View Poll Results: Who's More Honest?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • People online - they can be themselves

    7 9.33%
  • People in real life - everyone lies online

    11 14.67%
  • I prefer my cat/dog - everyone sucks.

    57 76.00%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 56

Thread: Physical or Online?

  1. #26
    Banned All Good Things's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 601 Times in 233 Posts
    My Mood
    Daring

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by hardkandee View Post
    The way that people on this site alone kiss-ass is proof that plenty of people on the internet lie more than they would in real life.
    I'm sure you've considered the possibility that they actually kiss ass in real life too. Right?

  2. #27
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,336
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    ^Of course, but not to the degree that it happens here. In real life you'd probably stop associating with the people you don't care for instead of continually pretending that you like them.


    In the same vein is how everyone here is "OMG so beautiful!" Coincidence? No not really....



    Because there ain't no tits on the radio

  3. #28
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    Truth or Beauty?... Most people who've studied philosophy immediate choose "beauty," because "truth" in purest form is almost impossible to achieve.
    Well, for purposes of this discussion, I would term it "honesty" rather than "truth," and that was the intent of what I wrote previously.

    The most impressive people I have known have been honest. I can't say they've all been impressive-looking. Far from it. And frankly, if I couldn't be complete unless I were good-looking, I might as well kill myself right now. (I suspect, TOO, that you're thinking that's not what you meant by "beauty," but that's how I took it, and if not, I don't know what you mean.)

    Even scientific principles we accept at the closest thing to truth are really just convenient instruments that can be overturned in a single experiment.
    Concepts of beauty change, too. Just look at the glamour stars of a century ago. But cars and microwaves and televisions and telephones and jet engines and satellites still keep on running because of principles (truth, if you will) harnessed in science.

    Also, far more damage has been done to people over time by psychotic power-hungry monsters' attempts to inflict their own interpretation of "truth" on the weak, defenseless or innocent.
    Yeah, but I go back to "honesty." That doesn't take mystical tones.

    I believe people are often far more revealing and far less deceptive online, at least with SW. It's the perception of anonymity that is partly responsible for this
    Not been my experience. One example: I have not personally known the equivalent of a "poser" in real life (someone who assumes a different persona than what they really are, down to a difference in gender). And while deception can often be easily gleaned, the extent of a person's honesty here takes longer to ascertain than in real life because there's less opportunity to live up to one's honesty in the virtual world. (If that makes sense. Hey, I know what I mean.)

    There is a simple litmus test. It's not universally accurate. But if one says, "Hey, I'm honest," or, "What I'm saying is the truth," that's the first indication that it's not so.

  4. #29
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,083
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by hardkandee View Post
    The way that people on this site alone kiss-ass is proof that plenty of people on the internet lie more than they would in real life.
    Quoted for TRUTH!!!

    And I also guarantee that some of the so called out spoken (bitchy) members are not so brassy IRL.


  5. #30
    Banned All Good Things's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 601 Times in 233 Posts
    My Mood
    Daring

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    The most impressive people I have known have been honest. I can't say they've all been impressive-looking. Far from it. And frankly, if I couldn't be complete unless I were good-looking, I might as well kill myself right now. (I suspect, TOO, that you're thinking that's not what you meant by "beauty," but that's how I took it, and if not, I don't know what you mean.)
    You are right. I was referring to beauty in any form: the beauty of a sunset, a perfect rose, a miraculous song or an astounding equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    But cars and microwaves and televisions and telephones and jet engines and satellites still keep on running because of principles (truth, if you will) harnessed in science.
    Well, David Hume would argue that your position is a fallacy -- that the argument that technology is a manifestation of truth relies solely on what he called a persistence of historical regularities, i.e. the fact that an observation of the past necessarily translates into a law in the future. For example, the fact that water has always boiled at 100 deg. C throughout all time does not mean that tomorrow it will not freeze or sprout wings or do the Electric Slide right on the countertop. So arguing the persistence of historical regularities wrongly imposes the human perception of regularity onto future events -- it's one reason why so many people keep on gambling when they are winning because they think it will continue into the future.

    Almost all good scientists agree with this position. Otherwise, there would be no complete revolutions of scientific understanding ever fifty years or so, where old "truths" are shown to be false and are replaced with new "truths." There are no "truths," only useful mechanisms. To say nothing of phenomena that have no scientific explanation, such as action at a distance with separated photons in optics, or the fact that we still have no workable TOE in physics, which suggests that perhaps we've been looking at the problem from the wrong direction all along.

    Science is a methodology, not a collection of "truths."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Not been my experience. One example: I have not personally known the equivalent of a "poser" in real life (someone who assumes a different persona than what they really are, down to a difference in gender).
    You will notice that I was careful to say that "people are often more revealing than deceptive online than in real life" just to allow for the Rose Delights of the world, who constitute a sliver of a minority.

    What's always struck me is how much better everybody is in real life compared to their on-line personas. I think you've mentioned this, too. They are universally more attractive, funnier, more interesting and entertaining. Of course, I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy, and Hume would tear me to shreds on that position for sure.
    Last edited by All Good Things; 05-17-2008 at 01:40 PM.

  6. #31
    God/dess Mastridonicus's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Paradigm City
    Posts
    6,784
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    I really don't live my life where I depend on the honesty of others. I don't really look for it. As people get closer to me in my life, virtual or otherwise, their honesty has had it's track record tested.

    So it's weird. As acquaintances, or even friends, honesty matters really little, mainly because it can be lost so easily. I guess the ones closest to me are the ones whom I've never had to consider "honesty" with in regards to their value to me. It's just understood.
    People are not ruled by their memories.

  7. #32
    Banned
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    schlong beach
    Posts
    2,096
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    I'm really a man.

  8. #33
    God/dess Mastridonicus's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Paradigm City
    Posts
    6,784
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    So, you're saying you're good at oral....?
    People are not ruled by their memories.

  9. #34
    Banned
    Joined
    May 2007
    Location
    Schwarzefornia
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    While South Korea may still teach that as part of its hanja (Korean description of the Chinese pictrogram-based written language, which is called kanji in Japanese) as a bow to the Sino legacy, my understanding is that hanja is not considered to be Korean. It's Chinese that is taught in South Korea. (The retooling of the Korean writing system in the 15th Century is a rather fascinating story.)

    I'm sorry. I don't mean to demean the meaning of your tatoo, and I think it's a fine gesture. I'm just relating the truth as I see it.
    JZ:

    Although I respect your opinion, I'm inclined to side with the native Korean speakers. Until I worked at an adult day health center for senior citizens in L.A.'s Koreatown, I thought my tattoo meant "truth" in only Japanese and Chinese.

    Although they may have lacked your knowledge of the Sino legacy, numerous Korean clients communicated their approval (via my Korean interpreter) of my tattoo and what it represented ("truth") to them--as they saw it...

    Quote Originally Posted by snoopy View Post
    qft!
    my last tat is the chinese character "de" ( ). it means righteousness, morality, and a slew of other things that really doesn't translate exactly well in single-word western concepts. imo, it's more 'living your life correctly' and having 'inner strength-type' of stuff, without the 'holier than thou attitude'. it also just happens to be my personal chinese name.

    but i think i've found it now after reading your post. thanks!
    Cool, snoop!

    Oddly enough, I've been looking at the Japanese "Gi" for the opposite forearm. Its multiple meanings are roughly the same as "de" (justice, righteousness, faith, loyalty, morality, honor, meaning and significance).

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    I'm sure you've considered the possibility that they actually kiss ass in real life too. Right?
    ^^Could that be both "too" and "TOO"?

  10. #35
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    You are right. I was referring to beauty in any form: the beauty of a sunset, a perfect rose, a miraculous song or an astounding equation.
    I would argue that's relative. A nuclear explosion can produce a beautiful sunset. A miraculous song to me can be dreadful elevator music to my friend.

    Well, David Hume would argue that your position is a fallacy -- that the argument that technology is a manifestation of truth ...
    That's why I favored "principles" over "truth." And who says David Hume can't be wrong? The honest acquisition of scientific knowledge moves forward. Yesterday's steamer car is today's gasmobile is tomorrow's hydrogen cruiser. Of course, sometimes presumed knowledge is wrong. That's why cars won't run by being possessed with spirits.

    While Hume presents with a prior solipsism, I'll still get in that pressurized aluminum tube and fly to DC, not worrying about whether it actually exists or whether thermodynamics really hold true that allow for jet propulsion.

    Almost all good scientists agree with this position. ...There are no "truths," only useful mechanisms.
    Like thermodynamics? If you have an action, it will produce a reaction? I dunno. It seems to me that you're lumping theories in with principles. The universe being born out of a Big Bang is a theory, and a pretty good one, but still a theory. The fact that the spectral output red-shifts as an object moves away is pretty much a, well, fact. Doppler and all that.


    To say nothing of phenomena that have no scientific explanation, such as action at a distance with separated photons in optics, or the fact that we still have no workable TOE in physics, which suggests that perhaps we've been looking at the problem from the wrong direction all along.
    Now you're talking theory ("Theory Of Everything"). (We can run a car on thermodynamics, but not on the TOE.) Or maybe there is no Everything. Or, yes, maybe we're looking in the wrong direction. Or maybe we haven't acquired near the knowledge to be able to understand Everything. But I bet the physicists would get us to Everything a lot faster than Hume.


    You will notice that I was careful to say that "people are often more revealing than deceptive online than in real life" just to allow for the Rose Delights of the world, who constitute a sliver of a minority.
    But my point being that I don't even know a Rose Delight in real life.

    (And to be honest, I must make the disclaimer that I got along fine with Rose Delight. She wasn't who she said she was, but my getting along with her was not dependent on my belief of her projected persona. In fact, apart from all that talk about what she was, I enjoyed and liked her. Now you can flame.)


    What's always struck me is how much better everybody is in real life compared to their on-line personas. I think you've mentioned this, too.
    Yes, I've met a handful of good people out of the dozens or hundreds I've observed virtually. I'm not saying that online people are jerks. I'm saying that generally, for the majority, people cannot persuasively demonstrate their core honesty in the virtual world.

  11. #36
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Budai View Post
    Although they may have lacked your knowledge of the Sino legacy, numerous Korean clients communicated their approval (via my Korean interpreter) of my tattoo and what it represented ("truth") to them--as they saw it...
    Works for me. Maybe it's more truly parallel to the Japanese embrace of Chinese characters as kanji than I'm aware of, then.

  12. #37
    Banned
    Joined
    May 2007
    Location
    Schwarzefornia
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Works for me. Maybe it's more truly parallel to the Japanese embrace of Chinese characters as kanji than I'm aware of, then.
    Actually, according to the esteemed snoopy, Korean's an oddball language because while they did purposely develop a separate written language, many Koreans can still read the Japanese/Chinese written languages.

    If that's true, JZ, then my tattoo means "truth" in 2.5 languages...

  13. #38
    Banned All Good Things's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 601 Times in 233 Posts
    My Mood
    Daring

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    I would argue that's relative. A nuclear explosion can produce a beautiful sunset. A miraculous song to me can be dreadful elevator music to my friend.
    Well, of course it's relative. All beauty is relative. Even Djoser's beauty is relative. The way "truth" has been used so far -- as an overriding philosophical concept -- that's relative, too. Even "honesty" has its shades of grey in psychology.

    But I would accept that it's much easier to nail down "honesty" vs. "truth" in philosophy, the latter discipline suggesting in fact that there is no proof that we actually exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    That's why I favored "principles" over "truth."
    Nuh-uh:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    But cars and microwaves and televisions and telephones and jet engines and satellites still keep on running because of principles (truth, if you will) harnessed in science
    My objection is to the term "truth," less so "principles," since the former implies transcendental reality and permanence, both of which are absent in the latter. There is no "truth" in science, properly understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    The honest acquisition of scientific knowledge moves forward. Yesterday's steamer car is today's gasmobile is tomorrow's hydrogen cruiser. Of course, sometimes presumed knowledge is wrong. That's why cars won't run by being possessed with spirits.
    Well, it's also why sacred scientific principles like Galileo's circular orbits of the planets were proven wrong and replaced by Kepler's elliptical orbital model or why before Einstein everything was uniformly treated as absolute in Newtonian physics in the measurement of space and time and then that was blown apart and replaced by the notion that everything was not only not absolute, but in fact relative, and...wait for it...space and time turned out to be inseparably linked, in a way nobody before even imagined. But wait, the empirical measurement at the core of Einstein's world, effective throughout physics, was completely undone and proven wrong on the subatomic level by Niels Bohr's application of quantum mechanics, the majority of which Einstein rejected throughout his life.

    Not too many "truths" to be found there. Actually, the "principles" turned out to be wrong, too. And all of this has critical importance to current science and engineering in electronics, for example, where we are now fabricating on the nanometer scale.

    Science is ultimately a methodology and a material philosophy. It's also comprised of laws that hold until the instant they are proven wrong. All of scientific knowledge is simply useful methodologies.

    If we are still around 10,000 years from now, the Second Law of Thermodynamics will likely be found to be inapplicable to six of the known twenty-two functional dimensions, and completely fallacious in interpretation in spacetime as we understand it today.

  14. #39
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    Well, of course it's relative. All beauty is relative. Even Djoser's beauty is relative. The way "truth" has been used so far -- as an overriding philosophical concept -- that's relative, too.
    Then we're pretty much saying the same thing. You offered beauty as a preference over truth. They're really both reletive.


    Even "honesty" has its shades of grey in psychology.
    Psychology is more art and intuition than science, at least for 90+% of its practitioners. (A thoroughly subjective observation, but I'll stand by it.)

    But I would accept that it's much easier to nail down "honesty" vs. "truth" in philosophy, the latter discipline suggesting in fact that there is no proof that we actually exist.
    Again, agreed. There's no real proof in philosophy anyway. It's far more malleable than science. Talk about relativity. (And I like philosophy.)


    Nuh-uh:
    because of principles (truth, if you will)
    My objection is to the term "truth," less so "principles," since the former implies transcendental reality and permanence, both of which are absent in the latter. There is no "truth" in science, properly understood.
    Now, that's really nitpicking, because I said I favored "principle" over "truth," and I was referring specifically to that clause I had written, because that "truth, if you will" was condescending to those who would use "truth" in science.

    Science doesn't provide truth. That's for religion and (nyuk) philosophers. It provides hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, analysis, and facts, out of which come some pretty neat things. But truth is metaphysical.


    Well, it's also why sacred scientific principles like Galileo's circular orbits of the planets were proven wrong and replaced by Kepler's elliptical orbital model or why before Einstein everything was uniformly treated as absolute in Newtonian physics in the measurement of space and time and then that was blown apart and replaced by the notion that everything was not only not absolute, but in fact relative, and...wait for it...space and time turned out to be inseparably linked, in a way nobody before even imagined.
    Those were all theoretical constructs that merely fit the best knowledge we had at the time. We can't build a microwave out of circular orbits. But we can produce heat by molecular excitation.


    If we are still around 10,000 years from now, the Second Law of Thermodynamics will likely be found to be inapplicable to six of the known twenty-two functional dimensions, and completely fallacious in interpretation in spacetime as we understand it today.
    And how do we even think of 22 dimensions? Hume didn't get us there. String theory and bosonic string theory gets us there, both of which share a direct genealogy back to Galileo and Kepler.

    And while 22 (or 11, or 26, depending on your theory) dimensions may not have relevance with thermodynamics, three dimensions certainly do, because that's how our ignorant selves get hauled around. Hume or Polyakov notwithstanding.

  15. #40
    Banned All Good Things's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 601 Times in 233 Posts
    My Mood
    Daring

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    ^ Sorry, I got distracted writing an appeal for the penis in the other thread.

  16. #41
    Featured Member Sindi's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay
    Posts
    1,074
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    I actually think that someone online would be more mean and less likely to tell the truth , they act selfish .

    In your face you might not get the truth but at least you tell if this person is a nice person and a real friend or an ass who would insult you to your face
    Visit me on myspace , Let me know if your from SW !!!!

  17. #42
    Banned
    Joined
    May 2007
    Location
    Schwarzefornia
    Posts
    2,410
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Science doesn't provide truth. That's for religion and (nyuk) philosophers. It provides hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, analysis, and facts, out of which come some pretty neat things. But truth is metaphysical.
    Succinctly put, JZ!

    I appreciate your streamlined sound bytes and lucid observations--versus the turgid, overladen treatises favored by some (IMO, an attempt to overwhelm readers with the sheer gravity of their ponderous elaboration)...

    Drawing on my pre-Google knowledge, I recall that certain questions raised by the works of scientists like David Premack (Do computers think?) and theoreticians like Heisenberg (the Uncertainty Principle) have occasionally provided answers which advanced their respective fields while supporting the metaphysical underpinnings of truth...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    ^ Sorry, I got distracted writing an appeal for the penis in the other thread.
    I don't get it, TOO...

    Are you being dismissive? Exculpatory? Both?

  18. #43
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Oh, distraction is what it is. I've had housework, yardwork, errands, office work, family dynamics, neighborhood dynamics, and shared single malts all at play today. I can completely understand an appeal for a penis (although I don't think I've seen the thread) being a viable distraction.



  19. #44
    Banned All Good Things's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 601 Times in 233 Posts
    My Mood
    Daring

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Those were all theoretical constructs that merely fit the best knowledge we had at the time.
    Theoretical constructs are either validated or invalidated by experiments in the "real world" of course. In each of my examples, there was a direct tie back from theory to experiment.

    For example, Einstein identified three specific experimental tests for his Theory of Special Relativity, warning the scientific community that if it failed even a single one, the theory would be invalid, e.g. it was not be an accurate predictor of real-world events. The theory pointed to a real-world reality that was distinctly different from the reality proposed by then-current "sacred" principles.

    My point is that each era with its own sacred principles is subject to a complete and profound revolution, where everything taken as gospel is suddenly tossed out the window and replaced by what many believe to be pure insanity.

    If you say that these were simply theoretical constructs that merely fit the best knowledge we had at the time, the term "best knowledge" falls a few hundred thousand kilometers short of "principles."

    We started with "truth," dropped it down to "principles," and now we are settling with "best knowledge?" You can use "best knowledge" as the principles, the foundation for predicting the future? Aristotle's "best knowledge" was that the purpose of the brain was to cool the blood.

    In virtually the entire history of science, our "best knowledge" turned out to be wrong. It was the comparatively recent linkage between theory, practice and reproducibility that gave rise to technology, but even today, we are subject to the next profound revolution -- the importance of quantum mechanics to chip fabrication on the nanometer level, for example -- a case where an exotic theory has real-world implications, a point I made in my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    We can't build a microwave out of circular orbits. But we can produce heat by molecular excitation.
    OK, well we can't land probes with mind-boggling precision on planets millions of miles away if we still believe in the circular orbit model of planetary motion. That is its real-world practical application.

    Even basic science is widely misunderstood, anyway. Since you bring them up, when microwave ovens first came out, many people feared using them because they cooked by "radiation," something they associated with nuclear radiation and not the electromagnetic type. Who wanted to eat radiation-contaminated food?

  20. #45
    God/dess greenidlady1's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    I think some people are more honest online because they really don't have so much at stake. Then there are people who use the computer to hide behind to take out their frustrations similiar to how people act behind the wheel of a car. They don't have to face the consequences of their actions directly. I find that most people I have met online are very different people offline/in person as well.

    I chose I'd rather hang out with my animals. Obviously, I do spend a lot of time online but outside of that and school I'd rather spend time cuddling with my furbaby.

  21. #46
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    You give a bunch of women the option of kittens over people and you're surprised?


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  22. #47
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Um....

    Truth is beauty, beauty is truth
    That is all ye know on earth
    And all ye need to know


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  23. #48
    God/dess ahmeerah's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Center of the World.
    Posts
    3,128
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 82 Times in 51 Posts
    My Mood
    Breezy

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    I voted people are more honest online but I want to take it back and vote kittie.

    I don't get why people lie. Too much wasted energy to lie, no?

  24. #49
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Other Owner View Post
    Theoretical constructs are either validated or invalidated by experiments in the "real world" of course...

    We started with "truth," dropped it down to "principles," and now we are settling with "best knowledge?"
    Now,that's disappointing, when you obviously know the distinctions yourself.

    You started with "truth" as in "truth or beauty," with truth in metaphysical terms. I started with "honesty" in personal terms, which is what I thought the point of the thread was.

    Truth isn't where science lies, and it's not part of my basic discussion.
    Scientific principles exist, and we use them all the time to run our lives.
    Theories come into play and, as you point out, are validated or invalidated (or are waiting for that to happen).

    Those have all been thrown into the mix of discussion. My argument isn't devolving through them.


    You can use "best knowledge" as the principles, the foundation for predicting the future? Aristotle's "best knowledge" was that the purpose of the brain was to cool the blood.
    Yeah, those wacky philosophers.

    In virtually the entire history of science, our "best knowledge" turned out to be wrong. .... the importance of quantum mechanics to chip fabrication on the nanometer level, for example -- a case where an exotic theory has real-world implications, a point I made in my previous post.
    "Best knowledge" in terms of scientic theory is neither right nor wrong. It's not "truth." It's validated or not validated. Just like you said earlier.

    So you're saying that quantum mechanics as it leads to chip fabrication is wrong, since our "best knowledge" is virtually wrong? I really don't get it.


    OK, well we can't land probes with mind-boggling precision on planets millions of miles away if we still believe in the circular orbit model of planetary motion. That is its real-world practical application.
    Precisely. Circular motion was a theory. Elliptical motion as a theory was more accurate, but there were still nuances that needed to be found through observation and measurement. Circular orbit as a theory was invalidated through observation. Elliptical orbit was a theory that was validated (i.e., went from theory to principle) through observation. That's an illustration of the progress of knowledge.


    Even basic science is widely misunderstood, anyway.
    We agree. Kansas School Board, anyone?


    Have a good day. I'm off to try to capture some Beauty (relative to me and, if I'm successful, others).

  25. #50
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Physical or Online?

    Internet anonymity is hardly a guarantee of genuine behavior.

    That said, it never really matters for most if they're not going to meet in the physical world.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Different Types of Physical Therapy
    By Eric22 in forum Other Work
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2011, 04:48 AM
  2. The Benefits of Physical Therapy
    By Eric22 in forum Other Work
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2011, 04:48 AM
  3. investing in physical gold
    By biancababe in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 04:53 PM
  4. Stripper got physical... normal?
    By Hailey E in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-14-2005, 02:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •