Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9190 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: critterridder
Post Volume: Total: 919,041 Year: 6,298/9,624 Month: 146/240 Week: 89/72 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 215 (655609)
03-11-2012 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rahvin
03-08-2012 6:03 PM


Re: Denier of science?? I don't think so...
Stars are primarily fusion reactions, but the intense heat and pressure along with the fact that fusion creates heavier elements also result in fission.
Main sequence stars don't produce elements that can release energy by fissioning. I suppose that there could be some fissionable material in a star that resulted from the destruction of a previous star. Fissioning of light elements is endothermic.
Once a star starts producing iron, nickle, and cobalt, which cannot release energy by fissioning or fusion, the end is near.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2012 6:03 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 205 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 77 of 215 (655954)
03-15-2012 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
03-11-2012 9:12 AM


NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
Viewing is done optically. Using aids such as a microscope, telescope or glasses would be viewing. Using an electron microscope would not be viewing.
Why on earth not? Why do we get to amplify them through optical means but by no other method? By this logic, we have never "viewed" electricity except as sparks. We've never "viewed" any light beyond the visible spectrum since it requires translation. All those gamma ray bursts that come from the universe, well, we've never actually "seen" them since that requires mechanical equipment to detect them. If you put on gloves, then you're not really "feeling" anything since the sensation is being mechanically transmitted.
Your definition is untenable. Why is transmission via photon acceptable but not via electron?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2012 9:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 11:19 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 2:13 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 215 (656000)
03-15-2012 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rrhain
03-15-2012 3:59 AM


Why is transmission via photon acceptable but not via electron?
I didn't say that transmission via photon is unacceptable. I said that it was not viewing. We view objects by allowing light from the object to enter our eye, where portions of our eye are sensitive to that light.
For what it is worth, with an STM, not only do we not view light, we also don't perceive the electrons. I think Dr. A has done a pretty good job of explaining why an STM is not viewing.
An STM produces perfectly acceptable evidence despite the fact that it does not allow us to view an atom. But essentially an STM produces tunneling current readings which are converted to a display. The current readings can be presumed to be related to surface conditions of the specimen, so that (for example) we can use such readings to map out doped regions of a semiconductor. But we don't actually see those regions.
I understand that your examples (e.g. gamma rays) are supposed to make me feel ridiculous, but they really don't achieve that effect. Yes we do know that there are gamma ray sources out in the galaxy, and we have instruments that detect them, and we can defect their effect on equipment. But we cannot see gamma ray bursts.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2012 3:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 11:52 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 113 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 1:02 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 215 (656004)
03-15-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by NoNukes
03-15-2012 11:19 AM


I agree with the sentiment that we can't really witness macroevolution, but I disagree with it not having any real meaning. When I took a course on human evolution in college, our biology textbook distinguished between micro and macro evolution. Too, Biology Online has this to say:
quote:
Macroevolution
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
I don't think that a speciation event in some bacteria is a good representation of what we should be using macroevolution to describe.
And don't bother with Rrhain; he's really only interested in gainsaying and you'll end up finding out that he wasn't worth your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 11:19 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 6:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 215 (656010)
03-15-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rrhain
03-15-2012 3:59 AM


Why on earth not? Why do we get to amplify them through optical means but by no other method? By this logic, we have never "viewed" electricity except as sparks.
We haven't.
We've never "viewed" any light beyond the visible spectrum since it requires translation.
Quite so. We haven't.
All those gamma ray bursts that come from the universe, well, we've never actually "seen" them since that requires mechanical equipment to detect them.
Indeed. We haven't.
If you put on gloves, then you're not really "feeling" anything since the sensation is being mechanically transmitted.
If I put on gloves, then what I feel is what things feel like through my gloves when I'm wearing gloves. I am feeling something, but I am not feeling the thing the gloves are touching. I am feeling the pressure exerted on my fingers by the material of my gloves and (by and large correctly) interpreting it by figuring out what I would feel if I actually touched the object, which I am not doing.
I am not touching the thing, I'm touching the glove. The fact that my interpretation of my sensations is particularly easy and intuitive does not mean that I'm touching the thing. I'm not. I'm wearing gloves. This prevents me from touching it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2012 3:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 215 (656020)
03-15-2012 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 2:13 PM


Inconsistent with language usage. Devices like IR imagers are widely described as allowing users to see infrared, and this language is viewed as accurate by an overwhelming number of English speakers.
Sorry, you're wrong. You've mistaken yourself as the arbiter of language use. Usage is the arbiter of language use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 2:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 7:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 215 (656030)
03-15-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2012 11:52 AM


I agree with the sentiment that we can't really witness macroevolution, but I disagree with it not having any real meaning.
I can accept that criticism.
My point is merely that when a creationist says that a dog giving birth to something other than a dog has never been witnessed, the statement is true, in at least some sense, yet irrelevant except to a creationist.
What the creationist is really expressing is that regardless of what evidence and logical argument you provide, the creationist, who believes that his immortal soul is at stake, is not going to budge unless you can provide the kind of proof that involves a time machine and a chasing the descendants of a single breeding set of animals around for millions of years.
Of course if a scientist ever did manage such a feet, the creationist would still avoid the Faustian bargain.
I'm not going to quibble with Biology Online's definition, but it really isn't the definition that is at stake in an argument with creationists. A creationist believes that there is some absolute, God enforced barrier between "kinds", and that some law, be it the second law of thermodynamics, conservation of information, or whatever, that establishes that barrier.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2012 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Omnivorous, posted 03-15-2012 9:58 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 114 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 1:17 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 215 (656031)
03-15-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
03-15-2012 4:28 PM


Inconsistent with language usage. Devices like IR imagers are widely described as allowing users to see infrared, and this language is viewed as accurate by an overwhelming number of English speakers.
People can say what they like. I'm fine with a little flexibility of usage. Nonetheless, they aren't actually seeing infrared. People also describe astronauts in orbit as being in zero gravity, that doesn't mean that they are. The distinction may not need to be made in ordinary conversation, but perhaps it should be made when we're talking about technical issues concerning science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2012 4:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 7:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 4001
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 84 of 215 (656034)
03-15-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by NoNukes
03-15-2012 6:54 PM


NoNukes writes:
What the creationist is really expressing is that regardless of what evidence and logical argument you provide, the creationist, who believes that his immortal soul is at stake, is not going to budge unless you can provide the kind of proof that involves a time machine and a chasing the descendants of a single breeding set of animals around for millions of years.
Of course if a scientist ever did manage such a feet, the creationist would still avoid the Faustian bargain.
Indeed--why strain out a gnat after swallowing a camel?
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 6:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 215 (656045)
03-16-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2012 7:55 PM


Nonetheless, they aren't actually seeing infrared.
Yeah, they are; just like how someone using a hammer is driving a nail, just like how someone sitting in an airplane is travelling, just like how someone making a phone call is talking to the other person.
Just like how someone gripping an orange in their medical prosthesis is holding an orange. All senses are prosthetic. Confusing freefall with "zero gravity" is an error of category, but there's no difference between seeing infrared via the prosthesis of a machine and seeing the visible spectrum via the prosthesis of your own eyes. It's not a "technical issue concerning science", it's your own idiosyncratic word use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2012 7:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 215 (656103)
03-16-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 7:22 AM


Just like how someone gripping an orange in their medical prosthesis is holding an orange. All senses are prosthetic. Confusing freefall with "zero gravity" is an error of category, but there's no difference between seeing infrared via the prosthesis of a machine and seeing the visible spectrum via the prosthesis of your own eyes. It's not a "technical issue concerning science", it's your own idiosyncratic word use.
But it is English usage that is idiosyncratic. I'm suggesting that for technical purposes we should make it less so.
Look, consider the following conversation:
Me: I have seen the Loch Ness Monster.
You: You're kidding.
Me: No, I have really seen the Loch Ness Monster.
You: Did anyone else see it?
Me: Oh yes, many thousands of other people saw it.
You: When and where exactly did you see it?
Me: I saw it in this photograph.
Now, in plain English I'm lying or at the very least abusing language when I claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster. And the same would be the case if the photograph was veridical --- for example, if I claimed to have seen the Taj Mahal and then it turned out that I've never been to India but have seen a photograph of it. Again, you'd think of me as a liar or a fool if I claimed to have seen the Taj Mahal on that basis, and it would not impress you if I excused my mis-statement by saying that I had "seen" it "via the prosthesis of a photograph".
And yet when a machine makes a series of measurements and, based on a theory that tells it how to interpret those measurements, synthesizes a visual representation of its data, you wish to say that someone looking at this visual representation has "seen" atoms.
Now, the English language is a bit sloppy. Ordinarily, I have no objection to that. But if we're going to get into a technical discussion of epistemology, then perhaps we could aim at a little consistency. Have I seen the Loch Ness Monster? Have I seen the Taj Mahal? Have I seen infra-red light? Have I seen atoms? If you answer yes to the second question, then it is you who is flying in the face of English usage. But if you answer no to the second question but yes to the fourth, then it is you who is being idiosyncratic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 7:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 12:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 1:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 215 (656133)
03-16-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 3:32 PM


But it is English usage that is idiosyncratic.
By definition, it can't be. Again, you're confusing yourself with the arbiter of English usage. Usage is the arbiter of English usage.
Now, in plain English I'm lying or at the very least abusing language when I claim to have seen the Loch Ness Monster.
Not at all. If the "Loch Ness Monster" means "a fake aquatic reptile that people frequently manufacture photos of" than you're no more inaccurate in your speech than I am when I say that I've seen Mickey Mouse.
Where we draw a distinction between seeing something and seeing a picture of something is when it's possible to see something without seeing a picture of it - i.e. you can go to India and use your eyes to see the Taj Mahal directly. But it's not possible to use your eyes to see IR images directly, you have to use a machine to see a picture of an IR image, so in English we call that "seeing IR" because it's as close to seeing IR directly as it's possible to get.
And yet when a machine makes a series of measurements and, based on a theory that tells it how to interpret those measurements, synthesizes a visual representation of its data, you wish to say that someone looking at this visual representation has "seen" atoms.
Yes. Because I see no practical difference between a machine made of circuits interpreting EM data and a machine made of cells interpreting EM data. All senses are prosthetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 5:34 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 9:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 88 of 215 (656143)
03-16-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 4:35 PM


By definition, it can't be.
But it manifestly is.
Try this conversation.
You: So you're British?
Me: Yes.
You: So have you ever seen the Queen?
Me: No, I've only seen her on television.
You: But you've never actually seen her.
Me: No.
Now, this is English. It is also peculiar. If I've only played tennis on grass courts, I've played tennis, but if I've only seen the Queen on television, I haven't seen the Queen.
Not at all. If the "Loch Ness Monster" means "a fake aquatic reptile that people frequently manufacture photos of" than you're no more inaccurate in your speech than I am when I say that I've seen Mickey Mouse.
So you would claim that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster?
But I haven't, it doesn't exist.
Where we draw a distinction between seeing something and seeing a picture of something is when it's possible to see something without seeing a picture of it - i.e. you can go to India and use your eyes to see the Taj Mahal directly. But it's not possible to use your eyes to see IR images directly, you have to use a machine to see a picture of an IR image, so in English we call that "seeing IR" because it's as close to seeing IR directly as it's possible to get.
So ... the reason we should say that we can see infra-red ... is precisely because it is impossible to actually do so?
Yes. Because I see no practical difference between a machine made of circuits interpreting EM data and a machine made of cells interpreting EM data.
Using what device, prosthetic or otherwise, did you "see" the absence of a practical difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 4:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 89 of 215 (656189)
03-16-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
03-16-2012 4:35 PM


Where we draw a distinction between seeing something and seeing a picture of something is when it's possible to see something without seeing a picture of it - i.e. you can go to India and use your eyes to see the Taj Mahal directly. But it's not possible to use your eyes to see IR images directly, you have to use a machine to see a picture of an IR image, so in English we call that "seeing IR" because it's as close to seeing IR directly as it's possible to get.
Another oddity occurs to me. Apparently we should say that someone seeing visually presented information about a thing is seeing it so long as it is impossible to actually see it. But this has some strange consequences. Suppose before the invention of submarines someone is looking at a chart of the sea floor prepared by people making measurements and drawing up the chart.
He is, apparently, seeing the sea floor, via the "prosthesis" of a naval chart. But then someone comes along and invents the submarine and can actually see the sea floor, after which it follows that the man with the chart can no longer see it, since it is now possible to actually see it.
There must have been a point, then --- perhaps at the moment when the sea floor first came into view from the window of the first submarine --- when a man sitting with his eyes fixed on a chart would suddenly have stopped seeing the sea floor. One moment, he's seeing the sea floor, the next moment advances in submarine technology means that all he can see is a piece of paper. The object that he's looking at looks exactly the same all this while, but what he is seeing has suddenly changed from being millions of square miles of ocean bed to being a piece of paper twelve inches by nine. And unless he is being constantly updated on the progress of submarine technology, this change will from his point of view go completely unnoticed.
The mind boggles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 03-16-2012 4:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 03-25-2012 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1664 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 215 (657045)
03-25-2012 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
03-16-2012 5:34 PM


Try this conversation.
Dr. Adequate, have you ever seen Mickey Mouse?
By your definition, you'd be forced to deny that you ever had - that, indeed, nobody ever had, since they had only ever seen images of Mickey Mouse, people pretending to be Mickey Mouse, and so on.
I've played tennis, but if I've only seen the Queen on television, I haven't seen the Queen.
Uh, no. If you've ever seen the Queen on television, or as a photograph in a magazine or on the computer, you've seen the Queen.
Everybody who has read this post has seen the Queen. See? There she is!
So you would claim that I have seen the Loch Ness Monster?
Sure. Most people have seen the Loch Ness Monster, just like most people have seen Mickey Mouse.
So ... the reason we should say that we can see infra-red ... is precisely because it is impossible to actually do so?
No, exactly wrong. It's precisely because it is possible to see in infrared that we say that we can see in infrared.
Using what device, prosthetic or otherwise, did you "see" the absence of a practical difference?
My mind. You see, "see" means many more things than just using your eyes to view something directly. See?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-16-2012 5:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2012 1:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024