Do not believe or act as if you believe.....

[lightgigantic]

“
Feyeraband may have attempted to revolutionize empiricism but he certainly didn't operate outside of it. Its interesting to note that anything tangible credited to his influence or suggestion has empirical backing.
”
he was a philosopher of science. And he was not revolutionizing empiricism, but pointing out that 'science' even orthodox science has made advances using so many different methologies that it is misleading to call them all empiricism. I would also disagree with that second sentence. His influence has been at a meta-level to research, so much of it is backed up by analysis, deduction, showing of examples, etc.

# Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

to be progressive, even anarchy requires guidelines.

Frankly this strikes me more as an antithesis to a dominant paradigm than a thesis (IOW a reactionary response a paradigm that is stifling as opposed to laying out a paradigm)

# This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.

anything goes .... as long as it delivers the goods.
IOW science without the demonstrative doesn't look good

# For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counter-inductively.

words like "advance" can only be in use if there are guidelines in place to grant meaning

# The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual.

once again, the power of a theory is to have the goods on the table.
For instance there isn't much credibility to the theory that the moon is made of cheese, even though it stands to upset the current status quo quite considerably.

Obviously this is an absurd take on his statements. As mentioned earlier, its things like this which make me think he is offering more of an antithesis, or a critique of existing standards .... as opposed to introducing a whole new standard

# There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.

heh

viva la revolution!

“
that's why I suggest there's a need to gauge what constitutes an "investigation"
(I think the answer lies in the normative requirements of the discipline .... much to the horror of Feyeraband I guess)
”
Bad guess, note the title of his most contentious book Against Method.

Imagine if people took the title of his book deadly seriously and rejected the standard method of reading, and instead licked the pages?

IOW one gets refamiliarized with sanity when they examine the normative guidelines that surround the issue. Of course an issue can get so corrupted by institutionalism, hegemony, or whatever as to reduce its practicality/functionality considerably. Hence there is a constant discourse of thesis being critiqued by antithesis to form a synthesis .... which then goes on to become the new thesis and so on ...
“

# Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

much like thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis is essentially anarchistic

”
Of course perhaps you meant he would be horrified by restrictions. Sure, if they were put on all scientists. He was calling for a radical expansion in potential methodologies and pointing out that, really, this had always been the case.

my point is that the nuts and bolts of science is empiricism. IOW the playing field is the senses (even though the strategies may call upon a host of mental tools such as extrapolation, logic, or even scientific politics, etc)

“
In a sense they do "convert" you.
Of course a screw driver has no need to convert your value system, but it certainly "converts" your body to the requirement of the tool's use (perhaps if you were extremely dexterous you could clasp it with your feet)
”
Or you reach for the saw, going back to your original choice. Or you starting drumming or chanting or......whatever.

given that we can't achieve by drumming or chanting what can achieve by reaching for the saw in the right way (or for that matter, chanting with a saw also may not prove so effective), each action withe each tool "converts" us as much as is practically required to do the task.

Trying to cheapen it through one too many short cuts gives results that are not only unsatisfactory but also frequently inhibiting or dangerous.

 

[Giambattista]

To me this makes it sounds like all claims can be effectively investigated by reading in the privacy of one's home. In my earlier example of meditation and its benefits this was not the case, say 50 years ago, before scientists started actually looking into meditation and did in fact find support for quite a few of the claims related to it.

A person, at that time, hearing about meditation, could not have read some documents and drawn any conclusion, except perhaps intuitively. My point is that it was rational to explore, in this case, meditation, if one had the interest, despite lack of support in the scientific literature.

Sometimes research, or at least proto-research, can exist somewhere, but no one picks up on it or does any follow-ups. It gets started, or an idea gets thrown out, but no one takes it and runs with it until many years later.

I can't comment on meditation, but other alternative practices, including herbal medicine, have often received far more attention in both Europe and especially Asian countries, where scientists seem more apt to put such treatments and techniques under scrutiny.
Certain traditional plant medicines are widely used and studied in certain countries, while in the West, it seems any such stuff really only trickles through.

So maybe the preliminary research, or even very thorough research, exists somewhere, but not through easily accessed channels, and thus is either not discovered or is ignored by the larger group?
And it depends where you live. Westernized, American culture is very secular, and dogmas that go along with the rigid, secular science institutions can inhibit exploration for as simple a notion as "Oh, that's so silly, I couldn't waste my time with that! Why, just asking about it would make me look like a joke!"

Example: it is well and good for astronomers and other scientists to speculate about extraterrestrial life, and to come up with variable laden equations (Drake) to put it in perspective, and to scan the heavens with radio telescopes looking for signals, and fantasize about their biology and their physics. But only within reason. It's generally the orthodox rule that you can't consider that someone may have actually visited, or is currently visiting the planet from somewhere else. It's an unspoken rule that "good" scientists don't do that kind of stuff, or if they dare to, they don't come to the conclusion that it is indeed a good possibility.

Of course, that mindset is certainly not restricted to humanist/materialist scientists.

Societies have dogmas, stigmas, and unspoken rules that pressure people sometimes from putting good ideas out, or even asking good questions to stimulate discussion, for fear of ridicule, whether the fear is founded or not. It used to be mostly religion that hindered science the most, as well as social equality.
And then, sometimes it becomes alright to speculate, but not too hard, or only in prescribed avenues, like the example of extraterrestrial life.

 

[wise acre]

given that we can't achieve by drumming or chanting what can achieve by reaching for the saw in the right way (or for that matter, chanting with a saw also may not prove so effective), each action withe each tool "converts" us as much as is practically required to do the task.

Trying to cheapen it through one too many short cuts gives results that are not only unsatisfactory but also frequently inhibiting or dangerous.

I read your last post and it seems to me you are taking a very similar position to the empiricists you are critical of. You just want other norms. But you don't want people to really be free to choose their norms or to have other norms than you have. When the scientist knocks your methods he is mirroring your judgments of other methods you think are fruitless.

Let's look at your concern about reading.
Most people would not be interested in suddenly trying another method. What Feyarabend means by against method is that people should not be forced to stay with one methodology. And his case is aimed at scientists.

If a few people actually did want to approach reading via other methods, they would either get bored, perhaps find sometime useful, confirm current methods are the best they can find, who knows? I can't see the loss.

Further Feyarabend is pointing out in his books that 1) people have already used a variety of methods and 2) this has been good!!!! So it is not like he is trying to force everyone to break away, but rather to get the core to recognize that diversity is already present and has been throughout the history of science and this includes discoveries and studies that are considered important by the core.

 

[lightgigantic]

I read your last post and it seems to me you are taking a very similar position to the empiricists you are critical of. You just want other norms. But you don't want people to really be free to choose their norms or to have other norms than you have.

I'm suggesting that one may be free to use a thermometer or a tape measure, but one is not free to use a tape measure as a thermometer.
IOW for each problem or task we set out to investigate, there are guidelines/norms pertinent to the object of investigation.

When the scientist knocks your methods he is mirroring your judgments of other methods you think are fruitless.

I never say that a method is fruitless.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with empiricism ... except when it is brought in to investigate something that lies outside its parameters.

Let's look at your concern about reading.
Most people would not be interested in suddenly trying another method.
What Feyarabend means by against method is that people should not be forced to stay with one methodology. And his case is aimed at scientists.

The playing field of science is the external world (or at least, one's perception of it). There are numerous methods for elaboration within those parameters.
The playing field of transcendentalism is the internal world (which again, also has a multitude of methodologies).

IOW one methodology has, at its core, the manipulation of external things to the extent of one's power/perception and then begins the investigation.
And the other has the manipulation of one's state of being before beginning investigation.
One has formative prerequisites for investigation.
The other has existential prerequisites for investigation.

If a few people actually did want to approach reading via other methods, they would either get bored, perhaps find sometime useful, confirm current methods are the best they can find, who knows? I can't see the loss.

Further Feyarabend is pointing out in his books that 1) people have already used a variety of methods and 2) this has been good!!!! So it is not like he is trying to force everyone to break away, but rather to get the core to recognize that diversity is already present and has been throughout the history of science and this includes discoveries and studies that are considered important by the core.

Hence the suggestion he is acting more as a reformer (ie promulgator of an antithesis). IOW if he advocated the complete rejection of all norms he would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. He's cleaning house, not knocking out foundations.

 

[wise acre]

I'm suggesting that one may be free to use a thermometer or a tape measure, but one is not free to use a tape measure as a thermometer.
IOW for each problem or task we set out to investigate, there are guidelines/norms pertinent to the object of investigation.

So there may be a variety of guidelines given the variety of problems. This would be in line with Feyarabend.

I never say that a method is fruitless.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with empiricism ... except when it is brought in to investigate something that lies outside its parameters.

I agree, though I would put it differently: To assume that only empiricism can gain information or knowledge is problematic.

The playing field of science is the external world (or at least, one's perception of it). There are numerous methods for elaboration within those parameters.
The playing field of transcendentalism is the internal world (which again, also has a multitude of methodologies).

This seems to accept the split. Shamanism, it seems to me, is not limited to either the inside or the outside. Nor would I say meditation is. Or a few other processes I have experienced.

IOW one methodology has, at its core, the manipulation of external things to the extent of one's power/perception and then begins the investigation.
And the other has the manipulation of one's state of being before beginning investigation.

This latter fits better for me in relation to the distinction than the innner outer split, which I actually associate with the whole line running down from Descartes into current empiricism, at least in the 'West'.

One has formative prerequisites for investigation.
The other has existential prerequisites for investigation.

To me each can be kept rather diverse.

Hence the suggestion he is acting more as a reformer (ie promulgator of an antithesis). IOW if he advocated the complete rejection of all norms he would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. He's cleaning house, not knocking out foundations.

I think he would even say he is simply pointing out that the foundations are not what the official version says they are. That they are in fact diverse and it would be best to acknowledge this and openly allow it.

 

[swarm]

I'm suggesting that one may be free to use a thermometer or a tape measure, but one is not free to use a tape measure as a thermometer.

You do not understand what a themometer is then. It is easy to use a thermometer as a tape measure. The reverse is a bit more difficult but still fairly trivial. Take an object with a know coefficient of expansion. measure it at a known temp. You now have a thermometer tape measure. I understand mercury in a glass tube works well and you can etch the tape measure on to the glass.

IOW for each problem or task we set out to investigate, there are guidelines/norms pertinent to the object of investigation.

Sure, but you don't have to do it that way. Some times its fun just to play. For example there is a right way to strech nylon to make it strong and silky. Gotex was discovered by streching it the wrong way.

I never say that a method is fruitless.

When something is fruitless its fruitless. Like phrenology or religion.

The playing field of transcendentalism is the internal world

The playing field of transcendentalism is that there was never any in or out to begin with.

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I'm suggesting that one may be free to use a thermometer or a tape measure, but one is not free to use a tape measure as a thermometer.
”
You do not understand what a themometer is then. It is easy to use a thermometer as a tape measure. The reverse is a bit more difficult but still fairly trivial.

hehe

Normal people understand that a particular tool has a particular usage. Of course there are some similarities between things like chisels and screw drivers ... but anyway, please feel free to offer a suggestion how to use a tape measure as a thermometer, and thus display your superior knowledge of what a thermometer is.

Take an object with a know coefficient of expansion. measure it at a known temp. You now have a thermometer tape measure. I understand mercury in a glass tube works well and you can etch the tape measure on to the glass.

duh

Next you will probably say that by hooking a rat trap up to the ignition of a nuclear bomb you have the means to utilize a rat trap as a nuclear war head.

“
IOW for each problem or task we set out to investigate, there are guidelines/norms pertinent to the object of investigation.
”
Sure, but you don't have to do it that way. Some times its fun just to play. For example there is a right way to strech nylon to make it strong and silky. Gotex was discovered by streching it the wrong way.

Sure, but you should realize that by manufacturing a pen with a digital clock you are not essentially designing anything innovative.

“
I never say that a method is fruitless.
”
When something is fruitless its fruitless. Like phrenology or religion.

phrenology is a discipline (it has a similar methodology to science - namely the attributing of value to an empirical phenomena)
religion is host to a variety of methodologies (some more effective than others)

“
The playing field of transcendentalism is the internal world
”
The playing field of transcendentalism is that there was never any in or out to begin with.

I guess that would draw on state of being/existential issues then, huh?

 

[lightgigantic]

I agree, though I would put it differently: To assume that only empiricism can gain information or knowledge is problematic.

sure

Actually if you take empiricism as monopolizing agent of all claims of knowledge you are left with a very absurd picture (perhaps mother's day will only be a valid celebration if you can back up the claim with a dna test?)

This seems to accept the split. Shamanism, it seems to me, is not limited to either the inside or the outside. Nor would I say meditation is. Or a few other processes I have experienced.

In short, if you have a claim of knowledge that doesn't rest on the performer having a particular "state of being", you don't have a transcendental claim.

For instance regardless whether one is an atrocious jerk or a benevolent altruist, it doesn't affect one's ability in electrical engineering (hence electrical engineering doesn't lay any transcendental claims on the table)

This latter fits better for me in relation to the distinction than the innner outer split, which I actually associate with the whole line running down from Descartes into current empiricism, at least in the 'West'.

I think he would even say he is simply pointing out that the foundations are not what the official version says they are. That they are in fact diverse and it would be best to acknowledge this and openly allow it.

I am suggesting that the foundation of empiricism is that there are no existential prerequisites (or at least a very minimal ones .... for instance its conceivable that someone may have to be socially trained up in 2D representations to understand what a photograph is .... but this detail cannot compare to the vast requirements for transcendental claims)

IOW he is not reviewing the empirical process to the extent of governing radical new recommendations for the personal behavior of scientists

 

[swarm]

Normal people understand that a particular tool has a particular usage.

Which is why every one uses a flathead screw driver as a universal prying tool. Tools may have conventional uses, but the use of a tool is limited only by the imagination of the user.

feel free to offer a suggestion how to use a tape measure as a thermometer, and thus display your superior knowledge of what a thermometer is.

Already done, I suggest rereading my previous post. Your average thermometer is just a means to measure the distance an object expands when heated. Those markings on the side are just a tape measure etched on the glass in graduations which convert the coefficient of expansion into degrees of temperature. You could do the same thing with a long enough tape measure, a long bar of metal like aluminum and the following:
Linear Temperature Expansion Coefficient for Aluminum - 12.3 10^-6 in/in F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html

Next you will probably say that by

I'm sorry you don't understand even basic science, you should give learning a try some time.

 

[lightgigantic]

Which is why every one uses a flathead screw driver as a universal prying tool. Tools may have conventional uses, but the use of a tool is limited only by the imagination of the user.

Already done, I suggest rereading my previous post. Your average thermometer is just a means to measure the distance an object expands when heated. Those markings on the side are just a tape measure etched on the glass in graduations which convert the coefficient of expansion into degrees of temperature. You could do the same thing with a long enough tape measure, a long bar of metal like aluminum and the following:
Linear Temperature Expansion Coefficient for Aluminum - 12.3 10^-6 in/in F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html

I guess this also explains why a person requires a few extra things aside from a tape measure if they want to use a tape measure as a thermometer, huh?

I'm sorry you don't understand even basic science, you should give learning a try some time.

Wait up I think I'm getting the hang of this.

If you give me a rat trap (and a nuclear warhead) I can use a rat trap as a nuclear warhead.

(gee maybe there were WMD's in Iraq after all ....)

 

[wise acre]

Actually if you take empiricism as monopolizing agent of all claims of knowledge you are left with a very absurd picture (perhaps mother's day will only be a valid celebration if you can back up the claim with a dna test?)

Only if you have already determined calenders are effective via empirical study rather then say because your parents used one or it seemed to work so far.

In short, if you have a claim of knowledge that doesn't rest on the performer having a particular "state of being", you don't have a transcendental claim.

I am sure that works for some people, but the transcendant/immanent split is not universal.

For instance regardless whether one is an atrocious jerk or a benevolent altruist, it doesn't affect one's ability in electrical engineering (hence electrical engineering doesn't lay any transcendental claims on the table)

yes, I get this.

This latter fits better for me in relation to the distinction than the innner outer split, which I actually associate with the whole line running down from Descartes into current empiricism, at least in the 'West'.

Fair enough. And shamanism, for example, does not keep this rigid, at all, either.

I am suggesting that the foundation of empiricism is that there are no existential prerequisites (or at least a very minimal ones .... for instance its conceivable that someone may have to be socially trained up in 2D representations to understand what a photograph is .... but this detail cannot compare to the vast requirements for transcendental claims)

IOW he is not reviewing the empirical process to the extent of governing radical new recommendations for the personal behavior of scientists

or states of being, yes, a nice way of looking at it.

Actually I think his stance allows for states of being to be considered as part of testing protocols. He is not advocating it, but he is trying to get science to stop saying 'this is a scientific method and this is not'.

If it adds to knowledge he's open to it. And definitions of knowledge are similarly more open.

 

[wise acre]

by the way guys,
I am not sure the tool metaphor is a good tool here.

 

[wynn]

It's a good argument, but it does not hold for science.

Of course it hold for science. Just look at our resident scientific atheists!

As far as church or religious authority, you are correct if you keep that in absolute terms. But if you see my post as working on a transition point where one takes on a more flexible relation to that authority, I still think one is free to explore.

A 'flexible relation to an authority'? With asuch a flexible relation to that authority, you cannot expect to get the benefits that the authority promises, though.

EDit: and as you say it is YOUR church. And while many churches think this means you are theirs, the fact is that here the possessive pronoun is aimed at the church. You have decided that it has authority. This shows a great trust in yourself to decide. That same trust in yourself should allow you to explore things that seem of potential value to it.

Sure. But having that sort of strong trust doesn't mean that you actually will invest it in other things.

I realize many churches and members do not agree, but I am not in their churches and I see them being responsible for whom and what they give authority to. If they can give it to a priest, they can give it to something else. It is theirs to give. If they had skill to give it in one place, they have skill to give it elsewhere.

Sure. But why should they?

If not, I am not sure why they trust their decision to give away so much power.

We always put our trust or our faith into something. And we are not 'giving away our power' - it's not like we really have any power of our own to give away.
We trust our senses, our brain, the food we eat, our bodies, our education, our parents, our friends, some hero, our teacher, our church etc. etc. How much we trust each of these is a matter of choice, but we cannot but trust some of them

It's not like a person would first (or at some point) be self-situated, self-empowered, but then would give away that power to someone or something else.

 

[wise acre]

A 'flexible relation to an authority'? With asuch a flexible relation to that authority, you cannot expect to get the benefits that the authority promises, though.

I suppose if you think giving your free will over to an authority is the only way. I don't. I have found such authorities problematic for me. It is simply not what I want to do. I do want guidance, at times, and wisdom from entities that are more experienced - in certain areas. I have found these relationships very beneficial, as far as I can tell mutually.

Sure. But having that sort of strong trust doesn't mean that you actually will invest it in other things.

Not sure what you mean by 'things' here. But if I think of the authority issue above. If you trust yourself to give yourself over to an authority, you should also trust yourself to on occasion not follow their rule/order/suggestion using that same implicitly supported skill.

Sure. But why should they?

They can give away their free will and power if they want. But I will continue to notice this is happening and that it exhibits a lot of self-trust, even if they do not think of it this way.

We always put our trust or our faith into something. And we are not 'giving away our power' - it's not like we really have any power of our own to give away.

If I will do anything an authority says I should do the phrase 'given away my power' fits.

We trust our senses, our brain, the food we eat, our bodies, our education, our parents, our friends, some hero, our teacher, our church etc. etc. How much we trust each of these is a matter of choice, but we cannot but trust some of them

Any many of them I seems to not follow on occasion.

It's not like a person would first (or at some point) be self-situated, self-empowered, but then would give away that power to someone or something else.

I like the compound word self-situated. I get a sense of it, but have not encountered it before. Plunging on as if my sense is correct for the moment.....

I do not think that people have a feeling of being self-empowered and self-situated, at least not in this life, and then give away this feeling/state to someone else. Neverthess I think they give over something they were afraid to notice they had and had an uneasy relation with
they often give this away to an authority. But it could even be to a drug.

Have you found yourself capable of giving your free will over completely to an authority?
Is there an authority you do not have a flexible relationship with?
If so, how has it worked ?
If there isn't, why not?

 

[wynn]

A 'flexible relation to an authority'? With asuch a flexible relation to that authority, you cannot expect to get the benefits that the authority promises, though.

I suppose if you think giving your free will over to an authority is the only way.

Well, it all depends on what you want to achieve.
In some cases, 'giving your free will over to an authority' is probably or by definition the only way to achieve the desire goal.

Not sure what you mean by 'things' here. But if I think of the authority issue above. If you trust yourself to give yourself over to an authority, you should also trust yourself to on occasion not follow their rule/order/suggestion using that same implicitly supported skill.

Sure. This is also the test of how much you really follow the authority by your own free will.

We trust our senses, our brain, the food we eat, our bodies, our education, our parents, our friends, some hero, our teacher, our church etc. etc. How much we trust each of these is a matter of choice, but we cannot but trust some of them

Any many of them I seems to not follow on occasion.

Sure. But you always follow one or the other, do you not? Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

I do not think that people have a feeling of being self-empowered and self-situated, at least not in this life, and then give away this feeling/state to someone else.

Neverthess I think they give over something they were afraid to notice they had and had an uneasy relation with
they often give this away to an authority. But it could even be to a drug.

But what is that something?

Have you found yourself capable of giving your free will over completely to an authority?
Is there an authority you do not have a flexible relationship with?

No and no.
But with the clarification that I don't think it is a matter of 'giving over your free will', but a matter of on your own free will doing what the authority says.

If so, how has it worked ?
If there isn't, why not?

My explanation for not completely following an authority is that:
1. I am sometimes too lazy,
2. I do not have sufficient knowledge about the authority to make an informed decision to follow completely,
3. I get distracted by a number of things, that although seemingly small, are powerful enough.

 

[wise acre]

Well, it all depends on what you want to achieve.
In some cases, 'giving your free will over to an authority' is probably or by definition the only way to achieve the desire goal.

I guess, I don't see that as being necessary for me.

Sure. This is also the test of how much you really follow the authority by your own free will.

Or notice that you are, over and over.

Sure. But you always follow one or the other, do you not? Or are there situations where there is the 'pure you', independent from your senses, your brain, your body, the food you eat, your education, parents, friends, heroes, teachers, church etc. etc.?

To me this seemed like sleight of hand. You are using authority in a way I would not. Now parts of me are being reified into authorities that I give myself (the rest of myself?) over to and let them rule me.

But what is that something?

Their intuition. Their sense of responsibility for what decisions - as long as they tow the line.

No and no.
But with the clarification that I don't think it is a matter of 'giving over your free will', but a matter of on your own free will doing what the authority says.

But I first talked about having a flexible relation to authority. You seemed to think this ruled out effectiveness in this relationship. Now you are saying you have not found an authority with whom you do not have a flexible relationship with. IOW all your relationships with authorities are flexible. So I do not understand why, if you live this way, you think there was something wrong with my suggestion that that is all that is necessary.

My explanation for not completely following an authority is that:
1. I am sometimes too lazy,
2. I do not have sufficient knowledge about the authority to make an informed decision to follow completely,
3. I get distracted by a number of things, that although seemingly small, are powerful enough.

My interpretations of the judgments involved in each....
1. something is wrong with me, but not the idea that I must give myself freely and completely to an authority
2. no authority so far has seemed worthy to me
3. something is wrong with me, but not the authority in question. It would be good to give myself over to it, but I get distracted.

Are these judgments, if they are your judgments, working for you?

 

[swarm]

I guess this also explains why a person requires a few extra things aside from a tape measure if they want to use a tape measure as a thermometer, huh?

You don't need anything more to use it as a thermometer than you need to use it as a tape measure, i.e. a tape measure accurate to the level which you need to take measurements at and something to measure. You only have to take one extra measurement so you have a reference point in order to use it as a thermometer.

Wait up I think I'm getting the hang of this.

No you are still an idiot.

If you give me a rat trap

You could certainly use a snapit style rat trap and some wires as the switch to set off anything which you cared to rig it too.

Go ahead and say something inane now so you can pretend like you have a point and "roll" your eyes again.

 

[lightgigantic]

You don't need anything more to use it as a thermometer than you need to use it as a tape measure, i.e. a tape measure accurate to the level which you need to take measurements at and something to measure. You only have to take one extra measurement so you have a reference point in order to use it as a thermometer.



No you are still an idiot.



You could certainly use a snapit style rat trap and some wires as the switch to set off anything which you cared to rig it too.

Go ahead and say something inane now so you can pretend like you have a point and "roll" your eyes again.

I'm pretty sure you are just pretending to be stupid and being very good at it.

Let's rephrase the question in a more precise fashion

using only the object in the picture (and not the object plus, say, a heat sensitive vessel of mercury or aluminum, or some other object/device that is by standard attributed to be the mechanism by which a thermometer works), how would you propose to measure temperature with it?

:thumbsup:

 

[wise acre]

I'm pretty sure you are just pretending to be stupid and being very good at it.

Let's rephrase the question in a more precise fashion

using only the object in the picture (and not the object plus, say, a heat sensitive vessel of mercury or aluminum, or some other object/device that is by standard attributed to be the mechanism by which a thermometer works), how would you propose to measure temperature with it?

:thumbsup:

my first thought would be to make it wet. It looks rather long. I would then stretch it out on various days and she how much it shrank in length and start connecting this up to different felt senses of coldness warmth.

You could also measure how fast ice forms mm./minute or melts.

If I can't use water, then you can't use air with your thermometer.

My methods might be crude at first, but over time one could perhaps get rather good with them.

 

[wynn]

my first thought would be to make it wet. It looks rather long. I would then stretch it out on various days and she how much it shrank in length and start connecting this up to different felt senses of coldness warmth.

You could also measure how fast ice forms mm./minute or melts.

If I can't use water, then you can't use air with your thermometer.

My methods might be crude at first, but over time one could perhaps get rather good with them.

But why insist on measuring temperature with a tape measure??