And I need a little help. I'm hoping some discussion here can help stimulate something. First, a brief back-story for those joining the broadcast already in progress.
Many years ago, I mooted the idea of a book. It was meant to be a collection of interesting things by a particular group of people. That group went through some upheavals, but I clung like a limpet to the notion of eventually putting something together.
Over the years, I've tried to collect some thoughts together, but could never find a single cogent thread that would lead to a book that didn't already exist and that covered all the things I want to talk about. I recently had a bit of an epiphany, and I think I have a good idea that can do all the things I need it to do and have enough scope to go interestingly off-script, as those who know me will testify I'm wont to do (passed master of the 1,000 word footnote, me). So here it is:
Pareidolia and Prejudice: The Myth of Common Sense
It will be a book largely centred on intuition and expertise, but threaded through with the notion of patterns (patterns are our entire epistemic foundation). It will develop the notion of intuition as a skill to be learned and developed. It will talk about expertise and intuition as fundamentally about understanding variables.
So, I need a little help, hopefully with some discussion. I need examples of common knowledge that aren't true, and examples of common sense that isn't sensible. The more common the examples, the better.
I do intend to do a lot about things people know about science that aren't true, like time beginning at the big bang, and that sort of thing, so I have some coverage there. That's not to say I'm not interested in examples of that, too, but I'm looking for more general things people think are true that aren't.
Scientific/logical/factual pet peeves are usually a good thrust for a topic, so feel free to just vent about your pet peeves as long as they're relevant here. All grist to the mill, as they say in the Dales...
ETA: I should add a link to something, for those who haven't seen my witterings...
Very Able (https://www.n0b0dy0fn0te.com/2021/04/very-able.html) - Why expertise is fundamentally about understanding variables. A fun story from the history of physics.
Poles Apart (https://www.n0b0dy0fn0te.com/2021/07/poles-apart.html) - A fun story about physics, shit and opinions.
One thing springs to mind. Don't worry at all about writing a book that has already been written, you can't. Whatever you write will be uniquely you. How could it be anything else unless you go out to deliberately copy something else.
First a question. What do you think the majority of people consider 'common sense' to be?
We now have a 'Members Only' forum. It's not public. Would you like me to move this tread there given to work-in-progress nature of this thread?
I don't think it matters where it is, if I'm honest, and I'm not precious.
On the other thing, that's trickier, because most of what people think of as common sense is in fact clear expressions of fallacies (post hoc or affirming the consequent, usually). Properly, it's our collective intuition.
Quote from: hackenslash on February 09, 2022, 09:51:08 AM
I don't think it matters where it is, if I'm honest, and I'm not precious.
On the other thing, that's trickier, because most of what people think of as common sense is in fact clear expressions of fallacies (post hoc or affirming the consequent, usually). Properly, it's our collective intuition.
So taking the first thing that came to mind it's common sense that the Earth is flat?
my ears are burning
Quote from: billy rubin on February 09, 2022, 06:21:20 PM
my ears are burning
I fully expect that you and hack have the potential to get on very well indeed!
maybe so
hack, what exactly are you calling "common sense?"
and intuition?
along tbe way, what is intelligence, and wisdom?
:watching:
well ' wht is common sense?
a culturally-wide practical apprehension of fundamental relationships among matter and energy, especially of cause and effect, in addition to an understanding and predicitve capacity of human behaviour, maybe?
but then what is intuition? ive asked these questions before because im never really satisfied with the answers
Sounds very interesting! I am curious to see how this develops.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 09, 2022, 07:26:37 PM
maybe so
hack, what exactly are you calling "common sense?"
and intuition?
along tbe way, what is intelligence, and wisdom?
I hope you'll forgive me, but I kind of hope not to have to do that, not least because that's part of the exercise. I do have answers to these ( and I vaguely alluded to one of them above), but I'm trying not to load anybody's thinking, and this has more value for purpose if my personal view of what common sense is isn't in play, if that makes sense.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 09, 2022, 10:31:05 PM
well ' wht is common sense?
a culturally-wide practical apprehension of fundamental relationships among matter and energy, especially of cause and effect, in addition to an understanding and predicitve capacity of human behaviour, maybe?
but then what is intuition? ive asked these questions before because im never really satisfied with the answers
Hang on to your hat, because I have an answer to that particular question. Right in my wossname, that. Wheelhouse. Right in my wheelhouse.
Quote from: Tank on February 09, 2022, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: hackenslash on February 09, 2022, 09:51:08 AM
I don't think it matters where it is, if I'm honest, and I'm not precious.
On the other thing, that's trickier, because most of what people think of as common sense is in fact clear expressions of fallacies (post hoc or affirming the consequent, usually). Properly, it's our collective intuition.
So taking the first thing that came to mind it's common sense that the Earth is flat?
That's an interesting example, not least because the notion that everybody once thought the Earth flat is one of the examples I have of common knowledge. I'm reasonably confident there was never a time when anything other than a fringe minority thought the world was flat.
why?
it looks flat to me, everywhere ive ever been.
if you have no knowledge of earth geometry or astonomy than what you expwrience for yourself, it seems like a logical conclusion to assume that what you see is the way it is
Quote from: hackenslash on February 08, 2022, 10:19:53 PM
I do intend to do a lot about things people know about science that aren't true, like time beginning at the big bang, and that sort of thing, so I have some coverage there. That's not to say I'm not interested in examples of that, too, but I'm looking for more general things people think are true that aren't.
If you go outside while it's cold and rainy without proper attire, you'll catch the common cold. I don't think that is how the common saying goes but as I was growing up it was taught to me that it's not safe to play in the rain. Especially in the winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE
Quote from: hackenslash on February 10, 2022, 01:50:41 AM
.... I'm reasonably confident there was never a time when anything other than a fringe minority thought the world was flat.
Ok. Then what shape did they think it was and why?
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 03:32:00 AM
why?
it looks flat to me, everywhere ive ever been.
if you have no knowledge of earth geometry or astonomy than what you expwrience for yourself, it seems like a logical conclusion to assume that what you see is the way it is
Hack. It's worth pointing out that Billy is currently a truck drive (ex-palaeontologist) and spend months driving throughout the USA. Including Nebraska which makes the Netherlands look mountainous. :D
its really really really flat in nebraska.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 11:10:45 AM
its really really really flat in nebraska.
Oh, I know Nebraska. I spent a three-year day driving West through the dunes once (place is like a fucking time vortex, and forget getting a signal of any kind; absolute internet asshole of the planet), heading for Alliance, and I've covered the Western half of the state multiple times, running between Denver and points North via Alliance. Indeed, my favourite ever coffee is from an espresso hut called Pi Kappa Cino just on the edge of Sterling on the 138. Stupendous coffee. Motivated my first ever google review.
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2022, 08:52:32 AM
Quote from: hackenslash on February 10, 2022, 01:50:41 AM
.... I'm reasonably confident there was never a time when anything other than a fringe minority thought the world was flat.
Ok. Then what shape did they think it was and why?
They thought it was the same shape as everything else they could see. Anybody who lived at significant elevation or in a maritime setting would have intuited a sphere, notwithstanding rumours about the 'edge of the world'. Eratosthenes put a figure on it more than 2,000 years ago, and various bits of evidence motivated writing on the shape of the Earth long prior. Aristotle noted that the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse was always curved, which could only be explained by a sphere.
I gave this a pretty comprehensive treatment some years ago debunking flat Earth.
DJ, Spin That Shit! (https://www.n0b0dy0fn0te.com/2016/09/dj-spin-that-shit.html)
Quote from: Mr. B on February 10, 2022, 04:41:24 AM
Quote from: hackenslash on February 08, 2022, 10:19:53 PM
I do intend to do a lot about things people know about science that aren't true, like time beginning at the big bang, and that sort of thing, so I have some coverage there. That's not to say I'm not interested in examples of that, too, but I'm looking for more general things people think are true that aren't.
If you go outside while it's cold and rainy without proper attire, you'll catch the common cold. I don't think that is how the common saying goes but as I was growing up it was taught to me that it's not safe to play in the rain. Especially in the winter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SbUC-UaAxE
That's an interesting one, for several reasons. It's certainly true that the common cold is caused by a virus (actually, a group of about 200 distinct viruses, included more than one coronavirus), and this motivated looking at the 'old wives' tale' about the cold.
Thing is, though, the old wives' tale is actually true in some measure. Recent research has shown that lowering body temp suppresses the immune system in some measure. This, coupled with the fact that many viruses thrive in cold environments - particularly viruses that attack the upper respiratory tract (because that's one of the coldest places in the body), means that keeping warm measurably improves infection and sickness rates. This is also why viral infections tend to increase in warmer months.
QuoteCold weather and respiratory disease, including flu, also go hand in hand. Research has shown that cold spells are reliably followed by upticks in the number of deaths from respiratory disease. Some of this may have to do with a few infectious organisms, like flu viruses, thriving in colder temperatures, but there's also evidence that exposure to cold temperatures suppresses the immune system, so the opportunities for infection increase. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in the late 1970s famously debunked the belief that the common cold is linked to cold exposure, but British cold researchers have maintained that there is a cold–to–common cold connection. Their hypothesis: cold air rushing into the nasal passages makes infections more probable by diminishing the local immune response there.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/out-in-the-cold
Quote from: hackenslash on February 10, 2022, 11:36:56 AM
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2022, 08:52:32 AM
Quote from: hackenslash on February 10, 2022, 01:50:41 AM
.... I'm reasonably confident there was never a time when anything other than a fringe minority thought the world was flat.
Ok. Then what shape did they think it was and why?
They thought it was the same shape as everything else they could see. Anybody who lived at significant elevation or in a maritime setting would have intuited a sphere, notwithstanding rumours about the 'edge of the world'.
still looks flat to me, even from a height.
Quote
Eratosthenes put a figure on it more than 2,000 years ago, and various bits of evidence motivated writing on the shape of the Earth long prior.
how many people could tead ancient greek, or had access to eratosthenes on thr first place? there werent many copies.
Quote
Aristotle noted that the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse was always curved, which could only be explained by a sphere.
or a pancake.
how does this relate to common sense ?
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 12:49:00 PMstill looks flat to me, even from a height.
And I'm sure many would agree, and there's certainly been a thread of that throughout history, but there's sufficient evidence that at least some were thinking along the right lines.
Quotehow many people could tead ancient greek, or had access to eratosthenes on thr first place? there werent many copies.
That's a pretty nonsense objection. That he derived a figure at all shows that people were thinking about it.
Quoteor a pancake.
Wouldn't explain it, because at least some of those instances would have been edge on. Doesn't match.
Quotehow does this relate to common sense ?
Because it's about intuitions, which is what appealing to common sense is all about.
well sure, there were people who thought the earth was round. i suggest that their number was probably less than one in a million of the general population of the world at any time.
hard to estimate that, you know.
as for pancakes, im assuming no other astronomical relationships. pancakes are round and flat at the same time and can cast a round shadow.
but im still intetested in common sense and intuition. i dont know what you mean by the words.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 01:05:59 PM
but im still intetested in common sense and intuition. i dont know what you mean by the words.
That's kind of the point. What I might mean by them isn't relevant to the project at hand, because I'm interested in general notions of common sense and intuition. My definitions are not the subject.
okay
Sorry, I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I just genuinely don't want to colour the discussion more than necessary, because it's at least in part research for the project, as well as good vox pop input (vox pop is another thing I intend to treat).
So, I need a little help, hopefully with some discussion. I need examples of common knowledge that aren't true, and examples of common sense that isn't sensible. The more common the examples, the better.
so ^^^this is what youre looking for?
Hack
Billy started this thread Is the Earth really round? (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16372.0). It caused such a shit storm of debate we had to make a new area of the forum to accommodate it. The question actually had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth but everything to do with how do we know what we know? Billy does not contend the Earth is flat but it is a subject very close to his heart and he has considered it a lot.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 05:58:00 PM
So, I need a little help, hopefully with some discussion. I need examples of common knowledge that aren't true, and examples of common sense that isn't sensible. The more common the examples, the better.
so ^^^this is what youre looking for?
In essence, yes, though what I'm really looking for are examples of things
forwarded as common sense. Does that make sense?
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2022, 06:13:50 PM
Hack
Billy started this thread Is the Earth really round? (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16372.0). It caused such a shit storm of debate we had to make a new area of the forum to accommodate it. The question actually had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth but everything to do with how do we know what we know? Billy does not contend the Earth is flat but it is a subject very close to his heart and he has considered it a lot.
It sounds like we might have some common ground. How we know what we know, and the distinction between things we only think we know and things we can actually demonstrate are the things I spend most of my time thinking about, and that's really the thrust here. It's in the nature of an exploration of the territory and seeing if I have my ducks sufficiently lined up to attempt what I'm thinking of.
Quote from: Tank on February 10, 2022, 06:13:50 PM
Hack
Billy started this thread Is the Earth really round? (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16372.0). It caused such a shit storm of debate we had to make a new area of the forum to accommodate it. The question actually had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth but everything to do with how do we know what we know? Billy does not contend the Earth is flat but it is a subject very close to his heart and he has considered it a lot.
well i dont contend it but i dont really know that the earth isnt flat. i know that england exists because thats where i kissed a girl for the first time.
and she was canadian of all things. but canada and america and england could all have been on a flat earth.
i still need to get a time lapse camera to photograph the southern night sky. that would confirm or disprove the usual flat earth model. then i can get thrown out of the flat earth socoety forum again.
but i am willing to assume that a roundcearth is a reasonable working hypothesis evenbthough i cant attest to it on my own.
wr always are so assured about things we know, when we really know very little about most everything.
Quote from: hackenslash on February 10, 2022, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2022, 05:58:00 PM
So, I need a little help, hopefully with some discussion. I need examples of common knowledge that aren't true, and examples of common sense that isn't sensible. The more common the examples, the better.
so ^^^this is what youre looking for?
In essence, yes, though what I'm really looking for are examples of things forwarded as common sense. Does that make sense?
what does forward mean?
do you mran things that people teach randomly to subsequent generations, like cutting the end off the roast before putting it in the oven separately?
or common knowledge things that are false, like the coriolis effect making water go down the plug hole differently in northern and southern hemispheres?
Quote from: hackenslash on February 08, 2022, 10:19:53 PM
Scientific/logical/factual pet peeves are usually a good thrust for a topic, so feel free to just vent about your pet peeves as long as they're relevant here. All grist to the mill, as they say in the Dales...
Here is a pet peeve of mine. Something I don't understand logically even though "science" says it's so.
Second hand smoke from cigarettes is more dangerous to non smokers than smoking cigarettes. When my wife was pregnant with our first child I asked her doctor point blank about my smoking and secondhand smoke and how dangerous is second hand smoke to my wife and child. He grinned. And gave a stock answer. Smoking is bad, m'kay.
Yeah, I agree. Smoking is bad. My pet peeve is the assertion that secondhand smoke is more deadly to non smokers. I'm like, I'm smoking the cigarette. I am ALSO breathing in my own secondhand smoke. How is secondhand smoke MORE dangerous to people who do not smoke than it is to me? I'm just going on memory here so maybe my memory is not an accurate reflection of reality but the question in my mind has been "how can secondhand smoke be more dangerous to people who don't smoke than it is to smokers because, 1. the smoker is also breathing in the secondhand smoke and 2. The smoke has been filtered twice before it hits the non smokers lungs.
This perplexed me in the late 90's early 2000's. I remember getting irritated that our local mall wouldn't let us just walk around smoking anywhere we wanted and established designated indoor smoking areas that were just benches in the middle of the walkway. You could still smoke indoors but you couldn't just walk around doing it.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2022, 12:04:09 AM
or common knowledge things that are false, like the coriolis effect making water go down the plug hole differently in northern and southern hemispheres?
Exactly like that, yes. In fact, that's a stupendous exemplar.
Quote from: Mr. B on February 11, 2022, 12:47:43 AM
Quote from: hackenslash on February 08, 2022, 10:19:53 PM
Scientific/logical/factual pet peeves are usually a good thrust for a topic, so feel free to just vent about your pet peeves as long as they're relevant here. All grist to the mill, as they say in the Dales...
Here is a pet peeve of mine. Something I don't understand logically even though "science" says it's so.
Second hand smoke from cigarettes is more dangerous to non smokers than smoking cigarettes. When my wife was pregnant with our first child I asked her doctor point blank about my smoking and secondhand smoke and how dangerous is second hand smoke to my wife and child. He grinned. And gave a stock answer. Smoking is bad, m'kay.
Yeah, I agree. Smoking is bad. My pet peeve is the assertion that secondhand smoke is more deadly to non smokers. I'm like, I'm smoking the cigarette. I am ALSO breathing in my own secondhand smoke. How is secondhand smoke MORE dangerous to people who do not smoke than it is to me? I'm just going on memory here so maybe my memory is not an accurate reflection of reality but the question in my mind has been "how can secondhand smoke be more dangerous to people who don't smoke than it is to smokers because, 1. the smoker is also breathing in the secondhand smoke and 2. The smoke has been filtered twice before it hits the non smokers lungs.
This perplexed me in the late 90's early 2000's. I remember getting irritated that our local mall wouldn't let us just walk around smoking anywhere we wanted and established designated indoor smoking areas that were just benches in the middle of the walkway. You could still smoke indoors but you couldn't just walk around doing it.
Good peeve, not least because it's a myth.
The argument goes that, because most of what you inhale is likely filtered, the smoke being put in the air is unfiltered. In reality, there's almost no difference, and the smoker is always at higher risk than the passive smoker because of greater exposure.
I think part of the problem is the way it's often phrased even by those who should know better. You see things like 'the risk for those around them is 30% higher', which is ambiguous AF. 30% higher than for the smoker? 30% higher than had they not been exposed?
Properly, the risk is similar per exposure, whether a smoker or not. It's purely statistical based on repeated exposure to particulates. Toxicology isn't affected by method of exposure as a simple matter of logic.
i have one. it is commonly taught that eratosthenes proved that the earth was round.
this is false. eratosthenes merely calculated a circumference, based on a preexisting belief that the earth was round, which he held for other reasons.
id have to check again, but when i took his protocol and crunched some numbers, i found that his results are perfectly consistent with a flat earth and a sun orbiting the north pole at a constant altitude of 536 miles.
iirc
Time was I'd have shredded that, but I have no appetite for the fight you're clearly looking for. I'd rather abandon the thread, frankly. No mood for bollocks.
hmm.
no fight intended, my friend.
Quote from: hackenslash on February 11, 2022, 05:36:39 PM
Time was I'd have shredded that, but I have no appetite for the fight you're clearly looking for. I'd rather abandon the thread, frankly. No mood for bollocks.
Hack. Billy is not looking for a fight. It really isn't his style at all.
It's common sense that you'd never find soft tissues preserved from dinosaurs.
However https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones
There are quite a few ideas being tossed around here but there is one common thread connecting them. Common sense is not so common and it sometimes changes based on new discoveries in science. Most people are reluctant to change so maybe they continue to believe that you will have 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. Or some people may still be wary of black cats crossing their paths. Or hesitant to inject a brand new anti viral chemical engeneered to stimulate their body's mRNA response. Or question the age of the earth based on soft tissues found in relatively poor fossil specimens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_2Wq9Aos4
Are chicken eggs good to eat or not?
Another thought. Could 'Old wives tales' be considered common sense? And is another term for Common Sense, Received Wisdom?
hackenslash said:
QuoteSo, I need a little help, hopefully with some discussion. I need examples of common knowledge that aren't true, and examples of common sense that isn't sensible. The more common the examples, the better.
Karma is a kind of common knowledge that isn't true. Bill Maher explains. Americans view karma as a revenge type of instant karma in this life time. (Think, "My Name Is Earl") A logical fallacy. Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc. "after that, because of that".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLLzVw70nSs
How did we twist it so far from it's original meaning? And why is our misunderstanding of the concept so widespread?
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2022, 05:39:07 PM
hmm.
no fight intended, my friend.
Fair enough. I'm not at my best.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2022, 07:47:48 PM
It's common sense that you'd never find soft tissues preserved from dinosaurs.
However https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones
That's a good example, and highly instructive. That the result was surprising even to those of us with reasonably well-developed intuitions for the subject matter tells us something important to our intuitions, especially the notion that they have to be developed.
Quote from: Mr. B on February 11, 2022, 10:36:07 PM
There are quite a few ideas being tossed around here but there is one common thread connecting them. Common sense is not so common and it sometimes changes based on new discoveries in science. Most people are reluctant to change so maybe they continue to believe that you will have 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. Or some people may still be wary of black cats crossing their paths. Or hesitant to inject a brand new anti viral chemical engeneered to stimulate their body's mRNA response. Or question the age of the earth based on soft tissues found in relatively poor fossil specimens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_2Wq9Aos4
Are chicken eggs good to eat or not?
This is kind of where I'm ultimately going, which is why I wanted to explore what other people thought about the notions of common sense and common knowledge. There's a deep connection to patterns, intuition, prejudice, superstition, ritual and survival which makes even the poorest examples difficult to shake.
Quote from: Tank on February 12, 2022, 08:08:00 AM
Another thought. Could 'Old wives tales' be considered common sense? And is another term for Common Sense, Received Wisdom?
;)
Two quotes are apposite, one from Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits:
Quoteshow me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man.
And Einstein:
QuoteCommon sense is the collection of prejudices we accumulate by the age of eighteen.
Hacks' tagline is ever so true. Way back in time one of the Greeks, Aristotle or one of the others, said that we don't know what we don't know. Of course that was spoken in Greek language.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has an opening remark on some of his Youtube ads. It is that we know enough to think that we know, but we do not know enough to understand that we are wrong.
Funny you should say that, since I've just published a new post touching on all that.
Completely Incomplete (https://www.n0b0dy0fn0te.com/2022/02/completely-incomplete.html)
Heady stuff Hack. Please continue at will.
Heady stuff Hack. Please continue at will.
I'm going to apologise. My reaction to this was because it felt a lot like JAQing off. Let's give it the respect it warrants.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2022, 05:28:19 PM
i have one. it is commonly taught that eratosthenes proved that the earth was round.
I'm not sure this is what's commonly taught, though I suspect quite a lot of people come away with that impression.
Quotethis is false. eratosthenes merely calculated a circumference, based on a preexisting belief that the earth was round, which he held for other reasons.
And that's accurate. The notion that the Earth was spheroidal had been around for a long time for other reasons. What Eratosthenes really provided was a new line of consilience for the long-mounting evidence.
Quoteid have to check again, but when i took his protocol and crunched some numbers, i found that his results are perfectly consistent with a flat earth and a sun orbiting the north pole at a constant altitude of 536 miles.
iirc
I'd be interested in seeing your working out on this, because my gut tells me that can't be, not least because the angle of incidence is opposite, though I could see a parallax projection giving an odd result depending on how everything lines up.
Thinking about this example did make me think of a couple of things that 'everybody knows about science' that simply aren't true.
The first is that science tells us that time began at the big bang. It never has, although there was a time when there were so few who understood quantum theory that it looked an awful lot like it did. In reality, the extension of GR that led to the notion of time beginning at the big bang only ever pointed to a singularity which, itself, would not experience time, but there's no good reason to assume that means that time doesn't exist.
The second is that GR predicted gravitational waves. This is the Einstein myth of the current generation, coming up of course because we've detected gravitational waves. In fact, the prediction of gravitational waves wasn't even a prediction of gravitational waves, it was a prediction that gravity would be shown to be a distributed process, which Einstein had done ten years earlier with SR, In Newtonian mechanics, time and space are absolute and immutable, with the result being that gravity propagates instantaneously. Einstein, by showing that time and space are interdependent variables, showed that nothing can propagate instantaneously, and that therefore gravity MUST be a distributed process. Indeed, it was this and only this that motivated the formulation of GR, because SR said gravity must be distributed, and ALL distributed processes propagate in waves.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: hackenslash on February 18, 2022, 09:46:47 AM
I'm going to apologise. My reaction to this was because it felt a lot like JAQing off. Let's give it the respect it warrants.
not to worry. its not something i think about much, but your use of it as an example jogged my memory.
QuoteQuoteid have to check again, but when i took his protocol and crunched some numbers, i found that his results are perfectly consistent with a flat earth and a sun orbiting the north pole at a constant altitude of 536 miles.
iirc
I'd be interested in seeing your working out on this, because my gut tells me that can't be, not least because the angle of incidence is opposite, though I could see a parallax projection giving an odd result depending on how everything lines up.
well, trying to find out exaclty what eratosthenes did is hard to do, because first, he didnt write it down, and it was just reported secondhad by another guy writing about celestial mechanics or something. and second, everybody has a different story about what he actually did. but apparently it was something like this.
eratosthenes lived in alexandria, up on the coast. he heard about a well in a town south of him called cyene, about 5000 stadia away. the stadion was not a consistent measure, but lets arbitrarily pick 157.7 metres because thats what i just found on the web.
this well was notable, he was told, because on th esummer solstice at noon the sun shone down the well vertically, ie the sun was absolutely perfectly overhead, it being at a latitude of 23.5 degrees north. in other words, there was no shadow in the bottom of the well. in his own town on the same day the sun was
not perfectly overhead, and vertical objects
did cast a shadow. accounts differ as to whether he looked down his own well, or went downtown and measured the shadow of an existing obelisk, or stuck a stick of his own in the ground and measured that. whatever he did, they say he got a discrepancy of 7.2 degrees between vertical and his own solar angle of incidence on that day. so something different was going on between where he was and where that other well was.
people dont say this, but then he made three assumptions. first, that light rays travel in straight lines. second, that they are parallel. third, the earth is round. the first is pretty obvious by inspection from nature. the second not so obvious, and the third was what he already believed.
anyway, i cant find his actual numbers, but the 7.2 degree angle is all you need. given all this and some careful thinking, he established a circumference of the earth which turns out to have been pretty close. thats whjat everybody talks about, and thats what th eschoolkids do on science day. if the sun is out, anyway. that's also where you hear people say that eratosthenes proved the earth was round.
but theres another way to get that 7.2 degree discrepancy between vertical and your local gnomon. instead of assuming the earth is round and light rays are parallel, just use what your own eyes tell you, that the earth is flat, and make no assumptions about parallel light. look at this sketch:
(https://i.imgur.com/DhZwpILl.jpg?1)
the line on th ebottom is a flat earth, showing the distance between cynene and alexandria at 5000 stadia, or 788,500 metres. th esun is vertically overhead at cyene, and is NOT overhead to the tune of 7.2 degrees at alexandria. the 7.2 degrees is the difference between a vertical light ray at cyene, and the non-vertical light ray that casts a shadow over in alexandria. i havent drawn a pole or a well over in alexandria, but you can see from the angle of the incident light that anything vertical would have a shadow whose length was fixed by the 7.2 degree angle of the suns rays.
so, just do the trigonometry. tan equals opposite over adjacent, and the tangent of a 7.2 degree angle is 0.12633
therefore
0.12633 = 788,500 / x
where x is the adjacent side, or the altitude of the sun. solve for x, and you get 6,241,589 metres, or 6241 km, roughly, or about 3878 miles, the height of the sun above the surface of a flat earth.
not the same as what i calculated out way back when, but i cant remember what i was using for stadia, and im not a mathmatician anyway.
so here is a customary model of the flat earth:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amtvmedia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2F%255EBF390DE4615B7BCA9EBFA7320C117A1183019BDAABBBCCF6BE%255Epimgpsh_fullsize_distr.jpg&hash=d95b156f8329bffecedee1b8cbf08edf3ea520ef)
theres lots wrong with this model, but it shows the general idea. if the sun rotates around the north pole at a constant altitude of 3878 miles, then all of eratosthenes calculations are accounted for, without a round earth. mostly the flat earth models hold the sun to be only a few hundred miles up, but this set of numbers shows it higher. stll no need for a reound earth to explain it, tho.
one more thing. if you hold ockhams razor to be of any use, then its worth pointing out that the round earth model requires three assumptions: light travels in straight lines, the rays are parallel, and the earth is round. the flat earth model explains the data the same way with only a single assumption, that light rays travel in straight lines.
so if we were to choose the explanation of eratosthene's calculations on the basis of the most parsimonious model, we would reject his round earth and choose a flat earth instead. all other things being equal.
lol
i swear i just found this
https://www.themathdoctors.org/proving-the-earth-is-round-or-not/
^^^this guy used the same method i did and got 3958 miles. probably a different stadion.
What about some common sayings that are held to be "wise" (sensible?)?
"Early to bed, early to rise, makes on healthy, wealthy and wise." I doubt it. There is no necessary causal connection between this particular sleep pattern and health, wealth and wisdom. There are probably many people who go to bed and get up early, and are poor, for example, and many who are rich who sleep a bit later and go to bed a bit later.
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Really? So, take it now rather than allowing an opportunity to develop? Sounds like instant gratification to me. What about two brothers who receive stock by inheritance, and one of them sells it now to get the cash (bird in the hand) while the other waits and his investment grows exponentially.
I'm sure there are others, if you think they qualify as common sense.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock,
Ye what?
Hey Dave!
Common sense isn't that common. But I agree that there are plenty of things we assume (ass-u-me) are true but are not true down where the rubber meets the road. I've collected a few sayings that sometimes are and sometimes are not true. I call them Opposites Attract. Maybe you can find something worthwhile in a few.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When you change the way that you look at things, the things you look at change.
Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths
If life is a waste of time, and time is a waste of life, let's get wasted and have the time of our lives.
Intellectuals say simple things in complicated ways. Artists say complicated things in simple ways.
I'm not as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was.
I'll believe it when I see it. You'll see it when you believe it.
It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
Happiness isn't having the best of everything but making the best of everything you have.
If you fail to plan you plan to fail.
I said, "Better late than never." She said, "Better never than late!"
When the student is ready, a teacher will come. When the teacher is ready a student will come.
If you are too big for little things, you will be too little for big things.
When you don't feel like going to work, go to work and perhaps you'll feel like it.
you dont have to fight to be a man
and
sometimes youhave to fight when youre a man
are absolutely not logically congruent. not sure whatkenny rogers point was
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2022, 12:09:57 PM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock,
Ye what?
Hey Dave!
Dave's not home
The better you look, the more you will see.
Quote from: Mr. B on February 22, 2022, 11:52:45 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 22, 2022, 12:09:57 PM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock, wait ... wait ...wait, I'll try again tomorrow
I wonder if Dave is home, knock knock,
Ye what?
Hey Dave!
Dave's not home
In my universe where time is linear, it is impossible to do the same thing twice.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" isn't the definition of pretentious inanity but it is a good example.
Deep. I see your point. Now
SEE MINE!
hack appears to have gotten on the bus with fightsong.
Quote from: billy rubin on February 26, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
hack appears to have gotten on the bus with fightsong.
He floats in and out.
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2022, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 26, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
hack appears to have gotten on the bus with fightsong.
He floats in and out.
I highly doubt they take the same bus. ;)
Quote from: Magdalena on February 26, 2022, 07:20:47 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 26, 2022, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 26, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
hack appears to have gotten on the bus with fightsong.
He floats in and out.
I highly doubt they take the same bus. ;)
They'd probably be as nice as pie if they did. :)