|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mimusmimus Date: Aug 18, 2008 10:12
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:38:24 -0500, PV wrote:
> Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, Big Science isn't just a conspiracy theory but a
>> social phenomenon quite ripe for a kicking.
>
> Yes, what with them being so insufferably *right* all the time. Heavens
> forbid that science would demand that you can prove your claims. *
I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology and
nuclear physics, with plenty of unproven hypotheses and hypothetical
models washing around, not to mention some fairly plain frauds, in all
three (naming no names, since I simply don't feel particularly pugnacious
at the moment, and have fought some of those fights on Usenet before,
several more than once), each with their faithful.
And history, human and natural (not that I don't consider humans natural),
including biography, must be pretty much permanently immature, since
irreparable lacks of knowledge simply make it a matter of more and more
refined approximation forever.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
|
| | 174 Comments |
|
|
Author: Wayne ThroopWayne Throop Date: Aug 18, 2008 10:45
: mimus hotmail.com>
: there's an awful lot of immature sciences floating around out there,
: viz. neurology, cosmology and nuclear physics, with plenty of
: unproven hypotheses and hypothetical models washing around, not to
: mention some fairly plain frauds,
"Nuclear physics"? I mean sure, maybe more than 50 years ago it was
immature. What, you mean cold fusion or something? Or are you counting
all of particle physics as part of "nuclear physics", and talking about
supersymmetry and string theory and/or whatnot?
I study nuclear science, I love my classes,
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses.
Things are going great, and they're only getting better.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 19, 2008 10:55
mimus hotmail.com> writes:>I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology and
>nuclear physics,
Quite possibly the worst three examples you could pick. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Aug 20, 2008 06:32
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:55:15 -0500, PV wrote:
> mimus hotmail.com> writes:
>>> I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>> immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology
>> and nuclear physics,
>
> Quite possibly the worst three examples you could pick.
Can neurology describe a thought yet? (and in the "knowledge gap" left by
the immaturity of neurology, the usual frauds flourish.)
And doesn't your GUT tell you that the maturation of either cosmology or
nuclear physics would result in the immediate or rapid maturation of the
other?
Foithermore, I have an uneasy feeling that the slam-'em-together crowd in
nuclear physics may be fiddling with an infinite sequence, with
ever-higher-energy collisions just busting things into ever-finer pieces
(it may be time to start working out the form of the sequence, which
sounds like fun).
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Date: Aug 20, 2008 09:03
mimus hotmail.com> writes:>
>
>Can neurology describe a thought yet? (and in the "knowledge gap" left by
>the immaturity of neurology, the usual frauds flourish.)
Um, Neurology is not epistomology, you goober. And Neuroscience is doing
quite well, thank you very much.
>And doesn't your GUT tell you that the maturation of either cosmology or
>nuclear physics would result in the immediate or rapid maturation of the
>other?
You are Steven Colbert and I demand your truthiness.
>
>Foithermore, I have an uneasy feeling that the slam-'em-together crowd in
>nuclear physics may be fiddling with an infinite sequence, with
Cuz you know more about physics then people who work in the field. Yessir. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Aug 20, 2008 11:42
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:03:08 -0500, PV wrote:
> mimus hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>
>> Can neurology describe a thought yet? (and in the "knowledge gap" left
>> by the immaturity of neurology, the usual frauds flourish.)
>
> Um, Neurology is not epistomology, you goober.
Thoughts are biological phenomena, the proper matter of the biological
subscience zoology's subscience neurology.
Fancy philosophers and various frauds can say whatever they want, and do;
what matters are the infrastructure(s) and infrafunction(s) of thought.
> And Neuroscience is doing quite well, thank you very much.
Can neuroscience describe a thought yet?
*snort*
Why are you indignant at the observation that neurology is an immature
science?
(I didn't say we haven't learned or don't know quite a bit.)
|
| Show full article (1.47Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David DeLaneyDavid DeLaney Date: Aug 20, 2008 10:54
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:32:39 -0400, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:55:15 -0500, PV wrote:
>> mimus hotmail.com> writes:>>> I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>>> immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology
>>> and nuclear physics,
>>
>> Quite possibly the worst three examples you could pick.
>
>
>
>Can neurology describe a thought yet?
Why would it _want_ to? Thoughts are not a neurological structure.
That's like asking "Can chemistry describe the taste of vodka yet?".
>And doesn't your GUT tell you that the maturation of either cosmology or
>nuclear physics would result in the immediate or rapid maturation of the
>other?
Well, we've got them BOTH described pretty much to a tee out past the realms
where we can currently observe or experiment...
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David DeLaneyDavid DeLaney Date: Aug 20, 2008 10:57
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:42:48 -0400, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:03:08 -0500, PV wrote:
>> mimus hotmail.com> writes:>>>
>>>
>>> Can neurology describe a thought yet? (and in the "knowledge gap" left
>>> by the immaturity of neurology, the usual frauds flourish.)
>>
>> Um, Neurology is not epistomology, you goober.
>
>Thoughts are biological phenomena, the proper matter of the biological
>subscience zoology's subscience neurology.
Mmmm. No. Thoughts are not _material_ phenomena. They are a subset of
information; they are not equivalent to the chemical processes that they
run on any more than a game of World of Warcraft is equivalent to the chips
processing it plus the electrons and holes and fields flowing through the
chips. Try again?
>Fancy philosophers and various frauds can say whatever they want, and do;
>what matters are the infrastructure(s) and infrafunction(s) of thought.
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael StemperMichael Stemper Date: Aug 21, 2008 10:26
In article <_uOdncG0_5ksgTHVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@ giganews.com>, mimus hotmail.com> writes:>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:55:15 -0500, PV wrote:
>> mimus hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> I'm not sure what exactly "Big Science" is, but there's an awful lot of
>>> immature sciences floating around out there, viz. neurology, cosmology
>>> and nuclear physics,
>>
>> Quite possibly the worst three examples you could pick.
>
>
>
>Can neurology describe a thought yet?
Why should it? You seem to have it confused with psychology or something.
To quote Merriam-Webster, neurology is "the scientific study of the
nervous system especially in respect to its structure, functions, and
abnormalities."
It's biology, not philosophy or AI research.
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: Aug 21, 2008 10:49
mimus hotmail.com> writes:>Thoughts are biological phenomena, the proper matter of the biological
>subscience zoology's subscience neurology.
Thoughts are things that certain biology does, but they are not, except in
"how they work" terms, a subject for biology. You don't fix a software bug
by clipping the leads on a resistor. Not usually, anyway.
>Fancy philosophers and various frauds can say whatever they want, and do;
>what matters are the infrastructure(s) and infrafunction(s) of thought.
Stop making meaningless meat-flapping noises. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
