Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Next »

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:17 AM (reply 135 of 635)



 
And my point is that most and probably all of the
'science' that anyone knows is based on belief. The
world reknown physicist does nothing but 'believe' in
their doctor when that doctor recommends something.
And that same doctor is often doing nothing more than
'believing' in something else that they have read(or
took a course in.) Even the physicist is unlikely to
have repeated or even done even once many of the
experiments that physics is based on.

Again, not exactly true. No, doctors andother
scientists do not do every experiment that led to the
current state of the art. But they have done a
tremendous amount of experiments whose design is based
and dependent on the conclussions from those previous
experiments.

No.

Again you are still talking about belief. You believe that is what happened. Moreover you believe it happens in general and then use that to generalize to the specific. So you make a decision to trust the word of a doctor based on what you believe medecine has learned, what you believe the doctor has learned and in all likelyhood what you believe that you have learned about human nature (in that you trust the doctor.)

The nature of belief systems.

It is no different than the parishioner going to temple to ask the clergy to pray for their recovery.


For instance in medicine, when studying a specific
antibiotic, some scientists will determine that the
antibiotic interacts with certain proteins in a
certain state of cell division, preventing a group of
bacteria from multiplying (for example), but does not
effect another group of bacteria based on a differnece
in how the bacteria reproduce, or the shape of the
protein...

Do the doctors perform experiments to re-create this
and show for themselfs how where and when the
antibiotic works? No. But they DO perform
experiments on test cultures and show the antibiotic
affects or does not affect the culture, thus putting
the culture into a sub-set of possible pathogens,
which can be verified independantly.

Indirectly, anytime this type of experiment is done,
it reproduces the results of the experiments that the
doctor read about in books, as the test is designed
based on their results.

So you know the methodology of science.

Now describe the assumptions in the above methodology, both within the logical framework, and the assumptions about the framework itself.

 

Posts:11,186
Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:20 AM (reply 136 of 635)



 
I always say no religious belief is right and no religious belief is wrong all they are is facets of
that which we wish to relate to but can not understand...

I you mean that you won't pass judgement on any religious belief in particular, then that's a
reasonable position. I you claim that all religious belief is mid-gray, how do you handle claims
which are both absolute and exclusive?

To me belief is a very fragile bridge between knowledge and hope. There's nothing wrong with belief.
There definitely is something wrong with institutionalised belief, i.e. churches and their management.
There's nothing wrong with religious people; bur sometimes they're puppets on strings conducted
by that management of those churches.

We all know from history what that institutionalised religion brought us. No matter in what disguise.
The fine line is to distinguish what a person believes for him/herself and what that particular
institution is all about. Anyone's personal belief/religion is to be respected; it's his/her bridge
between knowledge and hope; any 'company' trying to take advantage from those believers is to
be detested.

kind regards,

Jos
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:21 AM (reply 137 of 635)



 
I am pointing out basically that SETI is considered
'better' yet with no more results than many other
'worse' beliefs.

If I heard of an astrology study that used a similar level of scientific rigor as SETI I would consider it just as "good," but I have never heard of any such study. Have you? The problem (or a problem) with SETI is that there is always a reason to keep looking. Even if you've already looked everywhere, it's possible that the radio waves just haven't reached us yet, and we need to keep looking.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:22 AM (reply 138 of 635)



 
What about SETI?

One can easily achieve the same results - nothing.

So it is not scientific?

It's testing an observable theory using the scientific
method. Not sure what point you're trying to make
though... if you're saying that I said negative
results imply bad science, then I think you're
twisting my words.

Errr...not really.

SETI is testing an extreme extropolation based on a number of very unknown factors.

 

Posts:37,103
Registered: 3/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:26 AM (reply 139 of 635)



 
What exactly do you think SETI is doing?

They are assuming intelligent life exists and
seeking evidence of that.

Can you think of any other field of study that has
failed for as long as SETI has and yet is still
considered to be plausible?

How is that different that assuming that astrology
does impact human behavior and then seeking proof of
that impact?

I think one difference has to do with the statistics of the expected results.

Every claim I've heard endorsing astrology states or implies that it affects everybody. If astrology had the effect its proponents claim, it should be easy to observe, and you wouldn't necessarily need a very large sample.

I think that SETI, on the other hand, acknowledges that if other intelligent life exists, it will probably be distributed rather sparsely. I don't know that they start with the assumption that there is life out there, as you claim, but let's say they do. It' probably not "there's life there, so if we search, we'll find it," but rather something like, "we think there's probability X that a given start system has intelligent life, the stars are distributed like Y, and so theres a probability Z that a given piece of sky will contain intelligent signals," and Z is probably a very low number.

If I predict that one million successive coin flips should produce one million successive heads only one time out of 2^1,000,000, I'll be at it a long time before I have any strong evidence one way or the other.

 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:26 AM (reply 140 of 635)



 
To me belief is a very fragile bridge between
knowledge and hope. There's nothing wrong with belief.
There definitely is something wrong with
institutionalised belief, i.e. churches and their
management.

Per se? You're saying all religious institutions are bad? That's an extremely strong claim, and I think you had better back it up with something.

We all know from history what that institutionalised
religion brought us. No matter in what disguise.

This is a valid criticism of the past actions of some particular religious institutions. To extend this criticism to all such institutions in all times is fallacious.

The fine line is to distinguish what a person believes
for him/herself and what that particular
institution is all about. Anyone's personal
belief/religion is to be respected; it's his/her
bridge
between knowledge and hope; any 'company' trying to
take advantage from those believers is to
be detested.

While you don't come out and say it, what you seem to imply here is that all churches are about taking advantage of their believers. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here - please tell me that is not what you meant.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:27 AM (reply 141 of 635)



 
I am pointing out basically that SETI is considered
'better' yet with no more results than many other
'worse' beliefs.

If I heard of an astrology study that used a similar
level of scientific rigor as SETI I would consider it
just as "good," but I have never heard of any such
study. Have you?

Certainly. Every one that I have seen achieved a negative result (they found no correlation to human behavior.)

SETI has found no evidence of other life after something like 20 years. And yet they continue to look.

The problem (or a problem) with
SETI is that there is always a reason to keep looking.
Even if you've already looked everywhere, it's
possible that the radio waves just haven't reached us
yet, and we need to keep looking.

Certainly. And with any study involving humans the astrology studies are subject to certain realisitic challenges in a variety of ways. Which suggests....that we need to keep looking?
 

Posts:6,750
Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:31 AM (reply 142 of 635)



 
Errr...not really.

SETI is testing an extreme extropolation based on a
number of very unknown factors.

I don't understand what you mean. They know what they're looking for, and they've decided in advance how to determine whether they've found it or not based on comparing results to expectations from randomness. By "extreme extrapolation" do you mean that "there's life on Earth, so maybe there's life elsewhere" or something else? By "unknown factors" do you mean the probability of there being life on other planets, or something else? If the former, AFAIK any such estimates are only justifications for spending the resources for the experiment, and (again AFAIK) won't have any effect on the observations. Actually it's the reverse - the longer they search without finding anything, the lower becomes the maximum possible probability of life in any given star system.
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:38 AM (reply 143 of 635)



 
What exactly do you think SETI is doing?

They are assuming intelligent life exists and
seeking evidence of that.

Can you think of any other field of study that has
failed for as long as SETI has and yet is still
considered to be plausible?

How is that different that assuming that astrology
does impact human behavior and then seeking proof of
that impact?

I think one difference has to do with the statistics
of the expected results.

Every claim I've heard endorsing astrology states or
implies that it affects everybody. If astrology
had the effect its proponents claim, it should be easy
to observe, and you wouldn't necessarily need a very
large sample.

No, it isn't that simple.

First there are a wide variety of astological beliefs. I doubt all of them have even been tested.

Secondly, proving that it does not affect everyone is not quite the same as that it affects no one. I am rather certain that there are individuals who believe that some people are affected more strongly that others. Moreover some of that is even in some of the systems.


I think that SETI, on the other hand, acknowledges
that if other intelligent life exists, it will
probably be distributed rather sparsely. I don't know
that they start with the assumption that there is life
out there, as you claim, but let's say they do.

You are kidding right?

Not only do they assume that it exists but they assume that it is abundant.

There is absolutely no chance that we would be able to see a signal from another civilization if there was only one other civilization in our galaxy. Not to mention if there was only one per galaxy.

It' probably not "there's life there, so if we search,
we'll find it," but rather something like, "we think
there's probability X that a given start system has
intelligent life, the stars are distributed like Y,
and so theres a probability Z that a given piece of
sky will contain intelligent signals," and Z is
probably a very low number.

If I predict that one million successive coin flips
should produce one million successive heads only one
time out of 2^1,000,000, I'll be at it a long
time before I have any strong evidence one way or the
other.

Yes, I know how probability works as well. :)

Of course if astrology only impacts one out of 1,000,000 people in a significant way then the sample size to demonstrate that would probably require the entire earth's population.
 

Posts:957
Registered: 3/31/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:41 AM (reply 144 of 635)



 
You must be an aries because you are fiery and you like butting heads!
 

Posts:27,518
Registered: 11/3/97
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:45 AM (reply 145 of 635)



 
Errr...not really.

SETI is testing an extreme extropolation based on a
number of very unknown factors.

I don't understand what you mean. They know what
they're looking for, and they've decided in advance
how to determine whether they've found it or not based
on comparing results to expectations from randomness.
By "extreme extrapolation" do you mean that "there's
life on Earth, so maybe there's life elsewhere" or
something else?

Yes.

By "unknown factors" do you mean the
probability of there being life on other planets, or
something else?

Yes to the first.

If the former, AFAIK any such
estimates are only justifications for spending the
resources for the experiment, and (again AFAIK) won't
have any effect on the observations. Actually it's
the reverse - the longer they search without finding
anything, the lower becomes the maximum possible
probability of life in any given star system.

Huh?

My point is that SETI has been doing its thing for a long time. And over time in all likelyhood other scientific theories and findings have lessened rather than increased the chances.

And the chances were not much to start with (I believe statisticians use a "statistically zero" term for low probabilities and SETI has probably always been below that.)

And yet it goes on.

So how long is enough?
 

Posts:7,499
Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 9:54 AM (reply 146 of 635)



 
Again you are still talking about belief. You believe
that is what happened.

Not sure what you mean here. And maybe I am not getting your statement correctly. So let me explain myself...

I know that this type of testing (with the antibiotics) is occuring. I do it on a regular basis. In school, I worked with med students and pre-med students. We did the same tests, together. So that is not a question to me... unless I am misunderstanding the 'that' in the 'You belive that is what happened.'

Moreover you believe it
happens in general and then use that to generalize to
the specific. So you make a decision to trust the
word of a doctor based on what you believe medecine
has learned, what you believe the doctor has learned
and in all likelyhood what you believe that you have
learned about human nature (in that you trust the
doctor.)

The nature of belief systems.

Hmm. perhaps you are thinking I am saying science is not a belief system? I am not. I personnaly belive that there are three basic belief systems. Math, Science, and Philosophy. All which when done correctly interrelate and learn from each other. Religion is in the realm of Philosophy, and Science has little or no way of addressing the issue...

I do believe that you are mis-guided in thinking that we believe everything based on faith without any proof. The example of the doctor I used was to show that the doctor indeed has done tests that show how medicine works to re-iterate what the books say, though they have not done every step up the scientif ladder that led to the drugs development, they have tested it, shown at least the theory is sound, and applied that to what they do...
 

Posts:1,135
Registered: 1/16/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 10:30 AM (reply 147 of 635)



 
Although I am sure that there are people that do publish reports on worked tools that they suggest are
not human, I doubt you will find any mainstream archeological books or journals that allow the authors
to suggest that the human line was not the originator.

Of course, how human-centric of us... But one can not dismiss the possibility... If one can believe in a supreme being, then one can also allow for non-human to fashion tools...
Niether can be proved to exist or not exist... a matter of belief, venturing a guess...

Religion is not dependent on more than one person
believing it. And one time the Mormon belief was only
practiced by one person.

Yes, that person practiced their belief, but it was not a religion ( the organized sort ) until others followed...



There are a number of experiments that one can conduct
to demonstrate that the earth is round.

How many have you personally conducted to verify that?

And when was the last time you repeated the test?

I suspect it is much more likely that you have choosen to believe the world is round simply because
everyone told you it was. And that is no different that 1000 years ago when the same sort of person
was told by everyone else that it was flat.

Well... let's see... Okay, first we need to find a place where the surface of the earth is relatively
even... Oh, I know the Ocean... Okay second we hop in a plane and fly out towards the middle of it, and
everywhere you look, you can see the "curvature" of the earth ( but that could be some atmospheric
effect ) Next Hop on a plane towards the equator, and wow, its round here too... And apparently we are > > closer to the sun than when we were up north... ( but maybe the sun is just closes there)... So we go to > > the other Ocean and amazing its round there also ( best seen from a good altitude)... Now lets hop in a
helicopter and fly over the pains. Now our altitimeter works via radar, so as we cross the plains the > > altitude difference is not much, but look, looking at the horizon, you can still see the curve...

....
What have you done ???

I did not ask for a description of the experiments. I have conducted some of the number of experiments > that one can use to generalize that the earth is round.
Most people have not. Most people can't describe them. I am sure most people can neither describe the
experiment nor can they describe the alternative explainations for that particular experiment (I know
I can't.)

=>" I did not ask for a description of the experiments"

No you did not...

=>"suspect it is much more likely that you have choosen to believe the world is round simply because
=>everyone told you it was..."

But by this statement, you did...
And I demonstrated how I arrived at my conclusions...
Was that not the answer you expected ???

Well it is bones and stones... But it would make
sense, that if it works on a micro scale, then the
macro scale would show similar results.
That the beauty of science, you question
everything...

There is no question. Public schools in the US teach that Evolutionary Theory is a fact. Just as 1+1 is a
fact.

But it makes for good Test scores...

In all likelyhood most students will not be introduced to the nature of belief systems and logical thinking
until the college level. And even there they might not understand it.

And that is the hidden cost for rote memorization, good Test scores, bad fundamental understanding of conceptual knowledge and logic...

More importantly they will not be introduced to the assumptions behind "logical" systems until college.
And even more of them will not understand that.
Because of this they are unlikely to ever unstand what the "Theory" part of Evolutionary Theory means. > Nor will they understand that will always remain a Theory nor why it will always be one.

Well, one can never say always... as improbable is it may seem to us today, there may come a time when we could build a time machine, and go to the past and prove or disprove the Theory...
If we could do that, then why not go back to the beginning of "time" and see if the creator is there...

But humans being humans, will turn it into a weapon system of sorts and probably end up wiping us all out... go figure... :-P

- MaxxDmg...

- ' He who never sleeps... '
 

Posts:957
Registered: 3/31/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 10:33 AM (reply 148 of 635)



 
OT but what are the gradations of scienitific basis...

theories
principles
laws

?
 

Posts:31,095
Registered: 4/30/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 2, 2004 10:38 AM (reply 149 of 635)



 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Look under "scientific method".
 
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Next »