Who is your favorite Physicist?

So, you're sayin, then, that you have no grasp of elementary logic? Maybe you should have taken a 7th grade course in it, somewhere along the line, eh? Of course that couldn't have guaranteed that you would actually understand it, but, still...

Actually, I use mathematical logic quite a bit in my current career as a software engineer. And I have take courses that cover logic.

Did you ever study logic in college, Layman? Or is this another topic that you claim to know without ever having studied it. You can't just "know" things without going through the process of learning them.

Part of the process of learning is having your misconceptions challenged. When you are educated, your ideas after the process are quite a bit different then when you started. This is a good thing.

If you are unable to change your mind when you are wrong. Or if you claim to know something you haven't studied. You will never really learn.

Well, that's good to hear. Of course my question wasn't whether you "took courses" in logic, but whether you thought you understood it. Do you? I mean just elementary, Aristotlean, logic not necessarily highly advanced symbolic logic.

The great thing about mathematically based subjects, such as physics or mathematical logic, is that there are right answer and wrong answers. If someone shows me a mathematical flaw in my argument... and they present it mathematically, it is straightforward to see who is right.

I have been corrected at least a couple of times on Able2Know... the one I remember most recently was from DrewDad a while ago. I made a statement that was a mistake. He told me I was wrong and presented the math. I checked the math and saw that he was correct. My statement was wrong. I retracted it, no big deal.

I was happy about this. I learned something about gravity on Earth, a consequence of Newtons Gravitation formula.

One advantage of a college education is that you are given a mathematical background that allows you to express ideas in a very precise way without arguing over the meaning of words.

Very good Layman... you are back to turning this into a court case .

My education is in Physics, but yes, this includes mathematical logic. We started at the very beginning... truth tables and deriving DeMorgan's theorem. Like any other study of a topic of mathematics, you start at the beginning and work your way to more advanced topics. We covered Baye's law formally... Game theory, i.e. Nash Equilibria really interests me, but I haven't studied this formally, but my education in math helps me understand a bit. I may take a course on this topic.

Now, have you had any college education in logic? Or are you just making up what makes sense to you in this topic as well?

Education is important.

I'll take that as a "yeah, I understand logic." Since ya do, give me a little hand, willya? I've been puzzlin over this question:

There are two guys, let's just call them A and B, just chillin in their spaceships, and they spot each. Neither one of them is accelerating. They each take measuments, using doppler shift readings and ****, and they both agree that they are separating from each other at half the speed of light.

That's the set-up, now here's the problem:

1. A says: "I know I am at rest, and motionless, so B is travelling at half the speed of light," OK? But here's where the puzzle comes in:

2. B says: I know I am at rest, and motionless, so A is travelling at half the speed of light."

Now is it logically possible for BOTH of them to be right?

Keep in mind, I'm not asking you whether it's possible for each of them to THINK they are right--that's obviously quite possible, because anyone can make a mistake.

The question is, can they both actually BE right?

Also, please note, I'm not asking which one, if either, is moving, either. This is a logical question, not an empirical one.

This is an interesting topic... so I am going to keep going (knowing that my audience isn't really Layman). Let's talk about education.

I have been banging away at the piano for a long time after taking a couple years of lessons as a kid. I do bang around, I can kind of read music on a couple of scales... but I have to work through note by note, and I basically keep playing a couple of songs I have played forever over and over... but I haven't been getting any better for years of playing.

Recently I hired a piano teacher. I chose someone who I know is better than I am. And, I might ask questions to clarify, but I understand that what my piano teacher says about playing piano is what I should do... it is far better than what I have been doing on my own.

Surprise, Surprises.... I am playing better, learning to sight read, and the number of songs I can play from music is much higher.

Part of learning is letting someone tell me what I am doing wrong. If I assume that my piano intuition is the best intuition in the world because I am so intelligent, I am never going to learn anything from my teacher. The only way for me to learn is to accept that I am not very good... and that my teacher knows more than I do.

This is my frustration with popular science. People read English summaries of modern science and assume that they have mastered the topic. They really haven't.. it is the equivalent of someone banging on the piano expecting to be a musician.

To be an expert musician or a scientist requires a lot of hard work, and a mastery of things that most people aren't even aware of.

We have diminished the value of expertise and hard work and education. This is because we want "democracy" where everyone has knowledge whether they have done the work for it. But I think that this is a mistake.

You are still wanting to fight rather than to learn. I am no longer interested in fighting with you, we have already tried that.

You don't understand the basic idea of frames of reference, and you won't let me explain it to you. I can't force you to learn if you don't want to.

I'm not fighting with anything you said, Max. Not yet, anyway. And I didn't ask you if I understood frames of reference, either. I didn't even mention frames of reference, and that's not the least bit relevant to the question.

I just asked a simple LOGICAL question, that's all. Can you answer it?

We have been through this. I answered the last question 10 times, the answer was a clear "no" and each time you told me I wasn't answering the question. For me to play your game any more isn't logical.

It is clear from what you are saying that you are misunderstanding frames of reference. This is a point learned in a high school physics class. Without understanding this you can't possibly understand anything that comes after.

It shouldn't be a problem that you don't understand. The problem is that you are so focused on fighting for what makes sense to you, that you will never question it. You are refusing to learn. And that is why you will never understand.

I offered to help you understand. Every time you get to a point where you could learn something (i.e. your incorrect preconceptions are challenged) you change the subject.

All I can do is point out to anyone else on these threads that you don't know what you are talking about. You could learn, and then you would know more. I did the work it takes to study Physics, and that is why I know what I am talking about. You didn't do the work, which is why it doesn't make sense to you.

You want to know without having to go through the process of learning. That is the problem.

So you're sayin, then, "No, I can't answer the question, because I can't understand logic, either," that it?

Is it logically possible that they're both motionless and that both still correctly agree that they are separating from each other, ya figure?

And the frustrating thing is, Layman. From our conversations you are not that far from clearing up a big misconception you have. It would not be a big stretch to see you correct the mistake you are making.

But every time it seems like you are almost there... you snap back and either change the subject or start attacking.

You really could learn this if you wanted to.

Logic is an academic study. If you study logic, you attend lectures on the subject, and you are given problem sets to solve. You start with basic concepts; truth tables and DeMorgan's laws, and you work your way up to more complex subjects. Some of the things you learn while studying logic are not intuitive. The work you do is given feedback so you see where your mistakes are and can correct them.

You learn logic the same way you learn any other academic discipline.

You have yet to say if you have done this or not. I have taken courses in logic, and I use it in my professional career. My education is in Physics, but you can take that for what it is.

Can't you ever stay on topic, even for a microsecond, Max? Can't you ever give an answer, which would only take a second, to even ONE simple question?

Since you purport to "know" what my "misconception" is, maybe you would be willing to reveal it to me. That's fine, but, later, eh?

For now, can you just answer the question?

Yet another red herring non-sequitur, Max? Just out of curiousity, though, is it your contention that no human being is capable of employing even the most elementary logic unless they have taken a college course in it?

Sure, I but I am not interested in fighting with you.

Your basic problem is that you don't understand what frames of reference are in a mathematical sense. This is far more basic than Poincare and Einstein (although their work is based on it).

The first step is to understand that there motion must be defined according to a "point of reference" which is fixed in space. If you don't specify this point of reference, than motion has no meaning.

You said you accepted this principle. But then when I asked you to specify a point of reference in the example of the boat (or the train, or earlier the race track) you changed the subject.

The way for you to fix you misunderstanding would be to work through a couple of examples where you specify a "point of reference". You would have to be open minded, and see how it worked. Then you would have to work on the same example with a different "point of reference".

Again, this is high school physics. And this is Galileo and Newton. This isn't Einstein. But you can't possibly understand Einstein without grasping this basic concept.

It is my contention that to master a subject you must

- Listen to people who already have expertise, and who know more than you.
- Work through problems in the subject, and get feedback from peers, and from people who know more than you.
- Have your misconceptions challenged, and change them. If you aren't changing your way of thinking, you aren't learning anything.
- Practice in the subject, produce work and get feedback on what you are doing wrong.

The best way to do this is a college course. That is why society values education and why people pay so much for it.

I would like to believe that education is accessible to everyone in society... I realize that this is not the case. And, there are ways to change your way of thinking and have your misconceptions challenged outside of a college classroom.

I don't think you really mean a "point" of reference. I think you mean a frame of reference with an X, Y, and Z axis (if it's 3-dimensional)

But, that aside, apparently you still can't read. I clearly and expressly said, way back when, that when Galileo was talking about a ship moving, or not (being "at rest") he was clearly talking about relative motion (or lack thereof), between the ship and the shore.

Why would you now deny I said that?

But, hold off on that, for now, OK?

For now, just answer the simple logical question that I asked for me, eh?

I am offering to help you learn about Physics... to help you change your misconception about frames of reference. If I can't do that, than my purpose here is to point out to other people that what you are saying isn't correct from the perspective of someone who has spent the time studying Physics.

I am not going to fight with you over your opinions on logic. I doubt that it will be any more productive than fighting with you about Physics, and my degree is in Physics (you still haven't said if you have any education in the field of logic).

You are still looking for a fight, rather than trying to learn. There is a right answer, it is the answer that you would understand if you studied Physics in college.

You said you've had college course in logic. I just asked a simple question. Why would we "fight" over a cut and dried topic like simple logic? It's not a complex question. Do you have your own *special brand* of logic, or something?