User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-14 at 10:46 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 10:48 PM UTCNobody should ever stop pretending. Can you imagine?
We like to sing, dance, PRETEEEEND. But most of all we like to have fun fun FUNFUNFUNFUNFUNFUN -
2018-11-14 at 11:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service This is plain wrong, and your description of path integrals was missed the point too.
1. I didn't define path integrals anywhere.
2. Say why I'm wrong or go fuck yourselfLanny, QM is a model, not a hypothesis. You can't directly test a model.
1. The Standard Model is a model. QM is a branch of physics.
2. Guess what a model is.You guys are worse than a pair of new agers banging their crystals together to raise their vibrations.
This is possibly the lowest grade jediigi bait I've ever seen. -
2018-11-14 at 11:13 PM UTCGuess what a model is.
*********
Is rubber involved? -
2018-11-14 at 11:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Very well said.
You didn't really have to call me a retard earlier, but whatever, bygones be bygones, water under the bridge, and so forth.
This convergence towards a singular explanation is kind of exactly what I was getting at earlier with the whole idea of pragmatic knowledge over pure knowledge.
These convergences towards a single source of truth are only probabilistically valid. Lanny was right when he pointed out that all this talk of statisticical inference and probabalistic conclusions are really just wishful thinking.
I personally take the position that scientific "fact" is tantamount to logical "fact".
But I know deep down that it's really just a set of statements about the universe that we all implicitly buy into, despite the fact that "Truth" with a captital T can't be espablished on such principles.
Basically, we exist in an epistemological void with no true knowledge to speak of, but we certainly have scientific "facts" that we can rely on with the same faith we often tend to apply to, say, religion.
I'm going to call you retarded again because you really made the statement that because it's based off
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny then lightning bolts should also be on the rainbow flags.
Maybe faggots should be on the lightning bolt's flag -
2018-11-14 at 11:14 PM UTC...
Lol, I thought you were that snab_snib for a sec.
You both insulted me, but you didn't take it to any extreme depths like that snab_snib character.
EDIT:
Adding back what I had originally edited out...
Why are you such a sour prick? -
2018-11-14 at 11:17 PM UTCI'm going to call you retarded again because you really made the statement that because it's based off
********
Things aren't "based off" they're "based on".The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-11-14 at 11:17 PM UTC
-
2018-11-14 at 11:18 PM UTCITT: PhD in Condom Mechanics be pseudo-intellectualizing, snib_snab be dissing for straight up no reason, and the rest of us just be like "WTF?".
-
2018-11-15 at 1:59 AM UTC
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service Lanny, QM is a model, not a hypothesis. You can't directly test a model.
Uhh, you can test models by seeing if the predictions which fall out of those models match observed behavior. And that's what's been done for many of the theories that fall under QM. I don't know how you think "directly testing a model" and "testing a model" differ but you'll notice I never invoked the word "directly", you did.
How is what you're doing right now anything less than pedantic deflection?
edit: also as CF pointed out, QM isn't actually a model either. I was trying to go along with it because it seemed clear what you meant but if you're going to be like "hah! QM isn't a hypothesis! Gotcha!" then I'm not sure why I should bother with reading what you write charitably. -
2018-11-15 at 2:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks ITT: PhD in Condom Mechanics be pseudo-intellectualizing, snib_snab be dissing for straight up no reason, and the rest of us just be like "WTF?".
so fucking, fucking gay. that's what this pants pissingly trivial pseudointellectual posturing. i've heard more intelligent conversations, including mexicans, about why aliens probe anuses and what happens when you swallow gum. -
2018-11-15 at 2:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't know how you think "directly testing a model" and "testing a model" differ but you'll notice I never invoked the word "directly", you did.
Lol, but can't we just take the QM model for a test drive and see how it handles?
I think a commonly recurring source of confusion and miscommunication in this thread is from trying to epistemologically close the gap between vaguely (or even highly accurately) understanding how something works (the term I use was pragmatic certainty, but others in this thread have referred to essentially the same concept in different terms), and the metaphysical mechanisms by which these same things work.
I think we're all guilty of some pendant-ism in this thread.
I think (and I'm just kinda hypothesizing here), that it all comes down to the "thing-in-itself", or noumenon, and the thing we actually perceive (the phenomenon).
Drawing 100% certain conclusions based on empirical scientific data is perhaps a bit overly ambitious, but deriving 99.999999% certain conclusions is reasonable, at least as far as I'm concerned. -
2018-11-15 at 2:41 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Drawing 100% certain conclusions based on empirical scientific data is perhaps a bit overly ambitious, but deriving 99.999999% certain conclusions is reasonable, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Well again, I think this is a case where we need to be a little more careful with the language we use around scientific findings. What do you mean by "99.9...% certain"? Do you mean that's the probability of a hypothesis being correct? Because if so it's simply wrong, scientific means of gathering evidence do _not_ give us a probabilistic model of hypothesis correctness.
I don't think there's any good, general, or objective way of quantifying strength of evidence in favor of or against a hypothesis. You can see this reflected in scientific publication where we need trained experts to conduct literature reviews and meta studies. Even though there are formal policies about how those should be carried out, it still basically boils down to someone reading a bunch of papers and giving their gut feeling on the subject as informed by relevant evidence. It's not like three papers in favor of a hypothesis is better than two against, or you sum up cite counts, or some other silliness.
The fact that we don't have an objective measure of strength of evidence doesn't mean we can't compare strength of evidence at all. The progress of scientific understanding and displacement of theories makes it seem pretty clear some theories have better evidence in favor of them than others. But we should be honest about the fact that scientific consensus isn't the output of some strictly structured objective system, it's formed in the same way that literary or philosophical consensus is formed: by argument among a community of expert practitioners and based ultimately on human opinion guided by a general and vague set of rules. -
2018-11-15 at 2:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny scientific means of gathering evidence do _not_ give us a probabilistic model of hypothesis correctness.
You use Slack for work, don't you?
I've mixed up _words_ and words both here and there from time to time.
Originally posted by Lanny it still basically boils down to someone reading a bunch of papers and giving their gut feeling on the subject as informed by relevant evidence.
That's an important point to make. Science, at the end of the day, involves more than just logical deduction and scientific induction. When researchers write their "Conclusion" section, they are deriving inferences that are inherently psychologically biased.
Originally posted by Lanny The fact that we don't have an objective measure of strength of evidence doesn't mean we can't compare strength of evidence at all. The progress of scientific understanding and displacement of theories makes it seem pretty clear some theories have better evidence in favor of them than others. But we should be honest about the fact that scientific consensus isn't the output of some strictly structured objective system, it's formed in the same way that literary or philosophical consensus is formed: by argument among a community of expert practitioners and based ultimately on human opinion guided by a general and vague set of rules.
I thought I was going to have to say a whole lot more after my above response, but essentially it's getting into the exact same point.
There was a huge controversy in psychology, to name but one scientific area of inquiry, where the issue of p-hacking, wherein researchers would manipulate statistical results to fit preformed hypotheses, came about.
I don't think it's much of a leap to assume that even the "harder" sciences are susceptible to this flawed procedure.
At the end of the day, though, as flawed as the scientific method is, I put a lot of trust in it.
I don't know what your ultimate position on the matter is, as I've only seen you express some (healthy) skepticism, but no outright denial of the benefits of scientific inquiry. But my personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that it has true pragmatic value, despite it's many flaws. -
2018-11-15 at 3:37 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-15 at 4 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Which Falcon, and I, and you if you've taken like 5 minutes to read the most basic description or history of QM, agree is plainly false. QM is testable in the same basic way all successful physical theories are testable, there is nothing special about it that makes it immune to empirical investigation or falsification.
your neglecting the fact that a many of these 'theories' are theories until proven to be otherwise instead of being the other way round. -
2018-11-15 at 4:02 AM UTC
-
2018-11-15 at 4:03 AM UTC
-
2018-11-15 at 4:04 AM UTCwell fuck
-
2018-11-15 at 4:12 AM UTCLol 😋
