|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: teknix]
#14201164 - 03/28/11 11:16 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think these possibilities should be relegated to the conspiracy forum and the mysticism forum. Its nonsense to post this crap in the science forum, because its not science.
This site is filled with enthusiastic youngsters opining on possibilities. Its nice to have a place for scientific discussions of plausibilities.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
As soon as people begin posting thier own research papers detailing thier personal/teams experiments, then I will agree with you. 
Otherwise it is just a matter of choosing sides and what appeals to a personal box. Do you honestly think that the guys that are throwing the predetermined boxes to the wind are doing it for amusement? Do you think they are less of a scientist?
What do these guys honestly have to gain from it? They have everything to lose and they take that risk.
These are the frontiersmen IMO. They are unafraid to question what they have been taught, and do not blindly accept what as been previously established, without finding out for themselves. In doing so they may stumble upon things that the box that has been generated prior has no answers for.
Possible =/= Impossible.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Ok, iluvfungi (and others):
In the future, when posting in the Science and Technology Forum, please don't make another thread such as this with essentially no content except for youtube videos. The problem is that there is no content beyond the youtube videos, and contains no discussion or original content.
If I moved this thread to the Conspiracy Forum it would just be locked for violating the rules there about starting threads with copy/pasted youtube videos, et cet and no substantial original content, discussion.
If your going to be arguing something akin to conspiracy theories or unorthodox science, please consider posting in the conspiracy forum. If you post it in the Science Forum, please bring it on topic with a discussion of the actual science involved (youtube content doesn't count) or some argument how mainstream science has "gotten it wrong".
I'll leave this thread open since there's some side discussions going on, but another mod may lock it if they prefer.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: teknix] 1
#14202880 - 03/29/11 09:43 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: These are the frontiersmen IMO.
Frontiersmen huh? I dont think so. They are just going in circles around land already explored while ignoring the maps drawn by the frontiersmen before them.
By the same token you could say these people are frontiersmen in science... http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ I would say they are not.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: teknix]
#14203530 - 03/29/11 12:39 PM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: The plausible is possible, lol.
What would be left is a society that thinks it knows everything and that everything that it thinks it knows is as that it will ever know.
IMO, this is only thinking from the confines of a box.
Unevolving.
That is beside my point though. I am just saying that this forums shouldn't be closed to the possibilities. If you guys want to have a peer-reviewed section, than make another one IMO.
From a personal point of view, I like to read some of these possibilities and find it entertaining to say the least.
You are confusing philosophy (bullshitting) with science. The first time somebody posted something about "browns gas" it was interesting to debunk. However, every few months somebody new comes along thinking they are the first person to find a youtube video talking about the joys of browns gas and how it is going to save the world, if only the governments wouldn't kill off all of the really smart people behind the "science", etc, etc, etc. Regurgitating youtube videos is not novel, is not new, is not unique, is not science, and in most circumstances has no place in this forum.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: Seuss]
#14207487 - 03/30/11 01:38 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
philosophy =/= bullshitting. That's just an incredibly dumb and shortsighted remark and suggests an utter disregard of the fundamentals of modern science. Along with mathematics and physics, philosophy is arguably one of the basic sciences, with every other scientific discipline being derived from these three. I respect you as a person Seuss, but this remark just doesn't float with me. You're wrong.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: koraks]
#14207822 - 03/30/11 04:32 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> philosophy =/= bullshitting. That's just an incredibly dumb and shortsighted remark
It is actually a reference to a Mel Brooks movie (History of the World Part 1).
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 26,672
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: Seuss]
#14207827 - 03/30/11 04:37 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If it involves Mel Brooks (or Paul Feyerabend), then anything goes.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 21 days
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: koraks]
#14207830 - 03/30/11 04:38 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
> philosophy =/= bullshitting. That's just an incredibly dumb and shortsighted remark
It is actually a reference to a Mel Brooks movie (History of the World Part 1). However, more to the point, I was trying to differentiate between philosophy of science, or somebody trained in philosophy, and the "couch philosopher" posting here that is deluded into thinking that their stoned out thoughts are viable science because "anything is possible".
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Free Energy [Re: teknix]
#14207883 - 03/30/11 05:17 AM (12 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: That is beside my point though. I am just saying that this forums shouldn't be closed to the possibilities. If you guys want to have a peer-reviewed section, than make another one IMO.
I agree, but I don't understand how you could get the notion that anything to the contrary was suggested. If something in my statement regarding acceptable posting in this forum has suggested this not to be the case, please explain what it is.
I did not say you must conform to any particular orthodoxy or viewpoint to post here, but rather:
a) Posts consisting of essentially a list of copy-pasted content and a perfunctory note asking "what do you think?", "this is interesting?", or a naked claim of "the corporations are lieing to us!" is not acceptable. Posts that have obvious scientific relevance such as new discoveries and so forth might be examples of things that would deserve some leeway based on the content and nature of the subject discussed and whether it is a topic of interest in the news or scientific community.
b) Posts must be on topic. Science-related threads must have something making them relevant to this forum's topic: Science and Technology. Meerly posting a youtube video or article concerning some revolutionary claim is not sufficient in my view. For a science-related post to be on topic it should include some scientific discussion. Examples would include asking for help in understanding some scientific concept in a source the user has come across, discussing some new development in science with the scientific concepts of relevance being discussed, and advancing a view that "science has it wrong" with some discussion of the scientific argument being made.
In this thread, for example, had the user included a scientific argument for antigravity or free energy or whatnot, rather than just tacking-up a string of videos or proclaiming his endorsement, it would have been on topic in my view- regardless of how outrageous the claims are. Plainly put: science is concerned with observations and logic. Nothing in this thread had anything to do with that: it's off topic.
I don't see anyone who advocated turning this board into some peer review process. Given that the users of this site are not peers, the whole idea sounds pretty silly to me.
Quote:
koraks said: philosophy =/= bullshitting. That's just an incredibly dumb and shortsighted remark and suggests an utter disregard of the fundamentals of modern science. Along with mathematics and physics, philosophy is arguably one of the basic sciences, with every other scientific discipline being derived from these three. I respect you as a person Seuss, but this remark just doesn't float with me. You're wrong.
I doubt he's being literal, obviously the term is a metaphor, and I suspect he understands the "fundamentals of modern science" from his other posts in this forum.
The remark seems accurate in so far as it compares the empirical, observable, basis of science with the conjecture and suppositions that are the basis of philosophy. Where philosophy explores relationships between things that may or may not exist (bullshit), science is concerned exclusively with that which does exist: observable phenomena (not bullshit).
A philosophical position may or may not have any conceivable application or usefulness, whereas science by definition explores that which does exist and may be utilitzed ot make useful predictions and understand complex phenomena.
Quote:
teknix said: The plausible is possible, lol.
Yes, so what?
He did not criticize suppositions on the grounds that they are posible rather than plausible, the only construction I could envision which would justify your remark to this end, rather: he criticized suppositions supported by an appeal to the fact that they were possible. As he clearly said, that something is possible is not any indication of its liklihood or usefulness. This possible vs plausible distinction I suspect is the difference between that which Seuss called bullshit vs not.
Quote:
What would be left is a society that thinks it knows everything and that everything that it thinks it knows is as that it will ever know.
IMO, this is only thinking from the confines of a box.
Unevolving.
I've heard this claim many times, usually by those criticizing science as "thinking it knows everything", and it never seems to make any sense.
What in diecommie's post or the underlying logic of it suggests that your claim is true? You simply declare this conclusion with no support whatsoever.
Science is not derived from investigating possibilities unrelated to observations, but is derived from observation about what actually occures. If you wish to reverse this process and concern yourself with that which is possible meerly because it is possible, you will start down a road that is unbounded: not very useful given the observation that our universe obeys relatively simple laws reducable to simple relationships: F=ma, E=mcc, et cet. These finite relationships are a small portion of the universe of relationships that are possible: by definition this ratio or worthwhile, accurate, information to inaccurate possibilities approaches 0 as you continue down the path of investigating the possible.
It is pointless.
|
|