Jump to content
Science Forums

Eclogite

Moderators
  • Content Count

    1,466
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    106

Eclogite last won the day on May 26 2019

Eclogite had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Eclogite

  • Rank
    Creating
  • Birthday June 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    Triangulated by Mons Graupius, Harlaw & Barra.
  • Interests
    Astronomy, history, ethology, anthropology, geology, geochemistry,planetary formation,evolution,etc
  • Occupation
    Peripatetic Pedagogue
  1. Interesting. What are your views on pan spermia?
  2. Welcome to the forum. Astronomy is one of the areas of science that especially interests me. Is there any particular branch that you enjoy?
  3. The consensus view amongst persons much smarter than the rest of us is that consciousness is not required to collapse waveforms. However (please note carefully pgrmdave) the contrary view has been considered by some very powerful thinkers and I believe the jury is still out on the matter - or at the very least, an appeal is to be mounted. Are emergent properties significant? Is consciousness an important emergent property? We do not currently have answers to these questions, nor do we even know if they are important. They do not, today, sit easily within the scope of science.
  4. I think before we progress any further you had best define reality. Personally, I have little time for the concept. I think it is a philosophical notion. I work on the pragmatic basis that what we "see" can be assumed to be "real", but I have no idea what that means. Anyone who thinks they do has either thought about it much more deeply than I, or have not thought about it at all.
  5. I am going to take a position that may appear midway between pgrmdave and sanctus. However, I think it is a position that both of them would agree with. (Please confirm or deny this.) Experience is enormously useful in identifying potential areas of research. There are so many things we could investigate, how should we decide. It has been said that the most interesting comment in science is not Eureka! (suggesting we have found an answer), but that's curious (suggesting we have found a question). Experience can generate interesting questions that we can then use science to investigate. Exp
  6. It makes a difference. Anger typically arises without rational justification and is directed outwards. Frustration is generally a recognition of ones own failure up to that point and so is directed inwards. I am frustrated that I am unable to convince you of the errors present in your thinking. I am not angry at you for failing to recognise those errors. I trust you see that the two are radically different. Do you see that? JMJones is making the point of how worthless your opinion is, period. It is worthless to you because it is a flawed opinion. It makes very little difference to him, or me
  7. What a bizarre question. We are not separate from the universe. We are most certainly a part of it, in out entirety. Why would you ever think that we are separate from the universe? There is zero evidence that we are separate from the universe and several libraries full of evidence to show that are fully a part of it. You do not seem to be listening to anything that anyone is saying to you. JMJones has expressed no anger at your views. He has, perhaps, expressed frustration at the persistent failure to apply logic and the consistency with which your ignore the dbunking of your arguments. Pl
  8. @Personal Pronoun: the belief that some children have in Santa Claus influences their behaviour, sometimes in profound ways. This does not mean that Santa Claus exists. Yet we can explore the impact of a belief in Santa Claus through such disciplines as psychology, ethology, neurology, biochemistry, etc. At the same time, based on scientific methodology, we can reject the existence of Santa Claus. In short, science can reveal aspects of reality with great efficiency. I trust you see that belief in a soul maps onto this point rather well. All of the characteristics you claim for the soul are
  9. PersonalPronoun, I have no doubt that you are a sincere person who sincerely believes what they are saying. However, almost every one of your statements reveals your ignorance of many topics, your faulty belief in the value of personal observation, or anecdote, your misunderstanding of science, and your inabilty to avoid logical fallacies. The good news is that if you were to think about what pgrmdave and JMJones and I are saying you could improve in each of these areas. Do you want to? I should like to address one point at a time and see if I can hel you reach a degree of enlightenment. Are
  10. Now you are talking unmitigated crap. Science has given some definitive answers on global warming: it is real, it is significant, it has a large man-made element. Scientists have been screaming for decades about the dangers of cutting down the rain forests. Scienctist have been screaming for decades about the danger of chemical pollution. Scientists have damn all to do with oil spills or fracking, except as far as they quantify the impact and offer remedial solutions. Scientists are not responsible for the bad decisions of politicians pandering to your demand as a consumer for inexpensive
  11. pgrmdave has made an almost perfect response to your various points. There is one item with in which I differ from him. You said: 1. Well, your statement is - at best - ambiguous. You do have an issue with vaccinations, specifically making them mandatory. You may claim that being opposed to vaccinations is different from being opposed to them being required, but in this thread vaccinations has been used as a shorthand form of opposed to vaccinations. 2. Your comments throughout the thread carry a strong implication that you are opposed to vaccinations. 3. If I have to "read carefully" what
  12. The reasons you give for being convinced of global warming are trite, anecdotal and wholly inadequate as evidence for global warming. Specifically: 1. Variations in local climate are natural frequent and damn near universal. The teacher's observations about their garden may be related to global warming, but fail utterly as sound evidence. 2. The rebound is related to removal of the ice and has been in process for thousands of years. If we see significant loss of ice from Greenland and Antarctica then we can expect them to also experience rebound. However, the rebound currently seen has nothi
  13. For thousands of generations humans have had to fight. It's not the only thing we evolved to do, but we got quite good at it. In a world that is, for most people, surprisingly peaceful, this leaves an unresolved instinct to be satisfied. (If you doubt this, consider what kind of computer games are most popular.) It is therefore unsurprising that a proportion of people decide to engage that instinct. It doesn't need a reason, other than "it feels right".
  14. Hi tscience, I'm wondering what you want to discuss in relation to your post. Until you let us know, I'll run with pgrmdave's point. Take geology: Geophysics Geochemistry Petrology Petrography Mineralogy Stratigraphy Structural Geology Mineralogy Paleaontology Paleogeography Sedimentology Seismology Vulcanology And there are more. And each of these has subdivisions and most of those subdivisions have subdivisions. Your claim that this is unlike any other subject is incorrect.
  15. And so it comes back to nomenclature. Until the relevant terms are defined, no agreement will be possible. Now I am going to compose a wolverine, by which I mean - using my definitions of compose and wolverine. I'm going to eat a prawn curry.
×
×
  • Create New...