Comments on: BEAUTY: The Mathematical Idea of Symmetry http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:59:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jim Z. http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385492 Jim Z. Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:01:03 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385492 It is no wonder that political conservatives can get away with their blatant anti-science nonsense. There’s quite an audience for it. It is no wonder that political conservatives can get away with their blatant anti-science nonsense. There’s quite an audience for it.

]]> By: Harry http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385488 Harry Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:37:29 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385488 Oh, yes, David R., I can understand how you'd appreciate someone who disrespects science. I've been reading your comments for years, you who have this "science background" but are contemptuous of the volumes of research done by cosmologists, because they contradict the account given in Genesis, and likewise use the word "evolutionist" as an epithet of condemnation, because the whole field of biology has failed to confirm the account of life's creation given in the Bible. Pretentions? Liberal academics? False knowledge? Your put-downs are just a way of protecting your cherished beliefs. That's your right. You can expect sympathy from me about that. But don't expect me to respect an approach to knowledge that requires rejecting whole fields of scientific knowledge hard won through the best means humans have devised for the search for truth. Oh, yes, David R., I can understand how you’d appreciate someone who disrespects science. I’ve been reading your comments for years, you who have this “science background” but are contemptuous of the volumes of research done by cosmologists, because they contradict the account given in Genesis, and likewise use the word “evolutionist” as an epithet of condemnation, because the whole field of biology has failed to confirm the account of life’s creation given in the Bible.

Pretentions? Liberal academics? False knowledge?

Your put-downs are just a way of protecting your cherished beliefs. That’s your right. You can expect sympathy from me about that. But don’t expect me to respect an approach to knowledge that requires rejecting whole fields of scientific knowledge hard won through the best means humans have devised for the search for truth.

]]> By: David R http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385462 David R Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:41:26 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385462 Harry, In contending with James you are raising a question about your own understanding. What if we ask you just exactly what per cent of accepted and taught Psychology actually explains the human psyche and the core drives and instincts of humanity ? What per cent of accepted and taught 'scientific understanding' of the beginnings of the earth, the universe and humanity is truly valid ? The pretentions to knowledge seem to satisfy the 'intellectual' propensities of a certain set of liberal academics and some so called sciences belong in that field as well. And the sad case is that as the erroneous notions are reuired subjects sometimes for those in otherwise practical fields of study erroneous understanding drifts on out into the real world until it corrupts social life as false 'knowledge' sends confident ignorami out into the public arena. How much do you actually KNOW ? So ! I appreciate James now and then posting it somewhat as it really is (now and then). Harry,

In contending with James you are raising a question about your own understanding.

What if we ask you just exactly what per cent of accepted and taught Psychology actually explains the human psyche and the core drives
and instincts of humanity ?

What per cent of accepted and taught ‘scientific understanding’ of the beginnings of the earth, the universe and humanity is truly valid ?

The pretentions to knowledge seem to satisfy the ‘intellectual’ propensities
of a certain set of liberal academics and some so called sciences belong in that field as well.

And the sad case is that as the erroneous notions are reuired subjects sometimes for those in otherwise practical fields of study erroneous understanding drifts on out into the real world until it corrupts social life
as false ‘knowledge’ sends confident ignorami out into the public arena.

How much do you actually KNOW ?

So !
I appreciate James now and then posting it somewhat as it really is
(now and then).

]]> By: Harry http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385391 Harry Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:48:01 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385391 James, as we talk here about knowledge I am wondering about how much self-knowledge you have about why you express here the things you do. You must know, don't you, how consistently negative the views you express here are? When some were taken with "Yes we can!" your constant refrain was "No we can't!" Here on this thread, a discussion of mathematical beauty you took as an opportunity to declare that science basically doesn't know anything. So, by implication, "No we can't" becomes no we can't know anything. You do see this pattern yourself, don't you? If you do know that much about yourself, do you also understand why it is that you so consistently take this Nihilistic view of everything? Do you have any insight into what it is in your life that makes it appealing to undercut every belief in anything positive in the human scene? Do you understand what it is that this negativity does for you? James, as we talk here about knowledge I am wondering about how much self-knowledge you have about why you express here the things you do. You must know, don’t you, how consistently negative the views you express here are? When some were taken with “Yes we can!” your constant refrain was “No we can’t!” Here on this thread, a discussion of mathematical beauty you took as an opportunity to declare that science basically doesn’t know anything. So, by implication, “No we can’t” becomes no we can’t know anything.

You do see this pattern yourself, don’t you? If you do know that much about yourself, do you also understand why it is that you so consistently take this Nihilistic view of everything? Do you have any insight into what it is in your life that makes it appealing to undercut every belief in anything positive in the human scene? Do you understand what it is that this negativity does for you?

]]> By: James http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385337 James Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:16:28 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385337 Theory, therefore is a form of belief system, that provides the impluse to go forward in the quest for a solution, while hypothesis is an assumption formed as a tentative test to draw out a consequence. So a hypothesis shows that there is insuffucient evidence available to provide more than a tentative argument. Theory, is mere speculation, a form of abstract thought similar to the idea, that all children want to learn. An example of a theoretical concept, fully researched, is Foucault`s theory of human`s impulse, not to help their fellow man, but to control them: "The prevaqiling theme in Foucault`s philosophy is that human relations are defined by the struggle for power. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood are illusions. They are the creation of language and the will to dominate ... Thus, there is no such thing as benevolence: men have created hospitals, schools and priswons not to cure, educate and reform, but to control and dominate`the Other`. The rationalism of the Elightenment was merely a mask for this malevolent impulse. [1] [1] Patrick West (New Statesman): excerpt - "The Great Philosophers" Jeremy Stangroom, James Garvey ISBN 1-84193-299-X Theory, therefore is a form of belief system, that provides the impluse to go forward in the quest for a solution, while hypothesis is an assumption formed as a tentative test to draw out a consequence. So a hypothesis shows that there is insuffucient evidence available to provide more than a tentative argument. Theory, is mere speculation, a form of abstract thought similar to the idea, that all children want to learn. An example of a theoretical concept, fully researched, is Foucault`s theory of human`s impulse, not to help their fellow man, but to control them:

“The prevaqiling theme in Foucault`s philosophy is that human relations are defined by the struggle for power. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood are illusions. They are the creation of language and the will to dominate … Thus, there is no such thing as benevolence: men have created hospitals, schools and priswons not to cure, educate and reform, but to control and dominate`the Other`. The rationalism of the Elightenment was merely a mask for this malevolent impulse. [1]

[1] Patrick West (New Statesman): excerpt – “The Great Philosophers” Jeremy Stangroom, James Garvey ISBN 1-84193-299-X

]]> By: Jim Z. http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385246 Jim Z. Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:05:47 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385246 It is no wonder that political conservatives can get away with their blatant anti-science nonsense. There's quite an audience for it. It is no wonder that political conservatives can get away with their blatant anti-science nonsense. There’s quite an audience for it.

]]> By: David R http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385240 David R Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:48:18 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385240 Theory becomes Principle when it can be demonstrably applied producing consistently observable and/or practical results. We have applied science all around us today . . hypothesis . . became theory . . became principle . . proven and applied on and on with consistent results. Theory becomes Principle when it can be demonstrably
applied producing consistently observable and/or practical results.

We have applied science all around us today . .

hypothesis . . became theory . . became principle . . proven and applied on and on with consistent results.

]]> By: mczilla http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385239 mczilla Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:41:53 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385239 The quotes in the original piece above don't contain any formulas. Most of my first year studies in architecture at Carnegie-Mellon back in the 60's involved exploring the various formal principles of symmetry as they can be expressed in 2 and 3 dimensions, and while geometry and mathematics certainly underpinned the work, it all came out one way or another as a visually appreciated expression that could usually be termed "beautiful". Music shares that as well. The fundamental tonal intervals are all based on the physical divisions of a vibrating string. Halves (octaves), thirds, fourths, fifths, etc. all have a "just right" quality that a sensitive ear naturally picks up. The passing tones are usually arbitrary. I can't speak about the more esoteric realms of mathematics, but there is a kind of science to be found in much of what we consider to be aesthetically pleasing. The quotes in the original piece above don’t contain any formulas. Most of my first year studies in architecture at Carnegie-Mellon back in the 60′s involved exploring the various formal principles of symmetry as they can be expressed in 2 and 3 dimensions, and while geometry and mathematics certainly underpinned the work, it all came out one way or another as a visually appreciated expression that could usually be termed “beautiful”. Music shares that as well. The fundamental tonal intervals are all based on the physical divisions of a vibrating string. Halves (octaves), thirds, fourths, fifths, etc. all have a “just right” quality that a sensitive ear naturally picks up. The passing tones are usually arbitrary. I can’t speak about the more esoteric realms of mathematics, but there is a kind of science to be found in much of what we consider to be aesthetically pleasing.

]]> By: David R http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385238 David R Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:26:26 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385238 Theory is the best explanation one has for observed behaviors OR phenomena. Theory is the best explanation one has for observed behaviors OR phenomena.

]]> By: David R http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569&cpage=1#comment-385237 David R Fri, 29 Jan 2010 04:23:13 +0000 http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5569#comment-385237 Clicked on awaiting the liberal progressives' observations or comments on Barack Obama addressing the world on the State of the Union. The Sound of Silence. So be it. I guess the most interesting thing at the moment is what is hypothesis and what is theory. Without referring to other's definitions, what do you think maybe Theory is the best explanation one has for observed behaviors of phenomena Hypothesis maybe is a notion yet to be tested . . could develop into Theory depending on, say, if it holds up under scrutiny and challenge. Of course James is correct in that Theories are only the best we have at the time for many phenomena and over time other observations, or observed changes even, lead to revisions of the best Theories or maybe even abandonment or rejection altogether. Sometimes it may be more sane to acknowledge that We Just Do Not Know. (of course that is anathema to the 'scientific' mind. That might be the 'scientists' fear James comment mentions.) James often copies some significant writings. I give him extra credit for knowing where to look. .................................................................................................................... Clicked on awaiting the liberal progressives’ observations or comments on Barack Obama addressing the world on the State of the Union.

The Sound of Silence. So be it.

I guess the most interesting thing at the moment is what is hypothesis and what is theory. Without referring to other’s definitions, what do you think maybe
Theory is the best explanation one has for observed behaviors of phenomena
Hypothesis maybe is a notion yet to be tested . . could develop into Theory
depending on, say, if it holds up under scrutiny and challenge.

Of course James is correct in that Theories are only the best we have at the time for many phenomena and over time other observations, or observed changes even, lead to revisions of the best Theories or maybe even abandonment or rejection altogether.

Sometimes it may be more sane to acknowledge that We Just Do Not Know.
(of course that is anathema to the ‘scientific’ mind. That might be the ‘scientists’ fear James comment mentions.)

James often copies some significant writings. I give him extra credit for knowing where to look.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

]]>