Why do I support Iraqi War?

Ted said:
And finally on last note on the age-wisdom issue. Age and wisdom usually do go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
It sure came in handy for our founding fathers.

Ted said:
But age does not guarantee wisdom.
Click to expand...
No, there is always an exception to any rule.

Ted said:
Secondly wisdom is picked up along the way but only by people who keep their eyes open, use their brains and able to disscern the facts in many events.
Click to expand...
You forgot to add a caveat "as they see it."

Ted said:
Knowledge gives the person a broader basis and ability to place the facts in a frame-work.
Click to expand...

The Intelligencia of early America and most of Europe thought witches were the cause of most problems that befell them. Knowledge has to be qualified as proven by imperical data, not by theoretical presented as fact.


Ted said:
Knowledge does not make one wise, but it sure helps a bit. The way I interpreted Chief remark was that my words were "rambling" so that I must be a kid. It made me a bit itchy, just like your remark that wisdom comes from "life in the real world". Are you suggesting that because we have a different view I live in fairy-land?
Click to expand...

A little knowledge doesn't hurt anyone as long as it is tempered by the fire of intelligence. As for living life in the real world and living in a fairy land, I mean approach life by using common sense. You may read in a book that fire is hot but until you have felt it yourself, you can't begin to imagine what is meant by hot. I'm not suggesting that you have a Pollyanna view of life, just that you need to realize that you will be experiencing something new every day of your life, some good, some bad, but all should be a learn by experience situation.

Ted said:
My world, however different from yours, is my real world. Wisdom to me is also the capability to accept a differtent view.
Click to expand...

That's great but make darn sure that you don't accept every point of view as being right simply because it is different. I mean cannibalism and other taboos are simply another point of view.

Ted said:
I take the time to understand other people's view and when I don't understand them I try harder. I rarely qualify them as "things that need unrambling". I don't know if I am wise, but I know I try!
Click to expand...

Let me make a suggestion you can dismiss or take to heart. If you're listening to a fascist preaching that the total annhialation of a certain race of people simply because they don't live by certain rules or are of a different tribe, you can always say "how very interesting" and keep what you really think about what is being discussed to yourself. That is being wise. You don't have to try very hard to realize right from wrong.
 
I am thinking real hard where to go on this..... but your thoughts are in line with mine. The way you expressed yourself showed me more of what you meant and I agree with most.
Of course I thought I had to make at least one remark though, "Noblesse Oblige" I would say :).

Knowledge has to be qualified as proven by imperical data, not by theoretical presented as fact.
Click to expand...

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) already said that scientific theories are proven via induction. A theory can only become a theory when it is founded on proven empirical data. So knowledge supported by theory is automatically proven by empirical data. (Of course you can fence with other scientific traditions, but I'll leave you with Bacon..... it become rather "tedious" later one.)
 
Ted said:
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) already said that scientific theories are proven via induction. A theory can only become a theory when it is founded on proven empirical data. So knowledge supported by theory is automatically proven by empirical data. (Of course you can fence with other scientific traditions, but I'll leave you with Bacon..... it become rather "tedious" later one.)
Click to expand...

I say to that in a rather crude way "no way Jose'."

theory

n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" 2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis, possibility] 3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

empirical
adj 1: derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known" [syn: empiric] [ant: theoretical] 2: relying on medical quackery; "empiric treatment" [syn: empiric]

You can see that the theoretical and the empirical are very different in practicality.

"Theories exist as chalk in a blackboard world whereas empirical, such as "empirical data" exists in the callouses of determined experimentation involving trial and error." -by missileer
 
You can see that the theoretical and the empirical are very different in practicality.
Click to expand...

This depends on which school of theory you base your thoughts. Don't use a standard dictionary when discussing scientific phylosophy!

"There is no finding without proof and no proof without finding." This is the basis of Bacon's inductive route; the way to prove a theory. He stated this because many people clouded the discusion on theory with personal judgement and generalizations. (read; just from a book)
His motive was:
"...he also criticizes prejudices and false opinions, especially the system of speculation established by theologians, as an obstacle to the progress of science..."

He was against the same theologians that you are against! In his opinion both empiry and theory go hand in hand. For further reading I suggest:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/

but it's quite a hand full. (And don't forget: it is just his opinion. Of course nothing is proven yet. But your views align pretty much with his, only you use modern language :))
 
Actually we're terribly off topic but the thread has only begun to be fascinating. While I see the Early theoreticians as responsible for most of today's proof of scientific principles, I like the more contemporary approach which evolved as means of testing and measurement became sophistocated enough to prove to our eyes what our brains knew. One of the most fascinating people I've followed recently was British Scientist Paul Dirac who started the ball rolling on antimatter. Since we agree, more or less, I won't belabor this any further but this is an interesting article.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/tyler_freeman/history.htm

The existence of Antimatter was first predicted when Paul Dirac combined quantum theory and special relativity in one equation. This equation, however presented two 'solutions' to the electron. Dirac interpreted this to mean that not only was there an negatively charged electron, but there was a positively charged antielectron which had all the characteristics of an electron but an opposite charge.

(x2=4 can have two possible solutions (x=2 OR x=-2), so Dirac's equation could have two solutions, one for an electron with positive energy, and one for an electron with negative energy.) But the accepted classical physics, the energy of a particle must be a positive number. So he knew that there were negative electrons but could only prove it in his formula. But today we know he was right.)

In 1932 Carl Anderson detected the first antielectron. While studying the tracks of cosmic particles Anderson noted a track left be something with the exact same mass as an electron, but with a positive charge.

It wasn't until 1955 that the first antiproton was detected. This discovery rested on the Ernest Lawrence's creation of the Bevatron which could accelerate two protons and collide them at energies of 6.2 MeV (Mega electron Volts). The detection of the antineutron came 5 years later in 1960.
 
Last edited:
I'll certainly dive into the article Missileer and see what I think of it. But my heart is more with the Grand Theories of old, with much larger scope and way less depth. But that is just a detail and no reason not to read it with interest.

"Since we agree, more or less, I won't belabor this any further..." Does this mean I convinced you for once? :)
 
Ted said:
I'll certainly dive into the article Missileer and see what I think of it. But my heart is more with the Grand Theories of old, with much larger scope and way less depth. But that is just a detail and no reason not to read it with interest.

"Since we agree, more or less, I won't belabor this any further..." Does this mean I convinced you for once? :)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm willing to call it a draw. Just think, without Paul Dirac's theory and Paul Anderson's equipment, there would never have been antimatter engines for the Enterprise. Therefore, no Star Trek.:-(
 
Oh I see! Now I know where the difference comes from! I am a Star Wars man myself and was facinated by Battle Star Galactica. Although the new version is very slick, I like the old Cylons more........ And now we are definatly off topic! (Maybe even hijacking it... for which we are sorry. I took the liberty of talking for the three of us gents:))
 
well. i have to say a fact that, most of them are well educated. some are even educated in america and britain, they have very good english ability. how to explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top