(June 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Alex K Wrote: Uh-Oh. With great power comes great responsibility

Don't worry.  I am ready to stop believing you at any moment.  Just say some crazy bullshit, and we shall see.  (Or, rather, I will see, for as I have already stated, I am not going to argue with you online about any sciency thing.)

(June 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Alex K Wrote: Uh-Oh. With great power comes great responsibility

That's right, The maintenance of the good names of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, schrodinger, Heisenberg, fermi, Dirac, yang and mills, Glashow, Weinberg, Watson now all rest upon your hamster loving shoulders. 

Disclaimer:
I had no intention of starting a modesty battle between Pyrrho & AlexK.






It's pleasant to see physics and metaphysics peacefully coexist.

Challenge: Can you deny your mutual self deprecation without looking even more 'aw shucks, we're just folk?'

I would not characterize this as a modesty battle.  Uncle K knows more about science than I do.  He will not deny that, even though he is polite.  If you want, you may ask him that directly and see what he says.

If he is extremely cautious, he will merely say that I have not demonstrated any great scientific knowledge, not that he is certain that I lack it.  But there is no doubt that I have not demonstrated in this thread the scientific knowledge he has demonstrated in this thread.  He will agree to that.

My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit.  And further, that it does not matter what philosophers say about the philosophy of science.  That is, it does not matter as long as scientists are smart enough to ignore it, which they generally are.

None of this is to be understood as being disparaging of the subject of philosophy as a whole.  Indeed, one of the early posts I made regarding all of this was to bring in one of the most respected philosophers in the history of philosophy (David Hume), and I have been endorsing his position, that metaphysics is (to use his words) "sophistry and illusion."

I did not say that my posts had no value.  I stated that they had no scientific value.  None of the posts of mine that have value in this thread are of any scientific value.   [Some of my posts were mere jokes, as I hope people can see (though I think someone mistook one for something serious a while back), and so I cannot say that they all have value of any kind.]  My posts that have value were about metaphysics and about the philosophy of science, and about poetry (the last of which Uncle K recognized in his list of links).

But, for scientific value, Uncle K has given us numerous posts.  And he has wisely recognized the limitations both of his subject and his personal knowledge (which I state this way to please him, as well as being strictly true).  He seems more open than I am to the idea that the philosophy of science may have some value, but I suspect that that is because he has spent more time doing useful things than reading worthless crap in the philosophy of science, though he has read some that gives him some appreciation for my position.

He may now either endorse this or argue with it or ignore it, as it pleases him.

(June 9, 2015 at 8:54 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit.  

My apologies for mischaracterizing your position(s).
I confuse easily.
But aren't you stating a positional claim of the underlying ultimate character of metaphysics?  That it is bullshit?
Isn't that a metaphysical stand?
Ah, well....

Quote:And further, that it does not matter what philosophers say about the philosophy of science.  That is, it does not matter as long as scientists are smart enough to ignore it, which they generally are.

I expect there is a multi dimensional spectrum of attitudes, from indifference to complete acceptance to full denial which establish some equilibrium position for the population of practitioners.  Given the amount of work involved in creating and maintaining standing in any scientific discipline, I'd expect the general consensus of scientists regarding the philosophy of science to be, "Eh, what?"  Though when pressed and if the question is specifically put, they'd probably agree with you.

Quote:I did not say that my posts had no value.  I stated that they had no scientific value.  None of the posts of mine that have value in this thread are of any scientific value.

Sure they do.  Science is the study of reality.  As your posts are part of the material world, they are included in that study and have scientific value.  At this moment, your posts, with billions of others, are being data-mined by graduate students around the world studying the uses to which the bandwith surplus of the internet can and should be put.  So to say they have 'no' scientific value is excessively modest.  May I suggest an alternative, 'of infinitessimal scientific value.'  

Quote:Some of my posts were mere jokes,

As are mine.  And I hope you find them amusing rather than insulting.

(June 9, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Uncle K

Uhhh, yea....sorry about that Alex

Jesus, I'm drowning in saccharine harmony here! Can't we fight a little over who made what contribution?

(June 9, 2015 at 8:25 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Challenge: Can you deny your mutual self deprecation without looking even more 'aw shucks, we're just folk?'

Oh, I'm sure Pyrrho is much better at that than me. He's so talented

(June 10, 2015 at 7:28 am)Alex K Wrote: Jesus, I'm drowning in saccharine harmony here! Can't we fight a little over who made what contribution?

Perhaps there is a fundamental harmony field whose excitation by talks of LHC resulted in this sea of harmonions.    Presumably harmonions can harmoniously share the same quantum state, So we can call the harmonion particles you are drowning in Alex's bosons.   


Okay, even I can't make that one fly.