Science: Explanation versus obfuscation

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I didn't. At all. Like I said. And since your first reply to me was irrelevant to what I actually wrote, guess who the evidence supports. But, sure, whatever you want to think.

Two reasons: one, if he did he would have written is rather than can be, that being the obvious give away as to whether one thinks you are or just can be. Two, the facetiousness isn't hard to recognise, given my previous conversations with him.

I'd rather you just tell me rather than play your schoolyard games. On the one hand you should know the difference, but evidence suggests you don't, as you concluded he said I am rather than can be.

Sarcasm works better when you don't have a history of misunderstanding things behind you. But, sure, you're getting there, I guess.

And that makes it okay? I see. Probably you'd be better off, though, if the first person you don't make look bad is yourself. Just saying.

To correct your misunderstandings James. Of which there appear to be many, which you compound.
My bad for trying, I guess?

It strikes me that your ability to read people is similarly placed. How ironic.

Sure, James, if that's how you want to take it. Sometimes there really is no getting through to people. Ah, well.

Those who are doing the crying, James. After all, did you not say that that was the point of the education, so that they'd ultimately stop crying.

??? Does it mean something else in Australia? Here, at least, it means to shed tears. When used metaphorically it can mean to complain.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier comment about your ability to read people.

I expressed it adequately for people of reasonable intelligence to grasp. Are you having problems? With which bit, exactly?

I didn't miss it, as explained. I ignored an irrelevant comment. You erroneously took that to be me missing it, to avoid addressing that you missed my point when you made that comment. But, sure, whatever you want to think about it is fine.

Sure, whatever you want to think. The evidence is in the posts, and unless you want to rewrite history...?

Nope, I'm focussing on the people even you said you were educating so that they don't have reason to cry. Do keep up.

 

Critical thinking is a myth. There is no one way of thinking. There are many ways to realize the truth. Usually denouncing someone for not critically thinking amounts to saying "think like me so you reach the same conclusions as me". It's how scientism/skepticism tyrranizes free minds. By telling them they can't think for themselves.

 

My bold.
But, where does that leave people who are '' formally qualified to teach 'critical thinking' classes.''
Or should that be according to you... formally qualified to teach myths?

My Bold.

But, it apparently raises the quality of most of the posts here.

My bold.

 

Sure. Just as reading is a myth to the illiterate and math is a myth to the innumerate.

Yep. And if you use crystalography or tea leaves instead of math to do your math homework, you will arrive at very different "truths" than the rest of the world. Like, say 2+2 = red.

You can think for yourself all you want. You can think angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But you come here and posit such things and they will be challenged. If you can't defend them then they will be given due consideration. There are plenty of fora out there where you can discuss angels and pinheads without being challenged.

But. You. Came. Here. (And to do so, you explicitly agreed to the forum rules.)

 

Agreed. But there are better and worse ways of thinking.

One of the most important things I learned in college was how to think.

 

Same, but different subject matter required different ways of thinking.

 

Life taught most of us how to think, starting at about the age of 2. We sally forth amid a world of wonders and terrors, finding our way and learning how to figure things out. It's a miracle most of us don't go insane with all the information flooding our brains what with the intraneural waking up of language and logic and perception and spatiotemporal navigation.

 

Sort of. There are different modes of thinking, but there are some modes that just never work. (i.e. the "everything is someone else's fault" approach.)

 

Perhaps it would be better to post the modes of thinking that DO work!

[qu0te]2. Divergent thinking (using imagination). This type of thinking is also called creative or horizontal thinking. It is a thought process or method used to generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions. When a student uses divergent thinking, thoughts typically occur in a spontaneous, free-flowing way. Many possible solutions are explored in a short amount of time, and unexpected connections are more easily drawn. After the process of divergent thinking has been completed, ideas and information are organized and structured using convergent thinking. [/quote]

What mode do you follow? (this is a general question).

 

While there are indeed many forms of thinking out there, the forum rules, which we've agreed to, specifically say

"...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."

 

Those all work for different things. Purely emotional thinking works for some things. Even blaming someone else for everything works sometimes (like say you are a soccer player.)

But trying to do good science while using emotional or belief-based thinking will give you poor results.

 

No it won't. Emotion feeds continued interest, not any particular technique. Lateral thinking in the study of new unexplored subjects is fundamental. You cannot limit yourself to a particular discipline when exploring a new subject, especially when that subject contains abstract concepts that must be "conceptualized" before targeted study can take place.

Emotional engagement is one of the requirements for longevity and diligence required for study of deep universal subjects that contain and share common denominators over a wide range of studies and scientific disciplines.

And then there is that pesky "specialization" that tends to fracture universal relationships of seemingly disparate subjects and cooperative communication gets lost.

Most great theories are a result of emotional engagement and may take lifetimes to develop and mature in scope and related subjects.

 

Yes, it will. If you are researching something, and have a theory, and want to prove it, and decide it is proven because it will make you good to be proven right - then that means you will fail. In fact, that is one of the biggest problems in science - a desire to see one's theory succeed. That's why design-of-experiment is so critical. That's why double-blind studies are critical. That's why outside confirmation is critical. Much of the methodology of research is in fact intended to overcome everyone's natural desire to decide validity based on emotion.

Sure, it's great for brainstorming or harvesting. Not so great for figuring out the heating through a resistor. For that, convergent thinking works way better.

Again, the best type of thinking for the job.

Sure, if emotional engagement gets you out of bed in the morning, that's great. If you try to use it to prove your theory - that will be magical thinking, not science.

 

Having a theory implies Belief, Interest, Commitment, Dedication, persistence. These are emotional issues and play a definitive role in "getting things accomplished".

What you are missing is that you are primarily talking about practical applications for testing or use, not in the adventure of unbridled imagination and allowing natural evolution to contribute to the investigative process over time.

Belief is a peculiar asset allowing for change and variety in otherwise programmed and limited but predictable results.
Sometimes, all it takes is a new perspective from a new and untried POV. POV.....is that scientific enough?..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nope. Having a theory does not require belief. Having a theory does not require commitment, dedication or perserverance. None of those things are required.

The only thing required to have a theory is the ability to think of a theory. I have a ton of them. Most of them have had zero commitment, dedication or persistence applied to them.

Nope. I am talking about both as I explained above. And "natural evolution" in the field of science does not continue the investigative process. Scientists, mathemeticians and engineers do.

Sure. New perspectives are great. Not all are valid.

 

Remember we are speaking of NEW theory, that has sufficient information that can be vetted and peer reviewed
via traditionally accepted models. But that only proves existing science or specialization. I am talking about NEW science, that adds a new dimension to the universal library of knowledge.

No argument there. But our science is evolving. We started with leaches to extract "bad spirits" from the blood.
Turns out that this scientifically unsupported discovery actually does have some medicinal application. But today we use X-rays and electron microscopes. Yet we aren't even halfway to the discovery of what happens at Planck scale, the most fundamental dimension of "relational quantum values" in whatever form they may present themselves.

All models that propose NEW science are by nature suspect, but deeper investigation often reveals an heretofore unknown causal value . It is in discussions at the edge of "current science" that new science is discovered.
Imagination is "essential" in the exercise of creating imaginative prediction methods.
A vision of the place "where no man has gone before."