I attempted to snip for brevity. However, the inclusion of multiple concepts in a single post does result in lengthy responses even if each response is but a few short lines. My own verbosity certainly doesn't help anything with respect to length

Perhaps a new topic is in order CK where you can more clearly present your points?

cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

CK:
The idea of "the sky is big therefore God made it" is about the antithesis of this concept even though it, unfortunately, mimics his real beliefs more closely.
san:
Umm either you mistyped or you didn't read all that I commented about Descartes.
I had read your earlier post as implying Descartes metaphysics weren't related. Here you are again seeming to imply that.

I quoted pages from Descartes' own book. His legendary "I think, Therefore I am" (which only appeared in latin translation/english translation) is immediately followed by a paragraph that proofs "I am, because GOD is."

Linking his entire existence to the presence of a almighty creator in logic is metaphysics at its simplest. There is no proof of the creator, thus the entire logic chain becomes a 'belief' and not pure logic. So yes, Descartes says "the sky is big, therefore God made it" and is, in your words, therefore the antithesis of your concept of existence being the base of things...

In other words, you seem to be saying Descartes said Existence was the basis of reality, when in fact, he said GOD was the basis of existence.

<snip>
ck:
> However it does highlight the fact that we may not
> even understand such basic questions as what space
> or time are.
san:
Human perception is Human perception. Perception is reality, therefore the concept of Eculidean geometry is only applied when applicable... IE Quantum physics and advanced theoretical physicists certainly don't always apply it. They have... more advanced models, to oversimplify the situation. Models developed from the defining of definitions I mentioned...


>
san: All parameters, as I mentioned above, that
> are
....
cK:
> Again though this is assuming many things that
> aren't in evidence. We don't know that a black
> hole can't even suck in its on gravity for
> existence. Perhaps a nearby one could "leak"
> sufficiently to affect the clock without our even
> knowing. Yes, we'd see it was off but how would we
> reset such "perfection".
san:
On the contrary. We can measure the gravitational differential in the cesium clock sourcing from the nearby gravitational masses. This allows us to measure even without knowing the source. The mathe ends up quite pure, if more complex than I'd care to even contemplate -- so yes, we can 'reset such perfection' through data collected via experimental observations.
ck:
>
> On the small scale of a 12 year old clock we can
> say it's perfect for all our time keeping needs.
> But this doesn't mean we won't have more exacting
> needs in the future.
san:
Yep. And science marches on. When the needs are present, a method will be found. That which is unmeasurable will be made measurable. I refer you to the history of nuetrinos.


<snip>
ck:
> I don't disagree that measurement is important
> sinmply that it can't be precise.
san:
As we mentioned, sufficient precision to the case at hand (paraphrasing the Xenos comments) allows us to be as precise as needed. Again, making measurable what was not measurable. It's a process, not a final result.

ck:
Even something
> as simple as 2 + 2 = 4 has no meaning outside
> mathematics. You can take two apples and add them
> to two apples and get four apples but what if one
> is rotten or maybe it's really a pomegranate.
san:
Heh, then it wasn't an apple if it was a pomegranate. Now you're discussing unit definitions - again, define the definition in order to see the logic.
2+2 = 4 is a precise mathematical statement
2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples. It defines the unit as apple. There's no provision for type of apple, healthiness of apple, size of apple, etc., but it is nonetheless just as precise as the mathemetical statement above.
You could, with additional definitions, narrow the scope of the statement, but it does not affect the precision of the statement.
2 ounces of fresh, healthy, gala apples from the same orchard as 2 other ounces of fresh, healthy, gala apples from that same orchard = 4 ounces of... you get the picture.

Define the definitions. In this example, that's the unit's your using. Parsecs, angstroms, light years, watts, volts --- all are the same. Can we measure the precise voltage/amperage carried by a #12 copper wire with silicone rubber insulation before the wire melts? Yes, but the definition of the definitions will have to be very tight... ie what constitutes melting? just getting soft or creating a gap?


ck:
What> if one is much smaller or two are a different kind
> of apple? The real world always comes down to a
> practical problem and scientific concerns simply
> don't apply unless definitions fit.
san:
Defining Definitions. I think I might adopt this as a motto for a bit.
ck:
Even then> they don't apply if you look at a longer time
> scale or a smaller viewpoint.
san:
Again, if you change parameters, change the definitions.
ck:
In the long run two> aopples plus two apples might equal four apple
> trees or one was eaten and it's energy was used by
> a man to cut down an apple tree.
san:
Again, modifying parameters (scope) renders a new problem, not the same as the original problem.
ck:
In the bigger
> picture you can't even see an apple tree from the
> other side of the galaxy and wouldn't be abnle to
> see it for millions of years if you could.
san:
A) This statement is based on predications/assumptions.
It does exist. The tree falling in the forest makes a sound.
C) I'm not at all sure why you bring this up??
ck:
On a
> smaller scale of what good is an apple to a tape
> worm. It can't bore inside. On the microscopic
> level these are composed of vastly different
> structure and composition even if they came from
> the same tree.
san:
Wait... the tape worm came from the tree???
(Yes, I read every line...)
ck:
> If there's no referent to 2 + 2 = 4 then it's a
> mental exercise rather than a means of
> understanding reality.
san:
Nope. It's a unitless mathematical operation. That's not a mental exercise, it's the foundation of the math that attempts to describe what we humans perceive as nature. Thus, it is our BASIS for understanding reality, as opposed the Descartes basis of GOD (que sera, sera, essintially)
<snip>

ck:
>
> I was aware that texts are heavily poluted with
> do-gooder nonsense now days but thought they were
> still attempting to show a wide range of
> viwpoints. I should pick up more school texts but
> there have been no children in my life for several
> years.

san:
Heh. Now a days?? Go read a 1950 text book on social history. It's really heavily politicized. For that matter, compare and contrast a 'social history' textbook of 1890 that covers the Civil War versus a 1995 textbook on the same.
Both are 'polluted' as you say.


<snip>
ck:
> Everyone doesn't need to be a scientist but
> everyone has practical applications for science.
> It should get more emphasis and more students
> should be pointed toward it. Even the car
> mechanic could exceed his training if he
> understood more. He might be more likely to invent
> a new tool or device if he had more background.
san:
This isn't science your talking about now... this is problem solving. It's a specific subset of science, but it isn't exclusively under the set of concepts most would refer to as 'science'. The 'understood more' part there is just a stronger foundation in education, the invention part is the problem solving part. I do agree schools could do a lot more with this than they -- anywhere in the world. However, the invention part isn't science. That's engineering. Science is observer, theory, test, refine theory, retest. Engineering is taking the refined theory and applying it. But guess what? It doesn't need to start with the refined theory. The first bridges ever built were built on trial and error, not science. Science is more reliable and successful foundation, but it's not strictly necessary... Fire would be another example.

ck:
>
> You'd be amazed how little science goes into
> things like ditch digging. Here is a wide open
> field to make discoveries because most
> practitioners never consider the ramifications of
> their work or the tools.
san:
Actually they do. Not your average trench digger to a scientific depth per se, but the occasional bright/intelligent one. The design of the shovel used, the grip, the interplay of muscles and swings and material being moved... It's an art, not a science, but nonetheless practitioners have a very solid grasp of the physical realities of it. Science scrutinized it (to oversimplify and apply a possibly misleading phrase) it and the only enhancements offered were better material and power tools (jack hammer, big machines)... which, oddly, often took the known physical realities as a base.

Consider the ramifications of their tools or work? Miners of coal in ancient times would disagree with you I think. The type of timber used to prop a shaft, the type of tool and material used to hack that shaft. Etc. These are things that *were* and *are* considered by all involved.


<snip>
ck:
>
> There's no reason to suppress any ideas about
> reality that are internally consistent. It's a
> matter of live and let live. While religion meets
> these goals there is no justification for teaching
> their precepts to public school children.
>
san:
Let's not get political here, tis against the rules (so I snipped ID comments)

An idea that is internally consistent but is disprovable in reality is a mental exercise only and is a useful example of how to be wary (and avoid things like scams) if you can also teach *why* such a concept is false, and how to prove why and that you should *always* question internally consistent logic structures. It's not a matter of live and let live, for these things are how con men are born and suckers lose their money - or worse, their lives.

I snipped the remainder of my comments as they are somewhat politically related. Feel free to PM me for my view on the public school topic. As far as I know, it's a fairly unique one