mercredi 17 décembre 2014

Why do Oil Companies Drill For Oil and Find it, when Using Millions of Years?

KD
JM, your point concerning oil companies is one I've been trying to make for days now.

According to a geologist buddy of mine, who actually works as an oil/gas prospector, if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, "we could practically dig it up with a shovel."

[In some places one could]

So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?

SG
//The only difficulty I see even if what you say is true, is the fact the Bible says God in fact did make light before he made objects that produce Light.//

My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones.

HGL
"if oil had formed according to the creationist model of geology it would lie in deposits so shallow (it was made only ~4000 years ago, after all) that, in his words, 'we could practically dig it up with a shovel.'

"So if the creationist model were correct, why do we have to drill down thousands of feet to find oil and gas?"


Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.

"My answer is simply that the OT creation narrative is not inpspired truth but a myth most likey borrowed from other older ones."

If so, how come none of the older - e g Egyptian or Mesopotamian - myths ever mentions the idea of God or any of the gods creating light before creating lights?

SG
I haven't studied, so you would have to inform me.

HGL
Well, none of them do. None of those preserved to now.

My answer is that your guess is wrong and this item is real revelation after all.

And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.

KD
//Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through or start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.//

No. Geologically impossible. Observations simply don't support this premise. And by what mechanism would this work, were it true?

And of course, the million dollar questionwhy isn't the creationist model of geology used to prospect for oil and gas? Why do oil companies use the standard model, which acknowledges deep time and refutes the possibility of a global deluge?

//And yes, God can produce light without using a light source. Just as He can make water into wine without using soil, vine plant, lengths of time etc.//

A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please.

HGL
I guess you owe me a million dollars, because I have an answer:

  • because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense.


Now for the rest:

"Geologically impossible."

For what reason?

"Observations simply don't support this premise."

Wrong category, I didn't give a premiss for a conclusion, I gave a guess for an explanation.

Wrong number, I didn't give one but two.

[1) Because oil and gas forming during the flood (which I think is the standard creationist model) happens to have had the material making them up sink through OR 2) start off under very huge piles of flood deposit.]

And for a guess in order to explain, wrong objection too: "observations simply don't support" is good enough against a premiss for a conclusion, but hardly against a guess for an explanation.

[There you would rather want observations incompatible with the guess or its obvious conclusions than lack of evidence in observations.]

Fact remains, if we had observations of the process while ongoing, we would not have a long age guess and we would not have an alternative creationist guess (or two).

SG
I got that theory from atheist debunkers, btw, HGL.

HGL
"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

  • What law of physics says "God can't"?
  • What law of physics is violated?
  • Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?


[HGL @ SG] Well, either these atheist debunkers were too atheist and need debunking themselves or they were debunking atheism but not enough.

KD
//"A major claim. Evidence of how the laws of physics may be violated without invoking a magical explanation, please."

  • What law of physics says "God can't"?
  • What law of physics is violated?
  • Who says Christians can't invoke explanations which atheists will scoff as "magical"?//


LOLthese aren't refutations! You're JAQing off now.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/just-asking-questions-creation-edition/

[Not linking to that pseudoscientific antiphilosophical shit, you have the adress if you want to copy it.]

"Geologically impossible" due to the fact that we DONT observe the evidence expected were the creationist claim correct.

[Did not directly answer this one here, but gave an answer later and in link I gave. It provides a theory of mine with empirical palaeontological backup.]

HGL
Here is ANOTHER Q for U.

  • Who made NeuroLogica blog the judge of what strategies I may use in debate?

    And one more:

  • If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?


KD
Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation.

Want to refute the standard explanation for geology? Only one way to do it.present EVIDENCE that the creationist model for oil and gas formation is valid.

//If "just asking questions" is not allowed, how come science is allowed at all?//

Red herring. Please present evidence that supports your claim of creationist geology.

[Didn't do it here either in the Gish Gallop he provided, but later]

Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior.

HGL
But if you want refutations instead of questions, here we go:

  • First law of physics is God created everything and can do anything He wants with the creation;
  • Second law of physics is that spirit rules matter within - for created spirits like human souls and angels - the limits God decided;
  • THIRD ONLY law of physics is that material objects when interacting (usually moved by God, angels or men ultimately) follow certain physical laws.


THAT being said you can ask why I can define laws of physics? Well, I am not a physicist, but physicists are not metaphysicians.

This means that the underlying metaphysics of any non-Theist physicist or believer of such will get the first two laws of physics wrong and therefore object in the wrong places and against the wrong things.

That was not JAQ, that is my formal answer. YOU GOT IT WRONG.

If you want to you can scoff and call that appealing to magic, doesn't change a thing.

"Sorry HGL, but answering evidence with questions isn't a refutation."

You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!

"Please explain why energy companies use the standard geologic model versus the creationist model, if the creationist model is supposedly superior."

Because their directors go to the wrong schools, as already stated.

Adding "milions of years" of duration or "millions of years ago" doesn't change a real thing in otherwise correct explanations and the way you find oil is not by reasoning about either model as such but by going by where oil was found in the past.

HH
bahahhahaha

creationism does not have a geological model, no backing scientifically of any of it

HGL Creationism has even more than one geological model for flood geology. They are most of them being debated. Here is mine, which isn't:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


KD
//You gave no evidence. You gave an attempt at a proof and I &asked you to confirm the unstated premisses. Sorry for understanding your argument better than you do yourself!//

No HGL, you still don't get it.

Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology. They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits. They do NOT rely on the creationist model, and if you look at previous comments you'll see I mention a few reasons why.

My evidence, therefore, is the success that energy companies enjoy due to following the deep time interpretation of geology.

NowI'll ask a question of my own.why should this be, if the creationist model is supposedly the superior explanation?

HGL
"Energy companies UNIVERSALLY agree on deep time and standard geology."

You don't get that I got it.

What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

The knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.

But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.

KD
//What I answered is that using millions of years isn't helping them.//

No. Incorrect. The deep time model is an integral part of understanding how oil formed, where in the world the conditions were correct for formation to occur, the LENGTH OF TIME the deposits have been buried, and where we are most likely to find oil in this day and age after MILLIONS OF YEARS of tectonic action.

"They use this knowledge to reliably find oil and gas deposits."

THe knowledge that actually helps them is not the millions of years part.


NO. INCORRECT. Deep time is an integral factor in energy prospecting, and for the reasons I've stated.

//But of course, they UNIVERSALLY get the same indoctrination and narrowminded prejudice that makes them think it does.//

AGAIN.INCORRECT. The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year.

So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions.

Sorry HGL, but you still haven't explained why energy companies shun creationist explanations in favor of standard ones.the ones based on DEEP TIME and which refute a global flood.

HGL
"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKEDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Cretaceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.

"So.why can't creationist geologic interpretations do this?

Because they are flawed, and cannot make these predictions."


If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.

I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.

What predictions are based on are rather "this formation is shale and shale can lead to oil" - that type of reasoning. You can decorate that with "this is shale that formed over millions of years" but it adds nothing.

KD
//"The deep time models consistently get positive results and bring in trillions of dollars in energy products every year."

What gets these results is the prospecting of which millions of years is MISTAKDLY seen as an integral part.

What actually IS an integral part is the distinctions of layer types, like Creataceous. I believe Cretaceous is a real type of deposit or several of them, but that x millions of years ago has NOTHING to do with it.//


HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different.

And no if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK, and oil companies would just have to drill everywhere and keep their fingers crossed.

But that's not how it is.using models based on deep time and no cataclysmic flood, they consistently find valuable energy deposits right where they are expected to be.

This is the benchmark of any scientific school of thoughtPREDICTIVE POWER. And this is the very thing that creationist models lack.

HGL
"HGL, no matter what you believe, reality says different."

What reality? The petrol [that is] found?

I just told you why it does NOT say differently.

In fact, it does in itself NOT say anything, you have to interpret it and your interpretation lacks a certain elasticity as to seeing things from different angles even when handed them on a plate.

"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.

KD
//If Tas Walker was hired or Woodmorappe, they would get equal results. They are flood geologists. They have a geologic education and no longer (at least for Tas) believe millions of years have anything to do with real geology.//

And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting. Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits.

A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

//I don't know Woodmorappe's background, so I can't say for sure he was an old earth believer, but if not he may have had a hard time socially while doing the studies.//

Your own personal musing, but again, doesn't explain the energy companies' preference for standard geology.

[He really is the kind of jerk who's able to take an aside and an admission as if it had been meant as and failed as a proof, isn't he?]

HGL
"And yet no oil company seeks out creationist geologists to do their prospecting."

And actually Tas has other things to do too.

"Instead, they choose the standard interpretation and reap billions in profits."

I don't adore profits. I don't make them my benchmark for truth. They show something is working, but do not show what is working.

"A completely hypothetical statement, and still doesn't refute my point regarding the energy companies' preference for standard geology."

As a curious fact, no, it stands. As a point against creationism, yes, I just refuted it.

And explaining their preference was already done : the bad education they got.

KD
//"if the idea of deep time were false, the standard model WOULDNT WORK,"

It is a rule of logic that premisses that are right and are rightly applied cannot yield wrong conclusions. But it is not a rule of logic that premisses that are wrong cannot yield correct ones. Still less that a sentence that is wrong and not really part of the premisses cannot leave them unaffacted so they can give a right conclusion.//


This isn't your high school debate team HGL, and a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence.

Evidence supports deep time. Oil companies make fortunes based on the concept.

HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work.

HGL
"a logically pretty argument does not trump evidence."

A logically pretty argument trumps a logically faulty one when making sense of evidence.

No evidence is evidence for anything unless it is argued about, at least implicitly.

"HGL, you're trying to use a philosophical method to approach a scientific matter. It doesn't work."

When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.

KP
KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.

HH
there is no such thing

you need real science not guesses to do geology

KD
//When it comes to truth, it is the unphilosophical one which doesn't work.//

No. In reality, evidence rules. We see the results of honestly following evidence to a parsimonious conclusion in the fact that by following the standard, deep time model of geology energy companies are consistently successful in finding what they go looking for.

Predictive power.it's the best, strongest evidence of the credibility of any scientific model. Creationist models have none. Standard models have it in spades.

HGL
Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.

Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.

HGL @ KP- a creationist geologist or more usually a flood geologist is a geologist who like Steno, founder of the discipline, believes most deposits are from Flood.

KD just said he didn't work for oil companies but had a buddy who does.

KD
//KD, what is a creationist geologist? Do you work for oil companies? Thx.//

Hey KP!

Creation geologists could be descibed as those who accept a young age of the earth and claim the earth was once submerged under a world wide deluge.

No, I don't work for the oil companies, but have a friend who does. He's a geologist who does prospecting work looking for natural gas and oil deposits. He's taught me a few things, and has shown me survey maps, how they're used, and why they work in the way they do. It's all based on standard explanations of rock formation, chemistry, and millions of years worth of plate tectonics and tracking of the paths of plate movements.

HGL
Oh, did they really take millions of years while tracking the paths of plate movements?

[Not answered.]

HH
its easy to see the real science behind why the earth is over 4 billion years old

HGL
Ah, it is easy to see it? Where is it then?

KP
So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?

HH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rArGi6lwds.

[Not linking there either. Might later do - or not do a series of comment refutations, as with AronRa's videos. If so, I will link from their mirror on my blog.]

real science has nothing to do with religion books

HGL
HH, I wasn't asking for a 52 minutes long video, I was asking for a definite place where one can really see the science behind the 4 billion years figure.

HH
it 4 time 52 minutes and teaches you some real stuff, you would be better to watch that then debate lol

learn it first then debate it

most people dont even know its the zircon that we use to date old things with now, science moves very fast

KD
//Evidence can only get correct conclusions through logic, not through "parsimoniousness" and still less through mistaking antisupernatural prejudice for parsimoniousness.//

> The scientific principle of parsimony favors the most streamlined explanation as being the one more likely to be valid. Standard geologic interpretation is the more parsimonious oneit involves no untestable, unmeasurable forces like a supernatural entity. And it gets results.

The creationist model can't say the same, and is refuted by observed evidence. Sorry, still no support for any creationist explanations and the oil companies continue to get richer based on standard science.

//Predicting can be a devious game, I studied Greek tragedy, I ought to know. Start with Oedipus.//

Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed.

HGL @ HH
I don't agree about your assessment of me and I would appreciate you let KD answer my question about how the millions years were followed in real time by the geologists . IN REAL TIME, Get it?

HH
if you dont want to learn you never will

HGL
"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.

JM
HGL: " because their Capitalist owners get their education (or half education) from un-Catholic places like Harvard until even Catholic places where you can get educations start repeating the nonsense. "

That's right because capitalists prefer god-denying bad science that gives them less profits to bible-affirming good science that would maximise their profits. Similarly universities such as Harvard (and Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne etc.) can't be bothered to upgrade the science courses to take into account the irreproachable YEC evidence.

HGL
HH, I am not here to learn but to teach - if not science, at least logic.

HH
what i posted is science of our history if you ignore it its youre loss not mine

KD
//So KD, hypothetically speaking for you, if you take the statement "millions of years" out of your response there would be no difference between a creationist geologist and a regular geologist, correct?//

No, there's still the difference regarding the flood. As HGL stated previously, perhaps the term "Flood Geologists" might be better. Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood.

HGL
The YEC evidence is indeed being ignored as you say, JM.

And you still missed the point that I think BOTH models for what happened are irrelevant for getting the results oil companies want.

HH
Q you should ask HGL is does he know about tsunamis?

and how big they were in the past

HGL
"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.

HGL @ HH, "your loss not mine" is a standard argument of gipsy women with crystal balls.

[like zircon]

HH
it is a great doco

JM
HGL. Why is the YEC evidence rejected (not ignored)?

KD
//"Thus has nothing to do with any scientific topic being discussed."

It has to do with whether predictive power is an argument for truth.

Apollo predicted accurately - but counted on Oedipus and Akrisios to fulfil the prediction by believing it.//


LOL "Truth".now we're back to discussing philosophical topics?

[My emphasis]

The predictive power of science is a known thing and gives valuable results, and is entirely different from the prophetic types of predictions you allude to. As far as truth goes. I suppose the truth is standard scientific explanations succeed where creationist explanations fail, based on results.

HGL
A wise thing to ignore if the one using such a sales argument seems like a gipsy woman offering a palm reading.

HGL @ JM, this here is ignored, not rejected:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html


HH
its not mine lol its common science that is why you are a twit

KD
//"Standard interpretation of the geologic evidence refutes a global flood."

Ah the interpretation of it, yes. The evidence as such no.//


Sorry, the evidence as such, yes. There's no credible evidence to suggest a world wide flood.

HH
you should not be dabating it if you dont understand it in the first place

KD
HGL, why are you citing yourself as a reference?

HH
there are places in australia water has not been for billions of years

HGL
ALL the sediments are VERY credible evidence for a global flood. Except very recent ones in Deltas of Nile and Mississippi.

Especially fact you nowhere find a trilobite under a dino and both under a smilodon.

[reference to what I was saying at greater length in the link]

KD
Be back shortly guys

HGL
"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.

[Difference? A reference would be someone else backing up my facts. My essay was giving my own argument but at much greater length than I could give during this anticreationist Gish Gallop.

HH
i do urge you to learn it first HGL. you look silly debating something you dont understand

JM
HGL: Are you using the word ignore in its French sense of "being ignorant of"? If YEC science is well-founded there is no logical reason why it should not be adopted by universities and oil companies.

HGL
Thank you very much to leave me alone about your sordid urges, HH

[HGL @ JM]I use ignore in the English sense and learnt English before French, you idiot! Just because I stay in France doesn't make me a Frenchie.

It is being ignored and not ignoring it would ruin carreers. Perhaps not oil companies, but academic carreers.

[HGL @ HH], I will have to block you [he's number 6, how big is your block list?], there are people who actually try to argue I prefer arguing with them to hearing your insults.

JM
If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change. And anyway there is no academic career to be made by blindly pursuing yesterday's science.

HGL
Btw, JM, Padro Pio never lent any authority to Evolutionism as far as I know.

KD
//"why are you citing yourself as a reference?"

I am not citing me as a reference, I am offering a previous essay or series of such I gave on topic.//


I understand. Thank you for the clarification.

Making coffee, brb

HGL
"If the science was good, companies which rely on good science getting good profitable results would soon put pressure on universities to change."

ONLY if the good science makes any difference for their profits.

[And perhaps not even then.]

JM
Padre Pio, to his friends

HGL
KD, enjoy the coffee.

[HGL @ JM] Yes, what did Padre Pio say to his friends on Evolution? Anything at all? What friends except Jesus and the Blessed Virgin?

To people confessing to him, he had more urgent matters.

As to oil companies putting pressure on universities if YEC science was good, you overrate the interest of businessmen in good science.

Their attitude is often tied up with bad logic like that given just recently by KD (hope he enjoys the coffee, he already had my correction on that one).

dimanche 14 décembre 2014

What was the Potato Famine?

HGL (me) > ‎SNM (an Irish young lady)
I just described the events of 1840 like this:

100 potato farmers live close to one Anglo-Irish wheat farming landlord.

Potato crop goes wrong. AI wfll [Anglo-Irish wheat farming landlord] gives nothing to his neighbours, sells all to London to get his usual revenue. After the famine (like when aid at last arrives), 50 of his neighbours are dead, 40 off to US and 10 remain.

Was I basically wrong about the story?

SNM
I have two problems with what you wrote, though they are nothing major. First of all the worst famine, that is the Great Famine, was between 1845 and 1852 about. There were also other famines before that time. 1840 is correct in the sense that that was when the potato crop failure began, though there was no wide scale famine, to my knowledge. My second problem is with the figures. Though the scenario that you show could possibly have happened, most of the country saw a fall in population of less than 30%. There were some parts of Mayo, however, which were devastated with whole villages being wiped out. Another point that I would like to make is that almost all people at that time that had even the smallest patch of land grew potatoes. Most people would also have been tenants of the landlord. Few people owned their own land.

HGL
So, in that case the landlords who were selling wheat to London in 1845-1852 were basically letting their own tenants starve to death, whichever year was the worst one? I mean the one in which relief was debated for months and not done while people were starving to death.

SNM
That is practically what happened. I am almost sure that the worst year was 1847.

HGL
Oh, ok. Same year that Catholic Sonderbund of the four earliest Cantons was beaten by a centralising policy in the Swiss federacy. The year before the Revolutions of 1848.

Thanks for replying!

lundi 8 décembre 2014

La plus haute décoration militaire remportée par une femme

Imaginez que vous étiez un garçon comme aux veux temps quand les croisades et plus tard les colonies faisaient rêver des carrières militaires. Vous avez peut-être rêvé de sauver le Roi ou le Président de la République dans une embuscade ou d’un attentat. Ou de faire une entrée dans le camp d’un ennemi et de prendre le chef captif ou de le tuer, pour que les ennemis restent sans commande. Mais vous saviez très bien que tout ça devait attendre jusqu’à ce que vous ayez eu un entrainement militaire. Et un jour vous êtes sommé à la cour, ou la cour se rend chez vous pour vous conférer la plus haute décoration militaire du pays.

Peut-être penseriez-vous que c’est une blague, ou que c’est une rêve ou que c’est une piège. Si un moment donné vous comprenez que c’est pour vrai, la décoration est vôtre, et en plus comment vous l’avez méritée, vous seriez sans doute saisi de joie. Bon … dans l’Ancien Israël, quelle était la plus haute décoration militaire remportée par une femme ?

Déjà, après la chute d’Ève, l’Ancien Testament n’est pas gaspillard d’appeler une femme simplement bénite. Il y a deux, Ruth et Abigail. Ruth parce que cette jeune veuve ne prend pas un jeune homme, mais un homme déjà vieux qui se croyait condamné à la solitude. Et Abigail parce que c’est elle qui par un mot paisible sauve le Roi David de souillir ses mains avec un meurtre.

Ces décorations de paix conviennent à la Sainte Vierge. Elle a donné de la compagnie – sans perdre sa virginité – à un veuf, selon le Protévangile de St Jacques. Mais elle prie aussi pour la paix de l’Église et pour la conversion de mainte pécheur. De manière que son Divin Fils ne le damne pas. Mais la décoration qu’elle a eu, c’est une décoration militaire.

Bénite entre les femmes.

Jaël et Judith étaient bénites entre les femmes d’Israël, parce qu’elles avaient sauvé leur peuple de Sisera et de Holopherne.

Quand la Sainte Vierge a entendu les mots de l’ange, oui, certes elle avait une raison de se poser des questions. Ses mains étaient autant pures de sang que de péché. Elle n’avait égorgé personne, fût-ce le pire ennemi d’Israël … parmi les hommes. Comment pouvait-elle remporter une décoration militaire comme celle-ci ?

Quand la cousine Élisabeth lui dit qu’elle est bénite entre les femmes et béni est le fruit de ses entrailles, il n’y a plus aucun doute possible. Elle a terrassé le pire ennemi, non juste de son peuple Israël, mais de tout le genre humain.

Celui que les exorcistes appellent « vieil ennemi » et « vieux serpent », et pour cause.

Car dans cette salutation il y avait un écho d’un menace que Dieu a donné au serpent, qui est une promesse pour nous. Je poserai des inimitiés entre toi et la femme, entre ta semence et sa semence.

Félicitons la Sainte Vierge de sa première grande victoire décisive sur Satan : d’être déjà engendré sans avoir été un seul instant l’esclave du serpent par le péché, ni personnel, ni celui d’Adam.

Car esclavage et inimitié, et en plus inimitiés au pluriel comme l’hébreu intensifie le mot, sont incompatibles. En posant inimitiés entre elle et Satan dès le début de son existence, Dieu a empêché qu’elle n’ait jamais été un instant même l’esclave du diable. Donc, puisque et le péché personnel et le péché originel sont des esclavages sous le diable, elle n’a ni connu l’un ni l’autre en elle-même. Hélas, combien en d’autres personnes.

Elle est, comme son Fils, semblable à nous en tout sauf péché.

Défendente Génolini vient de poser la question si Son Fils lui a dit qu’elle était sans péché originel.

Oui, la salutation d’Élisabeth était inspiré par la joie prophétique de son propre fils à elle de rencontrer son Seigneur – et d’être délivré du péché originel. Si St Jean n’est pas engendré sans péché originel, il est né sans, et il fut sanctifié à ce moment là. Notre Seigneur a ainsi voulu que Sa Sainte Mère sache qu’elle avait totalement plu au Très Haut.

Mais Il a répété le message de Sa Propre Bouche.

Celui qui fait la volonté de Mon Père est Ma Mère et Mes frères et Mes sœurs.

Il a dit « ma mère » au singulier. Et Elle a bien compris.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
Immaculée Conception de la BVM
8-XII-2014

PS, puisque Russell Grigg vient de nous rappeler que la chair d'Ève est essentiellement, sauf le genre, la chair d'Adam, rappelons une autre raison de croire la fête d'aujourd'hui : la chair du Christ est semblablement tiré de la chair de la Sainte Vierge.

jeudi 4 décembre 2014

Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?

Status :
Could this be true ? http://www.livebuddhism.com/2014/07/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-christ.html
HGL
"Much to the dismay of the Vatican, an approx. 1500-2000 year old bible was found in Turkey, in the Ethnography Museum of Ankara. Discovered and kept secret in the year 2000, the book contains the Gospel of Barnabas – a disciple of Christ – which shows that Jesus was not crucified, nor was he the son of God, but a Prophet. The book also calls Apostle Paul “The Impostor”. The book also claims that Jesus ascended to heaven alive, and that Judas Iscariot was crucified in his place."


Gospel of Barnabas has come up VERY recently if we go by referrings in other books.

Like 1500 AD around or so.

[I was corrected on this, see later on, rather 7th C AD]

As to Turkish scholarship, one leading Turk (Erdogan I think) said Turks had discovered America before Columbus (but after the Vikings, which he did not mention) and that Columbus found a Mosque on Cuba.

Something to think about before arguing the manuscript is 1500 years old!

The manuscript is pretty certainly NOT 2000 years old, since it is a codex, not a scroll. Codices re placed scrolls later and Jews still use scrolls in the ritual usage of holy texts.

[Earliest mention of codex form is actually by Martial, I C.]

BSS
The Gospel of Barnabas is an obvious forgery, no one ever considered it canonical in any major early church group, and it was likely written by the same group forging letters in Paul's name.

HGL
If the Gospel of Barnabas in the early lists of Apocrypha is identical to this one, that is. More likely it was lost and this is a later Muslim forgery using its title. There IS a "Gospel of Barnabas" in the old lists of Apocrypha, or not, by the way?

BSS
Oh wait, I'm thinking of the EPISTLE of Barnabas. Ima go read the Gospel of Barnabas, looks interesting!

How do we know its a Muslim forgery and not just written by Arians or such"

Jo H
yeah sure wasn't me and him hang at the bar and smoke a few joints on a regular basis.

HGL
1) first mention around 1500, 2) prophecy of Mohammed, 3) Arians were no docetists, did believe crucifixion.

LWh
Islamic fake

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Its a stupid lie !!!!!!!! Dont buy into it Jesus Christ our lord was crucified for us according to our sin !!!!! Dont listen to this Gospel of barnabas he wasnt even a diciple of Christ

BSS
" 1) first mention around 1500, " - The concept of the Gospel of Barnabas was first mentioned in the 7th century as far as we know, whether the current copy is a redacted Islamicized version or not is up to dispute. It could also have been written by Docetists initially.

HGL
7th C? By whom?

Barnabas was a disciple, posthumously at least, but not one of the twelve:

Wiki on St Barnabas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnabas


BSS
[Site on:] NTCanon : Sixty Canonical Books
http://www.ntcanon.org/Sixty_Canonical_Books.shtml


Mentioned in the list of Apocryphal books.

Well, Paul was not one of the original disciples either so...

HGL
But from Barnabas we possibly do have a real book in the Bible. Hebrews is either by Paul - or by Barnabas.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Give me scripture in the King James Version about barnabas being an diciple

HGL
Yes, indeed, the title as such is mentioned in Apocrypha list you gave as "The Gospel according to Barnabas". NOT sure if it is same as the examples we have.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Paul was chosen like the rest of them

BSS
Right, I agree that we don't know if its the same one or not. It probably is interpolated heavily.

HGL
Scripture, will acts from Douay Rheims version do?

Douay Rheims Bible Online : Acts, chapter 14
http://drbo.org/chapter/51014.htm


BSS
However, its arguable that the Docetist theme was picked up on by the Islamists because they agreed with it, and then added to it from there.

HGL
"And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker."

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Give me scripture !!!

BSS
What about it? You said Barnabas not being an original apostle meant something.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Nope just King James all the others are corrupt

HGL
I did [as to Scripture, not as to « only King James »]. Previous chapter we have:

Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Now, KJV onlyism is obviously a Protestant heresy.

DRB is older. It is Catholic. And Catholics unlike King James were not persecuting Baptists in 1600's.

Evangelist Jeremy Bermel
Be not deceived this is all based on science once again and science loves to try to prove God wrong

HGL
Nope, science does not love that. Science falsely so called does it.

ATK
LOL I wonder when they'll start believing what the Qur'an has said..

HGL
ATK, I am never going to believe the Fifth Sourate. It contradicts Holy Gospel. Btw, this "Gospel of Barnabas" as here extant is probably a forgery by Muslims.

LWh
Muslims would love it to be real.

ATK
Lol! Did you actually listen to yourself clearly? HGL , you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning.

LL
Paul warned you about false books as early as second Thessalonians chapter 2. The Vatican was a takeover of the old Cesar Roman Empire. You wouldn't be surprise what you find in old Rome

HGL
ATK, I said that I would never believe the Fifth Sourate and you came up with: "you can spew sweeping statements for all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact and objectivity of authenticity regarding theological text signaling the contradictions and flaws of the other. Henceforth, being a little more introspective would undoubtedly help you grasp reality devoid of prejudices and preconditioning." ?

Gospels are written by two people who had followed Jesus, and two who had met such as had followed him. Quran (including Fifth Sourate) is about 600 years later. So, if they contradict each other about Jesus, I believe the Gospels. Common sense ; and not seeing that shows some stiff prejudice and preconditioning on your part.

Church has preserved the Four Gospels and authentified its authorship. The new find is on the contrary just a find. Can this manuscript be from the time when Jesus lived? No, not likely. Back then books were scrolls. This manuscript is a codex, like books are now. With a scroll you roll out lines 1 - 20, before you come to line 20 you roll in lines 1 - 15 and roll out lines so you have line 15 - 40 or whatever, as you can see Romans do in Asterix (yes, it is a comedy basically about our times, but details about Romans are usually accurate). In a codex you turn pages, like we do today.

[Scrolls were very rarely replaced by codices in Ist C, but it happened, but manuscript being a codex it is not very probable it is from 2000 years ago.]

HH
i see you have to been fooled by mans trickery

HGL
HH, how about telling us if you mean me or ATK or someone else?

ATK
The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet which is also found in the current bible of today, so your claims are pointless HGL

And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it.

HGL
ATK "The Qur'an only seeks to rectify and explicitly correct the flaws and the contamination done to the previous scriptures via the last and final prophet"

I am aware of the claim.

We Christians believe such a rectification was never ever necessary.

Christ promised us the contrary in Matthew 28.

So, even humanly speaking, if we were even just talking about a human person, we would still be wise to trust a writing from his own life time over a writing from 600 years later especially if the writing from his own life time was supported as genuine by a Church or society he had founded. Which is the case . Even humanly speaking therefore, we have a case for believing Christ was crucified. And that he was so for claiming to be the Son of God. And that He rose from the dead. Thereby showing He was not just a man, but also who He had said He was: God.

"And as far as theological history is concern, Paul was never a companion of Jesus and you know it."

Sure. But Matthew was. He wrote the Gospel while Saint Paul was as yet no saint but an enemy of the Saints, of the Church. Later he converted and was ACCEPTED as an Apostle by those who HAD been along with Jesus. He and Barnabas were both disciples of Gamaliel. Barnabas was either already a disciple of Jesus Christ among the Seventy or converted soon after Pentecost. Either way he sold his property after Pentecost. And if Saint Paul died along with Saint Peter in Rome, Barnabas was the founder of the diocese of Bergamo, also in Italy.

So, no, we are not liable to have had all our theology changed by someone called Paul who had no connexion and then have had to wait another five hundred fifty years or so till Mohammed came along. There was never such a gap in the presence of the people of God on Earth.

ATK
The question you genuinely have to ask yourself is, is Paul a companion of Jesus? Has he ever met Jesus before in his lifetime? How did he came about collecting and compiling an original manuscript of Jesus?

And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul.

HGL
There is no original manuscript of Jesus.

[Unless angels have preserved miraculously what He wrote in the sand]

You are not in a position to tell me what questions I must ask myself.

You ignored the fact that St Matthew who WAS along with Jesus for most of the 3 and a half years wrote the words Christ said:

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Note that "all days" contradicts your supposed gap between Paul falsifying and Mohammed rectifying the message of Jesus.

"And whom do you prefer and give credence to among all the so called companions? I bet it has always been Paul."

Why should there be a preference when they do not contradict each other? Insofar as I have a personal one, it is not St Paul.

Sts Matthew and John who wrote two of the four Gospels come before St Paul in my affection.

ATK
Are you kidding me? HGL

Do you even know the native language of Jesus?

HGL
No, I am not.

Here is the Gospel text of St Matthew, last chapter:

DRBO / Gospel of St Matthew : chapter 28
http://drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm


St Matthew wrote his Gospel Hebrew or Aramaic first, before translating to Greek, if that is what you mean.

ATK
Lol! It does speaks volume of you

His native language was Aramaic...

HGL
Sure, as St Matthew's, as St Pauls. All of them also spoke Greek.

ATK
Aramaic was the native language of Jesus

I'm not talking about Greek

LL
Second Thessalonians warns us about false books of the Bible. The Gospel of Thomas clearly teaches that Jesus has to turn the woman into a man in order for her to inherit the kingdom of God. The book in the Vatican same type of garbage

[So the Nag Hammadi sect may, unlike Jesus Christ, have been disciples of Buddhists, directly or per intermediates : there are Buddhists who say a woman has to get reborn as a man before she can reach Nirvana.]

HGL
Yes, I just agreed on that point. [ATK’s on Aramaic mother language] I also just added that this is the case for Saint Matthew and Saint Paul as well.

As to your not talking about Greek, that is your problem. We all know it was more relevant in Roman Empire than Aramaic.

Sure, LL, and Gospel of Thomas falsely so called was much earlier mentioned in lists of books condemned by the Church than this one, "Gospel of Barnabas."

As to Gospel of Barnabas earliest mention is from 7th C. - i e after Hegira or shortly before.

ATK
I wish we still had the entire manuscript of the bible today in Aramaic, and guess what would've happened.

HGL
Entire Bibles in Aramaic do exist.

They are Christian Bibles.

ATK
Have you ever read the Qur'an from cover to cover before HGL

Here
I must confess he was giving his comments so rapidly I am not always answering the last one he gave just before my own.

HGL
Aramaic in this context = Syriac.

ATK
Ok can I have access to it?

HGL
[About having read Quran] No, but I know sufficiently of the Fifth Sourate not to want to. It contradicts all Four Gospels.

You access to Bible in Syriac? Ask Palestinian Christians.

ATK
I don't think it actually exist. If indeed it's in existence, we would've seen it

HGL
Or ask the Christians of Mosul.

ATK
What filth sourah [sic!] are you talking about?

HGL
They have it, University professors know it even here. You are not one.

I am talking of the Fifth Sourah where "Isa" is supposed to contradict Holy Trinity.

ATK
The fact that Mary the mother of Jesus had a complete chapter in the holy book?

HGL
I am talking of the passage in the Fifth Sourah where Isa is supposed to say things Christ very certainly never said.

ATK
I just wished you're a little bit open-minded to see things clearly and try to understand that particular verses.

HGL
We know from the Gospels what Christ said. And we know that none of them is by St Paul, two of his immediate followers over years, and that St Paul does not contradict them.

We know that Quran contradicts them.

And we know who wrote Gospels from the Catholic Church, just as you know Quran was given "through" (if it wasn't by) Mohammed Ayah by Ayah adding up to Sourah after Sourah through your Ummah

ATK
Has Jesus ever said he's God that you should worship him? Can you show me where in the bible did Jesus clearly state that I'm God so worship me.

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

Characteristics of Prophet Muhammad was explicitly stated in the bible in Deutronomy 18

HGL
What I say about Fifth Sourah refers to 5:72, 5:73 and 5:116.

What I say about Gospels refers to John 8, among other places:

Gospel according to St John : chapter 8
http://drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm


Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. [57] The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [58] Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. [59] They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

Notice: "before Abraham was made, I am." Christ was [is!] before He was made man.

Saint John was a disciple, this is not Saint Paul writing.

Book Of Deuteronomy : Chapter 18
http://drbo.org/chapter/05018.htm


Christ was and is God. He was also humanly speaking King, Priest and Prophet. Deuteronomy 18 speaks of Christ as prophet.

ATK
So what are you alluding by that verse?

Didn't the bible says God is not a MAN?

HGL
I think it is very obvious. If Christ had only been man, he would not be able to say "before Abraham was made, I am".

Where exactly does the Bible say God is never man? He was not man from eternity, but made Himself Man.

It is contradicted by n o place in the Bible.

ATK
Jesus ate, drinks and defecates and these are human attributes but God isn't a man, so how come God eats and drinks?

Do you believe in the 10 commandments?

HGL
God becomes Man for our sake.

Yes.

As transmitted by the Church.

ATK
That's an utter lie. Stop lying lad...

[A bit thick to call me both liar and « lad » / roughly « boy », but in Scots]

Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. So where are you getting all these from?

HGL
Here, I have already elsewhere answered a Muslim who could not believe Christ is God, as for lying, that is not on my side:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Answering a Muslim who asked "If Jesus was [=is] GOD ..."
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/p/answering-muslim-who-asked-if-jesus-was.html


ATK
What's the first commandment?

HGL
"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no strange gods before me"

Now, my turn.

"Even your bible clearly stated that God isn't a man. "

WHERE?

ATK
So does that sound like God is 3, 2 or only 1

HGL
As to the commandment, I said I accept and believe them as transmitted by the Church.

Here is Catholic [Trentine] and Orthodox [Philaret] catechism on the commandment:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : On the First Commandment. & On the Second Commandment./THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
http://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-first-commandment.html


And [as to his question] God is one God in Three Persons.

ATK
Numbers 23:19

HGL
Numbers 23:19?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill?

[Book Of Numbers : Chapter 23
http://drbo.org/chapter/04023.htm
]

God was not yet man, and when He became so, He became no liar.

His promises - whose certainty is ascertained in this verse - mean He had to later become Man

A royalty over Israel implies God and a Son of David are the same, since both eternally King of Israel. That Son of David was Jesus Christ.

ATK
Dude! Just accept and give credit to your Creator ok and not Jesus. He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. All the messengers and prophets of God came with one solid message, saying that Worship none but your Creator and do not associate any partners with Him, because if you do so, you'll never smell the fragrance of heaven. And that's exactly what Jesus p.b.u.h professed. He worshipped his Creator alone without associating any partners with him and taught us to do same. In contrast to that, I'll never worship any creation except the Creator, and Jesus as far as I'm concern is also part of God's creation. So think deeply my friend and take a decisive step to discovering all the truths.

HGL
Incarnation was also more directly prophecied.

Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another' s speech. [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.

How could God go down if He was everywhere? He was going to become man.

"He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. [38] Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men."

Genesis 11, Baruch 3

[Book Of Genesis : Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm


Prophecy Of Baruch : Chapter 3
http://drbo.org/chapter/30003.htm
]

"He was only sent to deliver a divine message of God and He never claimed to be God nor the son of God. "

That is a lie and contradicts the Gospels.

ATK
http://quran.com/19

I want you to read this chapter carefully.

HGL
I do not believe Sourah 19 if I refuse to believe Sourah 5.

ATK
Lol! I thought you're open-minded and hopefully you might give it a go.

HGL
"And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree."

Wrong. She gave miraculously birth without pain.

If you still consider me "openminded" (I consider them empty minded), you are not very open to evidence.

ATK
Is your premise a verse that you quoted or it just popped up in your head?

HGL
What do you mean by that question? My premise for which of my conclusions?

There are lots of conclusions and to some of them (like seeing how "open minded" often means empty minded) my premise is NEITHER but common sense evidence and experience

ATK
"She gave birth miraculously without pain"

HGL
I skimmed over Sourah 19. Till I found the error.

ATK
I just wished you would complete it and stop the cherry-picking

HGL
That pain comes from childbirth is because children's flesh and bones are usually hard.

After Resurrection Christ walked through walls. While being born, He preserved His Holy Mother's Virginity. I e she gave birth miraculously.

I have this from Tradition, not from a verse directly.

I am not cherry picking about the Catholic Tradition, I accept it.

ATK
May the One that created you, guide you to the truth HGL

HGL
He already did.

ATK
Not when you blatantly worshipping His creation instead of Him alone.

HGL
I adore only God. Now God has made Himself part of His creation. Not in a way as to contradict Numbers 23:19. He made Himself "like unto us in all except sin" (this one is from Saint Paul) and He did that AFTER saying (through Balaam the gentile prophet) He was not - back then - "a man", but he added qualifications agreeing with the comment of St Paul "so as to lie".

Even more. Vulgate has for 23:19 of Numbers Non est Deus quasi homo ut mentiatur, nec ut filius hominis ut mutetur.

God is - both in His own nature and in the one He assumed through Incarnation - unlike men who are liars and changeful.

JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)

1) Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science, 2) Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles, 3) JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)

MC
I didn't mean to come off that way. I took an appeal to the senses and talk of common sense like,"I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these things are proven and correctly proven - or not."

That makes it seem like the sense of intuition.

A lot of what you are describing seems to be true about how people organize information into categories and form heuristics. Other parts sound like the idealized types the brain develops to help make quick sense of the world.

Other still describe gradience, basic- level categorization, and more.

It just doesn't take you as far as you want to go. The specialization required to make the kind of decisions you want common sense to handle cannot be achieved in common (unless you had a bunch of super-geniuses like I said).

When you make your argument you can be normative or positive in your approach. This is the key to understanding the scientific approach and how it is superior to common sense. The common sense approach is normative and doesn't make evidence primary in drawing a conclusion. It follows the argument and gathers evidence to support it.

JL and I are saying the scientific approach is positive, that is, it gathers evidence and then builds an argument. Proceeding in this order removes biases due to the type of reasoning we are talking about.

I thought you were just some Johnny Come Lately. You are the real deal HGL.

HGL
// I took an appeal to the senses and talk of common sense like,"I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these things are proven and correctly proven - or not." //

Very correctly so.

// That makes it seem like the sense of intuition. //

If you like to word it that way, I would rather say common sense makes use of intuitive insight.

I would also say a complex argument can prove sth - but only if each step of it is intuitively correct. An equation which is even more complex than an argument can be part of such a proof. BUT it must intuitively make sense to make that type of equation to that problem.

One can *approximate* the form of a lense as being flat/even in the middle and narrowing down towards the edges. So *approximately* it is a wide circle low helight cylinder surrounded by a prism which has a narrow triangular cut, whereof the narrow base is the height of the cylinder and the length is the circle which at base is mid cylinder's circumference and at edges of lense the circumference of all the lense.

But one knows very well that calculating the focal length of the lense by that approximation makes less sense than actually testing focal length after making the lense. So, it would not be common sense to consider that a lense approximated as described while really having a normal lense shape would be correctly calculated as to focal length by an equation starting from the said approximation.

And if one were to produce a lense exactly like the geometric description I gave, to match the equation, it makes sense to predict it could hardly function as a lense, since its focal point would be spread out and the colours not assemble on one point.

That is where my dictum common sense and intuitive insight about relevance of an equation primes the equations, as far as real scientific certainty is concerned.

// A lot of what you are describing seems to be true about how people organize information into categories and form heuristics. Other parts sound like the idealized types the brain develops to help make quick sense of the world. Other still describe gradience, basic- level categorization, and more.

It just doesn't take you as far as you want to go. The specialization required to make the kind of decisions you want common sense to handle cannot be achieved in common (unless you had a bunch of super-geniuses like I said). //

And as I said, however much you specialise, you need to have your heuristics firmly rooted in common sense.

A specialist who has become divorced from it is very likely to produce nonsense and not be checked by other specialists similarily divorced from it.

Your points, as I take it, adds up to specialists having their own rules of logic, not only their given assumptions, but their own way how to deal with assumptions interacting with observations.

And that is as stupid as the Hindoo theory each caste has its own morals. Or that Arjuna had a right and duty to go into battle to kill his own cousins, because he was kshatria. And alas, I think that is what Bhagavadgita means in context. Poor Krishna must be burning in Hell if he said those things.

MC
//Your points, as I take it, adds up to specialists having their own rules of logic, not only their given assumptions, but their own way how to deal with assumptions interacting with observations.//

I am not assuming this conclusion. It is based on research. This is what Cognitive Science is based on.

//And as I said, however much you specialise, you need to have your heuristics firmly rooted in common sense.//

A more accurate way to say this might be that specialization has its heuristics firmly based on basic-level categorizations.

This means that categories are not merely organized in a hierarchy from most general to most specific, but they are also organized so that the categories that are cognitively "basic" (common sense) are "in the middle" of a general-to-specific hierarchy.

Generalization proceeds "upward" from the basic level and specialization proceeds "downwards"

When we make make complex judgements like preferring relativity over a geocentric model, the categories we are using are below the level of common sense. The generalizations we draw from the same information operates above the level of common sense.

HGL
// When you make your argument you can be normative or positive in your approach. This is the key to understanding the scientific approach and how it is superior to common sense. The common sense approach is normative and doesn't make evidence primary in drawing a conclusion. It follows the argument and gathers evidence to support it. //

Evidence simply means what is evident.

Evidence can be:

  • sensory data
  • calculations
  • introspection
  • memory
  • tradition (written or oral retellings of a "collective memory")


AND in order to make sense one needs to have a common sense approach to each case the certainty and relevance of each piece of evidence.

// JL and I are saying the scientific approach is positive, that is, it gathers evidence and then builds an argument. Proceeding in this order removes biases due to the type of reasoning we are talking about. //

No.

He just showed a very heavy bias in favour of his colleagues having with perfect correctness seen evidence and adapted the argument to it.

I exposed this. I challenged him, he had no idea how such and such a fact had been calculated and he was not answering how we knew the specific details on atomic theory I was asking him about.

// I am not assuming this conclusion. It is based on research. This is what Cognitive Science is based on.//

Well, Cognitive Science is very unlike even atomic theory not at all a science. Atomic theory may be a flawed one, your Cognitive Science is way out.

And of course heavily biassed against the concept of common sense and patronising against the people who are likely to have recourse to it.

MC
How can we talk to each other if you dismiss all of cognitive science without actually tackling the objections it throws in your way?

Does anyone else have insight into common sense?

HGL
Yes. Most people do.

Studen ts of cognitive science are not most people.

Neither am I. I try to use the common sense I can gather from them in a more consistent way, where they are negligently trusting expertise they should not trust. But I do not try to replace their common sense with the special expertise rules of non-logic that replace common sense among the expertise.

"How can we talk to each other if you dismiss all of cognitive science without actually tackling the objections it throws in your way?"

I have already said I am much more interested in talking to JL about proofs ("how they calculated" etc) than with you about cognitive pseudoscience.

Plus your objection presupposes that cognitive science is so absorbing your mind as a religion - the Catholic one - is absorbing mine. I e, it makes your so called non-confessional science a religion. Perhaps a branch of Buddhism?

MC
And somehow this means you can use common sense to dismiss, "equations accessible to and producible by very skilled physicists,"?

I brought up the research on how the brain organizes information because that is crucial to understanding what common sense is and how it cannot do the job of forming higher level concepts.

This is a major problem in science education. How do you teach science to people who largely don't understand it?

HGL
I was not dismissing equations, I said we must know by common sense if they are relevant before we trust the result.

"How do you teach science to people who largely don't understand it?"

As they taught it to you, by making it your religion.

The so called research on how "brain organises information" is a pseudo-science much worse than pseudo-scientific sides to physics.

MC
Would I be right in saying you think common sense is more important than the equations?

I am saying common sense can't do the work of knowing whether something would be relevant.

//The so called research on how "brain organises information" is a pseudo-science much worse than pseudo-scientific sides to physics.//

That's, like, your opinion.

Even if you side with the "others", we share the experiments.

HGL
I am saying common sense is exactly what does that.

You would not just be right in what you just said, but uncommonly late in understanding what I just said several times over the last few days.

"That's, like, your opinion."

It is my very definite one.

MC
You keep reasserting what you think after I explain what I think, and it seems like you keep correcting me.

That is leading me to constantly wonder if It seems like I don't understand you.

HGL
The guys who thought tey had found Higg's boson trusted their equations. Look at this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/10/higgs-boson-discovery-particle_n_6133502.html

MC
When he was presenting that work about the Higgs, he admits that he could be wrong.

HGL
"That is leading me to constantly wonder if It seems like I don't understand you."

Side effect of meditation and "empathy"? How about trying logic, once in a while instead. And grammar.

I usually take pains to state my meaning so it cannot be misunderstood by a good reader. You aren't.

"When he was presenting that work about the Higgs, he admits that he could be wrong."

He'd be a fool not to. Considering he's a carreer scientist and his work can ruin all of their carreers.

MC
//Side effect of meditation and "empathy"? How about trying logic, once in a while instead. And grammar.//

Can we put the 5th grade behind us? I thought we buried that hatched yesterday.

I think I have brought up, at least reasonable, objections to common sense being able to decide what you claim it can.

I need a little more than your word that it can. Can you help me out with any relevant information.

I am more than willing to answer any serious question if I actually slipped in my grammar and something wasn't clear.

Meditation isn't just a Buddhist thing, BTW.

Being a Catholic, I think you can understand that. I have St. Loyola's "Spiritual Exercises" on the shelf behind me.

HGL
"I think I have brought up, at least reasonable, objections to common sense being able to decide what you claim it can."

I have answered them.

Time after time.

You have ignored pertinence of answers through not quite seeing very many times what I was really saying. That is irritating. I do not enjoy debating with you very much and asking things like "can we put fifth grade behind us" is NOT mending things.

"I need a little more than your word that it can. Can you help me out with any relevant information."

I can give a reductio in absurdum of your position.

In your terms, common sense, logic, the kind of discourse people use mentally among each other was never given by any God nor developed by evolution with any view to make us understand the universe.

Therefore, in your terms, any higher concept, anything approaching truth beyond a merely pragmatic level needs to part ways with common sense as much as with basic misunderstandings.

So, what is it exactly which in each specialty is replacing common sense, replacing logic, and which is supposed to be a better guide to truth? How can we say evolution developed mathematicians ignoring the fact that zero is no number? How can we say God made it a commandment for Lawrence Krauss to consider zero a midpoint between a positive and a negative field AND at same time absolute nothing AND there being a fluctuation between p and n fields around that absolute nothing and other learned idiots to make other learned idiocies divorced from common sense for us to get information that is MORE reliable? Before you start picking o ut parts of my outburst, try considering it as a unity, even if I embroidered it rhetorially. "You weren't developed for understanding if information is really truly true, therefore I can tell you what is really truly true..."

To me this position is absurd. It would have been absurd while I was in fifth grade, it is absurd still and will be absurd till the end of my life.

But apart from this reductio in absurdum, I might soon have a near certainty of a practical example against you.

JL has been waiting long to answer my challenge.

Is he looking for an answer? Or is he waiting till you disarm my critical faculties first, so I shall not be able to pick his answer apart?

JL
I haven't been following this thread, I neither know nor care what your challenge is to be honest. I've made my point, that's all I wanted to do.

HGL
No, you have not made it.

You have not given an account on how Rutherford experiment or Cloud Chambers pro ve electrons exist as particles not only while emitted but also in each atom.

And that being so, you have not answered the challenge I gave.

Perhaps wisely so for a carreer scientist. Admitting too much uncertainty about the most widely accepted conclusions might in the end ruin lots of carreers, and people wanting to post pone that might ruin yours first.

JL
I'm not a physicist, I'm sure you can look it up for yourself, I don't feel inclined to prove such basic facts about reality to you at the moment, I've got better things to do.

HGL
Ah, you are NOT a physicist? And you still feel very confident that these things are "basic facts about reality"?

If you are NOT a physicist, I might have taken my confidence in common sense to the point of learning more than you about how physics is done and might be a better judge than you because of that very matter. Common sense, someone looks more into a matter, better he becomes a judge of it.

The very same common sense approach you use (in a less correct way, I feel, but I let our readers judge) to justify your great confidence in the same physicists.

And, if y ou are NOT a physicist, what are you, as per academic discipline?

JL
Yes, I'm perfectly confident that they are basic facts about reality, I know how rigorous the scientific method is - if physicists accept that electrons are in atoms, I know that they are justified in that conclusion.

I'm a Biologist (student), with an interest in physics.

HGL
Ah, ok.

In other words, your confidence in electrons being basic facts about reality is worth as much as your confidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old as per a dating, done by one radioactive decay method

JL
I am far more confident about electrons than I am about 4.5 billion years being the precise age of the earth, but I am totally confident that the earth is of great age, in the billions of years range.

mercredi 3 décembre 2014

Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles

1) Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science, 2) Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles, 3) JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)

MC
You might have been exact, but that doesn't change that 'senses' are equivocally not 'common sense'.

You were describing how to save the appearances to explain our challenges to common sense.

I maybe be scoring low, but I can use "common sense" and "save the appearances" correctly.

//And pretending to give me language lessons will not help you out with all readers.//

If you want one, remove the "is" of identity from your vocabulary.

HGL
No. I am no Buddhist.

And I was not claiming senses were common sense, I do still claim that common sense very regularly refers questions to them.

JL
" Whether you really mean proton or electron, this has - unlike a heavier feather falling slower than a lighter ball - not been observed. "

Not observed, but we know from calculations that it can happen (yes with protons).

" How exactly has it (quantum entanglement) been demonstrated? Has it been conclusively demonstrated?"

Yes quantum entanglement has been demonstrated. We have no idea how it occurs but we know it does. The famous example is from Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR experiment. It's also one of the reasons we can't get past the uncertainty principle.

"Like the 1022 times crossing of a nucleus, this (wave-particle duality of light) has not been directly observed."

Well yes, it has, that is what the double-slit experiment is famous for.

[In one slit one directly observes light coming out as waves and in another as particles? OR - more probably on my view - one observes sth in the experiment from which the duality is then deduced? In that case he missed the part of DIRECTLY observed.]

"How do you observe even ONE electron when the smallest microscopy is electronic microscopy?"

We don't observe the electron itself, we observe a dot appearing on the surface behind the double slit, as it reacts with the electron. As we shoot many electrons through, one at a time, a pattern emerges.

HGL
And, no, as having a certain knowledge about history of ideas, you were NOT using "save the appearances" correctly, when you were both hinting it was a wrong method (it is a needed part of any complex method) and basically saying I was doing that while referring (as per a common sense preference) to the senses. This to MC, now to JL ...

"Not observed, but we know from calculations that it can happen (yes with protons)."

I believe that the calculations are as correct as their basic assumptions - i e, if you model atoms like that, this speed very probably will be correctly calculated.

This does not mean your model as such is right.

"The famous example is from Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - the EPR experiment."

And the experiment can have no other interpretation?

Like for instance limits to our even enhanced possibilities of observation?

MC
//And I was not claiming senses were common sense, I do still claim that common sense very regularly refers questions to them.//

Really?

//Never said that they were. I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these things are proven and correctly proven - or not.//

//Even if eyes are in your terminology one of the "common" - usually referred to as one of the "five" - senses.//

//That scepticism in face of bold claims of "deducing the cigar brand from the ashes" is also common sense, just as the general trust in eyes is.//


Want some more quotes to demonstrate this confusing of the senses and common sense?*

HGL
"Well yes, it has, that is what the double-slit experiment is famous for."

Well, no. I said "not directly". No doubt you will say the double slit experiment somehow indirectly proves it, but it is still another thing than directly observing it.

"We don't observe the electron itself, we observe a dot appearing on the surface behind the double slit, as it reacts with the electron. As we shoot many electrons through, one at a time, a pattern emerges."

Well, I agree, this is how it is done.

However, that being so, how can you be sure it is an electron?

MC
This is near interesting philosophy, but not science.

Meditation wakes someone up, btw.

It is not just a Buddhist thing. Christians meditate, too.

HGL
Facthood is a question not just of science as a formal exercise.

And I was - philosophically - disputing the claim the formal exercise of science is universally a sure way to ascertain facthood.

"Meditation wakes someone up, btw."

Probably makes you feel that way.
MC
//HGL "Meditation wakes someone up, btw."Just now • Like HGL Probably makes you feel that way.//

Google it. Google scholar it.

[not giving the link he gave]

HGL
"Really?" - Yes, I really think common sense regularly but not exclusively refers to the senses.

"Want some more quotes to demonstrate this confusing of the senses and common sense?" - No, I was not confusing - unless you mean quotes from me you consider prove me wrong in this assessment.

[The three quotes he had provided were of course not proving that, because he was not correctly assessing what they meant objectively and grammatically. See the footnote* on it.]

MC
//However, that being so, how can you be sure it is an electron?//

Careful observation and definitely not the wisdom you mom taught you growing up (unless she was a physicist)

HGL
Careful observation again refers back to the senses.

A Physicist's logic has to be continuous with that mom taught or I gathered since. Not necessarily coextensive in already mastered methodology, but continuous.

MC
//"Really?" - Yes, I really think common sense regularly but not exclusively refers to the senses.//

This explains what I was reading. I am sorry if I am being too technical, but the senses and common sense are two different realms.

[He STILL thinks I am confused! Or thought while writing this.]

Another name for "common sense" is heuristics. When we call it that we won't confuse our sense of time for our problem solving abilities.

JL
"This does not mean your model as such is right. "

Then find flaws in it.

"And the experiment can have no other interpretation?"

Of course it can, but we're talking about science, we can't just make up wild explanations when we feel like it - it's such a simple observation, with a very simple explanation - that the particles are entangled.

[I missed this one. A philosopher can make up any explanations he likes - and then see where experience or principle of contradiction cancels out certain ones of them. Btw, the criterium he uses refers back to logic or common sense, as he presents it, and as I have not looked up the experiment, I do not know if it is reasonable. Particles not being particles but aether might also be an explanation.]

" but it is still another thing than directly observing it."

So we can't know anything unless we directly observe it? We are able to make inferences you know. If we see a man with a bullet in his head, there's a pretty good chance he was shot.

"how can you be sure it is an electron?"

Because that is what the particle gun is shooting,..

MC
Yes. The senses are the building blocks of experience.

[The most usual ones, there is introspection too.]

//"how can you be sure it is an electron?"
Because that is what the particle gun is shooting,..//


lol

[I agree on the lol]

HGL
"Then find flaws in it."

Would need details of your proof for that, you are making the claims.

MC
I want to shore up this wild use of language. There is a reason we call common sense heuristics while being technical, it is less confusing!

Senses, common sense, I sense something fishy since my senses....AH!

[I sense something Dalai-Lamaish in his harping on mere puns, without backing them up.]

Heuristics. Ah, much better.

[There is a reason why I prefer the phrase "common sense" to the word "heuristics" : GOOD heuristics are heuristics that are COMMON as far as principles applied are concerned. Applications may be uncommon and heuristics still very good, but only if its principles are the common ones. I am for instance not sponging out the "is" of identity.]

In social psychology we call common sense heuristics to better understand what is going on. We do it in philosophy, too.

With this new information, maybe we should reconsider:

Is it common sense to imagine that a proton can cross a nucleus 1022 times in a single second?

Is it common sense to imagine quantum entanglement? Or the wave-particle duality of light? Or the effect of observation on the interactions of electrons through a double-slit?

JL
Martin, quick off-topic question, as a Buddhist, do you consider yourself an atheist? Because to my knowledge Buddhism doesn't have any "gods" as such?

MC
I do consider myself an atheist. In some forms of Buddhism they do pay tribute to gods. I have learned other techniques, but I primarily practice Zen.

It gets confusing. We atheistic Buddhists will put up the appropriate gods in different parts of a monastery or your house, but no one takes them as being real. They represent states of mind and different concepts.

[A bit like Late Antiquity would take Mars and Venus for masculine and feminine states of mind, agressive and concuiscent behaviours, erected into personifications. No doubt.]

The popular Buddhism you find in Thailand or Burma sometimes gets into deity worship.

[Not to mention Buddhism on higher levels too in Tibet or China or some non-zen schools of Japan?]

JL
Thanks I thought I was along the right lines. I've always thought that if I was forced to choose a religion, it would be some form of Buddhism, if only because it's a "nice" religion in that it doesn't portray petty, violent gods and I've always found its followers to be really kind, honest etc people.

I can't buy into its "supernatural" claims but I respect Buddhism's teachings so much more than any other major religion!

MC
I became a Buddhist from practicing meditation and learning the Sutras. I didn't really want to become religious.

I liked that we were supposed to test everything and take nothing on someone's word. I don't write off the supernatural claims off hand (as evidence would convince me of their proof).

Powers like telepathy and mind reading are explained by completely naturalistic means.

Maybe you have seen a magic trick where a blindfolded person goes through a crowd to find a hidden object?

Meditating helps you to observe micro-behaviors and other things that are commonly overlooked.

I have never seen someone with a power that couldn't be explained by a natural explanation and learned by someone else.

I really do it because it helps in learning psychology and meditation is good for you.

JL
Yeah, I've meditated a bit a few times, it's good to clear the mind sometimes and completely relax

MC
Anyway, sorry to get too technical about common sense, but I have read the great common sensers. I love them. They are some of the best philosophers.

They take a long time to distinguish the senses from our common sense (my great annoyance). I think you can say more, Hans-Georg, on how much common sense plays into concept formation or how we interpret science, but you cannot take the senses for common sense. You seem like an intelligent, reasonable person. Sometimes we make small mistakes and that's ok.

I make mistakes all the time and appreciate when someone corrects me because I love to believe as many true things as possible.

A person's common sense changes when one becomes specialized. Then their common experience becomes more than that which we hold in common.

Are you trying to say that specialization is really a special construction of "common sense"? A special case of it?

Maybe that is it built of tiny blocks of common sense units to build a giant block we call specialization?

You can see how this may need some explaining because to have a specialization negates the knowledge we hold in common.

HGL
"This explains what I was reading. I am sorry if I am being too technical, but the senses and common sense are two different realms.

Another name for "common sense" is heuristics. When we call it that we won't confuse our sense of time for our problem solving abilities."


You were not being too technical. You were too obtuse.

Common sense = GOOD heuristics. Any GOOD heuristics will refer to sth to be interpreted. I e, it exists usually in relation to data coming through the senses.

"In social psychology we call common sense heuristics to better understand what is going on. We do it in philosophy, too."

Disagree. Heuristics would also cover BAD heuristics. For instance heuristics referring to nothing in particular to be interpreted. And overinterpreting it.

"Is it common sense to imagine that a proton can cross a nucleus 1022 times in a single second? ETC."

Whether it is good or bad heuristics depend on what sense data it refers to.

"I think you can say more, Hans-Georg, on how much common sense plays into concept formation or how we interpret science, but you cannot take the senses for common sense."

I wasn't.

Meaning that if you interpreted me as doing that, you have bad heuristics, at least when it comes to non-technical (or technical outside your technicalities) language.

Now, I was referring to the question what the proofs are that a proton (I think someone clarified it was really a proton) passes through the nucleus 1022 times per second.

If I were speaking to a ping pong ball passing 10 times per minute between the players back and forth (or twenty times either way), I would refer to ping pong ball passing visibly before my eyes and my counting and in some way either breaking off count after a minute or checking time when they take a pause and averaging.

This is NOT the kind of sense data which will immediately yield 1022 passages over a nucleus per second for a proton.

Proton is too small, nucleus is too small, passage is too fast.

ANY parallel will very certainly involve a parallel to the averaging ... OR being a prioristic about movement occurring and making a limit assumption on how fast it must be in order to make a larger area than proton seem solid to any observation through electronic microscopy OR sth else.

I do not know which it is. But I do know it is not common sense to consider the fact as having been observed as directly even as the passages of a ping pong ball.

JL
I didn't say it did cross the nucleus that many times, I said it CAN.

[Even that came as news to me. The atomic model I had been taught had at least left me with the impression that if electrons passed around nucleus in extreme high speeds, the protons and neutrons in it were as fixed in relation to each other as the legs of a chair or a table.]

HGL
Ah, sorry.

Let me guess - speed in cloud chamber as applied to distance in nucleus?

JL
I'm not sure how they calculated it.

HGL
And as we talk of distance in nucleus, when we observe an atom in electronic microscopy, we observe a globe, which in common model is supposed to be both nucleus AND surround electron shells. How do you prove such a portion is nucleus, and such a portion void between nucleus and electron shells?

Not sure how they calculate that either?

JL
Rephrase the question. Are you asking how we know the structure of an atom?

HGL
I was asking how we know those particular facts about the structure of an atom, like how much space is nucleus, how much void, how much electron shells.

I suppose size of nucleus IS relevant for how many times a proton can pass through it per second.

JL
I believe it was Rutherford who gave us the atomic model, and through refinements in his classic experiment, and other methods, we can determine a lot about the structure of the atom.

LL
JL who cares it doesn't matter all that matters is one day your house and your future will be blown up. Count on it Islam is knocking on your door

HGL
Rutherford experiment can determine how much of the gold foil is impermeable and deflecting (few scarce spots) and how much is permeable. Some way to go on from there before proving the atomic model.

JL
Wow that came out of nowhere LL.

HGL
He might be less interested than I in technicalities of science, like how we know certain things?

JL
Expect we can look at the gold foil under a microscope and see that there aren't any holes in it - do you really think the entire physics community would overlook something like that?

Not to mention that atomic theory is confirmed by chemistry.

HGL
I was very aware there were no holes. All I said was based on it.

Part of atomic theory is confirmed by valencies (known from chemistry and testable under electronic microscopy).

[Though even valencies are an intellectual construct with some dubiousness. Carbon having four means it connects with four other atoms, right? No, there is double bond, triple bond, quadruple bond even possibly - though I don't know any example - unsaturated, lattice structure of graphite not quite corresponding ...]

I said PART OF.

For instance, electronic shells will predict certain valencies, but valencies could have other explanations.

Parallel with positively charged visible objects repelling each other attacting negative ones, and of negatively charged ones repelling each other and attracting positive ones is another possible source for atomic theory as we know it.

Right?

Without that nuclei might be either protons or negative protons, shells either electrons or positrons, but this would contradict, in common sense, what we consider as known about charges from observing objects in visible sizes.

JL
"Parallel with positively charged visible objects repelling each other attacting negative ones, and of negatively charged ones repelling each other and attracting positive ones is another possible source for atomic theory as we know it."

What?

LL
And how would a dumb fisherman like Peter know anything about the elements burning the earth with the fervent Heat

HGL
Ah, that is a good one LL!

@ JL, I was reconstructing part of the intellectual process of constructing the atomic model science today is talking about.

And added "right?" to get corrected if my reconstruction was wrong.

But you seem to know very much about the model and very little on how it was proven or if it was at all proven.

@ JL, shall we get back to the topic while you take a rest from my charge on physics?

You said sth about prophecies not being noticed until after fulfilled.

Wrong, some of these were noticed by sceptics before modern technologies proved arguments of these were hasty.

JL
Just to be clear, is your position that atoms are not how science claims they are?

HGL
"Just to be clear, is your position that atoms are not how science claims they are?"

Have a suspicion some detail may be wrong. Mainly I might consider exchanging electron shells for aether with a charge as a quality.

LL
Atheism has an unbelievable ability to take you away from the subject off on some tangent rabbit trail. The bottom line is a fisherman would not know about the elements of atomic energy 2000 years ago without God warning you

[He is trying to bring us back on topic, see top of previous. We might be getting back there later?]

HGL
True, but I was not being taken on a rabbit trail, I was taking him on it.

It was I who wanted the other subject too.

JL
LL if you had read this thread you would know I didn't lead anyone anywhere.

So do electrons exist?

HGL
I do not know. Cloud chambers seem to indicate there are a thing giving thinner trail than α particles and negatively charged, not sure they belong in atoms

So, you have identified such and such particles in cloud chambers. You can tell how big or small they are in relation to each other. You can tell whether they are charged or not and if yes whether positively or negatively.

  • 1) How do you know what you are studying is even just one particle, rather than say a minimal quantum of emittable aether as distinct from aether in [its non-emitted] place or rather than say again a quantum [or a quota] of particles emitted together?

  • 2) Even more importantly, the particles are emitted separately when you study them in cloud chambers. How do you know which of them occur in all atoms and how do you know how they relate to each other in atoms?


[Added last bit after being surprised first paragraph of my answer had stood unanswered for hours. JL might be looking up or intellectually reconstructing the answer before giving it. Will try to update you when it happens.]

MC
//Whether it is good or bad heuristics depend on what sense data it refers to.//

//it exists usually in relation to data coming through the senses.//

//you cannot take the senses for common sense."

I wasn't.//


The first two look like they are appealing to the senses.

Let's leave that behind. If you keep telling me you want common sense to be different from the senses, even if you say it depends on what sense data we are referring to, I shouldn't insist too much that you are. I hope you see how I, and probably other people, would easily make that mistake.

I want to celebrate our agreement, Hans-Georg. Heuristic is too general to talk about common sense.

Common sense is a special case heuristic.

We disagree here, "it exists usually in relation to data coming through the senses."

We may have "idealized cognitive metaphors" that make up heuristic that makes it count as common sense, but someone who is specialized in a topic like particle physics knows more than the common person.

Humans organize information at a "basic-level categorization". That means it doesn't start from specialization or generalization. Knowledge starts from a "basic-level". This is close to your "common sense".

Eleanor Rosch's research has a wealth of information about how the brain categorizes information. To say we can get out of common sense what you are claiming is a giant task. it goes against this approach and the classical approach (which I have not represented).

If we want to take a more classical view on something like common sense, we would need something like Chomsky's universal grammar and even that is far beyond that which we hold in common.

HGL
"Heuristic is too general to talk about common sense.

Common sense is a special case heuristic."


Disagreed.

Common sense is GOOD heuristics. I e heuristics using common principles (hence name) in the common way (also related to name of common sense), but ideally more consistently so than is commonly done.

"he first two look like they are appealing to the senses."

Appealing to the senses does not equate identifying good heuristics with these. You would have noticed that if your grammatical heuristics had been good

"We may have "idealized cognitive metaphors" that make up heuristic that makes it count as common sense, but someone who is specialized in a topic like particle physics knows more than the common person."

In so far as his knowledge can stand up to scrutiny of the common person's logic when given all the facts. No further than that

And by "given all the facts" I mean not given the "net facts" as usually presented, but given the brute facts, like cloud chambers and how particle emittors emit invisible somethings which will give different traces in it.

The problem is the physicist here (I take Jake for such a one) does not know himself how to work from there on to the full and integral atomic theory he presents as a fact and as daunting and overdaunting common sense

I am actually more eager for his specific answers than for your diatribe, sorry.

[linking to both parts]

MC
//Common sense is GOOD heuristics. I e heuristics using common principles (hence name) in the common way (also related to name of common sense), but ideally more consistently so than is commonly done. //

I agree with this. That is one way I might explain how "common sense is a special case of a heuristic". When I am talking about common sense, I can list what heuristics we use that are in common and that fail to explain higher level concepts:

  • authority
  • liking
  • scarcity
  • social proof
  • commitment and consistency
  • reciprocation


HGL
" we would need something like Chomsky's universal grammar and even that is far beyond that which we hold in common."

I do hold sth similar but very far from identical to be a universal grammar of language Port Royal Grammar is less discredited to me than Chomsky's tree diagram grammar.

There is sth similar for common sense too. It is called logic

MC
Logic is not something that people hold in common.

This is the start of the dispute to refresh our minds and anyone jumping in:

//I have taught junior high school math. One pupil got a problem totally wrong. He made no calculation wrong, he had just put in the realistic variables in the wrong slots for the calculations. When I claim to correct Heliocentrism, it is by common sense argument, not by the equations accessible to and producible by very skilled physicists.//

HGL
"When I am talking about common sense, I can list what heuristics we use that are in common and that fail to explain higher level concepts"

Your list, if it fails to explain correct higher level concepts, is not exhaustive. Or part of it has not been put to proper use.

But in some cases the higher level concepts may be incorrect ones

"Logic is not something that people hold in common."

Yes it is.

Your reminder of the dispute was probably meant to show he had not logic in common with me. He had, he understood my correction perfectly when I explained, he had been inattentive.

MC
Am I adding snarky remarks like:

//You would have noticed that if your grammatical heuristics had been good. //

//I am actually more eager for his specific answers than for your diatribe, sorry.//


?

HGL
Your remarks were deprecating very much beyond snarky when you had gotten into your head I had confused "common sense" with "five senses" when in fact I hadn't. You deserved snarky

Amply.

* Footnote on MC charging me with confusion:
[Here are his quoting three of my words, one of them in truncated form, to prove I had confused what I had not confused:]

//And I was not claiming senses were common sense, I do still claim that common sense very regularly refers questions to them.//

Really?
[Yes.]

//Never said that they were. I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these thingsare proven and correctly proven - or not.//

[What he took for a confusion between the five senses - they - and common sense - it - really contained a clue to my not confusing them. His meditation has not made him sensitive to micro-behaviours in language, which any Classicist would be laughed at for not noticing in reading Plato or Aristotle.]

//Even if eyes are in your terminology one of the "common" - usually referred to as one of the "five" - senses.//

[I was not myself confusing the five senses with common sense, I was accusing his terminology of doing so. If it was his habitual one or his ad hoc one in speaking to me, irrelevant, the confusion was his. As can perhaps be understood in an Atheistic Buddhist but which is very certainly to be expected in such a vile thing as a student of Social Psychology.]

//That scepticism in face of bold claims of "deducing the cigar brand from the ashes" is also common sense, just as the general trust in eyes is.//

[Scepticism in face of bold claims for very fine tuned senses and general trust in eyes (but not in extreme claims of their fine tuning) are not one of the five senses, but are a common piece and a good piece of heuristics. And similarily about bold claims for very fine tuned heuristics.]

Want some more quotes to demonstrate this confusing of the senses and common sense?*

[Confusion his on all three counts, not mine.]