Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > It is just a self contradiction to argue "a closed system does
interact
> > with its environment" IF "its environment" is NOT a part of the
closed
> > system.
> > As Tim has correctly pointed out only ISOLATED systems and NOT
closed
> > systems can interact with an environment that is not a part of the
> > isolated system. An isolated system does not have to be a closed
system
> > because it is only required to have a minimal and not a zero
interaction
> > with other systems where the degree of minimal interaction is open
to
> > definition. Please note: all arguments based only on authority (just
> > textbooks) are invalid.
> JM:-
> Thank you, John. I will count you as the twentieth data point.
> The score is now 10 (for the textbook standard) to 8 (for something
> else) with two abstentions. It is becoming clear that many people
> who consider themselves knowlegeable regarding thermodynamics gained
> their expertise by a process not involving textbooks. I'm curious
> as to what that process was.
JE:-
Textbooks are only as good as their reader! The main job of such a book
is to provide the basic assumptions, something like the main job of the
news is to provide the salient facts and NOT just a journalists biased
interpretation of them.
Reasoning from VERY 1st principles is what starts ANY rational argument
including those light years away from these principles. All rational
arguments remain based on inductive guesses (acts of imagination). Among
these many guesses must be at least ONE absolute assumption. This will
be able to become mathematically employed as a constant allowing some
sort of reasoning process to actually proceed. Like putting a jigsaw
together becomes easier once the key piece has been located all the rest
of an argument follows in just a deductive way once the key piece has
been located. The only rule is that contradictions are not allowed,
including of course, absolute self contradictions because they produce
hopeless Nihilism whenever they are applied.
> JM:-
> I'm curious because I'd like to develop some expertise
> in quantitative genetics (so that I can talk about "heritability"
> without looking like a complete idiot). But the textbooks in that
> field are expensive and not an easy read. If there is an easier
> way, I would like to know about it.
JE:-
A possible start of an answer was provided in the part of my reply that
you snipped because you *MUST FIRSTLY* distinguish between a
simplified/over simplified model of "heritability" and the theory these
models were simplified/oversimplified from. Unless you allow nature to
be your only authority on this subject and not just a textbook you will
fail to separate them. I find it curious that you choose to ignore the
more important part of my reply.
Take heart in what Popper proposed. It does not matter how outrageous
anything that you argue may appear to others (including your errors) as
long as what you argue remains refutable. Progress in science within a
tribally and thus biased culture like our own may be entirely dependent
on you/me or somebody else "looking like a complete idiot". Such a
status event does not matter a fig to myself. All I care about is the
quality of an argument and its empirically based verification/refutation
and this is what I argue any supposed scientist should care about.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
Po Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Next by Date: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Previous by thread: Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
- Next by thread: Evita
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
