Yap, I distinctly remember Phil's video on how to rebuild a protank head, and I immediately bought some 30g wire from myvaporstore in NY. Takes me back, :?)
- Status
Yap, I distinctly remember Phil's video on how to rebuild a protank head, and I immediately bought some 30g wire from myvaporstore in NY. Takes me back, :?)
History books are a perfect example of this. Conquerors and the winners of war dictate how history is recorded, whether it is fact or fiction. Since the beginning of time, the conquerors have attempted to destroy the conquered's culture: history, books, art, music, etc...sometimes so effectively that they are lost for all time.
Christopher Columbus is often credited for discovering the New World in history books. But science is debunking that belief. There is evidence that the Vikings visited North America before Columbus. And there is growing evidence that the Egyptians, Africans, and Polynesians visited both North and South America before Columbus.
Last edited:
No, everything is not subjective. For example, gravity exists regardless of what you "decide". Unforunately, it is not uncommon for people to ignore objectivity, especially when it is convenient for their purposes. But few ignore gravity 
No, everything is not subjective. For example, gravity exists regardless of what you "decide". Unforunately, it is not uncommon for people to ignore objectivity, especially when it is convenient for their purposes. But few ignore gravity
Wrong. I am floating around my house right now because I decided to ignore gravity, unlike all you suckers glued to the ground.
How about the Earth is not a globe, but flat?No, everything is not subjective. For example, gravity exists regardless of what you "decide". Unforunately, it is not uncommon for people to ignore objectivity, especially when it is convenient for their purposes. But few ignore gravity
How about those people who do not believe we landed on the Moon?
No, everything is not subjective. For example, gravity exists regardless of what you "decide". Unforunately, it is not uncommon for people to ignore objectivity, especially when it is convenient for their purposes. But few ignore gravity
So does gravity keep me on the ground or does air pressure?
On an object with an atmosphere, I'm not sure we can tell the difference.
Cheers
I
Really? First of all there wouldn't be any air pressure without gravity and second of all you'd still be standing firmly on the ground without any atmosphere. Dried out and dead maybe, but 100% not floating around.
So the answer is gravity, no way around it.
If you don't know something, it doesn't mean that there is no objective answer. It just means that you don't know.
I didn't watch the linked videos. But they look like they may be good examples of how Youtube isn't a reliable source of information --haha!
I didn't watch the linked videos. But they look like they may be good examples of how Youtube isn't a reliable source of information --haha!
You'll just as easily find videos debunking those linked ones point by point. If somebody can't tell the difference between proper and faulty reasoning then youtube is probably the least of their problems.
I agree. I used the word "reliable" for that reason. It's not all good but there is certainly a lot of good stuff on Youtube.
Just my general opinion on YouTube, if it is called a review or a demo, keep your hand on your wallet. Manufacturers have figured out that it is a great way to connect with the target audience and at the same time ignore all the FTC regulations involving paid sponsorships. And that not only includes ecigs but any other products (music, games, cars, whatever). See Chapman Guitars as a great example, a very ordinary guitar that was extensively promoted on YouTube and has been selling quite well. I ignore YouTube as much as I can, although it is very hard with ecigs since there are so many products out there, it can be confusing just trying to keep up and find the good products. Just my opinion.
Um I hate to break it to you all but science (while absolutely useful) is .pretty much just another religion, grounded upon axioms which are observable to our senses, but has gotten so out there in certain areas, it may as well be the Pope.
I mean, when you get into string theory and imaginary numbers, I'm sorry, I have to say, "That is all very nice and all and I totally believe you when you say you got there from here, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't try to explain it to me, but it makes about as much sense to me as the fact that .........ion is like killing God's children but somehow a nocturnal emission IS JUST FINE I MEAN WHUT.
I do not deny my sense or the sensory observations of others but they are grounded to a very tenuous "What is beneath all this" sort of situation that science often likes to ignore.
I mean, it is useful, but it also doesn't prove much except on a pretty superficial level. Etc.
No offense.
The gravity thing doesn't prove much other than all objects sort of appear to be subject to this force, which sure, it a reasonable statement, but it also does not answer many non scientific questions I have, which I sort of mainly ignore a lot of the time as otherwise, I would DRIVE myself nuts. LOL.
Although there are also times when I feel like I am living in Douglas Adam's world and that as long as I don't leave it, the world makes sense, especially if the husband's here, but to leave would be sheer madness. Etc.
Anna
I mean, when you get into string theory and imaginary numbers, I'm sorry, I have to say, "That is all very nice and all and I totally believe you when you say you got there from here, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't try to explain it to me, but it makes about as much sense to me as the fact that .........ion is like killing God's children but somehow a nocturnal emission IS JUST FINE I MEAN WHUT.
I do not deny my sense or the sensory observations of others but they are grounded to a very tenuous "What is beneath all this" sort of situation that science often likes to ignore.
I mean, it is useful, but it also doesn't prove much except on a pretty superficial level. Etc.
No offense.
The gravity thing doesn't prove much other than all objects sort of appear to be subject to this force, which sure, it a reasonable statement, but it also does not answer many non scientific questions I have, which I sort of mainly ignore a lot of the time as otherwise, I would DRIVE myself nuts. LOL.
Although there are also times when I feel like I am living in Douglas Adam's world and that as long as I don't leave it, the world makes sense, especially if the husband's here, but to leave would be sheer madness. Etc.
Anna
And this right here is the root of all evil. Most folks hate to say "I don't know" so they'll go with some elaborate but inaccurate just to avoid loosing face. Me, I prefer "I don't know. But I'll try to find out".
None of us knows everything. We are all students regardless of age. A good teacher will try to accurately represent the facts in a way that a student will understand. That understanding may seem like religion until there is a deeper understanding.
String theory is completely unconfirmed and maybe not even verifyable, there's nothing developed based on string theory. It's a pet project of some theoretical physicists to try and make sense of waaaay down the road. Or never. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
Imaginary numbers (together with real numbers making up the complex numbers) are an old idea and they have plenty of applications in all kinds of technology surrounding you. Granted, the name is unfortunate (as is the name "complex numbers"), but they are key to where we are technologically now.
If you looked into it from the right angle (pun intended) it would take you about a minute to understand them and why they are important.
I think my point was less, I don't understand all parts of science and hence it is illogical, but perhaps, science's domain is precise, but it is also narrow.
While it is good that science exists, (although I guess from a subjective point of view that may be arguable) it is equally and totally a philosophical viewpoint by which human beings work to understand and build on observations that are repeatable, observable, and useful.
I don't really need to know much more than 2+2=4 to understand the methodology of science, if you accept that concept and axiom you can travel to whatever math level you want (PROUD TRIG DROPOUT, LOL).
I'm just saying there are other domains, like okay, I have enough practical math to balance my bank account but why the hell is it empty?
I would far rather you know, address that subjective area than learn complex science and I don't think a really high level mathematician would be my best bet for learning how to modify and change that either, that would be a subjective, personal problem that I might need a bunch of other disciplines to address, is all. And I don't even want to get into hard vs. soft science either, I think they both have use, I also love science, especially the science that benefits me without my need to comprehend it, I am just saying like a certain amount of life is subjective and while that can be HORRIFYING it can also be rather nice.
Don't get me wrong observability, repeatability and constancy are lovely things, often ESPECIALLY when compared to the wild and swirling chaos of subjective lived experience which can at times be unpleasant.
I suppose it's not really fair to compare science to the pope.
I mean, when you enter the realm of faith, like, axiom number one is NOT only "No proof required," but even, "The first axiom of faith is that it be unprovable."
Anna
While it is good that science exists, (although I guess from a subjective point of view that may be arguable) it is equally and totally a philosophical viewpoint by which human beings work to understand and build on observations that are repeatable, observable, and useful.
I don't really need to know much more than 2+2=4 to understand the methodology of science, if you accept that concept and axiom you can travel to whatever math level you want (PROUD TRIG DROPOUT, LOL).
I'm just saying there are other domains, like okay, I have enough practical math to balance my bank account but why the hell is it empty?
I would far rather you know, address that subjective area than learn complex science and I don't think a really high level mathematician would be my best bet for learning how to modify and change that either, that would be a subjective, personal problem that I might need a bunch of other disciplines to address, is all. And I don't even want to get into hard vs. soft science either, I think they both have use, I also love science, especially the science that benefits me without my need to comprehend it, I am just saying like a certain amount of life is subjective and while that can be HORRIFYING it can also be rather nice.
Don't get me wrong observability, repeatability and constancy are lovely things, often ESPECIALLY when compared to the wild and swirling chaos of subjective lived experience which can at times be unpleasant.
I suppose it's not really fair to compare science to the pope.
I mean, when you enter the realm of faith, like, axiom number one is NOT only "No proof required," but even, "The first axiom of faith is that it be unprovable."
Anna
The main difference would be religion doesn't build on itself and shows no progress. On the contrary they change their narrative and even turn it on its head completely according to what's in fashion.
It's the reaction to the claim "the earth orbits the sun" - do we say "where's your proof" or "where's the axe"?
Blind faith is the very antithesis to science so you really can't say one is like the other. If a scientist displays blind faith in their discipline then that doesn't mean science is like religion, it just means they just aren't a very good scientist
In regards to "normal" people there's not much choice, they have to have faith one way or the other as they often don't know the basics of the technology they use (the old technology-magic thingy), to a degree scientists have to trust other scientists from another discipline as well.
Personally I think it's safer to trust the people who say "this is what we got so far but we're not done and we may be wrong" than the people who say "we got all the answers and it all is really very easy"
It's the reaction to the claim "the earth orbits the sun" - do we say "where's your proof" or "where's the axe"?
Blind faith is the very antithesis to science so you really can't say one is like the other. If a scientist displays blind faith in their discipline then that doesn't mean science is like religion, it just means they just aren't a very good scientist
In regards to "normal" people there's not much choice, they have to have faith one way or the other as they often don't know the basics of the technology they use (the old technology-magic thingy), to a degree scientists have to trust other scientists from another discipline as well.
Personally I think it's safer to trust the people who say "this is what we got so far but we're not done and we may be wrong" than the people who say "we got all the answers and it all is really very easy"
I don't disagree, my point was that on Earth, we experience the concept of "Gravity" as air pressure.
We can observe air pressure. Gravity is the explanation.
Cheers
I
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
