Lunatic Fringe taking over?

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by origin, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    So...contentment and satisfaction are what you seem to think are the results or rewards of a "good discussion"? The feelings of contentment and satisfaction would seem to be the results or rewards of thinking that one had won an argument - which seems to conflict with your previous statement :

    I have yet to fully understand your position, primarily because of your somewhat ambiguous statement from your Post #92 :
    Which is why I asked for clarification by Posting the following questions : that the way you see it? that the way that you would see it? that the way that you think that you would see it?

    If you do not care to move the discussion forward, then you are in no way obligated to do so. But until you clarify your position or approach, I will not be able to discern whether or not your position or approach is persuasive or unpersuasive.

    BTW, who else could be or would be writing my sentences?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member


    This discussion seems to be drifting off topic, and seems more relvant to a prior discussion
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yes, thanks, I think this discussion has run its course.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    The Title of this Thread and the Topic of this Thread is :
    I proposed that the seeming :
    ...may be the result of what N. David Mermin seemed to describe as :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from :

    I fail to see how discussing N. David Mermin's article :
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Any inference on my part about anything being silly, was in reference to the Universe being a hologram...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I find that idea as crazy...but that's just me.....

    Oh, I agree wholeheartedly! Reification is more than a bad habit.....It's more delusional. Some people see reality in Leprachauns, fairies, goblins, etc.....I'm sure we both agree that this is more delusional than a bad habit.
    But you seem to be implying something else with regards to scientific concepts that may not be physical....
    Let me ask you a few questions....
    Do you regard space/time as real?
    If you do not regard space/time as real, can you explain the findings of GP-B for me please?
    How about space?...and time?
    Don't these two non physical abstractions affect us in everyday life?
    Isn't time is a measurement of change that takes place in what we call space?
    Do not the series of changes that makes up your life happens over time and in space?
    Do we not have to make allowances in GPS Sateliites to allow for time dilation?

    Have you ever swung a bucket of water around in a circle, without any of the water coming out?
    You do know that this is due to the equivalence principle, a key concept in Albert Einstein's theory of GR, which states that gravity working in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in the other.
    Have you ever used an elevator??
    If you have you will have noticed that when it is ascending feeling of increased gravity is felt.....and vice versa, when descending, a feeling of decreased gravity.
    Did you know that this is again the equivalence principle in action and means that gravity affects measurements of space and time, warping space/time itself?
    Final question, what scientific entity/model/abstraction, do you see as an example of reification by some here?

    None of these abstract concepts appear to be physical, but yet [as per my first question] what was the effect GP-B was measuring?

    Like I say, it's a philosophical argument [nothing too wrong with that] put in your link, and illustrates the basic undecidedness that philosophers have on the subject.
    But if you dare ask a working scientist, at the coal face [and as exochemist has alluded to] they will tell you how real these entities are.

    Just because something cannot be seen or felt, and may not have apparent physical form, does not mean it is not real, and believing the entities I have mentioned to be real, in no way invokes the bad habit of reification you speak of.
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it's no crazier than believing inanimate matter becomes alive and develops a consciousness or believing in an intelligence without substance.
    in my opinion both of them are whacko concepts.
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    Well, you'd be right if there wasn't at least some cursory understanding of how the mechanics of life work and why life would develop intelligence. As to life forming complexity out of the basic elements of the universe, we have a giant sun with millions of terawatts of energy and the lovely, lovey carbon atom to thank.

    Re: "inanimate matter becomes alive and develops a consciousness or elieving in an intelligence without substance."

    Non sequitur fallacy.

    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    didn't i go out with you last night?
    those kisses sure was dreamy.

    some people drop names, i drop jaws.
    OMG !
    sciforums drama ! !

    debates whether i should click "post quick reply" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  12. superstring01 Moderator

    You did not. But I did have a lovely evening with my boyfriend.

  13. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    As can be gauged in my rather lengthy post 105 [lengthy for me anyhow] I see this reification as somewhat of a furphy and another philosophical storm in a tea cup.

    Brandon Watson has attacked the fallacy of reification as not being an actual fallacy, but rather a piece of "philosophical folklore", which is either false or else so vague as to be useless.[7] Watson traces the origin of the "fallacy" to John Stallo's philosophy of physics, and more recently to the logical positivist Morris Raphael Cohen.
  15. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Thanks, Trippy.

    It's probably hopeless though. Some Sciforums threads appear to be exercises in free-association. They meander from topic to topic. (That's another way that they differ from university class discussions, a point that's relevant to the thread's long-forgotten original topic.)

    I tuned away from this one when it was hijacked and haven't been paying very much attention to it since.
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    So, who is "Brandon Watson"?

    And, does someone attacking the "fallacy of reification" as not being an "actual fallacy" - in any way reflect on whether or not reification itself is an actuality?

    exchemist, pointed the "Criticism" out more than two days ago, in his Post #92.

    paddoboy, have you completely read and fully understood N. David Mermin's article : ?

    Going by Post #94 - it would seem that there are Posters who are not quite sure what refying abstractions actually entails.

    The following quote is from N. David Mermin's article (Bold by dmoe) : What's bad about this habit :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from :

    paddoboy, do you consider "Brandon Watson's Criticism" or opinion to hold more validity than the opinion of Albert Einstein?

    Do you suppose that a Poster would ever start a Thread Titled : "Why Brandon Watson will never be wrong"?
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Who the bloody hell is David Mermin???
    Why havn't you answered the many questions I have asked of you in post 105?
    I believe reification is a storm in a teacup and not applicable to the non physical realites of which I have spoken in 105...Do you disagree?
    Why? Please explain yourself?
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Reaification is a philosophical concept.
    Albert was a Physicist and of course the "will never be wrong" thread was obviously in relation to SR/GR
    That of course stands.
    Brandon Watson's criticism I'm not that concerned about.
    David Mermin's reification philosophical rant, I'm not that concerned about.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Interesting aside after doing a bit of research.....David is a physicist [retired] while Brandon is a current Professor of philosophy
    Rio Grande Campus

    Now if we raise the "appealing to authority" argument, it is seen that it is rather fallacious in referencing David in a philosophical debate when he is a physicist.
    Brandon of course is well within his authoritive domain to expertly comment.

    Not that I'm to concerned either way. My Interest is in the hard science and the scientists at the coal face.

    Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.
    Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician.
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


Share This Page