Is BAUT for Experts Only?

[captain swoop]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't know, arguments about climate science seems to be one issue where "sounding like you understand" carries a lot of weight, even on the BAUT.

If the climate threads were in a forum with the same rules as ATM or CT then I think you would see something different.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I don't know, arguments about climate science seems to be one issue where "sounding like you understand" carries a lot of weight, even on the BAUT.

I'd say it was the opposite. That is one area where even knowing what you're talking can fail to carry much weight in a discussion on BAUT. For me anyway, it's too difficult to distinguish the bad science from the good. In fact, climate change one of the areas where I'd like to see credentials before I place a personal value on someone's argument. It's just too easy for some members to make a reasonable-sounding-even-if-totally-bogus argument.

[captain swoop]

because there is no compulsion to support the argument in the Science and Technology like we have in ATM or CT. There are several threads in this forum discussing this very point.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by sirjon

I am wondering if this forum is an exclusive arena, only for gladiators w/ mathematical prowess and specialists w/ Ph. D. Degrees, just to display and show their arsenals of highly advance scientific knowledge.
I felt offended by that guys (I will not mention their names). First, that guy who made a comment that the only math equation I can show is that “ a = 9.8m per sec per sec” and that other guy that told me to stop in sharing my views and dared me to take up a course in Physics ( I taught America is a free country?). You know what guys, ordinary people like me want experts who can share or explain things in simpler ways as what Prof. Stephen Hawking did. I admire Prof. Hawking for three good reasons. First, he is an “open-minded” person by taking the advice of someone who told him that each equation that he includes in his book could halve the sales. Second, he is a “sensible” person by stating in the acknowledgments of his book “A Brief History of Time”, “…yet the basic ideas about the origin and fate of the Universe can be stated w/out math in a form that people w/out scientific education can understand”(see p.vi). He was even quoted “…I hope that will not scare half of my potential readers”, the result – a best selling book. Third, he is a “brave” man – it did not matter to him if it would hurt his reputation by inserting the words “a trick”, in his proposal of a quantum theory of gravity (see pp.135-136) which in the world of Science, could be branded as a “non-acceptable excuse”. Unlike Marquis de Laplace who, maybe, not only decided that it was a crazy idea to think that light could be dragged by gravitational attraction but possibly, he was worried by the impact of such idea in his reputation (see p.82 ).
I don’t want to think that because I came from a third world country and my knowledge is not at that high level, I am not welcome to share my views and opinions about a certain topic in this forum. I regret such kind of prejudice. The story of George Simon Ohm is one classical example of such prejudice. He was ridiculed by his own fellow countrymen (German scientists) because of his dubious math but at the end, the Ohm’s Law became a very significant mathematical formula in the study of electricity and electronics (see p.205, “History of Science and Technology” by Vicente et al, Uni-Ed Inc, Phil.,1988).
I admit that I had offended and hurt the feelings of some people in giving that title, “No Need To Be Super…” (I was not allowed to mention it in this forum or I might be accused again of promoting that blog).I wish to apologize to them and ask for forgiveness. As a sign of respect, I changed the main title and deleted some of the offending statements. But I decided not to take it out from that website, just consider it as a petty sequel of Prof. Hawking’s book, a lay man’s understanding and views of a different kind of gravity.

.
Stop the bus, here and now, history in hindsight is no way to the future.
Dont stop at GSO, consider Pasteur and many others that break the frontiers of
scientific thinking. New and alternative ways of thinking has always been challenged,
and so it should be. How else can we determine what we understand as truth.
Your interest in gravity leads me to a question, where is negative gravity?
I am a member of this site and forum because I value and trust the feedback I get
from members on this site when discussing issues against the mainstream of current
opinion. With respect, suggest you evaluate your reason for contact with this site.
Nokton

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

because there is no compulsion to support the argument in the Science and Technology like we have in ATM or CT.

Yeah...that's a "problem" for "some" of us. Can you imagine Ken G. "proving" his ideas when all of his ideas are esoteric?

What a "joke".

[djellison]

You don't have to be an expert.

But you DO have to be prepared to say "Don't know".

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by Moose

An argument being a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but fallacy helps to define what evidence is required in order to satisfy it. To use a programming compiler metaphor, a fallacy is a warning, not an error.

A fallacy does indeed make the argument wrong -- in the sense that it is an invalid argument.

That does not necessarily make the conclusion false, but it does make the argument itself wrong.

It is more than a warning. It is an error of logic. That makes all conclusions drawn from the argument invalid -- you know not whether the conclusion is true or false, except perhaps by means of a different argument. You might get a "printout" from your program (to use a metaphor from the early days of computing) but it is good for little except starting a camp fire.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

A fallacy does indeed make the argument wrong -- in the sense that it is an invalid argument.

That does not necessarily make the conclusion false, but it does make the argument itself wrong.

A fine example of this is the "appeal to inappropriate authority".
I might quote Einstein's views on politics or philosophy, for example, to bolster an argument on one of those topics. The mere fact that I have quoted an inappropriate authority doesn't make my (or Einstein's) conclusion false: even a complete idiot may utter a true statement, after all.

Grant Hutchison

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

A fine example of this is the "appeal to inappropriate authority".
I might quote Einstein's views on politics or philosophy, for example, to bolster an argument on one of those topics. The mere fact that I have quoted an inappropriate authority doesn't make my (or Einstein's) conclusion false: even a complete idiot may utter a true statement, after all.

Grant Hutchison

In the case of Einstein you get no points for appealing to authority, but you may get many points for relevant wit. Einstein has some great quotes, that are only the better because they came from someone fairly intelligent with a bad haircut.

My favorite:

I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don’t have to. – Albert Einstein

You may know this already, but in any case there is a wonderful book of quotes from Einstein published by the Princeton University Press.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

In the case of Einstein you get no points for appealing to authority, but you may get many points for relevant wit. Einstein has some great quotes, that are only the better because they came from someone fairly intelligent with a bad haircut.

My favorite:

I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don’t have to. – Albert Einstein

You may know this already, but in any case there is a wonderful book of quotes from Einstein published by the Princeton University Press.

Hi DrRocket, do not even attempt to trash Albert, rather understand the man,
and his influence on modern physics, and his contribution to our understanding
of the universe as we know it.
If you want to pick a bone with Albert, here is one, his response to quantum theory,
'god does not play dice with the universe', work it out.
Nokton.

[tdvance]

didn't sound like "trashing" to me!

[Paul Beardsley]

Nor me.

[slang]

Albert of Monaco? There was no trashing of him, nor of any other Albert I know.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by nokton

If you want to pick a bone with Albert, here is one, his response to quantum theory,
'god does not play dice with the universe', work it out.
Nokton.

I like Bohr's reply to that better: "Einstein, quit telling God what to do". Or, another variant of that "Quit telling God what to do with his dice.".

[nokton]

Originally Posted by Tensor

I like Bohr's reply to that better: "Einstein, quit telling God what to do". Or, another variant of that "Quit telling God what to do with his dice.".

Thakyou Tensor,
Another variant of that scenario is the problem of trying to explain
evolution without a god creation, or a chance explanation by the atheists.
Both are in the same camp. Forgive me moderators, am out on a limb here.
Rather like in the middle ages, when so called witches were burned, and all
created by superstition.
Darwin but scratched the surface of a code within the genetic code.
A code not produced by chance, or a god, but by something that scares the pants
off me.
Nokton

[slang]

Originally Posted by nokton

Another variant of that scenario is the problem of trying to explain evolution without a god creation, or a chance explanation by the atheists.

There is no division in camps as you describe in the study of evolution. While it may well be true that the majority in the field might be atheist, there are also many who subscribe to one religion or another. The ID people, who subscribe to the idea that you seem to propose, are a very minor fringe group, and as yet they have been unable to produce a scientific theory or hypothesis. In fact, they only thing they spend their time on, is attack perceived "problems" with evolution. Problems that always, on closer inspection, turn out not to be.

[Paul Beardsley]

(To nokton)
Your post might be in violation of the rules, but I can't honestly tell as I haven't a clue what you're trying to say!

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by nokton

Darwin but scratched the surface of a code within the genetic code.

Darwin had no idea about the genetic code, he knew that traits are inherited from the parents but he didn't know how.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I'd say it was the opposite. That is one area where even knowing what you're talking can fail to carry much weight in a discussion on BAUT. For me anyway, it's too difficult to distinguish the bad science from the good. In fact, climate change one of the areas where I'd like to see credentials before I place a personal value on someone's argument. It's just too easy for some members to make a reasonable-sounding-even-if-totally-bogus argument.

,
Take it easy, reasonable sounding is not within your remit, science and logic are.
You can seperate the bad science from the good, your mind is the arbiter of
what you know and understand. Rely on it, and do not be possessed by a fools
gold of knowledge that is tainted by the many desires of man to explain what is not
explainable.
Nokton.

[nokton]

Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley

(To nokton)
Your post might be in violation of the rules, but I can't honestly tell as I haven't a clue what you're trying to say!

Hi Paul,
What I am trying to explain, is that evolution is nothing to do with a god, nor
is it to do with chance. Evolution is driven by a program within the genetic code
that is adaptive to local conditions within its environment. It is self learning.
Paul, despite previous mass extinctions, the lifeforms that survive do not go back
to a previous state of evolution, but rather build on the knowledge gained by the
genetic code, mammals evolved in response to the opportunity created by the
meteor impact in the Yucatan Peninsular 65 m years ago.
That is my point. The code exploits current conditions, and adapts to form more
complex life forms. Paul, within a bird are the genes of a dinosaur, with a little
tweeking we can recreate its origin.
Nokton

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by nokton

Hi DrRocket, do not even attempt to trash Albert, rather understand the man,
and his influence on modern physics, and his contribution to our understanding
of the universe as we know it.
If you want to pick a bone with Albert, here is one, his response to quantum theory,
'god does not play dice with the universe', work it out.
Nokton.

You misunderstand me. I have nothing but admiriation for Albert.

I actually do like that quote. It is a true quote.

I have no bone to pick with the man. Even his opposition to quantum mechanics was rooted in strict scientific integrity. He may have been wrong, but his questions were good ones.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by nokton

Hi Paul,
What I am trying to explain, is that evolution is nothing to do with a god, nor
is it to do with chance. Evolution is driven by a program within the genetic code
that is adaptive to local conditions within its environment. It is self learning.
Paul, despite previous mass extinctions, the lifeforms that survive do not go back
to a previous state of evolution, but rather build on the knowledge gained by the
genetic code, mammals evolved in response to the opportunity created by the
meteor impact in the Yucatan Peninsular 65 m years ago.
That is my point. The code exploits current conditions, and adapts to form more
complex life forms. Paul, within a bird are the genes of a dinosaur, with a little
tweeking we can recreate its origin.
Nokton

Well my understanding is mostly (but not entirely) different.

The creature created from the code is well suited to its environment. If errors in the code arise when the creature reproduces, it might give the offspring some advantage over the other members of the species, in which case the offspring is likely to succeed in the reproduction stakes. If the errors give rise to disadvantages, the offspring are unlikely to reproduce. If the environment changes, errors that give rise to advantages are likely to be more beneficial than if the environment had not changed.

[HenrikOlsen]

With sexual reproduction, errors aren't necessary for the process, as any offspring will be similar but different from either parent so there's constantly differences for natural selection to work on.

Putting the process in terms that indicates that there are decisions involved, especially conscious decisions, is just plain wrong, as that's specifically what Darwin showed wasn't necessary for the process to work.

And it's got everything to do with chance.

[slang]

I still struggle to understand why religion or absence thereof needs to be mentioned in a discussion about evolution. Unless there is an ID agenda, of course.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by slang

I still struggle to understand why religion or absence thereof needs to be mentioned in a discussion about evolution. Unless there is an ID agenda, of course.

Of course I struggle to understand why we are debating this in a thread on "Is BAUT for Experts Only?" in the Feedback forum, and not in Science and Technology, but then, that's just me.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by Swift

Of course I struggle to understand why we are debating this in a thread on "Is BAUT for Experts Only?" in the Feedback forum, and not in Science and Technology, but then, that's just me.

Shouldnt this be in purple?

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Swift

Of course I struggle to understand why we are debating this in a thread on "Is BAUT for Experts Only?" in the Feedback forum, and not in Science and Technology, but then, that's just me.

The natural fate for any thread when the original topic has been exhausted is to wander off to other things.
We could take it as an indication that it might as well be closed.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

The natural fate for any thread when the original topic has been exhausted is to wander off to other things.

So it's evolved?

Let's discuss the mechanisms and implication of thread mutati[snip]

[Swift]

Well then, I guess this thread's failure to adapt to the changing environment has lead to its extinction. But no fear my friends, it will be well preserved in the fossil record. And maybe its offspring will survive in a better environment, like Science and Technology.

Oh and look.... purple!