Apologies for the long, long post... but someone mentioned Descarte AND metaphysics as though they were not related! <boggle>


cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really can't measure anything. Even the
> cesium clock might be off only a second every 40
> million years but but this is dependent on things
> being constant.

That's old school. Nowadays we use terms like relativity and frame of reference to parameterize our measurements.
If the cesium clock is off only 1 sec in 40x10^6 years, that's a measurement. We can quantitatively define it.

I refer you to Xeno's Paradox about if you constantly divide things, you can never see an arrow reach it's target.
Engineers point out the same paradox applies to kissing... but they get close enough for practical purposes.

Even in your cesium clock example, it's pure science that allows the 1 sec in 40x10^6 years measurement, and demands that everything remain constant to reach that measurement... in a purely quantitative fashion...


The clocks themselves have a life
> span of only 7 years so the current one is on
> borrowed time. It can't detect changes in gravity
> or centrifugal spin of the earth so the steadily
> increasing mass of the planet or a close passing
> comet would throw it off. The moon is ever moving
> closer and even its tidal effects would tinker
> with the output. It is dependent on several
> natural processes remaining constant as well as on
> the laws of physics not changing or experiencing
> effects of which we're not aware.

All parameters, as I mentioned above, that are measurable, and once measured, prove negligible over the time period of the use of the clock. They can be measured and calculated. They just don't need to be because they are sooo small.


>
> I don't want to bog down in a semantics argument
> but a doctor will tell you there are numerous
> shades of grey even in the death/ life question.
> I would suggest this isn't a quantitative measure
> in any case but a qualitative one; something
> exists or it doesn't. Many qualitative changes
> are simply vector sum totals of accumulative
> quantitative changes.

I'm not arguing semantics, but semantics is where the shades of grey appear in the quantitative analysis - usually because a 'quality' is introduced. In this case, the grey between life and death hinges upon how you define life and death. While disclaiming the semantics arguement, you invoke the very arguement by pointing out the definition.
Nonetheless, supply a sufficiently detailed quantitative definition of life vs death and you'll eliminate the semantics and the grey shades.


>
> This isn't really the point I was trying to make
> though.

Nah, invocation of semantics is usually a tangential point or a diversionary tactic - not that you're employing either above.

I wasa merely pointing out that science
> can't be understood as a form of counting grains
> of sand atr the beach not only because of the
> practical problems but the definitional ones.

On the contrary. It's the definitional problems of understanding science in that respect that elevates science above its father school of Philosophy (of which metaphysics is a brainchild, so to speak). Science identifies the definitional problems, then tackles each in a logical fashion until they are resolved.

> Where does the beach end and the sea begin. Do we
> count tiny fragments of grains of sand or only
> regular ones. Where is the cutoff and how do we
> measure those right at the cut off to see which
> pile they belong to. Do we count all hard small
> particles as sand or only those similar to quartz.

These are the very literal spirit of what I mentioned above about parameters. Defining these questions and supplying quantitative answers instead of qualitative ones are the very soul of science itself.
The fact that you can think of these problems illustrates you understand the basic concepts of scientific observations. Definition of the definition. Measure what you can, and make measurable what you cannot. The base assumption there, in science, is that everything is measurable, even if we might not know how at the moment.

>
>
> Actually intuition can be taught to most people
> but it has to begin at a very young age. It
> begins my teaching a deep distrust of opinion and
> that virtually all "knowledge" is opinion. It's
> not so much a matter of telling the kid to look it
> up himself as it is of providing a few different
> possibilities. It's also a matter of of leading
> answers with "the best thinking at this time".

That's not teaching intuition. That's teaching the most basic premise of scientific research - question everything. Taken to an extreme, it can produce swamp-like effects as each question begets only more questions. However, it's how science got started when the first greek began to question WHY and launched the schools of philosophy.

>
> Really one needs to choose this at a young age but
> most people don't realize they have the choice.
> Tell them. Most people don't realize at a young
> age that their lives will becomne the sum total of
> the choices they made all bundled up in one roll
> of the dice. This applies to the way one views
> the world.

Um. Yah. That's why an adult is an overgrown child, but acts much more grown up... because they've learned all about this 'decision making' process... the need to question things, but also the practical need to accept things as they are, or realize how inconsequential some things truly are. This isn't intuition. This is survival at this point OTOH I'll admit a *lot* of people out there are not aware of how to think, much less even attempt the level of communication you are.

>
> One of the very very few things modern schools do
> is to show many viewpoints. Perspective is
> everything. Douglas Adams said that if you see
> the ground coming up hard all you have to do is
> forget you're falling. There's probably not much
> truth in this but it'll give you something to
> think about if you're bored at the time.
>
Nope. Sorry. I'm a by-product of the modern school system (at least, of a couple decades past). Textbooks are written with political and commercial biases. I can distinctly remember reading my sociology textbook in college and finding myself with more questions than answers from every page and chapter. Information is presented in a 'here, swallow this pill' form and asking what's IN the pill, where it came from, or if there are other pills is HIGHLY resisted. I have to say, from personal experience and recent reviews of my step-childrens books... you're wrong here. It only *looks* like it presents multiple views. And please tell me you disagree with including ID in biology texts? Otherwise, I give up trying to communicate w/ you. Reason cannot compete with belief in persuasive arguements.

>
>
>
> edited to add that I don't want to be
> misunderstood here.

Nah, you've been pretty clear.

>
> Measuring and calculating things is exceedingly
> important to science. These are the backbone of
> everything science is. They provide the framework
> for the magic tricks we call technology. The best
> book in the world is an old "Handbook of
> Chemistryand Physics" and in a sane world it would
> outsell the Bible.

You mean, in a world without emotions perhaps? A 'Vulcan' world maybe? Humans are, by nature, emotional and therefore illogical. In your words, not sane.

>
> But you aren't going to understand the meaning of
> these things unless you understand the
> fundamentals of how they are derived and the
> definitions of the terms all the ways back to "I
> think therefore I am" or "The sky is big therefore
> God made it". For most people this will be easier
> if they pay more attention to how they learned
> things, how the discoverer learned things, and the
> metaphysical foundations of science.
>

"I think, therefore I am." By Descartes, I presume you are quoting? Although his original Discourse did not contain the phrase, he did render it as Cogito Ergo Sum in the latin publication.

However, as I have informed many other quoters of Descarte as the parent figure of their scientific method, that was not Descarte's bottom line in his lines of reasoning. He continued to dissect the very nature of his thinking existence and deduced/inferred/extracted (choose your term, it comes to the same) the presence of his GOD.
Indeed, he says it best himself, if I am permitted to quote from your same source?
"I now udnerstand nothing more than God himself, or the order and disposition established by God in created things; and by my nature in particular I understand the assemblage of all that God has given me." -- page 117, Discourse on Method, Rene Descarte.

So when you further quote 'The sky is big, therefore God made it' realize you are paraphrasing Descarte (from that chapter).
So when you say 'you aren't going to understand the meaning of these things...' '...how they are derived all the way back to "I think therefore I am"...' please realize you creating an inchorent statement that understanding the nature measuring and calculating is dependent upon the understanding of God creating the concepts and the things you are perceiving...

I'm not trying to offend you, by the way, but merely illuminate the logical fallacy of chaining the understanding of the capability of science to measure and define back to a metaphysicist's (my term for Descarte) line of reasoning that ends in, essentially, 'God did it.'

Now I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment that people need to pay more attention to HOW they learn things, or HOW things were learned and communicated to them... I even agree that they should understand the metaphysical origins of science from the father schools of philosophy.

However, none of that understanding is needed when the mechanic fixes my car. He can quantitatively discern where the problem lies, consult reference materials to identify a resolution and implement the solution via the instructions in the book.

That is quantitative science at work, as opposed to metaphysics when the mechanic and I sit in front of the non-functional car and discourse on the nature of functional vs non-functional and whether or not it's really meaningful in the course of events.