Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Strad and Nagyvary on James Randi's website


chronos
 Share

Recommended Posts

'Science' is saying......"The sun has risen 1,000,000,000 times

THEREFORE, it will rise 1,000,000,001 times.'  If the sun

has risen that many times in the past, it is very likely it will

rise again, but it does not necessarily follow.

Scientific laws are only scientific probabilities.  The law of

gravity says if I drop an apple, it will fall to the earth, why?...

it has done so before and I have never known it to do otherwise;

BUT it does not necessarily follow that it will fall the next time

I let it go.  To say that it will fall is an act of faith not

reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi JonCee,

quote:


A very outdated view of academics, if you don't mind me saying so. Besides, Randi is not, and does not claim to be an academic, as far as I can see.
quote:


Aprofessorship or a doctorate gives the holder of the title a great deal of prestige. It is well deserved in their field of study. However outside their own subjects some of these Dr's can be unbearable dogmatic.

From what I know about Randi, that he is on firm ground when it comes to debunking predictions and the supernatural. If he is not an academic, he has the capability to be one!

Regarding Nagyvary's claims about the Strads. I am sure you know that the Oxford and Cambridge scientific community have the scope to study every aspects of them - and they have available instruments to study. Compare Dr Clare Barlow's studies with that of Nagyvary.

Cheers Wolfjk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To leave something to imagine is a beauty by itself. People has a tendency of wanting

to win, to explain everything.

It reminds me a story of a friend of mine who was trying to have his car fixed. There was a

tiny noise of fuel pump of his car. After paid the job of fixing it, my friend still heard the noise.

He complained it to the mechanic.

The mechanic asked him a few questions. "Does your car run smoothly?" "Do I promise you

to fix it if there is any problem of your fuel pump in the future (90 days of warrantee of his work)? " '

"Then why do you worry?" " The noise you hear is all your imagination, I don't hear anything"

"Don't let the tank reach below a quarter empty. You don't have a thing to worry"

PS. Bottom line is :

A good violinist is capable to make a Hopf sound pretty impressive. No audience would demand their money back if the soloist was not using a Strad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Can you give me an

example of pure reason?"

It is reasonable to say the apple will probably fall, or that it is

very likely to fall.  It is not reasonable to say that it WILL

fall.

I am just pointing out what I believe to be the limitation of all

human observation and deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miles - for the sake of illustration I will retreat slightly. I haven't the time to argue the point effectively regarding logic, but DSutton's posts provide an excellent example of the sort of issue which science rests upon and cannot itself examine. The argument against certainty was most famously put forward by Hume. Science cannot prove or disprove the Humian proposition that there is no such thing as certainty. Yet on a daily basis science operates on the basis of 'presumed' certainties which set the context for its experiments and procedures, i.e. the speed of light as a standard in a given context, or the relationships between different types of measurements.

As another example, science rests upon the 'assumption' that sense perception is valid. Without the validity of sense perception there is no science, you can't 'test' the validity of sense perception without relying on it for your results (the scientist must read the output from the measuring tool at least, etc.)

The nature and epistemological status of the 'assumptions' which science relies upon are philosophical issues, and science cannot examine them because it does not exist without them.

Philosophical discussions in a forum like this are rather more time-consuming than they are rewarding, so forgive me if I actually manage to resist the temptation from here on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas,

Thank you for the post. DSutton's second to the last post is a classical example of fallacy, not science. In human history, science is like the development of language; human thoughts goes first, but it doesn't stop there. I did not initiate the "philosophical" discussion, but could resist responding.

quote:


I don't think what I am saying is a paradox, I was only mentioning the limitation of science.


What you said was actually a fallacy. Will any scientist care for examining known fallacies? The limitation of science is mostly the limitation of minds and available funding.

quote:


Observation and deduction can only take you so far. Science cannot tell the future, it can only tell you what is likely to happen.


If the "mind" can tell the future, science can, too. Do you think philosophers can tell the future? If I recall correctly, Einstein did predict the future. He said something like this, "I don't know what weapons will be used in the Third World War. But I know in the Fourth World War, the weapons will be similar to what was used in the Stone Age." Do you dare or care for testing his hypothesis out?

quote:


Science cannot prove or disprove the Humian proposition that there is no such thing as certainty.


Well, you might want to ask the well-known German scientist, Mr. Heisenberg, about "there is no such thing as certainty".

Or you wan to make it easier by trying this out: Driving a car at night until there is no gas in its tank, and see whether or not your car will still move on itself...Is there any certainty? Oh yeah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
DSutton

"I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Can you give me an

example of pure reason?"

It is reasonable to say the apple will probably fall, or that it is

very likely to fall. It is not reasonable to say that it WILL

fall.

I am just pointing out what I believe to be the limitation of all

human observation and deduction.

It is not reasonable to say that an apple will fall [from a tree]?

Have you been able to walk in the air even once in your life time without any external assisstance, say wires?

quote:


Originally posted by: Andreas Sender

Miles--I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. The last quote is mine, but I am not part of the anti-certainty crowd, and I would hardly imagine Heisenberg to be the antidote to Hume.


What I was trying to say is that taking things out of context and asking to be examined is just a waste of time. By merely stating "Science cannot prove or disprove the Humian proposition that there is no such thing as certainty." doesn't support your point/argument. According to your quote, Hume and Heisenberg had at least one thing in common: They both concluded "uncertainty" in their own arguments. Even so, can anyone say that there was no certainty in the world? Of course, not as illustrated in my gas-car analogy.

My point is that science is like solving jig puzzles. It requires a well-defined scope and proven methodology to draw a valid conclusion. When the scope is changed, the correct conclusion might no longer apply, just like a jig piece, which is put in a wrong slot on the puzzle board. But it does not mean the piece is a wrong piece in the entirety. In order to find the right pieces to portray a big picture, it requires good designs and appropriate material to carry out the experiments, which is costly.

Does science have its limitations? Oh yeah. Any methodology is only as good as the person, who designs the work. Even if the designer has the perfect everything, without adequate funding, it is unlikely that a significant work can be carried out by an individual investigator/investigators in our time these days.

Anyone, who commits fallacies even in a passive-aggressive fashion, cannot win the argument regardless what he/she wants to believe. Admittedly, everyone is entitled to free speech in the US, and I respect that.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the following from Miles:

"Geez, we women believe in everything when asked (according to the

survey), don't we?"

I think Michael Darnton answered that already:

"http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-intuition/Intuition_Part1.pdf">

http://www.heartmath.org/resea...on/Intuition_Part1.pdf

Just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not

automatically follow that it is bogus. One of the criticisms of

Randi is that he passes judgement on things about which he has

absolutly no knowledge or understanding, simply on a basis of his

personal gut feelings.

P.S.  Mike Darnton,

I think there is a correlation between your enthusiasm for

violin making as an art and your interest in depths of knowledge

that eludes mainstream thinkers. That's a formal way of saying I

dig the way you think.

Liz Lundberg

Ohio River Life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz,

The post was my response after reading the survey, which was not related to Michael's posts at all. I did not intend for an answer, but did enjoy upnorth's reply. Since you contined, I assumed that your comments were for me as well. So there you go.

In regard to your comments:

quote:


Just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus.


I totally agree that "just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus." But, on the other hand, does it automatically follow that it is not bogus? I think not.

[edit]

After a good night sleep and re-read your post, I still don't believe someone would say "just because something is currently unexplainable, it does not automatically follow that it is bogus" as a response to my post. My original post was a statement with displeasure (please see the disgusted icon I put), which has nothing with logic at all. Apparently, I was either under-understood or misunderstood. However, upnorth and chronos got my thinking right.

quote:


One of the criticisms of Randi is that he passes judgement on things about which he has absolutly no knowledge or understanding, simply on a basis of his personal gut feelings.


I would tend to agree with the critism if the claim "...he has absolutely no knowledge or understanding, simply on a basis of his personal gut feelings" is true. However, on the other hand, if Randi knows his stuff, I would not dismiss his gut feelings with ease. In reality, I think it is probably true that I am more ignorant than he is. So I read the posts and made no comments on/about Randi. That said, I would certainly give the benefit of doubt to Michael for his expertise.

So if you think I disagree with Michael or critics of similar thoughts in their criticism about Randi, you were certainly mistaken. I know my limitations especially in world of music. If your remarks were not intended for me, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

In any event, thank you for digging out the article I missed from Michael's post. That's an interesting paper. I got the part II as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz, thanks. One of the nicest things anyone's ever said about me, he was trying to gently insult me and said that I was "a cesspool of useless information." You have to troll deeply to find the really useless stuff. :-)

.....................

Oh, I see you're a Neil Gaiman fan, too (or is that a friend?) Should have known. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by:
Michael Darnton

he was trying to gently insult me and said that I was "a cesspool of useless information." You have to troll deeply to find the really useless stuff. :-)


One man's useless information is another's treasure? I have always been wondering where/how you found all that "useless information", including your internet dog cartoon. Really cool stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


"There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."


Great spirit, especially, for the holiday season. If the statement is necessarily true, then I don't understand how "troll" came about, and how we concluded "don't feed troll". And how Randi and Dr. N would be the target of negative criticism (seems negative to me)? Apparently, I am missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to beat the point to death, but I think it is

important to recognize what science is capable of and what it is

not.  Mankind has invented science to model reality.

 Science makes no claim to truth, only that reality is 'like'

such and such.....and that is all it can do. How am I wrong in

this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...