Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? *DELETED*
    #6917913 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: Reason enough.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #6919602 -

As opposed to void?

It wouldn't matter much to me personally as much of it is beyond my grasp. Fire, wood, air, water, void ect. All good by me.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #6919671 -

I don't think the question is even sensible. Contrary to what the Dark Age revivalists at the ICR and Discovery Institute would have you think, empiricism precludes presuppositionalism.

The whole idea behind the pragmatic program is to allow science to operate with a minimum of assumptions. In fact, the approach taken by the more reasonable philosophers these days is to take the functionality of the scientific method as a given and infer metaphysical principles from that functionality (cf. "Nature and Understanding: The Metaphysics and Methods of Science", Rescher). The goal is not to assume a framework and force empirically testable claims into that framework, but to determine framework from empirically testable claims.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #6919756 -

Taking a 350 year old scientific theory as fact is probably not a good idea. The entire idea of 'phlogiston' is remarkably silly, with what we now know of chemistry.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? *DELETED* *DELETED* [Re: trendal]
    #6922567 -

Post deleted by Lakefingers

Reason for deletion: No reason.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: How far could we have gotten with Phlogiston Theory? [Re: Lakefingers]
    #6922682 -

Lakefingers said:
I'm sure chemistry will be remarkably silly in a thousand years. Already
most neuroscience and philosophy of mind is silly according to quantum
physicists, who find that psychologists, biologists, philosophers, etc,
are still working from a Newtonian view.



Oh man, totally.  I've always thought that studying bacteriophages, epistemology, genetics and behavior was futile without decomposing them into a superposition of spin states by looking up their Clebsch-Gordan Coefficients.

Hey, that isn't even my fault! Those Newtonian biologists haven't taken the time to write up Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for their phylogenetic trees!  How closed minded of them.  All this time they were thinking that their studies were in the classical regime, being that they're on the order of at least thousands of angstroms to hundreds of meters.  I guess the characteristic wavelength of protons is bigger than we physicists have been saying all of these years, since biology is, evidently, manifestly quantum mechanical.
:rofl2:

You know, for the longest time, I thought that chemistry was a science with a long history of well-studied reactions that had been put on a sound theoretical basis with the advent of quantum mechanics.  But you've shown me otherwise.  All of that stuff about occupation and spin and energy levels and fine structure and characteristics imparted by atomic nuclei are just assumptions!  No quantum mechanics here, no sir! :nut:

"Scientific Wasteland".  That's what this forum is.  I'm going to head back to the garden.  I wish I could say it's been fun. :nonono:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why people believe in evolution despite the fact it is a failed theory with no scientific basis?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
fivepointer 16,325 135 03/30/07 06:13 AM
by aryah
* Phlogiston Theory - Any 1? *DELETED* WhoManBeing 197 4 03/03/17 05:11 PM
by sudly
* reality theory
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
1stimer 8,556 92 10/05/02 09:59 PM
by Calen
* A very simple theory on the Big Bang *DELETED*
( 1 2 all )
lukeboots 3,282 21 06/30/04 11:48 PM
by NariusFractal
* A Theory of Psychedelics
( 1 2 3 4 all )
pattern 25,449 66 01/04/20 05:45 PM
by sudly
* Theory to explain the manifestation of visual hallucinations
( 1 2 all )
OmEgAx1 3,266 32 06/08/05 03:23 AM
by OmEgAx1
* Post your newest coolest theory.
( 1 2 all )
Cubie 3,189 29 01/28/08 09:51 AM
by pattern
* A Theory of Different Origin tekramrepus 673 8 04/05/04 09:55 PM
by Jenny

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,363 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.