Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:52pm PT
|
"But in the case of a guy like Bob D he won't even be in the ballpark.
He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years.
Classy Werner.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:17pm PT
|
Paul, you said you are an atheist. You are arguing for the acceptance of religious wisdom. You asked if one accepts such wisdom then how are they not are religious. That's why I asked you if you are saying acceptance of its wisdom makes one religious, and are you a religious atheist. Seems contradictory ain't it.
They are religious by virtue of being interested in theological ideas, though they don't believe in God. Surprising you're unable to understand that. Try reading the "Masks of God" all four volumes and then get back to me.
Perhaps Paul needs to write a book... The Religious Atheist.
It's in the works. Believe it or not, and I know exactly how difficult this is for you, but someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God, can you believe it? Amazing. One can even recognize the great benefits of religion and theological ideas and the wisdom they provide without believing in God. I call them religious in that sense. I know it's hard to comprehend but there it is. Think about it.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:44pm PT
|
It's in the works. Believe it or not, and I know exactly how difficult this is for you, but someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God, can you believe it? Amazing. One can even recognize the great benefits of religion and theological ideas and the wisdom they provide without believing in God. I call them religious in that sense. I know it's hard to comprehend but there it is. Think about it.
No it is not hard to understand. I have understood your posts but I disagreed. You can understand and still disagree. You don't know me other than these posts. You don't know what is difficult for me or not. My comments have not been about you, they are about what you've said.
I have not heard of "religious" being defined the way define it.
Definition of religious from Merriam Webster:
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity a religious person religious attitudes
2
: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances joined a religious order
3
a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous
So I think you're stretching the definitions of terms as a defense. I have agreed with some of your assertions. You have avoided my comments which have disparaged religion. And I've given reasons for my opinions that have gone unaddressed. Fine then if you choose to do so. I don't wanna argue about the definitions. I want to use the definitions so that we can debate and learn. But if people redefine the words it's hard to have meaningful discussion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:57pm PT
|
Maajid Nawaz on Real Time with Bill Maher was simply superb tonight.
Please watch and support his lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center.
...
Excellent post, sempervirens.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:07pm PT
|
someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God...
No duh! I'm one of millions interested in theo and religious ideas without believing in God, in partic God Jehovah/God Jesus.
Just as one can be interested in astrology and all its ideas without believing stars and planets control our lives.
Silly.
"Religious atheist" scores no less than 17M hits at google. Good luck with your book.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 10:59pm PT
|
sempervirens: But science is not concerned with anyone's emotional reaction to its experiments, observations, analysis, etc. even if those experiments are concerned with emotion. And so science does not help one reconcile human tragedy.
You may not be aware of many people who are concerned about reactions to experiments, observations, and analyses. In university there are departments that watch over the kind of research is done for those very reasons. Ask any practicing academic. (I can imagine that it sounds ridiculous to you, but working with human subjects is a very touchy issue these days with ethical considerations.)
Read the abstract that I posted right below that post you responded to. Various arts have been supposedly useful because they simulate an emotional experience that people can reflect upon (e.g., tragedy). You may not be aware of some of the counseling work on PTSD victims.
It’s long been argued that the very “usefulness” of teaching novels to students has been to simulate an experience that they can reflect upon. That includes dealing with tragedy. Indeed, Damasio, a neurobiologist, argued that people who had parts of their brains damaged which dealt with emotions could not make everyday decisions—much less those that dealt with tragedy. Empirical . . . science. How more simple would you want it?
Science AND the humanities can help people understand their thinking, feeling, and responses to emotional difficulties. I can point you to psychological research studying children raised in combat zones, and how it has affected their well-being and coping abilities. Empirical . . . science.
Science CAN help humans learn to reconcile human tragedy, but one may need to expand his or her notions of what science is or can be. It would demand seeing religion, for example, in other ways than people see it here (strictly literally and empirically false).
This division between the sciences and the humanities is serving no one—except those who want to dominate others ideologically. It’s, well, . . . silly, segmented, fragmented, and narrow. It lacks collaboration and does not contribute to civil discourse and understanding. No one is going to get very far these days being narrow and independent, even if they are an expert.
In general: make bridges, contacts with other areas of expertise, social relations with others who do not think or feel like you; relax your categorizations and interpretations. Employ some empathy. As Apple tries to tell us: think differently.
Perhaps most important of all these days, embrace transparency. That means seeing the pluses and minuses of every interpretation, law, axiom, idea, value, belief. There is nothing that is purely good or bad, right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, correct or incorrect alone. Let’s get real; let’s get honest with one another; let’s tell the truth as truthfulness and recognize that there is nothing whatsoever that is absolutely true in all instances. Let’s deal with uncertainty and ambiguity head-on by admitting them rather than employing premature closure ideologically and idealistically.
Be well.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:08am PT
|
"He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years."
Got to post this one again from the spiritual guru of ST. The hypocrisy of his constant insults and name calling know no boundaries.
Actually Werner it's been 42 years of marriage, lots of hard work, extreme highs, extreme lows and just about everything in between, shared love, loss of parents, a child, friends, celebration of three children being born, raising those three children to be caring and decent human beings, working to put food on table, roof over our head and clothes on our back. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
You want to make fun of it and it makes you feel better, carry on. You are a typical example of "do as I say, not as I do."
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:11am PT
|
you may not be aware of many people who are concerned about reactions to experiments, observations, and analyses. In university there are departments that watch over the kind of research is done for those very reasons. Ask any practicing academic. (I can imagine that it sounds ridiculous to you, but working with human subjects is a very touchy issue these days with ethical considerations.)
MikeL, sure they can study emotions and reactions. But science has to be dispassionate, doesn't it? Science can even be dispassionate about studying passion. I think you see now that we don't have a disagreement on that. You needn't convince me any further. I'm aware that people study emotions and other people care about their research for many reasons.
It does not sound ridiculous to me, you might imagine things about me, but why? You don't know me. We're not discussing me although Paul has also made similar comments about me. He and others have tried to make this thread about the people here posting instead of the topics. That is how discussion devolves into such nonsense we see here. I think you'll agree.
You do make some good points. And yeah I can see that science can help humans reconcile tragedy. Your explanations to me directly are out of context on that because Paul brought the statement (several pages back) that science cannot help reconcile tragedy while religion can. My response was that science doesn't care and in that way doesn't help, or doesn't try to help. It seeks answers but if the answers hurt feelings the info doesn't change. Even if some universities feel it's very touchy. See what I mean? But surely science can help by providing explanations to questions: why did the tragedy occur?, can we prevent it?, how will we deal with a flood?, how will humans react, how can we alleviate their anxiety, etc. Science itself does not have feelings, right, it's a method.
I don't a see disagreement here.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
"Maybe its because you wrote:
Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature.
DMT"
What is so hard to understand what he is saying? Science is data/information, what humans do with that is on their shoulders.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:37am PT
|
Science AND the humanities can help people understand their thinking, feeling, and responses to emotional difficulties. I can point you to psychological research studying children raised in combat zones, and how it has affected their well-being and coping abilities. Empirical . . . science.
Science CAN help humans learn to reconcile human tragedy, but one may need to expand his or her notions of what science is or can be. It would demand seeing religion, for example, in other ways than people see it here (strictly literally and empirically false).
So science and humanities can help, no disagreement.
I don't take religion literally and don't disparage it as false. I disparage it because it is based on blind faith. Some religious people disparage science as false because it doesn't align with their blind faith regarding origin of life, age of earth, climate change, etc. That is a big problem with religion. But it needn't be if the religionists could drop their literal interpretations. Problem is they only drop the literal interpretations when it suits their motives, like when they get attacked and exposed as being absurd. But many religious leaders hold onto whatever interpretations they need to control their faithful. That is a problem. (not all religionists, but some, and the some are harmful to us all). We shouldn't fall for it but many do, why, because of their blind faith.
Science is not based on faith. It attempts to disprove. It must have peer review. It is itself without feelings and therefore does not care what we believe.
I have said earlier that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Make use of both, fine. Science can't answer the ultimate question of infinite time, infinite space, who created the universe. But we still must seek answers. Religion simply gives the answers and says you must believe. That is a big difference.
So I'm not willing to redefine the word science, it's just a word. One can expand the notion but don't add faith to science.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:39am PT
|
DMT, read what he imagined about me and my response. You weren't following along then jumped in, but missed a lot.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:18am PT
|
Yeah, institutions are made of people and so obviously can be emotional, concerned.
I do try to be precise with words, it's all we have here in these discussions. Further back i posted the definition of religious. Definitions will at least clarify where we agree or disagree. Half these discussions are mis-use of words rather than disagreements.
Can't respond to all your points now. But I appreciate them. Gotto go live my life.
Pray for me. :)
And for us all. :)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 12:47pm PT
|
Sorry for the delay in responding. My company just had its annual business meeting, and that's been consuming.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Ed. I'll try to be as thoughtful in my reply.
there is no "evidence" in favor of string theory, it was invented as a way of unifying gravity with the other forces, but that alone does not constitute "evidence."
Okay, I think I better understand what you mean by "evidence." And I think that what most people think of as "evidence" is broadly construed as something like "reason to believe." So, there could be some "reason to believe" in string theory that does not rise to the level of "evidence" in your rubric.
However, even that assessment of "evidence" is perhaps too coarse-grained. I mean, even the term "believe" in "reason to believe" is perhaps too strong a term.
Most religionists "believe" in the "truth" of their perspective, which is a "stronger" epistemic commitment than I would guess that Kaku has toward the set of propositions constituting some version of string theory. So "believe" is probably too strong a "commitment" term.
Perhaps the lowest-level epistemic commitment that would properly capture Kaku's perspective about string theory would be something like, "reason to assert" or "reason to 'advance'" the set of propositions. In short, Kaku clearly thinks that some version of string theory is a "good idea" or has "something going for it" that other alternatives definitely lack.
It is that sense of "evidence" that I'm talking about, a sort of "reason to 'advance' a set of propositions," which is merely to say that somebody like Kaku is not "off on some wild flyer" to "advance" the theory as "a productive explanation" or something like that.
Now, in that sort of context, you say:
Not only that, the program seems to be failing, that is, the unification scale for the strong interaction and the electro-weak interaction may be higher than thought, as evidenced by the lack of evidence from the LHC at CERN; that scale now apparently much higher than physically relevant theories require.
Well, there's a lot of "seems," "apparently," and other such terminology in this statement. Kaku could (and presumably would) respond with something like, "The jury is still out, which is to say that I don't see any definite falsification of all versions of string theory yet, and there does remain a profound mathematical beauty and elegance in string theory that no other alternative yet has. Furthermore, without something like string theory, we seem to be beating our heads against and intractable problem. So, I'll continue to 'advance' the idea that string theory is worth further research."
Now, it seems that you would respond along the lines of, "I don't believe that string theory IS going to prove productive (read: turn out to be a predicatively-powerful model), and I'll keep 'believing' (read: asserting, advancing) the standard model as the more productive line of research."
But, notice that this is a contrast of "commitment" to a paradigm. Kaku has written for a long time (and continues to do so) that the standard model ha perpetually failed to produce a way to unify the known forces and that there is no "reason to believe" that it ultimately will. Thus, he is "motivated to think" (read: has reason to believe) that we should continue to explore theories "outside" the standard model.
You say, "there is no evidence" for string theory. But Kaku clearly disagrees! Perhaps you are using the term "evidence" differently from him, as, clearly, he thinks that "evidence" includes the notions of mathematical beauty and elegance, not to mention the fact that "on paper" string theory accomplishes something that the bare standard model has yet to achieve, even "on paper." So, is Kaku some "whack job" with "blind faith" in a failed-by-definition perspective?
Of course not. Or, at least, I hope you would not assert so.
While a large number of physicists work on string theory, this is really a guess by them on what might be the basis of a future explanation.
So, you seem to distinguish between "a guess" and something "known to be the case." In that, you go beyond your actual knowledge.
This is an important point, because the way scientists traditionally "connect" evidence with theory continually leans toward verificationism, but it cannot legitimately do so.
Theories are always underdetermined by facts, which is to say that an infinite number of theories are consistent with ANY set of facts. So, NO set of facts can ever "confirm" or even "indicate" the "truth" of any theory. ALL you can legitimately assert is that the standard model has not yet be definitively falsified, and it continues to make "productive predictions."
In that alone, you have a reasonable basis to distinguish the "guess" of string theory from the "demonstrated productivity" of the bare standard model. And perhaps that's all you are asserting. But, again, string theory is not some "wild flyer" of an idea. It actually HAS more mathematical beauty and elegance than the bare standard model (unless, of course, Kaku is an idiot or flagrantly incorrect in asserting such).
However, there are many speculative theories regarding gravity, and in the end it will be the collective efforts of both theorists and experimentalists to resolve.
Granted. But meanwhile, in the words of Clint Eastwood, the bare standard model "ain't makin' it." So, there is reason to think that it's inadequate in some way, and that something "more" is needed as a "complete explanation."
So, these "other" theoretical projects continue, and each one has "some reason" to recommend it over the others and over the bare standard model.
So there are things you could identify as "rational" and "empirical" processes involved; however, parsing the process into a philosophical context will have to wait until the process is complete. As philosophy has no way of "predicting" the outcome, it will only offer an explanation after the fact.
Ah, yes, the predictable dig at the "productivity" of philosophy, even as you employ it to make your own points. However, you assume too much.
What philosophy can, right now, predict is that whatever science does come up with will remain incomplete and unverifiable. "Dreams of a Final Theory" will forever remain unrealized dreams. The more you "discover," the more you will realize you don't know and can't explain.
You will forever have "more" "predictive power" without having any more reason than you had before to "believe" that your then-present theory is "true."
In spite of the great success of particle physics in explaining the universe after 120 years (the discovery of the electron starting the whole thing), there is an abundance of evidence that we have only been looking at a small part of the entire universe, the luminous parts... diverted as it were by the shinny objects, while the bulk remained largely undetected.
My point exactly. And philosophy of science has long-predicted this realization, even while most physicists were publicly stating that "we're really, really close" and sentiments to that effect. Have you read Dreams of a Final Theory? In that book you have Weinberg acting like physicists traditionally act in public: Strident, "knowledgeable," assured, and confident that the public has "every reason to believe" that science is "right on the brink" of answering all philosophical questions in purely empirical fashion.
If Kuhn was right about anything, he was right in stating (my close paraphrase): Science is always progressing, but not toward anything.
Now, you come across as a scientific realist. But you actually have no "evidence" upon which to "believe" in that perspective. It's merely (in your opinion) the best meta-scientific "working model," as it is more "motivational" than the alternative: scientific anti-realism.
But my point is that you are building a LOT of meta-presumptions into your efforts, and the "results" build all of those presumptions in.
There is "reason to believe" that our theories are correct, those reasons largely rest on the ability to predict the outcome of experiment and anticipate observation.
But that's just one sense of "evidence," as we are more teasing out in this present discussion. And we do have to be careful with all that "believe" implies. Again, Kaku presumable does not "believe" in string theory. It is more proper to say that he has "reason to suggest" or "reason to assert" that string theory will "ultimately prove to be productive in the absence of better alternatives."
And the very reason that "alternative" accounts of gravity are "motivated" IS that the bare standard model has "proved" to be inadequate to its stated (presumed) task. So, just as you talk about "reasons to believe" in the standard model, there are corresponding "reasons to believe" in the negative: the standard model is inadequate and is almost certainly not a complete explanation. Thus, there is strong "evidence" to "believe" that the bare standard model is NOT "correct," as you say. It is deeply and fundamentally lacking AT LEAST a "bolt on" if not a paradigm shift.
Again, so Kaku "believes." Now, again, you may dispute this. But Kaku is no idiot.
For the philosophical discussion we're having here, the difference between falsification and confirmation are held up as if they are absolute arbiters of "truth."
No! Quite the contrary. You have not "oversimplified" this point. You have entirely missed it. The point is that "truth" is not even at issue here!
Science is NOT doing metaphysics. It cannot in principle be telling us the "truth" about what "really exists," the "real, underlying furniture of the universe."
While the likes of Bob are naive realists, believing directly in tables, chairs, and walls, more sophisticated scientists recognize that such objects are NOT the actual metaphysical objects that we "package up" into such. The ACTUAL metaphysical objects are (crudely stated) something like "probability clouds," whereby a "wall" is something like a "stronger probability field" than a "doorway," and where even that is a very crude description, because a "doorway" has "strong probability" in its own sense.
But even dispensing with naive realism, the scientific realism to which you subscribe itself presumes many, many things that science itself can NEVER "verify" in the slightest. You presume the "real existence" of certain fundamental physical entities, and you "take these" to be the "real metaphysical entities," and in this crucial sense you do claim that metaphysics IS JUST physics.
But you have no SCIENTIFIC reason to believe this. It is a philosophical commitment on your part, and it is motivated by other factors than science itself.
What the Popper/Carnap discussion revealed (and what's been revealed since then) is that scientific reductionism DEPENDS UPON a subtle commitment to verificationism (which is why you physicists perpetually slip into talking in such terms). Yet, such commitment is inadmissible in principle.
So, yes, while science appears to be always progressing, it is indeed always progressing toward "nothing" (thought of as metaphysical "truth"). Due to the "advances" of science, we humans "can do" more and more cool things. But NONE of this equates to "knowledge" of the metaphysical facts.
Now, you have repeatedly asserted statements along the lines of "Yes, 'truth' in the strong sense is not the object; but 'it works' is very much good enough as a stand-in for 'truth.'"
But such pragmatism is really an admission of scientific anti-realism, and admission that science is not in-principle doing metaphysics. Your response would, presumably, be: "Fine. But, then, metaphysics so-defined is a fool's errand, pursued only by speculative philosophers."
And my response would be: "Fine. Then quit stridently asserting that science 'knows' anything, which would imply that you have NOT 'settled the boundaries' of what human beings can 'know' about 'real entities' or what counts as 'fictional entities.'" The standard model is itself chock-full of "fictional entities." Your "reason to believe" in them is pure pragmatics rather than genuine metaphysics.
And your "standard of 'evidence'" is NOT the same thing as "legitimate reason to 'accept' or 'assert' or 'pursue.'" Your own theorists have good reason to "assert" or "pursue" lines of inquiry for which they as yet have no "evidence," and that "reason" is, flatly, grounded in the quite apparent inadequacy of the bare standard model.
Popper may have proposed that science can only falsify theory, he left undiscussed the use of the results of non-falsified theory, the calculations so necessary to realize technological application of the theory.
Wait! Now you're totally changing the rules of the game!
We WERE talking about "facts" and "truth" and the presumption that science is somehow doing genuine metaphysics. Now, suddenly, you're firmly embracing engineering and pragmatics! But those are NOT the same things, nor are their "rules of evidence" the same.
I would be the FIRST one to agree with the "successes" of "science" THUS-construed! But THAT is not metaphysics (nor theoretical physics), and it makes NO strident claims about "truth" or "universal laws" or any such thing!
One could say these calculations are not-true, and if so said, how could you use them to, say, build a bridge?
Again, wait! People were building bridges, cathedrals, and other such projects LONG, LONG before there was the SLIGHTEST hint of general relativity or the standard model ANYWHERE on the horizon. In fact, your present theories are such recent inventions that they are not even a sliver on the time-scales represented by some human constructions that IN NO WAY depended upon them!
Instead, you are really appealing to the "objective validity" of, say, geometry. But THAT is not derived scientifically in the SLIGHTEST! Indeed, science DEPENDS UPON the objective validity of various geometries, without in the slightest contributing toward the production nor demonstration of such objective validity.
And if you say that they are an approximation to "truth," you are changing the meaning of truth in some fundamental way.
My friend, YOU are the one changing up the meanings of "truth" (which according to you really means, "it works"), "evidence" (which according to you really means, "empirical, experimental results"), and even what metaphysics IS (which according to you really means "the entities presently presumed to exist by our 'best' present physical theory).
Yet you and others have no qualms about using these calculations, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, in all sorts of activities, some of which have life-or-death consequences.
And now your basic conflation is fully revealed. As stated above, what I (qua some engineer) is "using" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with general relativity, the standard model, or any other theory of physics. Planes fly today, NOT because the standard model has been "productive," because NOBODY yet really understands why "lift" works as it does! Buildings have stood for millennia completely apart from the "truth" of ANY theory of physics! And so on.
"What appears to work" is indeed a POWERFUL approach to engineering, and we humans have achieved a LOT by trial-and-error (which results get documented for the foundation of other engineers to stand upon). But these trial-and-error results are NOT fundamentally a function of ANYTHING like "scientific metaphysics). MUCH/MOST of what are life-and-death dependencies (such as the lift of an airplane wing) are NOT functions of this or that scientific theory.
And the "calculations" to which you refer are not PRODUCTS of science! Science itself rests on the objective validity of the mathematics/geometry that is not PRODUCED by scientists. So, you have no special claim to such "calculations" in the slightest.
To sum up, science CAN be "productive" insofar as it "better" explains (after the fact) why engineering "works." In relatively RARE cases it can even offer engineering a "productive" suggestion about a direction in which to pursue its trial-and-error investigations. But "what works" has NOTHING to do with "what metaphysical entities really exist." And the "evidence" of "what works" only barely and obliquely maps onto "reasons to believe," as there are sweepingly good "reasons to 'assert'" theories (and entities, such as strings) that as yet have NO "evidence" in their favor.
Physics is FOREVER inadequate, and will forever be, because it is not in principle a truth-seeking endeavor.
I completely grant that most religionists are strident, arrogant in their unsupported assertions, and cling to "belief" that is falsely associated with "knowledge."
However, if books like Dreams of a Final Theory and The Theory of Everything are to be taken as indicative of the perspectives of leading physicists, then physicists are no better.
Apparently the philosophical notion of falsification and confirmation, at least as are being discussed here, do not capture the full picture.
Correct, as just stated above. These concepts are windows into the broader issue, which is that scientific anti-realism is the really sustainable perspective of science, which implies that scientists should be MUCH less strident about what constitutes "evidence," "truth," "reason to believe," and a host of other epistemological constructions.
The REALLY proper response to metaphysical questions (put to both religionists and physicists alike) should be: I really don't know and cannot in-principle know! And what counts as "reason to assert" is a moving target that is NOT shared across paradigms!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 04:20pm PT
|
:-D
Like +1
A real pleasure for me to read, MB1. Instructive and says things that I felt but could not explicate halfway decently.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 04:36pm PT
|
Thank you, Mike. Much appreciated.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:10pm PT
|
Physics is FOREVER inadequate, and will forever be, because it is not in principle a truth-seeking endeavor.
Sheesh, you all deserve one another!!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:14pm PT
|
So... I don't know it for a fact, but I just know it's true... you guys are not on the ball any more than WB, lol.
Sorry if it hurts... but not sorry.
Really, in light of these posts, is it any wonder at all the General Public is confused about science!
Hear hear! for engineering physics!!!!!
...
So, I took a year in Statics and Dynamics in engineering physics... I am curious if either MikeL or MB1 took same? I got A's in these courses, what did you guys get?
What the public seems to forget, no doubt encouraged by the extraordinary focus on particle physics and quantum mechanics, is that there is a lot more to physics then just particle physics or string theory or quantum mechanics or the standard model.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Here here for engineering physics!!!!!
Not even an attempt at an actual reply. Instead, just an incorrect idiom. What you're looking for is... "Hear, hear...."
Sorry for being a bit snarky in response to your snark; not really sorry.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!