd "rather"? What has that got to do with anything? But they are so classed, you daft bat! Not the whole of it. But there's a significant section - there has been since the 60s. Not as many as there used to be, but they're still very vocal - as you've discovered, by your comically one-sided google searches! And your inability to think for yourself, of course. Oh, no, no. It's for you to take it up with the fields of science that operate entirely under the definition and understanding of race that I've given you - thousands of scientists, all plodding away, tracing the origins of the human species through genetic mapping. These vastly outnumber the political ideologues you've managed to dig up. More to the point - they're the ones actually doing the work, not just mouthing off - testable, confirmable, comprehensible work. I've given it to you. Find one scientist who disagrees with it. The only person you've quoted so far contradicts herself, and ends up asserting the definition she set out trying to disprove. Blood samples are rarely conclusive - but sometimes, with specific varieties; and they can give a mathematically precise probability distribution. There are much clearer cues - semen, hair, for example, because of, of course, DNA. Which will tell the coppers precisely the racial make-up of their perpetrator - to the extent of our current knowledge, at any rate, which is very considerable, and in this instance perfectly adequate. You don't seem too clever when it comes to doing searches, I must say. May I suggest a much quicker route in future? Look for the opposite of what you want to find. This is how science works. So instead of trawling through political tracts vaguely supporting your case, look instead for those that would refute it: in this case, are there any genetic markers that identify specific racial origins? Then you'll find thousands of pages, you'll see. ;D Oh, really?! And how would that work, then, if there's no genetic basis to any race? Where do they derive this probability percentage from? Just make it up, do they? Just mysteriously guess it? Depends what you're talking about: what the "tests" are testing. If they've got a hair follicle, or a sperm sample, or in most cases a saliva smear, they can determine exactly the sex and race. In the case of sex it's merely a question of: is there a Y-Chromosome? (Slightly more complicated, but not much.) In the case of race, there are hundreds of gene markers they can use, and build an accurate family tree, stretching across the globe through thousands of years to a highly localised area of the Earth. "Help"? Are you really that clueless about genetics? Nothing controversial about them. Many markers occur only in certain races - at least, in all the thousands of tests done, and there is no reason whatsoever to suppose this will ever be falsified, because the underlying mechanism is thoroughly understood - these genes identify this or that race because they've been inherited. According to Leibniz. Which Leibniz knew nothing of, and leads to totally different empirical observations, and a totally contradictory metaphysical definition to the one you've given. Don't bother - if you can't see my point, you probably never will. Certainly not if you had to "look it up", and believed on that basis that this was a defintive definition! What would you have done if you'd stumbled upon instead a definition of space according to a Lorentzian conception, or Poincare, or Berkeley, or Descartes, or Spinoza, or Newton, or Kant, or Mach, or Einstein, not to mention Lobachevsky or any of the other geometrically derived definitions! I can smell the acrid smoke now: "Does not compute, does not compute..."
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 3, 2013 19:33:17 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 3, 2013 19:33:17 GMT 1
No need for a search
Space: the manifold of orthogonal vectors with which we parametrise the object under consideration. 3D geometric space is the most familiar, but concepts such as inverse space, k-space and chroma space are useful in science and technology
Time: that which separates subsequent events
Energy: integral of force over distance, or any other parameter with the same dimensions (this is a good one for beginners, because you can relate the torque in a watch spring to the kinetic energy it can release)
Field: a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time (OK. I cheated on that and looked up Wikipedia because I was in danger of wandering off into algebra instead of physics). Interestingly, we are generally more aware of spatially or temporally variant fields than of homogeneous fields.
Force: rate of change of momentum (as defined by Newton), or any other parameter with the same dimensions.
What's the problem? Everyday words with unequivocal meanings (except to philosophers, admittedly).
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 6:21:01 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 6:21:01 GMT 1
No need for a search Space: the manifold of orthogonal vectors with which we parametrise the object under consideration. 3D geometric space is the most familiar, but concepts such as inverse space, k-space and chroma space are useful in science and technology Under this definition time is not differentiated under special relativity. You also have a hidden circularity involved in your term "orthogonal". Lobachevsky's "orthogonal" is not the same as Euclid's. You can distinguish them using arithmetic but you only translate this into a geometry by asserting your integers represent angles - that is, your definition of "space" has already made use of a notion derived from your definition! Again - a circularity necessarily involved in your "subsequent". Or antecedent, for that matter. If you wish instead to define it relativistically, as an axis in a Minkowski diagram, then a) what is subsequent or antecedent is an arbitrary matter, and b) this is not at all what is ordinarily meant by "time"! (which corresponds somewhat closely to your definition.) Nor is it by any means clear why such a theoretically derived definition of "time" should be considered adequate when it quite clearly gives no account of the experiences that have led to that "ordinary" understanding. Well, in that case you have to first define "force" - and there are several different (conceptually incompatible) definitions of what that means. Most of them these days entirely depend theoretically on a transfer of energy; so your definition is again circular. But, look, I'm not quibbling. My point was that any such definition must be theory-laden - it derives its meaning from the context of the theory that is generating it. Newton's "space" is not defined in the same way as Leibniz's, or Mach's, or Einstein's. Your definition of energy is not the same as, say, E=mc squared, and that isn't the same as E= hv. They can be shown to be related, to be equivalent, but only from without the theoretical frameworks that have generated the definitions in the first place. ;D So you think it's better to wander off into arithmetic and geometry instead? Look - again, my point is this is fine as a mathematical definition in (Maxwellian) electrodynamics (though of course it would not have satisfied Faraday or even Maxwell at all - they weren't describing a "quantity"), or even a field interpretation of Newtonian gravitation: it doesn't work for General Relativity, where the field is more fundamental than, and theoretically distinct from, space-time. As defined by Newton, yes. Now using GR one would define it as the deviation of various tensors from equilibrium; or in QED and QCD as the exchange of energy between some wavicles or other; or in string theory as something even more exotic. No problem - I'm merely pointing out that these words do not have unequivocal meanings, like any other word, everyday or not. Their contrasting (and often conflicting) definitions are derived from background theories.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 6:30:37 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 6:30:37 GMT 1
Philosophy of Science would constitute my "credentials", yes. ;D That explains quite a lot, in my experience. That is the intention of the subject, yes. I mean by "science" the actual doing of it. Practical experimentation, the elaboration of falsifiable theoretical explanations for the results, and the testing of those hypotheses. I did not mean, say, employment procured as a consequence of taking a degree in one of the "sciences"; nor did I mean, the pursuit of commerce with the "scientific community"; nor did I mean the "scientific community" - all of which are very commonly taken to mean "science" these days (as in for example "there is a scientific consensus amongst the majority of scientists...")
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 7:18:57 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2013 7:18:57 GMT 1
I have no doubt that "field" means something quite different to a farmer than to a physicist. But I am a physicist (though considering taking up farming!) so I gave the definitions I use in my work.
You need to differentiate between circular definitions and dependent definitions. Take "time" for instance. We have the definition I gave above, and an agreed method of measuring it (counting the transitions of an atomic clock). If n>0 then we have defined an event as "subsequent" with no circularity. This observation, which underpins every hypothesis of causation, distinguishes science from superstition, and explains for instance why the so-called "scientific consensus" on CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming was neither scientific nor a consensus.
You would do well not to quote string theory as it doesn't fit your definition of science.
Nor is it a good idea to dredge up ideas from the history of science. Definitions change, which is why we have international standards committees to ensure that scientific communication is unambiguous. You might say that my definition of oxygen would not be recognised by Lavoisier's antecedents, but so what?
AFAIK the business of philosophy is to tell other people that they don't understand what they are doing. This blend of arrogance and ignorance seems to find employment in two "fields": Her Majesty's Health and Safety Radiation Inspectorate, and politics, neither of which commands respect.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 8:37:13 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 8:37:13 GMT 1
I have no doubt that "field" means something quite different to a farmer than to a physicist. But I am a physicist (though considering taking up farming!) so I gave the definitions I use in my work. And in your work you evidently make use only of the concept of field appropriate to classical electrodynamics, because your definition does not apply either in relativity or quantum mechanics. I'm not disputing your definition. I'm pointing out that it has application only within the limited field in which it receives its meaning. Outside of that field it no longer applies, and other definitions are used - and as I've pointed out before, those definitions, derived from theories that are either alternative or elaborated in another field, can not only be incompatible in an incommensurable sense, they can also directly contradict it. For example, your definition of time above, and your "agreed method of measuring it", do not apply in Relativity. There even the transitions of an atomic clock will give different readings in different reference frames, dependent entirely on the relative motion of the measurer. As for the "hypothesis of causation", this too is not relevant in that field - actually, it's not applicable even in the Newtonian definition you've given. Causation plays no role in Newtonian theory - or any other physical theory, as a matter of mathematical fact. For that you need thermodynamics, and a very convoluted and precious argument about entropy. I haven't defined science. All I've done is given a description of what I do, in contrast to other common definitions. I presume you mean string theory is not falsifiable? Not practically, yet, I agree. But then most of our other fundamental theories aren't. ;D Whyever not? I suppose you're one of those philosophically illiterate "scientists" who are also totally ignorant of the history of "their" subject? A very common failing, but very dangerous, if you want to do worthwhile science and understand what it is you're doing. No, that's historically, philosophically and scientifically untrue. International standards define the units of measurement in the parameters we use, not the parameters themselves. They could only do the latter if they were foolish enough to believe that we'd arrived at a final theory of everything, that explained everything, and never in principle needed any modification or overthrowal. And if you'd ever learnt a thing about the history of science, you'd know that circumstance is very unlikely to ever happen. So - what I've said. Your definition of oxygen is theory dependent. Or maybe you're one of those philosophical and historical naifs who think science has discovered the "truth" about nature? That's certainly a large part of it. Saying, more to the point. But of course, this isn't the whole story. It also has a more constructive task - unearthing errors in understanding is a very effective route to achieving it: the elaboration of an understanding that is free of them. No, no. The arrogance and ignorance you speak of finds its most common occurrence amongst scientists, by a very long way. Only a certain variety of religious fundamentalist come close to competing with them. Physicists in particular. The Faradays and Einsteins and Feynmans are very rare beasts. Normally physicists seem occupationally plagued with the delusion that what they're taught is the truth, and what's been theoretically devised to explain observations is the only correct way to account for those observations. The psychological need to believe this illusory comfort blanket of security is very largely why those people have become physicists in the first place, actually. Not curiosity, but the need to know - for which read: be right.It's this psychological drive that accounts for the typical scientist's arrogant and ignorant delimitation of reality into merely those aspects they can mathematically describe - everything else they either ignore or fatuously declare is unreal. Like you and your absurd misunderstanding of colour, for example - everything we experience about it you ignore completely, to the point that you even believe that this "really" equates to the tiny aspect that we can mathematically analyse. The rest doesn't even register with you. No criticism of you in particular - as I say, it's a very rare scientist who doesn't share this automatic arrogance and ignorance.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 13:34:58 GMT 1
Post by alancalverd on Jun 4, 2013 13:34:58 GMT 1
I learn something every day. Today I learned that the quantum mechanics of magnetic resonance imaging is wrong because we don't use the correct definition of a field. Beats me how we ever got the machines to work.
You have clearly never worked in the field or spoken to anyone who has. We spend a lot of time defining quantities before setting out how they are to be measured. Or perhaps you haven't understood the word "parameter"? It's very commonly misused.
Which is why we apply a relativistic correction (among others) to GPS-directed precision approaches. It isn't a matter of redefining time (the entire system depends on similar atomic clocks behaving similarly), but appreciating the effect of time dilatation by relative motion.
tautology?
Are you psychic? I haven't given you my definition of oxygen.
You seem not to have encountered many scientists or HSE inspectors in your life. I was not taught anything about truth, only how to apply the scientific method to my observations and hypotheses. Scientific knowledge is the residue of disprovable hypotheses that have not yet been disproved: it changes from day to day, and we live with it much as sailors live with the wind and tide. Some hypotheses appear to be very robust and a hypothesis that does not degenerate to common observation in common circumstances tends to have a short life. Truth is quite different. It is something that the man on the Clapham omnibus takes for granted, but baffles philosophers.
The fact that I don't choose to discuss something with you doesn't imply that I ignore it, or don't discuss it with knowledgeable people. Try "Logic 101" for an explanation.
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 15:19:35 GMT 1
Post by fascinating on Jun 4, 2013 15:19:35 GMT 1
No need for a search Space: the manifold of orthogonal vectors with which we parametrise the object under consideration. 3D geometric space is the most familiar, but concepts such as inverse space, k-space and chroma space are useful in science and technology Time: that which separates subsequent events Energy: integral of force over distance, or any other parameter with the same dimensions (this is a good one for beginners, because you can relate the torque in a watch spring to the kinetic energy it can release) Field: a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time (OK. I cheated on that and looked up Wikipedia because I was in danger of wandering off into algebra instead of physics). Interestingly, we are generally more aware of spatially or temporally variant fields than of homogeneous fields. Force: rate of change of momentum (as defined by Newton), or any other parameter with the same dimensions. What's the problem? Everyday words with unequivocal meanings (except to philosophers, admittedly). Alan, can you do us favour and provide one for RACE (human classification) ?
|
|
|
Racism
Jun 4, 2013 16:57:57 GMT 1
Post by mrsonde on Jun 4, 2013 16:57:57 GMT 1
I learn something every day. Today I learned that the quantum mechanics of magnetic resonance imaging is wrong because we don't use the correct definition of a field. Beats me how we ever got the machines to work. Your definition of "field" had nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics: it was entirely Newtonian in all of its terms. If you're going to try to extend it to quantum mechanics, you need to drastically modify your definition of space (and time) - then you can talk about phase space and Hilbert space, and you can include standard parameters like velocity and momentum under your umbrella of "field". But all that's entirely unnecessary to make MRI work. Really? You spend a lot of time defining "quantities" that are then standardised by international scientific committees, do you? Give me an example of such a revolutionary "quantity" then, if you would? Personally, I get the impression you're suffering somewhat from delusions of grandeur! Not only are you now responsible for the invention of MRI, you're also able to invent ad hoc entirely new fundamental physical parameters in the universe! By your use I took it to mean a dimension. I see no room for "misuse" - what I don't see is how you're able to invent new dimensions that require new systems of standardised measures by the international scientific community. Nor do I see how such agreement could ever be reached - how do they do it? Yes, it is. In Relativity there is no "time" separate from "space". Its definition as an orthogonal dimension on a continuum has no analogous reference in the conceptual framework of your definition. Under this theory, you lose any universal agreed "separation". In fact, you lose any universal agreed temporal order - what event is subsequent or antecedent to any other is a matter of perspective, and will differ according to the relative motions of the reference frames chosen - one observer will measure event A as happening before event B, another will reverse the order. You can muddle your way through by "corrections", of course, in the very limited sense of making the small adjustments required in the relatively insignificant relative motions of satellites and the Earth - or indeed of their gravitational interaction. But you can do so only by using the mathematical apparatus of Relativity theory, and if you want to define the terms you are then using - space, time - then you must also "correct" the definitions appropriate to the Newtonian conception you've relied upon. Because, of course, the two theoretically derived definitions imply different values for any actual measurement of them you make - which is why you're having to make the "correction". They are not behaving similarly though - that's why you're having to make the correction. One is ticking more slowly than the other. And how you know it's the satellite rather than the Earth is because the satellite has accelerated, and is accelerating - which is not relative motion at all. You don't need to. As you say, it's different from Lavoisier's, which was different from Priestley's - that's all we're talking about. HSE inspectors, no. I've studied thousands of scientists, on the other hand, and personally known dozens of them. Well, it's a nice idea in theory. But in actual practice scientists do nothing of the sort, of course - as Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and a host of others have thoroughly analysed. Degenerate? I don't follow what you mean. Are you suggesting that quantum and relativity theory are commonly observed to work in common circumstances? The man on the bus takes a great many things for granted, including his general lack of understanding of what "truth" means. Philosophers are baffled by the notion because it's baffling. It was the extent that you did discuss it that was the "ignoring" part. You assumption was that the cones' ability to distinguish various bandwidths of light in any way accounted for the meaning of "colour". Nearly every scientist for the past 300 years has done the same, so you're in good company. Logic? How on earth do you reach that conclusion? I appreciate that you have no philosophical knowledge, so don't really understand what these terms like axiom and logic mean, but even so - how is it that you suppose logic can explain how we experience colour?
|
|