Yes, it's much better to transfer the cancer risk from the lungs to the mouth and esophagus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ
Given enough time this thread could morph into one where people share their own private understanding of circuit theory --- wait a minute --- isn't that what happens in other threads?
I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
It is disingenuous to call people wrong when you don't fully understand yourself.
Believing in the "Big Bang" is treading in a very grey area because religion and politics are not to be discussed here.
I think I've given my thoughts earlier in the thread. In general, unless one actually knows and understands the experimental data (which takes a lot of work and study, but anyone can do it if they're willing), understands the theories, their experimental tests, and the consequences (again, which requires work), one's speculations are not useful.
I'm not a specialist in cosmology, but at least I've done the basics of studying physics and can tell the difference between a covariant and contravariant tensor, and managed coursework in differential geometry (this was back in the Dark Ages, mind you!). If someone who actually does specialize in cosmology tells me that my understanding is incorrect, I'm not likely to sniff that my opinion is every bit as worthy and informed. If I'm interested enough, I'll go study the things where my knowledge is incorrect or incomplete rather than expect to be spoon fed by internet forum postings, especially when there's some very basic knowledge prerequisites that I am lacking.
This can be dismissed as "scientists masquerading as priests," but the sad truth is that science is not an easy and trivial field. I wouldn't expect to become a concert pianist after some casual doodling with scales, but I won't call pianists "wannabe priests."
SY's Fourth Law: "The universe is so weird and interesting, why make stuff up?"
I'm not a specialist in cosmology, but at least I've done the basics of studying physics and can tell the difference between a covariant and contravariant tensor, and managed coursework in differential geometry (this was back in the Dark Ages, mind you!). If someone who actually does specialize in cosmology tells me that my understanding is incorrect, I'm not likely to sniff that my opinion is every bit as worthy and informed. If I'm interested enough, I'll go study the things where my knowledge is incorrect or incomplete rather than expect to be spoon fed by internet forum postings, especially when there's some very basic knowledge prerequisites that I am lacking.
This can be dismissed as "scientists masquerading as priests," but the sad truth is that science is not an easy and trivial field. I wouldn't expect to become a concert pianist after some casual doodling with scales, but I won't call pianists "wannabe priests."
SY's Fourth Law: "The universe is so weird and interesting, why make stuff up?"
This dismissal of metaphysics is typical of the positivist tradition and rests largely on the dubious ideal of reducing thought and meaning to an idealized logical system, an ideal that Wittgenstein himself later rejected. To claim that the metaphysical work of Aristotole, Leibniz, Kant, Peirce, Whitehead and others is nonsensical seems rash to say the least.
Further, it's not that scientists "get to have metaphysics," but that science (and thought in general) always rests upon or presupposes some metaphysics, including the logical positivists who attempt to dismiss all metaphysics.
p.s. From your location is it safe to assume you studied at Dalhousie? (Sorry, I'm not trying to pry, it's just that I spent a little time there about 12-14 years ago.)
Last edited:
The question of the expansion of the universe is a physics question. Pulling in philosophical red herrings is not likely to shed light (as it were) on the question.
Speaking for myself, I never brought metaphysics into the discussion, others did and I simply responded to those claims (in defense of the value of metaphysics in general, not with respect to this particular question).
As for philosophy, I simply brought that into the discussion, not to offer any claims about the expansion of the universe or anything like that (which I agree is more a question for physics), but to try and justify my claim that we can and should try to express the claims of mathematics and theoretical physics in ordinary language. Any other discussions regarding the nature and importance of philosophy were again a response to other people's claims.
Quote: "The whole point is that there is no such thing as "the edge of the universe." Grammatically fine, syntax fine, physically meaningless."
"If you can't explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough" Albert Einstein.
"If you can't explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough" Albert Einstein.
How do we explain the structure of Beethoven's 9th to someone who can't read music and is tone deaf?Philosophil said:
How do we explain non-Abelian gauge theories to someone who has never seen a non-commuting operator or a group representation or a complex function?
People simply have to accept that if they wish to access some field of human knowledge then they need to satisfy the prerequisites, some of which may relate more to particular innate abilities rather than hard work.
I can see the mods adding to the list of banned subjects politics and religion the subject of physics. I
I think it's everymans right to ponder, but, DF96 is correct: some fields require you put the time in before you are able to make sense things, and in some fields, you just have to be exceptionally bright and well read to bring anything of value to the discussion.
Physics is one of those fields.
I think it's everymans right to ponder, but, DF96 is correct: some fields require you put the time in before you are able to make sense things, and in some fields, you just have to be exceptionally bright and well read to bring anything of value to the discussion.
Physics is one of those fields.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.