RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 562 563 564 565 566 [567] 568 569 570 571 572 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 20 2016,08:32   

Gary previously...
   
Quote
Wahhhh....ivory towers...tax-payers...starvation...conspiracy....eviction....bad teeth....Kathy...blah..."


And then the moment he's thanked for holding his door open to actual scientists we get this...
   
Quote
All in all science has been good to me. I have to be thankful, to many.

:D

I just hope you didn't badger them with your 'theory'.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 21 2016,10:56   

Quote (Woodbine @ June 20 2016,08:32)
Gary previously...
   
Quote
Wahhhh....ivory towers...tax-payers...starvation...conspiracy....eviction....bad teeth....Kathy...blah..."


And then the moment he's thanked for holding his door open to actual scientists we get this...
     
Quote
All in all science has been good to me. I have to be thankful, to many.

:D

I just hope you didn't badger them with your 'theory'.

In GG's tiny mind, science is a good thing, except that it's not.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2016,05:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2016,15:24)
Quote (jeffox @ June 09 2016,16:23)
I hear you guys . . . .

Then there's this:

   
Quote
It would have been a lot easier for the PDF to have downloaded as expected, instead of right away causing a security issue I thought I should I would warn about.


Woof . . . .

What an incomprehensible hoot!  :)  :)  :)

OK that sentence has a serious issue. But it was like 4 AM on a sleepless night after another where I slept a good ten hours and ended up having excess energy to expend. The excitement was in part caused by my several days ago having received the review for the paper that had me on YouTube studying APA format papers and citation database using OpenOffice. I also searched for and think I found a much better way to begin explaining everything that starts with the basics of how muscle and other cells of our body wire up two way communication between themselves and the "brain" circuit that controls them, such that they all help train each other how to do the right thing at the right time.

With my now waiting back for word from review on the first 5 pages I thought I should mention the latest challenge. It will help keep me busy till July 7 or so. Just in time for the Holyoke fireworks being launched from just houses away!

Katy Perry - Firework
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw
Lyrics and Fireworks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BtI43kqkOI

In the spirit of Gary being wrong about pretty much everything, Holyoke had their fireworks last Friday night, so by July 7th his "just in time" will be 13 days late.

Also, Katy Perry sucks.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2016,15:19   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 26 2016,05:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2016,15:24)
 
Quote (jeffox @ June 09 2016,16:23)
I hear you guys . . . .

Then there's this:

     
Quote
It would have been a lot easier for the PDF to have downloaded as expected, instead of right away causing a security issue I thought I should I would warn about.


Woof . . . .

What an incomprehensible hoot!  :)  :)  :)

OK that sentence has a serious issue. But it was like 4 AM on a sleepless night after another where I slept a good ten hours and ended up having excess energy to expend. The excitement was in part caused by my several days ago having received the review for the paper that had me on YouTube studying APA format papers and citation database using OpenOffice. I also searched for and think I found a much better way to begin explaining everything that starts with the basics of how muscle and other cells of our body wire up two way communication between themselves and the "brain" circuit that controls them, such that they all help train each other how to do the right thing at the right time.

With my now waiting back for word from review on the first 5 pages I thought I should mention the latest challenge. It will help keep me busy till July 7 or so. Just in time for the Holyoke fireworks being launched from just houses away!

Katy Perry - Firework
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGJuMBdaqIw
Lyrics and Fireworks
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BtI43kqkOI

In the spirit of Gary being wrong about pretty much everything, Holyoke had their fireworks last Friday night, so by July 7th his "just in time" will be 13 days late.

Also, Katy Perry sucks.

The Katy Perry worthy early fireworks from HCC were just in time for my youngest daughter's GCC graduation party. She is now a medical LPN, and still going up in pay scale. You can be sure I'm proud of her, too.

My job was to make sure that the celebration goes smoothly. The fireworks helped make it a fun and memorable event. This year they even had a smiley face one that worked real nice when upside down. With that mission having been a success I can now get back to the paper, which by then was successfully rearranged to flow with what lured my wife to keep reading (baby behavior) and I finally like. That in itself was worth celebrating.

The problems found in review were primarily caused by my feeling obligated to address philosophical concepts like Methodological Naturalism that I would rather not even get into. It was a relief to find out that I did not need to go there, for the paper to still tie into the conference for science related methodologies. It was possible to completely eliminate the trouble areas. Other than collecting references it's now just a matter of adding detail that is not necessary for it to pass review, just good to include. I was also previously starting by giving the reader too much technical information but have since eliminated that problem starting off at the beginning, with what parents wonder about and can from experience relate to.

News of the new (Getty et al.) tracksite paper has a way of helping to encourage the paper I need to get back to work on, for July 7'th. Along with all else the early celebration was right on time, and well deserved.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2016,13:35   

Since you are happy critiquing evolution and natural selection based on a model that doesn't include either, I suppose it is not surprising that you would be happy with a treatment of scientific methodology that doesn't include methodological naturalism.

It is also telling that your difficulties typically start whenever you begin digging into the fundamentals of whatever it is that you are discussing.

Wise people might take these as warning signs.

Still, congratulations to your daughter.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2016,20:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 27 2016,13:35)
Since you are happy critiquing evolution and natural selection based on a model that doesn't include either, I suppose it is not surprising that you would be happy with a treatment of scientific methodology that doesn't include methodological naturalism.

It is also telling that your difficulties typically start whenever you begin digging into the fundamentals of whatever it is that you are discussing.

Wise people might take these as warning signs.

Since you are happy hiding behind generalizations that do not explain how babies figure out how things work, then you show me where you see "methodological naturalism" in the following illustration:


Only a religious zealot would expect a science paper for the cognitive origin of the scientific method be full of philosophical discussion about the "supernatural" and all else that leads into.

It's ironic how the conference review led to my needing to keep my science and philosophy well separated, while you would rather I muck up the science paper with what quickly turns into philosophical pontification. I started down that slippery slope, but through the grace of science I was saved.

Wise people will take these as warning signs. There is still no knowing which side you're actually on.

   
Quote (N.Wells @ June 27 2016,13:35)
Still, congratulations to your daughter.


And thank you, from me. I'll let her know that you sent a congratulations.

It seems not long ago she was in grade school and we were at the A2Z science store buying all the good human anatomy posters they had. If I knew then what I know know then I would have right away put them up in her room, along with the Spice Girls (and other memorabilia typical of that era).

Spice Girls - Spice Up Your Life
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wfpXI5PKlw

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2016,21:02   

This is why you are doomed to flail uselessly and endlessly. Methodological naturalism is all over that diagram: it is pervasively and deeply entailed in "what do I see",  "develop TESTABLE predictions", "new observations or formal experiments", and "General theories must be consistent with most or all available data and with other current theories."

Note that your not-a-theory fails miserably on nearly all those points.

Quote
Only a religious zealot would expect a science paper for the cognitive origin of the scientific method be full of philosophical discussion about the "supernatural" and all else that leads into.

It's ironic how the conference review led to my needing to keep my science and philosophy well separated, while you would rather I muck up the science paper with what quickly turns into philosophical pontification. I started down that slippery slope, but through the grace of science I was saved.

I'm not talking about the supernatural, and I'm not looking for philosophical discussion.  Methodological naturalism is the pragmatic and practical basis for science, entailing the circle of steps outlined in your diagram.    

Note that the diagram does NOT say "think up an explanation; dream up a model & pretend that it approximates reality (and on no account ground-truth it), and from that make all manner of unrelated assertions without ever providing evidence except stuff that you make up because it sounds good to you," all of which is what you do.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2016,23:33   

Babies do not need to be an adherent to "methodological naturalism" in order to wonder "what do I see", "develop TESTABLE predictions", etc.. That's why children drive their parents crazy by reaching an age where they are predictably dropping and throwing things over and over again. Hence your problem of claiming that a religious philosophy is required for them to do that. This only became more clear by my attempt to find any place at all to just briefly mention it, which clearly indicated that it belonged nowhere.  

You are simply way overcomplicating things. It's no wonder why after an introduction to the "scientific method" (as you see it) the average person rightfully wonders "Huh?"

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2016,00:26   

We can add "religious' to the list of words you do not understand.

Babies and kids work hard to understand the world around them.  They use a mixture of rational deduction and magical thinking (superstition, anthropomorphism, etc.), initially without distinguishing the two because they are learning by coincidences, patterns, and analogies, which can work but which can also be deeply misleading.  Rational deduction supported by experimentation with cause and effect works very well, while magical thinking does not, although kids frequently get misled and take lots of detours.  More rational people outgrow superstition, anthropomorphism of natural phenomena, magic, religion, etc., but that can be difficult and less emotionally satisfying, so scientific methodology, including methodological naturalism, is simply a codification of what works (like your diagram) (i.e. rational analysis) and a formal abandonment of what doesn't work (like religion, superstition, and other appeals to the supernatural and the irrational, etc.), in the name of developing better thinking more efficiently.

Codifying our knowledge and teaching kids what we have learned is simply vastly more efficient than leaving kids to figure out everything for themselves.

You are still stuck in magical thinking (assertion without justification or basic comprehension of the fundamentals simply because it strikes you as right).  This means you will mostly continue to fail at science.  

You really aren't very good at this.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2016,07:43   

Gary's still up to his usual insanity.

Gary, 'methodological naturalism' is a description of the scientific process, not a premise or element of any sort within the process itself.
One could go so far as to insist that the scientific method is the very definition of 'methodological naturalism'.

As to the "'cognitive science' explanation of 'the scientific method'", well, that is at best circular and thus entirely useless.
Or it is psychologism writ large, and thus inherently incorrect in even worse ways than mere circularity.

Your uselessness continues unabated Gaulin.  At one point we might say "well, at least he emits  carbon dioxide, so he's good for the trees" but as we seem to have an excess of carbon dioxide, so too do we have an excess of Gaulins.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2016,08:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 27 2016,21:33)
You are simply way overcomplicating things. It's no wonder why after an introduction to the "scientific method" (as you see it) the average person rightfully wonders "Huh?"

See Carlin, G.,  re "average American".

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2016,10:28   

Quote
Since you are happy hiding behind generalizations that do not explain how babies figure out how things work, then you show me where you see "methodological naturalism" in the following illustration:


The whole diagram illustrates a method, doesn't it?  And, nothing in that diagram calls for anything but naturalism, doesn't it?  Or did you miss all of that while you were cutting and pasting . . . .

Oh, and NOTHING you've demonstrated in here is any different from 'generalizations that do not explain how babies figure out how things work'.  Way to be useless and ignore how we're helping you to be more useful.  

Jeez whatta hoot!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 28 2016,10:46   

That diagram is not the sum total of how babies figure things out: it's a description and prescription concerning the best way way to figure things out, in general.  Babies try all manner of stuff, most of which is inefficient or error-prone, which is why learning generally works most efficiently when wiser and more knowledgeable people teach them.  To the extent that babies do eventually figure things out without being taught, they may well turn out mostly to have been following aspects of scientific methods, because in practical terms scientific methods are simply a codification of the processes for understanding that work best.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,00:44   

Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,03:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,08:05   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 29 2016,04:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

But it's a really good example of the psychologist's fallacy.

It is a generalization, far beyond what the facts warrant, to claim that what children do in learning about the world is to actively and consciously form hypotheses which they then proceed to test in an effort to validate or falsify said hypotheses.

There is also the pesky historical fact that the scientific method had to be discovered and applied.  It is not 'the natural way of things'.
For a man who is opposed to generalizations, Gary sure commits some whoppers.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,11:56   

Quote (NoName @ June 29 2016,06:05)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 29 2016,04:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

But it's a really good example of the psychologist's fallacy.

It is a generalization, far beyond what the facts warrant, to claim that what children do in learning about the world is to actively and consciously form hypotheses which they then proceed to test in an effort to validate or falsify said hypotheses.

There is also the pesky historical fact that the scientific method had to be discovered and applied.  It is not 'the natural way of things'.
For a man who is opposed to generalizations, Gary sure commits some whoppers.

Gary can refute this by showing how he, personally, through visual testing, refuted his early-childhood hypothesis that the earth was stationary.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,22:55   

Quote (JohnW @ June 29 2016,11:56)
Quote (NoName @ June 29 2016,06:05)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 29 2016,04:33)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

But it's a really good example of the psychologist's fallacy.

It is a generalization, far beyond what the facts warrant, to claim that what children do in learning about the world is to actively and consciously form hypotheses which they then proceed to test in an effort to validate or falsify said hypotheses.

There is also the pesky historical fact that the scientific method had to be discovered and applied.  It is not 'the natural way of things'.
For a man who is opposed to generalizations, Gary sure commits some whoppers.

Gary can refute this by showing how he, personally, through visual testing, refuted his early-childhood hypothesis that the earth was stationary.

For as far back as I can recall what is "stationary" has always been relative. Relative to us planet Earth is a stationary object we walk on. Its rotation became most clear by through a telescope looking at things move by, caused by our planet revolving once each day.

I have no memory at all of a hypothesis that the earth was stationary. The best I have is a magic moment in my childhood that was caused by the information in moving inside a car through a long field with train and telephone poles that appeared to be moving funny. Sorting out what was moving relative to the other almost made perfect sense.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 29 2016,23:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,20:55)
Quote (JohnW @ June 29 2016,11:56)
 
Quote (NoName @ June 29 2016,06:05)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ June 29 2016,04:33)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

But it's a really good example of the psychologist's fallacy.

It is a generalization, far beyond what the facts warrant, to claim that what children do in learning about the world is to actively and consciously form hypotheses which they then proceed to test in an effort to validate or falsify said hypotheses.

There is also the pesky historical fact that the scientific method had to be discovered and applied.  It is not 'the natural way of things'.
For a man who is opposed to generalizations, Gary sure commits some whoppers.

Gary can refute this by showing how he, personally, through visual testing, refuted his early-childhood hypothesis that the earth was stationary.

For as far back as I can recall what is "stationary" has always been relative. Relative to us planet Earth is a stationary object we walk on. Its rotation became most clear by through a telescope looking at things move by, caused by our planet revolving once each day.

I have no memory at all of a hypothesis that the earth was stationary. The best I have is a magic moment in my childhood that was caused by the information in moving inside a car through a long field with train and telephone poles that appeared to be moving funny. Sorting out what was moving relative to the other almost made perfect sense.

So how did you know the earth was moving, rather than "the sun and the moon fly(ing) through the sky"?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,05:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,22:55)
 
Quote (JohnW @ June 29 2016,11:56)
   
Quote (NoName @ June 29 2016,06:05)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ June 29 2016,04:33)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,00:44)
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.

That is a really bad example that actually argues against your case.  The standard conclusion for humans would indeed be that the sun and the moon both orbit around a stationary earth. The conclusion that the earth orbits around the sun was indeed reached scientifically, but spreads among humans by education, not by each person figuring it out for themselves.  Although people nearly all accept what they are taught about heliocentrism, almost none of them ever go on to test heliocentrism for themselves.

But it's a really good example of the psychologist's fallacy.

It is a generalization, far beyond what the facts warrant, to claim that what children do in learning about the world is to actively and consciously form hypotheses which they then proceed to test in an effort to validate or falsify said hypotheses.

There is also the pesky historical fact that the scientific method had to be discovered and applied.  It is not 'the natural way of things'.
For a man who is opposed to generalizations, Gary sure commits some whoppers.

Gary can refute this by showing how he, personally, through visual testing, refuted his early-childhood hypothesis that the earth was stationary.

For as far back as I can recall what is "stationary" has always been relative. Relative to us planet Earth is a stationary object we walk on. Its rotation became most clear by through a telescope looking at things move by, caused by our planet revolving once each day.

I have no memory at all of a hypothesis that the earth was stationary. The best I have is a magic moment in my childhood that was caused by the information in moving inside a car through a long field with train and telephone poles that appeared to be moving funny. Sorting out what was moving relative to the other almost made perfect sense.

No doubt you are misremembering a youthful trip on a tram in Bern.  This is entirely understandable, given how young you were in 1904.

Note that while such an insight might be true, there are some difficulties in sorting out which is moving and which is stationary from that evidence alone.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,06:35   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,23:55)
...
Gary can refute this by showing how he, personally, through visual testing, refuted his early-childhood hypothesis that the earth was stationary.[/quote]
For as far back as I can recall what is "stationary" has always been relative. Relative to us planet Earth is a stationary object we walk on. Its rotation became most clear by through a telescope looking at things move by, caused by our planet revolving once each day.

I have no memory at all of a hypothesis that the earth was stationary. The best I have is a magic moment in my childhood that was caused by the information in moving inside a car through a long field with train and telephone poles that appeared to be moving funny. Sorting out what was moving relative to the other almost made perfect sense.

So, no trace of a hypothesis, no trace of testing or validating or attempting to falsify, no gathering of data, no development of a general theory.
Indeed, nothing whatsoever about your little anecdote matches up to anything whatsoever in your nice little diagram.
Nice way to refute your own latest diagram, and on the very page on which you present it.

You're a piss-poor modeler Gary.  Probably because you're a piss-poor thinker, observer, analyzer, etc.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,10:06   

Quote (NoName @ June 30 2016,06:35)

So, no trace of a hypothesis, no trace of testing or validating or attempting to falsify, no gathering of data, no development of a general theory.

Well, of course not.  But it "made perfect sense" to him ("almost"!), and that is the be-all and end-all of knowing for Gary.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,16:36   

Quote
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.


Actually, I think they ask Mommy or Daddy.  It's a lot easier . . .  :)  :)  :)  

Whatta hoot!

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,19:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 29 2016,22:55)
Its rotation became most clear by through a telescope looking at things move by, caused by our planet revolving once each day.

Yoda, Gary is.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 30 2016,22:47   

Quote (jeffox @ June 30 2016,16:36)
Quote
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.


Actually, I think they ask Mommy or Daddy.  It's a lot easier . . .  :)  :)  :)  

Whatta hoot!

I'm relatively sure that before developing the language skills needed to ask their parents anything infants can on their own figure out that the sun and moon are far away objects that only seem to follow them around like a puppy does.

From my recollection the reasoning that leads to that conclusion was gained from things like being in a moving car watching a distant train and telephone poles moving in relation to each other. Sorting out the visual information was very challenging, but by then I had most of it figured out. What I was seeing was like the sun and moon, which are examples of the same thing just further away.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 01 2016,00:00   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 30 2016,22:47)
Quote (jeffox @ June 30 2016,16:36)
Quote
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.


Actually, I think they ask Mommy or Daddy.  It's a lot easier . . .  :)  :)  :)  

Whatta hoot!

I'm relatively sure that before developing the language skills needed to ask their parents anything infants can on their own figure out that the sun and moon are far away objects that only seem to follow them around like a puppy does.

From my recollection the reasoning that leads to that conclusion was gained from things like being in a moving car watching a distant train and telephone poles moving in relation to each other. Sorting out the visual information was very challenging, but by then I had most of it figured out. What I was seeing was like the sun and moon, which are examples of the same thing just further away.

Add child development to the list of things Gary knows jack shit about.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,13:17   

Quote (Texas Teach @ July 01 2016,00:00)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 30 2016,22:47)
 
Quote (jeffox @ June 30 2016,16:36)
 
Quote
Young children may at first be confident that they are the center of the universe and the sun and moon fly through the sky to follow them around. But with further visual testing of how distant objects move in relation to closer ones that hypothesis eventually tests to be false.


Actually, I think they ask Mommy or Daddy.  It's a lot easier . . .  :)  :)  :)  

Whatta hoot!

I'm relatively sure that before developing the language skills needed to ask their parents anything infants can on their own figure out that the sun and moon are far away objects that only seem to follow them around like a puppy does.

From my recollection the reasoning that leads to that conclusion was gained from things like being in a moving car watching a distant train and telephone poles moving in relation to each other. Sorting out the visual information was very challenging, but by then I had most of it figured out. What I was seeing was like the sun and moon, which are examples of the same thing just further away.

Add child development to the list of things Gary knows jack shit about.

Well look what the cat dragged in, a know-it-all who has an issue with the sharing of a personal experience from when visual systems were still wiring up the visual system. I do not recall myself being the center of the universe with magical things following me around it was a matter of using depth perception to sort out how away things are.  But perhaps you saw yourself as the center of the universe where all exists just for you and your parents had to convince you that you were not, but that would only help explain your delusions of grandeur not change what I recall.

I'm not sure why the memory remained so vivid. It may have to do with that being the visual information that so many neurons later worked with to wire and fire just right, first trained using.

In either case you gave few clues as to what you are even arguing for or against. If you believe you have something worth adding then show me what you think you have, other than the mind of a child.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2016,13:52   

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- it appears to be an eternal truth.
God, you're an idiot, Gary.
You can't even model your own mental processes, nor the alleged processes you somehow fantasize that you remember or "must have been the case".  You ignore all the research that has been done, you just assert things that "must be the case."
Yet you claim to be "doing science".  If it required intelligence, you wouldn't even be 'doing metabolism'.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2016,07:22   

Quote
when visual systems were still wiring up the visual system.


Quote
It may have to do with that being the visual information that so many neurons later worked with to wire and fire just right, first trained using.


However, things went horribly wrong when the language systems were wiring up the language system.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2016,18:31   

Quote
I'm relatively sure that before developing the language skills needed to ask their parents anything infants can on their own figure out that the sun and moon are far away objects that only seem to follow them around like a puppy does.


No, most just ask Mommy or Daddy.  Many don't even have puppies . . . . . ;)

Quote
From my recollection the reasoning that leads to that conclusion was gained from things like being in a moving car watching a distant train and telephone poles moving in relation to each other. Sorting out the visual information was very challenging, but by then I had most of it figured out. What I was seeing was like the sun and moon, which are examples of the same thing just further away.


Why didn't you just ask your Mom or Dad?  You'd have been better off. . . . . .

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!! :)  :)  :)

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 562 563 564 565 566 [567] 568 569 570 571 572 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]