Philosophy Now Forum

WanderingLands wrote:No, it is really you who missed the point, which was that the fact that the scientific establishment is run by individuals who can't even answer what magnetism or energy is, let alone even understand what Quantum Mechanics is,

WanderingLands, do you understand the difference between these statements?

A. I know that p is true.

B. I know why p is true.

As far as science is concerned, the one that matters is A.
With regard to magnetism:

p=There is a force that acts on certain bodies.

A. I know that p is true.
Yes you do. It is demonstrably the case; a small piece of iron can lift a pin directly upwards, thereby overcoming the gravity exerted by an entire planet. You know that magnetism exists; scientists know it too and have measured it very, very accurately.

B. I know why p is true.
No you don't. An hypothesis may be consistent with the observable data, and any entities postulated may be symbolised in supporting mathematics, that describe the action of magnetism very well. It does not follow that the hypothesis is correct.

If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand science.

Incidentally, it is futile to say so, but Ginkgo and I are not in cahoots. I can understand why it might appear so, given the empirical data that you have with which to form an hypothesis, but the fact that we are not neatly illustrates how easily information can be interpreted in ways that are just wrong.

uwot wrote:
WanderingLands, do you understand the difference between these statements?

A. I know that p is true.

B. I know why p is true.

As far as science is concerned, the one that matters is A.
With regard to magnetism:

p=There is a force that acts on certain bodies.

A. I know that p is true.
Yes you do. It is demonstrably the case; a small piece of iron can lift a pin directly upwards, thereby overcoming the gravity exerted by an entire planet. You know that magnetism exists; scientists know it too and have measured it very, very accurately.

B. I know why p is true.
No you don't. An hypothesis may be consistent with the observable data, and any entities postulated may be symbolised in supporting mathematics, that describe the action of magnetism very well. It does not follow that the hypothesis is correct.

If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand science.

You are again still ignoring the fact that Richard Feynman still didn't answer any of the questions regarding magnetism, whether it be "why it works" or "what are its interactions". This response has nothing to do with what I am saying in regards to Feynman and QM: that they don't have clear explanations or understandings of science. It is an example of selective reading/hearing.

WanderingLands wrote:...
You are again still ignoring the fact that Richard Feynman still didn't answer any of the questions regarding magnetism, whether it be "why it works" or "what are its interactions". This response has nothing to do with what I am saying in regards to Feynman and QM: that they don't have clear explanations or understandings of science. It is an example of selective reading/hearing.

Did you actually listen to what Feynman said!? If you did and you still don't understand what he said and how it answers your 'why it works' and 'what are its interactions' then I suggest you need to stop using your 'truth process' and start a structured study of Philosophy or Physics. The latter will help you understand in a deeper way what he talks about but the former will at least let you understand what he said in that clip, as currently you clearly don't understand that you just listened to a genius explain to a layman how magnetism works and why he can't tell the lay-person why. It was a master class of how a truly brilliant mind can explain deep epistemological concepts with off the cuff analogy and reflects all his writings on Physics to the layman. What a pleasure it was to watch and listen to, so I thank you for that.

I understand that formal education is expensive now-a-days but I'm fairly sure that the Web would allow you to follow a structured Physics or Philosophy curriculum, I truly hope you do so as at present your 'studies' are leading you no-where if you cannot understand what Feynman said. At the very least you need to think about what it is you are seeking as these conspiracy theories about science and philosophy are stopping you achieving whatever it is that you want, whatever that is, that is?

Arising_uk wrote:Did you actually listen to what Feynman said!? If you did and you still don't understand what he said and how it answers your 'why it works' and 'what are its interactions' then I suggest you need to stop using your 'truth process' and start a structured study of Philosophy or Physics. The latter will help you understand in a deeper way what he talks about but the former will at least let you understand what he said in that clip, as currently you clearly don't understand that you just listened to a genius explain to a layman how magnetism works and why he can't tell the lay-person why. It was a master class of how a truly brilliant mind can explain deep epistemological concepts with off the cuff analogy and reflects all his writings on Physics to the layman. What a pleasure it was to watch and listen to, so I thank you for that.

First of all, if you are to understand what is going on with a phenomena, you have to ask why: it does not matter whether or not it is science or philosophy. If you don't understand causality, then you will have a hard time understanding the mechanics of nature. Also, Feynman in that video was hardly directly explaining the nature of magnetism; he was squirming around, giving a bunch of analogies about hospitals as to the question of "why?" (even though it is a lot easier to ask and know "why?"). The video was a sad example of the consequences of not wondering "why?" things work, as without asking "why" you have a "dilemma" in academia where we just rely on "experts" like Feynman, even though it was they who have caused the unnecessary contradictions in physics.

Arising_uk wrote: I understand that formal education is expensive now-a-days but I'm fairly sure that the Web would allow you to follow a structured Physics or Philosophy curriculum, I truly hope you do so as at present your 'studies' are leading you no-where if you cannot understand what Feynman said. At the very least you need to think about what it is you are seeking as these conspiracy theories about science and philosophy are stopping you achieving whatever it is that you want, whatever that is, that is?

Thanks, but I will stick with the Trivium and my self. I cannot and will not take any more of what academia says as it is me who is observing life, and so I should be the one who sharpens my own mind to learn new things by myself, with of course the help of sources that confirms what I have been contemplating on. I will not be simply follow what academia says, and even if it means looking into "conspiracy theories" (which itself is erroneous term), I will go independent.

WanderingLands wrote:

uwot wrote:
WanderingLands, do you understand the difference between these statements?

A. I know that p is true.

B. I know why p is true.

As far as science is concerned, the one that matters is A.
With regard to magnetism:

p=There is a force that acts on certain bodies.

A. I know that p is true.
Yes you do. It is demonstrably the case; a small piece of iron can lift a pin directly upwards, thereby overcoming the gravity exerted by an entire planet. You know that magnetism exists; scientists know it too and have measured it very, very accurately.

B. I know why p is true.
No you don't. An hypothesis may be consistent with the observable data, and any entities postulated may be symbolised in supporting mathematics, that describe the action of magnetism very well. It does not follow that the hypothesis is correct.

If you cannot understand that, you cannot understand science.

You are again still ignoring the fact that Richard Feynman still didn't answer any of the questions regarding magnetism, whether it be "why it works" or "what are its interactions". This response has nothing to do with what I am saying in regards to Feynman and QM: that they don't have clear explanations or understandings of science. It is an example of selective reading/hearing.

You said you were not going to discuss this with me, yet you take the initiative to reintroduce the topic at the first opportunity. If you listen to Feynman you will hear that he thinks the interviewer has asked him a teleological question in relation magnetism. Science cannot give any coherent explanation when it comes to explaining purpose.

As I said before, the interview takes on a different perspective if you understand the difference that exist between science and metaphysics in terms of ontology and teleology. Understanding the difference is relevant to the thread. You obviously don't want to discuss this aspect with me.

WanderingLands wrote:You are again still ignoring the fact that Richard Feynman still didn't answer any of the questions regarding magnetism, whether it be "why it works" or "what are its interactions".

On the contrary, WanderingLands. Not only have I ceded that Richard Feynman doesn't know why magnetism or QM work, I have pointed out that a defining feature of science is the admission that nobody knows those things. Here for instance:

uwot wrote:You have completely missed the point of all those quotes: science doesn't know; it does not give dogmatic answers; it does not pretend to tell the Truth. The truth about science is that it can see things happen and it can measure them. The things happen or they don't and the measurement is accurate or it isn't.

According to my understanding, that is what science is. You clearly have a different understanding.

WanderingLands wrote:This response has nothing to do with what I am saying in regards to Feynman and QM: that they don't have clear explanations or understandings of science.

If you choose not to call Nobel prize winning scientist Richard Feynman's achievements science, that's up to you, but we are then speaking a different language.

WanderingLands wrote:It is an example of selective reading/hearing.

And you are an example of a conspiracy nut, at least in my language.

WanderingLands wrote:First of all, if you are to understand what is going on with a phenomena, you have to ask why: it does not matter whether or not it is science or philosophy. If you don't understand causality, then you will have a hard time understanding the mechanics of nature. Also, Feynman in that video was hardly directly explaining the nature of magnetism; he was squirming around, giving a bunch of analogies about hospitals as to the question of "why?" (even though it is a lot easier to ask and know "why?"). The video was a sad example of the consequences of not wondering "why?" things work, as without asking "why" you have a "dilemma" in academia where we just rely on "experts" like Feynman, even though it was they who have caused the unnecessary contradictions in physics.

That video was an example par excellence of your trivium method in action!! He listened to what the person was saying, understood what it was he was asking, agreed that a 'why' question is a good one and then explained clearly that to understand answers to why questions involves context and in this case its the context of Physics if you wanted him to explain why you can 'feel' something between two opposite poles of magnets. He clearly said that, given the questioners grasp of the context, any other answer other than 'because there are magnetic forces' would be lying and he wouldn't do that. He also used analogy to explain all the above and also added the explanation that you don't puzzle or ask 'why' about why your finger won't push through a solid object and only puzzle why in the magnets case because you can't 'see' the 'object' but the answer is roughly the same, i.e. its to do with electro-magnetic forces 'repelling' and in the case of the magnets its because in iron all the electrons are arranged so that the force is amplified, hence the distance is greater than between your finger and a solid but the principle is the same. You really need to watch the video again, slowly, and think about what he is saying rather than let your confirmation bias get in the way of thinking, otherwise your attempt to use the trivium method is a waste of time. That you think he was 'squirming' is your blinkers getting in the way and your use of quotes around "expert" was not only incorrect from the position of the trivium method as you should have used 'expert' if you wished to cast aspersions, it was also incorrect as he IS THE EXPERT on matters of Light and Matter, HE is the one who developed a method of mathematical calculation that underpins the MOST SUCCESSFUL theory ever produced in Physics, i.e. Quantum Electro-Dynamics which explains ALL the interaction of Light and Matter, i.e. Photons and Electrons, to top it off he also produced a diagramatic notation to represent such things. You are an idiot if your opinion is that he doesn't think about 'Why' things happen as its pretty much all he did and he did it better than anyone since Einstein.

The reality is that you are not seeking to understand phenomena but are seeking a meaning and purpose to your life and the way you are going about it, i.e. thinking its all a conspiracy to withhold some 'Absolute Truth' from you, means you are avoiding finding it.

Thanks, but I will stick with the Trivium and my self. I cannot and will not take any more of what academia says as it is me who is observing life, and so I should be the one who sharpens my own mind to learn new things by myself, with of course the help of sources that confirms what I have been contemplating on. I will not be simply follow what academia says, and even if it means looking into "conspiracy theories" (which itself is erroneous term), I will go independent.

You are an idiot as your trivium method is exactly an academic exercise, in fact its pretty much what used to be called a liberal arts education, as such you are following academia. Now I have no doubt that your experience of education wherever it is you are has been poor, hence your railing at 'academia' and 'science' but you are not following the trivium method, you are just reading about it and then making-up any old shit to convince yourself that browsing the web for things that confirm your beliefs is critical thinking, its not, its called confirmation bias. I checked and download the Trivium book and so far you show no evidence of having applied yourself to its lessons. If I was you I'd buy the book, turn-off my computer and apply myself to its studies and then take pen and paper and observe the world, as trawling the conspiracy theory nut sites(and no these are not erroneous terms) and wiki is not being independent. Who knows? You may even come-up with something original. Best of luck but until then you should find a site where your thoughts pass muster as from a Philosophy point of view you speak a lot of nonsense to those with an academic philosophy degree as, in a large part, it is an advanced study of the trivium method. Barring that find religion if you want 'absolute truth' and a meaning or purpose, all you have to do is have faith and be dogmatic and from the looks of it your part of the way there but please stop thinking its all a big conspiracy, the only theory out there worth its salt in such matters is the 'cock-up theory'.

feynman believed in love.quote at the end of the day forget science and believe in love.richard feynman.or words to tjat effect.

I somehow doubt you mean Feynman, it sounds like something Einstein might of said though, although I doubt he would of put it like that.

no blags it was feynman he said it or words to the effecct of it in an interview. after he was diagnosed to have cancer

jackles wrote:feynman believed in love.quote at the end of the day forget science and believe in love.richard feynman.or words to tjat effect.

Gays eh!

I seriously doubt he'd say forget science and believe in love, so you'll have to find the quote as I believe that if it was said it'd be in a context.

i think he was talking in terms of family.i aint looking it up in a load of old utube.i think he ment love science but people sould be more important you know family and folks are more important.

Kay but that's a hell of a lot different from what you originally said.

love of family is not omni but is omni if ya get wot i mean.