Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Amazon Microscope, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Scientific Replication * 1
    #25871367 - 03/13/19 11:25 AM (8 days, 10 hours ago)

Quote:

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.




www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

What do you think the implications of this experiment are in relation to the topic? Does it matter that at a quantum level there are different realities depending on who is observing?


--------------------
Being unable to make what is just strong,
we have made what is strong just. -- Pascal

Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 24,526
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle] * 3
    #25871783 - 03/13/19 03:27 PM (8 days, 6 hours ago)

most of Quantum science means something significant about reality at the scale of tiny particles which does not exactly resolve as true in macro forms.

even if the results are consistently indicative of different realities at micro levels, as relates to the microscopic observations, we could be faced with normalizing in the macro world resulting in highly dependable consistency in "reality".


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: redgreenvines] * 2
    #25871924 - 03/13/19 04:53 PM (8 days, 4 hours ago)

I think I agree. At least to the point where there is a sweet rabbit hole to explore for someone with the time and money :lol: But I also think it's interesting that the experiment itself part way bridges the micro/macro gap by involving the complexity of human observation rather than just theorizing about quantum states in a vacuum.

The interaction is not just a quantum one. It is also a human one.


--------------------
Being unable to make what is just strong,
we have made what is strong just. -- Pascal

Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 9,636
Loc: South Flag
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle] * 1
    #25871953 - 03/13/19 05:12 PM (8 days, 4 hours ago)

Something I've spent a bit of time on.

We are the arbiters.
We are the objection.
We are the guessing.
And then agreeing.



Here's a couple of poems that do a better job at misdirection than I could ever do in straight text.

*****?
Grey is the colour.
Blurred is the clarity. 
Self awareness lover.
Self indulgent charity.

Convinced of definition.
Seperation of truths.
Absolute reality supposition.
Subconscious cut aloof.

"Its charming to ponder"
A defeated brush stroke.
No carts sent asunder.
Only proven words spoke.

The smaller they can "see".
The closer they must be.
The chaos of the miniscule.
Dicrediting isomorphic ridicule.

When do we stop.
Where does it begin.
******


Without an answer to it all ever.
You will be constantly deluded, just to feel better.
With the base never defined, understood or measurable.
Every thing after that is merely self indulgent, purpose pleasurable.  
How do the most fundamental questions always fall on deaf ears.
How can they believe their solving it whilst being no closer after all these years.
Why cant they admit when inevitably being confounded.
Building on false assumptions will mean nothingness compounded.

How can we ignore that the ethereal conciousness of our reflections.  
Mirror closely the massive and minute quantum interactions.
To look out. To be free. To have doubt. Peek inside to see.


******


Infinites border begins at you and ends with me.
Between us all that we think we can see.
Necessary confusions obscure the casual glance.
What's the flame going to do next? Not a chance.

Order is random.
Truisms fluid.
Notions define.
What is concluded.

What is matter is trust.
Between you and me it must.
Even for the great nothingness to be true.
I alone could never prove it without you.

Random is just another thing we built that we don't understand.
That would change with a new discovery planned.
All that our sciences can percieve.
Is limited only by what we can believe.

*******


Outwards inwards.
Isn't it fun.
Intrigue lingers.
Atoms and sun.

Replicate shape.
Reflecting endlessly.
Mindfull escape.
Self centrally.

Scaled irrelevance.
Lenses applied.
False difference.
Light denied.

Crystallized fractal.
Harmonically charged.
Experience tactile.
Qauntum enlarged.

****?**

Teasing at happenings trying to control.
Something objective to fulfil the soul. 
Forgetting perhaps why they began.
Is spinning in nothing spinning at all.

Tangling the tales that comfort and sedate.
Something so human something innate.
Missing through force wider perspective.
Why do so many follow what so few create.

Reforming with a self realised lack of validity.
Understanding nothing understanding humility.
Seeing the things that don't exist.
I don't believe in objectivity.

******
Prove to me that blue is blue.
Is anything real until we agree.
Even the things we know to be true.
Are only things we think we see.

Its all i construct as we need it to be.
Without you there could not be me.
The tree only falls when we need a chair.
Giving facts and absolutes one hell of a scare.

Perhaps quantum shows the irresponsible trust.
We have put in progression self important lust.
When all the absolute rules get thrown out in a rush.
Forcing those who had the answers scampering away, hush.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleturbulentflow
B.S. in Bullshit
I'm a teapot


Registered: 12/17/18
Posts: 20
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: redgreenvines]
    #25872156 - 03/13/19 06:57 PM (8 days, 2 hours ago)

Yeah, people keep making all this hubbub about quantum mechanics because they don't understand it. Once you're able to at least somewhat understand what's going on, it loses its mystique and becomes just another field of science. That's not to say quantum mechanics is simple, or even that it's wholly irrelevant to the field of philosophy, just that I think it's heavily overused as a justification by "philosophers" who don't really understand it.

Using quantum mechanics to assert something about consciousness or humanity is rather like saying something like: "As metal is heated in flame, it begins to glow red with energy. Clearly, then, when we begin to get "heated" with emotion, we must also 'glow red' with energy of our own." We aren't made of metal, and we can't survive being heated to 1000 degrees celsius, so it's rather irrelevant that metal glows when you put it in fire. Maybe you could use metal as some sort of analogy to help illustrate your point, but just because you can use an analogy to illustrate your point doesn't make your point valid.

I can come up with analogies for any number of obviously false points, using a quantum mechanical analogy instead of a metallurgical one doesn't make me any less wrong.

To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone who's ever used quantum mechanics as an analogy is full of shit--just as using an analogy doesn't make your point inherently true, it also doesn't make it inherently false. However, to be honest, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine, since it seems to me that more often than not, quantum mechanical analogies serve not to help illustrate a point, but to confuse it and shut down any counter-arguments from people who may not fully understand quantum mechanics.


--------------------
My mouth is as big as my ego is fragile


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 9,636
Loc: South Flag
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: turbulentflow] * 2
    #25872210 - 03/13/19 07:23 PM (8 days, 2 hours ago)

Ok please de mystify it for me since you've got it all figured out?

Nobody fully understands it... more so the people who think they do.

With the implications that it may hold and the radical shift in understanding it may bring where else to start but philisophically.

Understanding the basis for all modern science first came from thinkers may allow you to bend your metallic mind in a way that allows you to think of questions not just read answers.

Your "guess" is as good as mine at this stage mate.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: turbulentflow]
    #25872259 - 03/13/19 07:44 PM (8 days, 2 hours ago)

Quote:

turbulentflow said:
Yeah, people keep making all this hubbub about quantum mechanics because they don't understand it. Once you're able to at least somewhat understand what's going on, it loses its mystique and becomes just another field of science. That's not to say quantum mechanics is simple, or even that it's wholly irrelevant to the field of philosophy, just that I think it's heavily overused as a justification by "philosophers" who don't really understand it.

Using quantum mechanics to assert something about consciousness or humanity is rather like saying something like: "As metal is heated in flame, it begins to glow red with energy. Clearly, then, when we begin to get "heated" with emotion, we must also 'glow red' with energy of our own." We aren't made of metal, and we can't survive being heated to 1000 degrees celsius, so it's rather irrelevant that metal glows when you put it in fire. Maybe you could use metal as some sort of analogy to help illustrate your point, but just because you can use an analogy to illustrate your point doesn't make your point valid.

I can come up with analogies for any number of obviously false points, using a quantum mechanical analogy instead of a metallurgical one doesn't make me any less wrong.

To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone who's ever used quantum mechanics as an analogy is full of shit--just as using an analogy doesn't make your point inherently true, it also doesn't make it inherently false. However, to be honest, it's kind of a pet peeve of mine, since it seems to me that more often than not, quantum mechanical analogies serve not to help illustrate a point, but to confuse it and shut down any counter-arguments from people who may not fully understand quantum mechanics.




Don't let a pet peeve get in the way of actually weighing in on the study. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebeforethedawn
Registered: 06/19/16
Posts: 1,672
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle] * 1
    #25872508 - 03/13/19 09:25 PM (8 days, 21 minutes ago)

But this experiment is about the microscopic affecting the macroscopic?


--------------------
No longer here

Like the evaporated stars

Still sending light through space-time

Defining why you can't see the Buddha's objects of gaze


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 9,636
Loc: South Flag
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: beforethedawn]
    #25872585 - 03/13/19 09:58 PM (7 days, 23 hours ago)

On their search for a unified truth they cannot have them contradictory.....unless there is an explanation for it.

By my simple understanding if the micro and macro dont match up then either or has to be incomplete knowledge and or understanding.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleturbulentflow
B.S. in Bullshit
I'm a teapot


Registered: 12/17/18
Posts: 20
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle]
    #25872910 - 03/14/19 01:05 AM (7 days, 20 hours ago)

Well it's certainly a very interesting experiment. However, this notion that, on a quantum level, reality is determined by probabilistic wavefunctions is really nothing new, and should be pretty familiar to anyone who's studied chemistry or physics beyond a very introductory level. It's more that it's experimentally reaffirming things that were already heavily suspected.

I'm sorry if I was being a killjoy, this really is a very cool experiment, and I didn't mean to take away from that fact.


--------------------
My mouth is as big as my ego is fragile


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleturbulentflow
B.S. in Bullshit
I'm a teapot


Registered: 12/17/18
Posts: 20
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: pineninja] * 1
    #25872953 - 03/14/19 01:48 AM (7 days, 19 hours ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
Ok please de mystify it for me since you've got it all figured out?

Nobody fully understands it... more so the people who think they do.

With the implications that it may hold and the radical shift in understanding it may bring where else to start but philisophically.

Understanding the basis for all modern science first came from thinkers may allow you to bend your metallic mind in a way that allows you to think of questions not just read answers.

Your "guess" is as good as mine at this stage mate.



You're right that our current understanding of the universe is incomplete, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that scientists who've dedicated their whole lives to empirically understanding the universe somehow know less for their efforts. I do agree, though, that there tends to be quite the Dunning-Kruger effect in a lot of discussions of the ramifications quantum mechanics has on the classical world. That was kind of my point.

I think that a very good place to start when it comes to demistifying quantum mechanics is Heisenberg uncertainty. Basically, for any set of measurements, the uncertainty of momentum multiplied by the uncertainty of position must be greater than or equal to a constant value. (Specifically, it must be greater than or equal to Planck's constant divided by 4 pi) This, of course, means that the more accurately you know something's position, the less accurately you know its momentum, and vice versa. Not only that, but it implies that if you were to exactly know a particle's position, you would have absolutely no idea of its momentum.

This is pretty easy to verify experimentally. If you shine a laser through an aperture of known diameter, you can measure the extent of deviation from the straight path of the laser the photons experience by measuring the diameter of the circle of light produced on a wall a known distance away. If you decrease the uncertainty of position by decreasing the size of the aperture, you'll see that the size of the circle on the wall increases, indicating that the uncertainty of the momentum possessed by the photons as they pass through the aperture has increased.

This is a good experiment for illustrating this effect, in my opinion, because it shows that this uncertainty is something inherent to the particles being measured, and not a result of any of the instruments being used to measure them.

Another reason why I chose the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle as my example is that it's very easy to see the difference between classical and quantum behavior with it. If you go and look up the value of Planck's constant, you'll see that it's extraordinarily small. Since momentum is a product of velocity and mass, this means that for an object like you or me, which has a mass on the order of kilograms, a total uncertainty of momentum and position on the order of 10^-26 (kg-m^3)/(s^2) will be utterly insignificant. Technically speaking, that inherent uncertainty does still exist, but it ends up being so incredibly small that it's almost impossible to even detect.

The two main takeaways from this are that:
  • 1) Although quantum mechanical effects can technically still occur on a classical scale, they occur to such an insignificant degree that you can pretty safely ignore them.
  • 2) Attempting to ascertain absolute knowledge of quantum-scale particles is fundamentally pointless. It's far better to view quantum mechanical particles as probability distributions (e.g. When you shine the laser through the aperture, there's a certain probability it will be located within any given region of space, and a certain probability it will have any specific momentum. Furthermore, these probabilities are fundamentally linked by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation, and can be altered by observation.)


Quote:

pineninja said:
On their search for a unified truth they cannot have them contradictory.....unless there is an explanation for it.

By my simple understanding if the micro and macro dont match up then either or has to be incomplete knowledge and or understanding.



Actually, the micro and macro scale do match up pretty well. As I mentioned above, it's not so much that quantum particles follow some special set of rules that classical particles don't, just that these rules aren't very relevant on a classical scale.

A good analogy is air resistance. If you were trying to calculate how hard you'd have to throw a basketball to get it into a hoop, you could easily ignore air resistance and still get a number that works. You might technically be off by a bit, but the hoop is large enough and your arm is imprecise enough that that slight inaccuracy doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean that air resistance doesn't exist, though, or that it won't have an effect on the basketball as it flies through the air. And if you were going to calculate the trajectory of something that flies much faster, like an airplane for instance, you absolutely could not ignore air resistance and still hope to get an accurate number.

In this analogy, classical mechanics is the basketball, and quantum mechanics is the airplane. The rules of air resistance apply to both, but in one case you can safely ignore those rules.

Also, there actually is an entire field of science called statistical mechanics which is specifically dedicated to "bridging the gap" between quantum mechanics and classical behaviors. Specifically, it's about using statistics to predict the behavior of incredibly large collections of quantum-scale particles (e.g. a couple moles of gas in a piston cylinder).

Edit: I got the units of Planck's constant wrong


--------------------
My mouth is as big as my ego is fragile


Edited by turbulentflow (03/14/19 01:57 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 4,430
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 8 hours, 16 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle]
    #25873422 - 03/14/19 10:53 AM (7 days, 10 hours ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
Quote:

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.




www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

What do you think the implications of this experiment are in relation to the topic? Does it matter that at a quantum level there are different realities depending on who is observing?




I think that there is a scientific consensus that the observer influences the result. However one experiment can never "prove" anything in the empirical sciences. That's why the scientific community favors a lot of observations from a lot of perspectives to reach a conclusion that an alternative explanation is too unlikely to be taken seriously, but not to prove anything. Proof only exists in math and logic. Our criminal justice system accepts agreed on compromises for the "truth", but proof is not a word used by legitimate scientists.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

Mindfulness creates a space between stimulus and response


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 9,636
Loc: South Flag
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Brian Jones]
    #25874248 - 03/14/19 06:25 PM (7 days, 3 hours ago)

Thanks for taking the time to write out that reply, I appreciate it.

Though i dont think we are that far apart i do think we are coming to different places.
Allow me to focus on a few spots.



"Actually, the micro and macro scale do match up pretty well. As I mentioned above, it's not so much that quantum particles follow some special set of rules that classical particles don't, just that these rules aren't very relevant on a classical scale."

They either work together or they don't....at this stage the gaps are striking and one of the main focuses of the empiricists you speak of.




"A good analogy is air resistance. If you were trying to calculate how hard you'd have to throw a basketball to get it into a hoop, you could easily ignore air resistance and still get a number that works. You might technically be off by a bit, but the hoop is large enough and your arm is imprecise enough that that slight inaccuracy doesn't really matter. "

It matters.
Once again you cannot have it both ways. If they are moving towards an "answer" over their lifetimes of accumulated knowledge is the above qoute actually anything other than a cop out?





"Also, there actually is an entire field of science called statistical mechanics which is specifically dedicated to "bridging the gap" between quantum mechanics and classical behaviors. Specifically, it's about using statistics to predict the behavior of incredibly large collections of quantum-scale particles (e.g. a couple moles of gas in a piston cylinder)."

My best friends particular field atm (PHD Quantum mech)....and boy do i piss him off.:wink:
And as im sure your aware one thats full of paradoxes and conjecture.

***




I am not going to get into a who knows more about this game...but i have certainly read more than the lay.

My thoughts and poems are on a slightly deeper and or shallower plane.
The implications of confusion (for me)are far more exciting than false knowns.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRahz
Dead Gone Forgotten
Male


Registered: 11/11/05
Posts: 7,074
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Brian Jones]
    #25874258 - 03/14/19 06:34 PM (7 days, 3 hours ago)

I can create some logic to explain the double slit experiment. Whether it's true or not is a different matter, but for instance that experiment has not resulted in patterns emerging on the wall behind the laser. It always results in an interference pattern on the other side of the slits. Therefore non-locality has it's limits. If a particle in transit does not exist as a particle then it has a definable range of influence, or degree of fuzziness which could be represented as a sphere of a particular size. Move the slits apart and eventually the experiment will fail to produce the expected pattern because the photon will only be able to transit through one of the slits because it's non local potential is not big enough.

With two conflicting realities, one avenue of simple logic might suggest that there is a time issue involved where something happens between the first observation and the second. Logically, the first observation might affect the outcome of the second.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


“Walking around 6 million years ago. Looking kind of human 1 million years ago. Writing things down 6 thousand years ago.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 2,577
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle]
    #25874867 - 03/15/19 12:27 AM (6 days, 21 hours ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:


What do you think the implications of this experiment are in relation to the topic? Does it matter that at a quantum level there are different realities depending on who is observing?




There are cases where it definitely does not matter, in fact the opposite is the case. In the case of the scientific method,not only should experiments have a control, but in many cases be double blind & placebo controlled, as well as repeatable by different observers, in different times and places. Even the double slit experiments and non locality experiments and the experiment in question gain their validity from being repeatable--by different observers--in different times & places].

In the case of the recent detection of gravity waves we have identical observations--by different observers--at the identical times but in different places

And strangely on the macroscopic scale, one sees in court room trials, that eye witnesses to the same event disagree! This has been shown, both at trial, where convictions have been overturned and I believe in psychology studies. And is, I think, well known among those who are interested.

So a simple conclusion may be too simple.


Edited by laughingdog (03/15/19 12:31 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: turbulentflow] * 1
    #25877355 - 03/16/19 08:58 AM (5 days, 12 hours ago)

Quote:

turbulentflow said:
Well it's certainly a very interesting experiment. However, this notion that, on a quantum level, reality is determined by probabilistic wavefunctions is really nothing new, and should be pretty familiar to anyone who's studied chemistry or physics beyond a very introductory level. It's more that it's experimentally reaffirming things that were already heavily suspected.

I'm sorry if I was being a killjoy, this really is a very cool experiment, and I didn't mean to take away from that fact.




Right I agree that this has long been suspected. I usually post stuff like this any time I see the materialists around here putting all of their weight on the existence of objective reality. Confirmation bias seems to exist in many materialists that creates a blind spot to the fact that there is a lot of scientific evidence that objective reality is not as it appears.

I strive for some degree of balance even if I don't always achieve it myself and have blind spots too. I tend to lean towards idealism and that's where my blind spots lie. I appreciate anyone who helps me to see them. But if you stick around long enough you'll find me countering idealism too.


--------------------
Being unable to make what is just strong,
we have made what is strong just. -- Pascal

Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: laughingdog] * 1
    #25877359 - 03/16/19 09:07 AM (5 days, 12 hours ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Even the double slit experiments and non locality experiments and the experiment in question gain their validity from being repeatable--by different observers--in different times & places].





Yeah there is a lot of weight surrounding consensus. It drives a lot of things in our world, including advertising. We believe in the consensus view until we don't.

The reason the world was believed flat at one point was because there was a consensus that we could look out and see that it was flat. It was definitely able to be replicated -- just use your eyes! It takes one person who doubts the consensus and seeks more information to begin to change the narrative. And there are a ton of more modern examples too. But most people aren't as familiar with them as the big paradigm shifts.


It's hard for me to believe that finally our most current findings are somehow impervious to the changes in information over time. But maybe? What do you think. Is consensus the end all be all?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/18/14
Posts: 9,636
Loc: South Flag
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle]
    #25878122 - 03/16/19 04:51 PM (5 days, 4 hours ago)

What are you doing here if it isn't.

The dialectic of the day decides what is right and what Is wrong.

The very experiments you are talking about would never have made it to our discussion without peer review.

Can you see this changing?


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 2,577
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: Kickle]
    #25878140 - 03/16/19 04:59 PM (5 days, 4 hours ago)

“ What do you think. Is consensus the end all [&] be all?”

Yes & no.

If one touches a hot stove twice & gets burned each time, a 3rd time should not be necessary.
The nervous system is wired this way.
It is automatic learning from experience.
A consensus of one’s own experiences takes place.

Like wise with science.
For example experiments that involve large sample sizes.
In this case it is not automatic learning, but the reasoning of the conscious mind. And the results may even be subjected to mathematical or statistical analysis to determine the degree of ‘consensus’ or relevance.

When it comes human behavior there are 2 sides to the issue. When it comes to kind behavior imitation (consensus) maybe a good way to learn. But when it comes to selfish behavior, the wise also observe carefully, so as to know what not to do.

As regards beliefs, it is my belief, that the fewer the better.
(that was rather dry humor--if one takes Euclid's Elements (Geometry) as a template one begins with as few postulates and/or axioms as possible).
Generally, it seems folks take an opposite approach & like to acquire them, whereas a scientist likes to reduce assumptions. Following this model, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with consensus, it is often possible to simply ignore it.

In general as regards both beliefs & behavior, IMO there is no substitute, for paying attention, intelligence, & intuition. Having a rule to always go with the crowd or always against, seems both lazy, and an abrogation of one’s human dignity.

(Never the less, many take this path to some degree, possibly depending on the situations they find themselves in.
Thus some adopt the role of being a rebel, but obey the rules of their gang.
Whereas a nun may adopt the role of being obedient.
Again to me this is an abrogation of one’s human dignity.)


Edited by laughingdog (03/16/19 08:23 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKickleM
A Dying Hope
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 15,051
Last seen: 8 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Scientific Replication [Re: pineninja] * 1
    #25879494 - 03/17/19 08:59 AM (4 days, 12 hours ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
What are you doing here if it isn't.

The dialectic of the day decides what is right and what Is wrong.

The very experiments you are talking about would never have made it to our discussion without peer review.

Can you see this changing?




I come here to socialize in a way that I don't often in real life. I work in retail so I socialize day in and day out. But not too much of that dialogue is philosophical in nature. So from time to time I get a hankering for it.

As for the rest, I guess I see it this way: We collaborate because it has utility. We are imperfect, biased, and limited. Working together helps to eliminate some of that. But even working together we are not without imperfection, limitation and bias. So while I do think it is useful, I do not think it is the "answer". And I can see it changing if something better comes along.


--------------------
Being unable to make what is just strong,
we have made what is strong just. -- Pascal

Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Amazon Microscope, Scales

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Near-death experiences
( 1 2 3 all )
shroom_muncher 4,650 43 02/09/04 06:37 AM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* UFOs and Scientific Research
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Swami 9,985 116 11/11/02 11:58 AM
by Xlea321
* Contact Experiment
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
ShroomismM
10,420 106 09/15/02 11:08 PM
by Swami
* Near Death Experiences
( 1 2 all )
Earth_Droid 2,373 35 02/15/03 11:59 AM
by shlauncha
* An Experience of Heightened Awareness RebelSteve33 1,841 14 07/03/02 10:42 PM
by Traveller
* Telepathic experiences?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
valkyrie 5,531 66 09/26/02 10:49 PM
by Swami
* ESSAY:Psychedelic induced mystical experiences by Alan Watts tekramrepus 1,949 6 03/21/03 01:43 PM
by pattern
* Experience with Spiritual Energies Ravus 762 11 04/17/04 06:03 PM
by Mr_Gubjet

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
270 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2019 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.051 seconds spending 0.002 seconds on 18 queries.