Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

What's the difference between learning science and quoting other people who have learned science?

You really don't know?

What does "build logically on existing science" mean?

If you're not adding anything to existing knowledge, what are you "building"?

Do you mean you're using existing science to solve some specific problems that existing science can solve? How is it that you're able to use science without learning it first?

You're pretending to expertise instead of developing some. What a waste of everybody's time, not least your own.

Yes. It's indicative that you scored significantly below average on a test of "general intelligence". Your score puts your intelligence in the bottom 15% of the population (as measured by an IQ test).

No. Understanding the language of science is a corequisite for understanding science.

Physics and maths are not for you, then. Move on. Perhaps you can learn something useful about some other area of science. Although, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any science that completely ignores mathematics.

The problem you face is that, in practice, science likes to quantify things. It wants to be able to predict precisely how any given system will behave under various conditions. For that, maths is required. It's also required if you want to test whether any scientific theory is a viable explanation for a particular empirical phenonenon.

Your gut feeling is one thing, but you're completely unequipped to even start evaluating whether it is a viable scientific theory. For that, you'd need to learn some science. I mean actually, properly learn some science. Cutting and pasting other people's thoughts from place to place is not how you come to understand something.

Here's something I wrote earlier. You did not respond. Perhaps you didn't read it.

Do you really think that if some other guy knows that a differential equation is, that means that you know what a differential equation is?​

Maybe this is a big part of your problem. You see that there are lots of web pages out on the interwebs, on which lots of people expound on various topics with an appearance of erudition or expertise. Because those people exist, and their writings are accessible to you, you wrongly assume that therefore you have somehow - by osmosis, perhaps - gained the same level of knowledge and expertise that those guys have, by proxy.​

This is delusional, Write4U. Cutting and pasting stuff you don't understand from one page on the internet to another does not made you an expert in the subject matter. At best, it only develops your expertise in manipulating the CTRL-C and CTRL-V keys on your keyboard.​

 

Do you think that if you "understand the narrative" then you're in a position to evaluate it?

Do you think you can work out if a scientific paper full of maths contains errors or is error free, based on the "narrative" alone, without working through or understanding any of the maths?

How do you know when you're cutting and pasting an article that it doesn't contain nonsensical mathematics, or that it isn't full of mathematical errors?

You're basically telling us that if somebody spins a good yarn, that's good enough for you. You don't think you need to check whether it's a true story, as long as it's a story that sounds right?

I own a bridge you might like to buy. It's in Sydney. It's quite a famous bridge. I inherited it from my great great uncle. I'm willing to give it to you at a bargain price. But don't concern yourself about the maths; I'll gladly do it for you! All I need are your bank account details. Trust me. I'll handle the rest.

I'm completely mystified now.

Why do you accept the validity and functionality of these sources? You admit you're completely unable to confirm their validity yourself.

You refer to "reliable sources". Tell me how you go about evaluating which sources are reliable. I'm fascinated to find out.

Why do you think there's a "potential" that was responsible for the BB? Is there a "valid" source that you used to confirm that is the case?

Can you explain to me what a "potential" is, and how it might conceivably be responsible for a BB? What scientific theory that you understand suggests that such a thing is possible?

Has no "reliable source" found any of these "common denominators" you mention? Are you looking for them because all the experts have failed to find them? Or are you just looking for a "reliable source" that "sounds right" and agrees with what you'd prefer to be the case regarding the BB?

What's in it for you when you do find these common denominators you're spending so much time and effort looking for? You say you're not trying to advance science at all; you're just using existing science done by "reliable sources". Are you just trying to satisfy a curiosity you have about the BB, then? Are you trying to come up with a story you can tell yourself, which "sounds right"?

I don't know what an "irreducible complexity" is. Can you explain?

You say it is your conviction that the universe did not arise from an irreducible complexity. Did it arise from a reducible complexity, then? Or did it arise from a simplicity rather than a complexity?

Why are you so sure about this particular conviction you have?

How is the number 1 a "singularity"? What do you mean by that? Do you just mean that the number one is used to indicate a single thing? (The word "singularity" has a technical meaning in mathematics, but you don't need to know any maths, do you? Oh, apart from the existence of the number 1, of course. So you don't have to worry about any technical meaning of the word "singularity". Let the reliable sources worry about it, instead. You can always cut and paste, if it becomes a problem later.)

You say "1 (singularity) is an irreducible value". What does that mean? Can you give me an example of a reducible value, so I can compare it to 1 (singularity)? Can you explain the difference?

You deduce that because 1 is an "irreducible value", therefore there must be a single common denominator that caused the BB. Is this an example of you building logically on existing science, then? Can you walk me through the logical syllogisms that led you from the premise "1 is an irreducible value" to the conclusion "a single common denominator caused the BB"?

Also, previously you said that the universe did not arise from an irreducible complexity. But here you're saying that the universe did arise from something to do with the irreducible complexity of the number 1 (singularity). So which is it? Did the universe arise for an irreducible complexity, or didn't it? And why did you contradict yourself, in the space of a single post?

I look forward to your detailed response.

 

In my previous post (#91), I asked you a whole bunch of direct, specific questions about your claims. Instead of trying to answer any of them, you declined to have any discussion about them.

I don't think you're in any position to accuse me of duplicity. You constantly decline all discussion when things start to seem too hard for you. When you find a question difficult, you tend to simply ignore it - pretend it was never asked. Or else you cut-and-paste something irrelevant, as if you can distract somebody into thinking you must have actually responded to the question you were asked. I'd say that kind of behaviour is not very honest. Wouldn't you?