Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
In reply to the previous thread
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Ricardo
Posts: 14883
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
 RE: In reply to the previous thread (in reply to metalhead)
|
|
|
quote:
No wait, we're not done talking. Why did the admin lock the post? I think we're grown up enough to handle any arguments.
If you must know, the first red flag is a religious anything topic. The second was when you told someone to stop being “arrogant” and “shut up”. And the third and final straw was when that someone hurled trash insults in response. The lockup was for good reason and totally called for at that point. Now if you proceed cautiously, perhaps this will stay up despite it opening door number 1 again. Time will tell. You are already calling them out with a definition of a foreign word. In this case you are both right as there are multiple definitions. It means teaching in Buddhism, to teach Buddhist junk, it means the social conformity as you said, more nonsense like “duty” (Sikh junk), and also an aspect of cosmic truth…yeah sure, whatever, the void is not empty fools. In other words, the word itself is a problem and if you continue it will lead to more argument unnecessarily (dharma=satan causing trouble again, my new definition). No need for this.
One thing I will address is Piwin made it sound like “changing the mind no hard feelings” is an exaggerated ideal in the science community, as if only the minority would engage in this. Totally not true. The outliers are few and cause major problems by tainting the scientific literature, or blocking good science from progressing. This is not the same as internal grappling with “faith” or “belief” in scientific ideas that turn out wrong, which every human is allowed to have and deal with. Fudging data so it fits the model is very different, and it is not fair to say a few bad apples ruin the whole gang. In fact getting depressed over a discarded idea is proof the thing is working. Only delusional people know the truth about their wrong belief and happily go on telling others it is true and acting well adjusted and mentally at peace about it. That is hypocrisy.
Last thing I will say, my CAR-ma ran over your DOG-ma.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 29 2024 14:21:37
 |
|
metalhead
Posts: 128
Joined: Apr. 15 2023
|
|
RE: In reply to the previous thread (in reply to metalhead)
|
|
|
To add more, Buddhism and any other religions that teach about social conformity is junk, rightfully so, since that's what leads a society to a dull and uncreative state, rather than a creative one.
Karma and reincarnation are concepts that don't have necessarily to be religious/ Buddhist. You can totally be a science guy but keep an open mind to the metaphysical. Michio Kaku, does not believe in the traditional belief systems of a god, but he has said in the past, that there's a possibility of the presence of a metaphysical god, albeit one that is far different from the gods that people have invented.
Likewise, Karma can be thought of as a way to explain the large contrasts between so much suffering for a select few and so much hedonism for a select few. Else, how can you explain this contrast, some might say coincidence and some might explain it via karma. It doesn't have to be right, as Piwin said, as long as your delusions don't hurt nobody, they should be fine;
If you or anybody else got the idea that I'm a religious nerd, then they interpreted the wrong ideas
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 29 2024 16:00:41
|
|
Piwin
Posts: 3565
Joined: Feb. 9 2016
|
|
RE: In reply to the previous thread (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
In fact getting depressed over a discarded idea is proof the thing is working.
So they're happy when they change their minds, which is proof that it's working as it is supposed to. But also if they get depressed about it, that's also proof that it's working as it is supposed to. How convenient. I think you ran yourself into a corner with that one. Really the argument should just be that the fact that there are paradigm shifts at all is "proof" that it is working, regardless of how individual scientists feel about it.
Either way, my own experience matches up more closely with Max Planck's remark that new scientific truths don't triumph by convincing their opponents, but simply by waiting them out until they eventually die. Where people do change their mind is on specific claims within a larger theory or model. But they rarely switch theories/models. Generativists rarely become structuralists; behaviorists rarely become cognitivists; and I'd imagine most string theorists alive today will remain string theorists until the day they die. When theories/models collide, it is rarely as simple as just needing more data. It's a complex whole of disagreements over many fronts, including base assumptions that aren't empirically testable. In a post-Kuhn world, I don't think we have the convenience of being able to pretend that paradigm shifts just boil down to explanatory power, i.e. "this new theory now explains more than the last one, so we all change our minds".
US-informed discourse is particularly rigid on these issues. Which is understandable. If my government was constantly on the brink of being taken over by far-right religious fanatics, I'd probably be that way too. You have to draw a hard line between the two: we're the rational people open to new ideas; they're the lunatics who will systematically choose dogma over evidence. But the way extremes play off of each other often drowns out the more subtle, reasonable conversations, and in this case, it does drown out the substantial discussions there needs to be about how science works, its human component, institutional component, incentive structures, etc. There is a lot wrong with academia and research today. I should be able to say that without it being perceived as a concession to the religious far-right or as an equivocation between science and religion.
_____________________________
"Anything you do can be fixed. What you cannot fix is the perfection of a blank page. What you cannot fix is that pristine, unsullied whiteness of a screen or a page with nothing on it—because there’s nothing there to fix."
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 29 2024 16:30:47
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: In reply to the previous thread (in reply to metalhead)
|
|
|
A word of caution. This is primarily a flamenco forum, but many of the members have wide-ranging interests, from cosmology and black holes to conspiracy theorists and politics to aviation and space travel. Thus, the "Off Topic" category. Simon, the moderator, is generally permissive regarding our discussions, but he insists that they remain civil, as they should be. I suggest you not try to resurrect the previous thread, which Simon locked, by continuing it under a different subject heading. Several years ago, Simon discontinued the "Off Topic" category because it was getting out of hand. I don't think it wise to continue this discussion, as Simon has already indicated it is locked. We don't want the "Off Topic" category discontinued yet again, as this time it may not be revived.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 29 2024 16:42:43
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14883
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: In reply to the previous thread (in reply to Piwin)
|
|
|
quote:
Either way, my own experience matches up more closely with Max Planck's remark that new scientific truths don't triumph by convincing their opponents, but simply by waiting them out until they eventually die. Where people do change their mind is on specific claims within a larger theory or model. But they rarely switch theories/models.
That is regarding headline news ideas. When scientists change their mind nobody cares if it is not world shaking. That is why as Webb data comes in every week it is “OMG all models need to be discarded!!!”, that is news people not getting the point. “Tweaking” a model is no different than destroying the entire thing, rebuilding it such that a majority of well conceived working parts overlap with the previous, and the new change is incorporated. For example “galaxies are too mature, universe age is wrong!”. Then a guy realized they hadn’t done the ultraviolet correction to such high red shift yet. Technically that means a new model is created, not that they managed to “save” the old one, that was clearly WRONG.
Einstein didn’t die then suddenly a new idea prevailed thanks to his stubborn hanging on not being in the way. They still try to prove him wrong. Yet people flip that and pretend that means everybody is following his dogma and proving him “right” again and again. It is exactly the opposite. I just listened to Witten reflecting on the string thing, he was very skeptical and it took a long time to whittle away at it until he started embracing the core concepts. That is not to say he is suddenly happy about it either, knowing full well the experiment issue. But that is not the view the public understands. They see a guy hell bent on strings that must keep the idea on the table at all costs due to academic funding or some other nonsense. That is not the sentiment. Many scientists think the Dark Matter situation is nothing more than Einstein is wrong. This is still a legit direction to look. Making a decision based on funding is a separate issue than changing your mind about research models and experiments that may or may not be reasonable to work on.
Also academia in general has the big fish small pond issue, but again, that is separate from the point about scientific method operating orders of magnitude better than other disciplines at cutting through the junk.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 29 2024 17:10:00
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
9.765625E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
