Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
This from a philosopher with no special expertise on anything outside of his narrow bailiwick.
|
That's not exactly true. There is a certain brand of philosopher who turns to philosophy at a young age in a self-conscious rejection of that which would kill in order to dissect. Then there are philosophers like me who wind up in philosophy in a roundabout way. I have purposefully chosen a wide ranging scientific education. I've taken classes in everything from physics to astrophysics to geophysics to geology to meteorology to biology to wildlife biology to evolutionary biology to immunology to chemistry to organic chemistry to biochemistry to biogeochemistry. |
Yes, but what about particle physics in particular? Do you really understand the paper by Giddings and Mangano that you using as support for your argument? I don't think that it supports your argument at all, something I hope I can get into in a later post when I have time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Moreover, I have had advanced training in ethics--unlike the vast majority of physicists, if I may be allowed to hazard a guess. If you want to go to law school, you have to take ethics your first year. If you want to go to business school you have to take ethics.
|
And we see just how much good it is doing in the worlds of politics and economics!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Cripes, even dental students have to take an ethics class.
|
Suddenly I'm not so sure I want to see a dentist ever again ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
Indeed, CSU required computer science majors to take computer ethics!
|
Computer ethics? What computer ethics?
Windows Vista. Need I say more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
But if physics graduate students are required to take ethics, that's news to me. Maybe I'm wrong there.
|
Nope. No courses in ethics were ever required in my undergraduate and graduate schooling. The only philosophy course I ever took was a course in symbolic logic, which is (as I'm sure you're aware) a course intended to weed out the wannabe philosophers.
I'm very disappointed that you are pursuing this argument against the LHC so vehemently. You are the only poster here ever to defend an ATM theory well enough that I could accept it as a possibility. (The possibility that we are only seeing the top of the GRS of Jupiter and that it really is a low-pressure storm, not a high-pressure one. I don't accept it stretching all the way down to the core, however.) I think if you understood particle physics as well as you do teleology (uggh!) you would understand that the LHC poses no more risk of creating black-holes than nuclear weapons did of setting the atmosphere on fire or of strangelets (another particle accelerator doomsday scenario) gobbling up the Earth.