How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
Current time: 03-25-2017, 10:35 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: nepeht
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 52
Views: 3434

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
12-27-2016, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 12-27-2016 06:00 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #46
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
(12-27-2016 12:59 PM)nepeht Wrote:  Your points, i2, are well made and well received.

#appreciation [Image: rainbow.gif] Cool

Quote:Sagan's non-involvement in the "bloody" aspects of his promotion of "science" as the new-age religion, though his perpetuation of "... unquestioning belief, by faith, denouncing empirical evidence, for hearsay instead ...including the active conversion of others to it, both as a whole and specifically..." is prodigious

i'm confused here as to whether we are in agreement; can you clarify this remark per the context of my premise that Sagan (akin with the vast majority of genuine scientists) doesn't have a religious following¹ acting upon his writings, particularly as using such writings to support the initiation of violence? [again, just to be sure: i've not read Sagan, but neither have i heard of any such crusades based upon them; and more to point, regardless, would any of that negate the accuracy of what i quoted specifically by him from a third party, rather than resort to ad hominem?] And by extension, my rejection of the statement that science is a religion? [which is not to say that some individuals and/or collective thereof, can't try to mask their religious beliefs as science; ✓ duly noting that in this instance (below), you've added a qualifying "actual"]

Quote:(i.e., based upon the Jesuit confluence of non-proven Newtonian "laws" mingling with actual science, e.g., the non-proven Newtonian "law" known as "gravity;" i.e., "laws" which remain to this day completely UN-proven and void of empirical evidence <snip solely for brevity's sake>

Again, i'm a bit confused, to perplexed. Acknowledging that i've not looked into this specifically since the same skooling that diligently sought to indoctrinatransfigure me into the religion of Government, your remark strikes me as being hyperbolic, to outright misleading.
In a cursory romp of the wwwnet, i spotted this that seems poignant to me (with a side-salad-bar?):
Robert Kramph, aka The Happy Scientist Wrote:Is Gravity a Theory or a Law?

I frequently get emails wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore.

To try this, you will need:
  • - an object to drop.
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course (unless you picked a helium balloon. In that case, gravity causes it to float upwards, by pulling downwards with more force on the air around the balloon). The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. [just as in Legalland "law" describes what things will be done via the barrel of a gun! --eye2i] For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us:

Quote:Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses.

So if we know the mass of two objects, and the distance between the center of mass of the two objects, we can calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

With this defining context, i would subsequently ask, if you have any evidence that Sagan, on the matters of science, was not open to "adapt[ation] as new technologies and new evidence" were provided to him? [by defining, i mean principally the term "law", and by context i mean pointing to this being written by a professing religious zealot fundamental scientist, and does it sound like religion's dogma?]

With the addition, per my interest in learning (adapting as new information is provided), how Newton's Science Law of Gravity has no empirical evidence in support? Is it possible you've mistaken some of the theoreticals with the laws of science?
WikiP has these excerpts:
Quote:Newton's law has since been superseded by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).

Superseded, perhaps in the manner that the law of aerodynamics can supersede gravity as general law?

Which for me, is what the general (universal?) population hears when it comes to gravity as gravitational law: i.e. you drop something (objective), it falls (empirically, persistently); you (object) jump off a skyscraper, you go down (objectively --barring of course, any subsequent parallel laws being in affect e.g. aerodynamics, propulsion, interference, etc)

And i found this enlightening:
Quote:[Newton] never, in his words, "assigned the cause of this power". In all other cases, he used the phenomenon of motion to explain the origin of various forces acting on bodies, but in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that produces the force of gravity (although he invented two mechanical hypotheses in 1675 and 1717). Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound, the definitive answer has yet to be found.

"philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" --ditto "theologians"!?
Science is a religion?? (in what terms...? now "actual"?)

--NonFignewton2i (the artist formally known as NonAdam'sApple2i circa since there was no "Adam" and no Apple², what's left?)

______________________
1. noting, of course, that since we're dealing with humans, there are always the exceptions to the archies (pronounced rules --but arguably, most that do such do such via the influence/sway of religious indoctrination/doGma/belief circa the religion of Governmentalism, no?)

2. ok, side-romp here, per the AEngloish buybulls (pronounced bibles) with their Genesis accounting, only speak of "fruit"; thus not naming said fruit, apple or otherwise --but, we're discussing this like we could Mickey Mouse's genitals, aye? So, nevermind (forgive meye vainly trying to salvage something from all that time wasted...)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-29-2016, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 12-29-2016 06:42 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #47
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
(12-12-2016 08:54 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  For the proverbial record (long nigh broken on this topic), restated: i firmly +value the awareness of the +probability of a physical condition labeled psychopathy (and/or sociopathy and/or anti-social disorder). [and like with most with such, there seems always the too-typical fall-back: "I was just Poke" Yeah, thanks, your psychopath honor] Eyebrow Raise

My primary rub with such being (as i've asked how many times now as well?): how is it distinguishable from the actions of religious zealots? actions of (true) believers in their dogma/indoctrination?
(like one who believes another doesn't believe in psychopathy? not to even get into my also being on the record as not valuing belief in the first place)
Even Stockholm Syndrome-ites? (with a touch of Milgram?)
And generation'ally, from infancy life-long indoctrinated zealots? Crusades 3.0?

While backtracking¹ (or was it gniksamkcab backmasking?) a bit this evening, i came back across this, and finding it poignant, wanted to relay it here:
Quote:Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country.

We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business. ...

Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.

Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence [humans] have ever devised.

Psychopaths? Panic
Or religious² (aka willingness to act upon intractable deeply held conviction)?

And on the matters of mere--relative to the above race violations--traffic violations? or even tax violations?
Willingness to act upon intractable deeply held conviction circa a life-long indoctrination? "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible... nothing but The Truth, so help me God."? [hand over heart, or upon the Bible, or raised towards the Flag, choice here?]

______________________
2. not intending to overlook the picking & choosing from among the expert & specialist Hare's listing, etal, for psychopathy, so as to leave out the bit about "readily bored, thus risk taking for stimulation" relative to the typical bureaucratic, to bench level we're encountering day in and day out --hmm, now where is it that such is notable as a pattern...? [hint: *cough* religious believers!?] (not to mention how rarely it gets mentioned that Hare himself states that diagnosing, for even him, is extremely difficult) [not to leave out either, what i've asked about this before as well: is this labeling challenge more about Them, the labeled, or about Us, the labelers? Nigger! vs Psycho!?]

1. i was looking for Harris' line of questioning of the value of/take on rejection of the use of the term psychopath anarchist atheist... (and yes, the reversal of the footnote numbering is intentional, not dyslexia in action) [and "yes", the Sam Harris who, imho, is still under the indoctrnation of "God" "Government", the religion (the denomination of pragmatism) --but apart from taking the ad hominem route, either has a solid argument, or doesn't; critique the points rather than the source?]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-29-2016, 07:32 PM
Post: #48
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
eYeToo, interesting post.

1) the source of the second, unattributed, quote, if you please?
2) I observe that as pertains psychopathy, you seem to hold Hare as an almost religious icon of unquestionable truth. I don't begrudge your questioning of others in the use of the term, I only question why you slavishly hold him up as the apparent sole beacon of truth in these matters. As I recall in my study of the issues quite a while back, his cohort was mostly or exclusively prisoners and I seem to recall that he himself questioned the very limited scope of the population that led him to his conclusions, limited perhaps in being able to draw sweeping societal conclusions therefrom. I point this out for your consideration in considering him as the be-all end-all of professional certainty in these matters.
3) I reiterate a point I've made numerous times before: I do so wish you would give a synopsis of the point you are trying to make rather than simply laying out the data you feel relevant and assuming that all of your audience will come to the same conclusion you have upon its viewing.

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2016, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 12-30-2016 06:52 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #49
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
(12-29-2016 07:32 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  eYeToo, interesting post.
[Image: m_highfive.gif]

Quote:1) the source of the second, unattributed, quote, if you please?

Why?
(so you can see if it's one on your list of your almost religious icons of unquestionable truth, and if not, pull another veiled ad hominem?)

i will (kindly, you see!?) reconsider, if you'll clarify to my satisfaction why that matters for you, or to the lurkers, rather than the point made standing upon it's own merits.? [see, if you please, how my crediting Sagan as the author in another thread went south, by both yourself & nepeht!?]

Quote:2) I observe that as pertains psychopathy, you seem to hold Hare as an almost religious icon of unquestionable truth.

noted: your "observation", and it "seems" to you. ✔
Perhaps you could give some evidence in support of that being your embraced perception?
(could it be prejudice on your part, via my having indeed been immersed in godism before? seems observable?) Secret

Imagine that tho, will you? One minute i don't even "believe" in psychopathy, next here i am with a priest on the topic!?

Quote:I don't begrudge your questioning of others in the use of the term, I only question why you slavishly hold him up as the apparent sole beacon of truth in these matters.

Thank you for that benevolence. [Image: bowdown.gif] Wink

What evidence can you offer in support of said "slavishly holding" him up (much less "as the apparent sole beacon of truth"?)

Might i suggest you revisit my posts on the forum on the topic specific (moreso than those slipped into other topics, as quick rebuttals, like here)?

fwiw, i don't see that i hold Hare in any particular "beacon", i've just read that he's held in esteem by others in the field, both as a pioneer and as a researchers/author, and that he's actually done clinical research, etc.
[which "no", is not akin to "holy scripture" *sigh*; rather, in the sense that science is the best method we have besides conjecture/opinion/mere claims; you know, that replication opportunity, eh?]

Why not practice your Socratic skills, and ask some questions, say, rather than "sharing" your "observations" and "Statements" and such?

i'll start: who do you consider comparable with, or better than Hare when it comes to the theory labeled psychopathy and diagnosis thereof?
And what specific errors do you attribute, or have been attributed to Hare as a principle, to primary reference? And evidence in support, if not?

Quote:As I recall in my study of the issues quite a while back, his cohort was mostly or exclusively prisoners and I seem to recall that he himself questioned the very limited scope of the population that led him to his conclusions, limited perhaps in being able to draw sweeping societal conclusions therefrom.

My memory similarly recalls that his primary clinical research (seeking data in support of a theory/hypothesis) was with prison populations as well (which could just be now two aka us that are wrong on the matter?).
Again, all i can offer you, is that he's popular, if not the most popular, and subsquently credible guy generally known on the theory, including most significantly, the usage of his "scale" for assessment. No?

side-bar: what evidence do you have to offer that psychopaths, of the societal concern variety ("BOO"), don't overwhelmingly wind up being prisoners¹, thus making those prime locales for doing actual research? [1. which is not to say they're all/only cannibals or murders; rather, that one key determining trait is (?) "rebellious against rules, need for stimulation/excitement, thus severe risk takers"?]

Quote:I point this out for your consideration in considering him as the be-all end-all of professional certainty in these matters.

"for your consideration in considering him"...? really?
regardless,
✔ noted2; ditto, same queries as given earlier (aka evidence in support, rather than your making it a general obsession observation?)?

Quote:3) I reiterate a point I've made numerous times before: I do so wish you would give a synopsis of the point you are trying to make rather than simply laying out the data you feel relevant and assuming that all of your audience will come to the same conclusion you have upon its viewing.

☑ noted (like a broken record?)
now what?
You prefer that i write differently (in more ways than just the above specific).
I'd prefer if you'd practice the Socratic Method more (along with stopping what i observe to be borderline psychopathic Panic attributes --see also, narcissistic and/or anti-social disorder actions on such lists).
Who's first?

Btw, why do you assume i am assuming? (not to worry, i won't begrudge you that either). Rather than, that a lot of times it is via my writing that i don't want to State "the point", and rather, prefer to see if others by being let in on my thinking criteria, reach a similar point (you know, on their own; imagine that!?)...

Then, like yourself, I reiterate a point I've made numerous times before: I do so wish you would...
scroll----->
(but where's the pettiness op in doing that!?)
or go back to "ignore", seeing as how effective "it is"; otherwise how are you not doing what you berate Habenae (the most) about doing, all high & mighty?

Now what?

#petty #little man (and the horse he rode in on) Stick Horse

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2016, 07:09 PM
Post: #50
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
(12-30-2016 06:47 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
scroll----->
(but where's the pettiness op in doing that!?)
or go back to "ignore", seeing as how effective "it is"; otherwise how are you not doing what you berate Habenae (the most) about doing, all high & mighty?

Is that what he was doing?

Was I sposed to pay attention?

Can anybody delegate an authority they don't have?
Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

Show me my personally signed contract wherein I consented to be governed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2016, 08:14 PM
Post: #51
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
...

*ouch*

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-30-2016, 10:16 PM
Post: #52
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism.
Was that so bad?
I think you should give your horse a rest, it's tired and thirsty.

- NonE Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-31-2016, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 12-31-2016 07:10 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #53
RE: How I found the "MarcStevens.net Forum"
(12-30-2016 10:16 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  Sam Harris, The Problem with Atheism.
Was that so bad?

Anything but the point.
Why am i not surprised.? Facepalm
(or to quote Marc):
Quote:Brickwall

Quote:I think you should give your horse a rest, it's tired and thirsty.

Be the change you wish to see...?
(guess the next question is to give you the source on that?) [Image: punk.gif]

[Image: pingpong.gif]

--NonSocraticitE

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)