My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

I’m not sure we are talking about the same video.
But interesting.

AI and the future of human jobs from the Roayal institute:

a LQw is usually base upon prediction combined with statistical occurence of the prediction. EVIDENCE either supports , refute, or is neutral, and proof is or geometry.

BTW please explain to this ole retarded rock nocker how we need philosophy to correctly tell us where were going? Are you looking to create a Scienc directive industry?

...oh you of all should know the answer...we don't want an infinite amount of stupid self inconsistent hypothesis to test do we? Its expensive...

...do you think when Einstein came up with General Relativity he had observed anything eh? As you well know good Scientists think and bad ones do the menial work...I wonder how many brain dead guys did you had in your teams back in the day doing the mundane stuff...

...if you do really believe Science is not forever entangled with Philosophy you are naive... the thing is you don't want loony hocus pocus Philosophers working with you, and neither do I...just don't take the general idiotic 66% of the population for the whole pack mkay...your "tribe" is just as full of idiots as any other.

Lets assume I have no ideas about what your saying (because I really dont).

Youve been riding this derisive input from an entire trade busily searching to think outside their box, with few takers. You seem to be very touchy on thi subject. IS there some reson??

BTW, Einstein's theories of relativity grew out of his early work on optical physics, where later, he became more and more involved with (c) and its effect with Mercury's perihelion (forgot the term).

Lets cut clear shall we? Are you denying or asserting that Scientific hypothesis have no Philosophical basis eh? Because as far as I can tell no one ever said that Philosophy is based on transcendent unknowns....Philosophy was always based on the observation of regularities in the world. It just is no bounded to not derive from them.

So on that bases what is the legitimacy of Science to state that they have no Philosophical process on their formulation of theoretical speculative yet sound and self consistent hypothesis?

I see no **** of a difference except unneeded tribal warfare between "our guys" vs "your guys"...
(And more often then not Science guys are messy as **** in pure Logic. Take the example of Laurence Kraus which is a mouthfull of jammed idiocy walking on legs!)

wait a min hre. YOURE the one who started most all of the shitstorms. I can see that you have placed your place in science based upon what?? Most scientists dont even understand th wok going on in the next lab over. So if you feel that philosophers are somehow "Hll monitors" well, then we agree to disagree.

You seem to b touchy enough to be a bit laced with envy.
Philosophy seems to be whatever you wish it to be. Im trying to understand the points youve tried to overwhelm others,but all Im getting back from you is derision.
If youd use more anlogy and example in your discussions maybe you wouldnt draw so much fire

Is wat your trying to get across is the knowledge of science is dependent on the wisdom of Philosophy?
remember, Im great with equations, but not so much on why we should pay any attention to all them dead Greeks..

Yes I am aware of your limitations, otherwise we wouldn't be having a debate on obvious points. By the way answer the god damned question will ya, where do hypotheses came if not from speculation based on past regularities and speculation on follow up rationals?

More, who started the fracked up attack on Philosophy were your trivial brain dead colleagues. You are old enough and not so dumb enough to KNOW most are brain dead incoherent mouthfuls!
The **** you have done in Physics and Mathematics in the past century will be one for the books. A petty that neither you or me will be around to see it!

Take your flatulent infinities, your fraudulent Copenhagen interpretation of QM and all the hocus pocus you spite and stick it where the sun doesn't shine!
Envy you say? Ha ya wish... but nay, nada, zilch!
You guys think are smart but you are really I mean really really dumb!

**** I don't have to put up with idiots that are barely aware of the limits of their languaging and concepts...******* tribal monkeys ya all!

The irony of autism is that most so called scientists haven't got the faintest vaguest clue on how much laughing stock they make for soirée entertainment on intellectual circles...

The "scientific" tall tale is unravelled now and then with Philosophical impertinent, inconvenient, complicated questions that may frack up the trillions fund raised for some really dumb Walt Disney projects...that's all there is to explain the so called recent "friction"...a failure to deliver on anything fundamental! Better get back to build bridges and freezers and cars...ya know pragmatic tangible stuff!

We have a sort of smartish loony here lets hear him for a while...

In my field hypotheses first come out of initial observations. Same thing in chemistry, and Id venture biology also. Physics, being the dead center of from where science grew is replete with "Thought experiments".

In geology one of the closest things to a Thought experiment was the solving the cause of the Pine Ridge OVERTHRUST. This is a flat overthrust belt of older Paleozoic sedimentary rock in Virginia and Tennessee tht hd beeng thrust about 80 miles inland over top the later Paleozoic rocks.
TWo geologists were engaging in enjoying some beverages (Pivo) and one guy spilt his beer a bit and then , when his can was empty, he laif=d his can upside down on the small puddle on the bar.(His point was that warming air trapped in the beer can lifted the can slightly. This lift was enough to allow the can to slide over the beer. The two guys worked out some ideas that perhaps with some uniaxial force (sideways inland) on formation could break (perhaps a a result of a small tectonic event. And the entire 80 mile section of rock slid over what the two guys later discovered and named "A strut formation". They then went out into the field with geophysics and a drill rig and provided enough evidence to develop a theory of low angle thrust faulting (VERY BIG deal in gold mining).
Evryone gives Wegner credit for developing Continental Drift. His hypothesis was based upon his noting that the atlantic ocean separated two land masses that seemed to fit together and the fact that fossil Paleozoic leaves of the Glossopteris Fern (a paleozoic ggymnosperm) was located on all the continents that fit together (Europe, Africa on the East and North and South America on the west side of the Atlantic). Glossopteris was the last "same species" fossil to be found on these four landmasses. The actual theory was based on the work of two geologists who were hired by the War Deprtment in WWII to use magnetometry to try to locate MINES in deep ocean basins that could kill our submarines.
The two geologists were unable to locate many mines because the earths own magnetic declination changed smartly east and west of theAtlantic mid Ocean rise. Magnetic signals displayed what appeared to be "stripes" of alternating declination in undersea lava deposits. These observations led to the development of a testable hypothesis which grew to be highly evidenced THEORY (it was one of the fastest developed theories in science).

Ive been trying to think about any geological "Hypothesis" that did not base itself on observations. Creationism and ID are both based upon
either
1 Biblical inerrancy or
2 incredulity.

Most science doesn't pay much attention to these "hypotheses", We jut argue the points to enhance our "culture wars" running amok mostly here in the USA and in Australia. Most other civilized countries dont have the same problems with science.


Wow, someone needs a nap. If you are able to maintain obviously two or more non agreeing postulates while in an argument, then youre a better man than I. Obviously you cant engage in testing your own opinions by dipping into others.

Leadfoot and I ngage in some nasty **** but I still think Id like to hve a beer with him. You seem to be a bit, uhhhh, on an edge of some kind??

Ill leave you be with your opinions. I thibk I unerstand where they come from. I just dont share em.

The closest Ive ever come to engaging a philoopher was to have two guys write a geo landscape book for sale through a geo organiation. We had a photographer, a poet, and a hsitory of science associate who put it together. It was more art than science so Im not sure.

You see Farma the problem here is raw honesty. You of all SHOULD always be honest regarding how any field works specially on how they bring up conjectures. As you probably know I see more Science than 99% of people around, and I am not claiming any sort of expertise on it, that is not what I do, I test concepts to their breaking limit. I do this naturally since I was a little boy.
I take Science seriously and you know that. I also take the limits of Science very seriously because I don't want nothing in the way of more clarity and we definitely have to know where our foots are standing at all times. The indignation and outburst show in my previous replies to you were completely justified when you failed to admit one single thing that is empirically FACTUAL. Philosophy was, is, and always will be, a substantive and integral part of the Scientific process.
Now as for good beer time an actual conversation face to face between you and me on any FUNDAMENTAL subject would prove to be very productive, specially if you were looking for some clear cut no bull explanation for stuff that transcends direct observation. What I do is speculative because it tries to push the limit! If you go back far enough here on A2K on my previous old account a decade ago or so I already talked about the block Universe and what could be entertained from it and GR way before the idea catch up in recent scientific pop culture. Ideas around that topic weren't born back then in my mind they already had 20 years or more. Now if you want a beer to lecture me on freezers, cars or rocks I can do that to, mostly listening! I am curious enough for trivial talk on the latest factoid developments around.
Have a nice evening old man!

PS Recently I developed all the signs to fit PTSD...my hear rings for half an hour in the transition every time I wake up followed by some temporary strong anxiety and my sleeping time is really shaky. I was diagnosed with depression for my dismay when I was cheerfully back and fourth trading book reading advise with my doctor. In his words my laughter and good small talk do not prove depression is not there. He also advised me to consume less information and stop the pedal on highly abstract thinking. More sun, more walks in the park and less of everything else I usually do to great abuse...
Anyway I thought I owned you an explanation...later!

Youd get a lot more " capturing" done in discussions by using examples of what you are trying to talk about rather than demanding some sort of full agreement to your views and saying things like "I of all people should understand" (cause I have no idea what youre selling.
Whether you are associated with science or are a scientist you must know of professional licensing for applied disciplines like engineering and organizational structures include such requirements as professional ethics etc.You also must know that , the interest of applications and directions of what we do is passionately shared and discussed among the qualified membership.(We dont have patience to often include clergy or non associated individuals who dont even understand the basic sciences involved -UNLESS OF COURSE , were in the presence of one of the rarest of birds the professional polymath)

So do we need somekind of a non scientist "Border Collie" to clue us all in lest we wander all over the field??
Remember it was Einstein and two physicists who recommended to pres Roosevelt to develop and use A BOMB on Germany before Germany developed their own.

I think, rather than just state where you feel that philosophers professionally interact indispensably within science disciplines as necessary contributors you should provide some good examples and not to keep "Talking Down" to your audience cause you just piss us off since all I hear is you calling me stupid.
Whether you think youre just being so witty or not , please dont think youre audience is composed of a bunch of Australopithecenes and only worthy of derision just becaus youre not making your points more clearly and accessibly.
I for one wont stand for it. I am really interested in knowing about your thesis and where it usually inserts itself in our professional lives.
Maybe what you call a critical need for philosophers I know by a totally different set of names.

Sorry about your condition, I too have some physical inconveniences resulting from a war and while some difficulties resulted, its also opened entirely new areas of interests for me.

Really. Do you mean that's a good thing?
I have yet to see you challenge Orthodoxy. Your answer is always to quote more of it.

yeh , if you look at all the physical and natural sciences, Physics is the dead center, most all of math has developed based on needs to uantitate rates and acceleration and change of state.

As far as challenging Orthodoxy, where is the evidence . Weve gone through at least 3 major scientific upheavals in the last century . If you dont recall them, you werent there.

I wasn’t saying Science doesn’t challenge Orthodoxy.
Talk'n bout you.

Im retired, my "Orthodoxy" hallenging days are pretty much over.
You dont remember the HUUUGE Upheaval in Plate Tectonics thats less than 50 years old. It was bitter and it was fun. Lotsa evidence and arm waving.
As I understand, youre a bit oler than I, dont you recall?

Maybe you re involved in your own fields challenges to Orthodoxy,(or not)


Evolutionary Biology as a discipline was a challenge to Orthodoxy in the erly 20th century wsnt it?. It resulted in the consolidation of so many other disciplines that its taught in several schools within a University's arts and sciences departments and even engineering and law.

Were you there??