Tarrot cards/tea leaves/fortune read

[back2basics]

Jamie I just gave two examples how we know they are objective (another good example of the success of this objectivity would be evolution, but don’t even get me started on that). However they are the basic concepts, the methodologies are a little more complex and relate to the issue you are trying to prove or disprove. The part you need to concern yourself with is the part about the assumption that certain concepts we must put our trust in. Assumption I hear you say! That’s where this falls down, well it doesn’t those assumptions are the deep philosophical part I tried to explain, that would take a very long time to explain in full, but the basics are in my posts. But if we don’t put our trust in them, that we are alive and that the things we see are real (even if the way we VIEW them is not) then we have real problems. Google search Nihilism. Your trying to use Schoolyard Philosophy, you know sod it, I will have a philosophical discussion with you if you want. Develop your argument further, you have already said the same thing twice, and I will respond.

 

Look it’s simple we do not rely on just observation or measurement which are subjective. We rely on cross checking, rules, VERIFICATION and methodologies like double blind testing. The methodology is different for every test, but objectivity is always assured. It is a basic principal of science and has been that way for many hundreds of years, ever since philosophers first raised the same question. It’s one of the first things you are taught, it is in the very definition of science. Your information is many hundreds of years old.

 

Really the bees flying is crazy! Why do people keep bringing this back up! We have a very good understanding how bees fly, there are things we do not know or understand about the process (like how a bee’s muscles generate so much force). But just because we haven’t unravelled all the mysteries or intricacies DOES NOT MAKE IT MAGIC. Saying aerodynamicists don’t understand again is missing some very major points (but is also incorrect). First they do understand the aerodynamic principals, they have put bees in wind tunnels and studied the complex vortexes, these contribute to the upward lift more than, let’s say the birds wing actions. But that’s just part of the issue, the other is that their muscles are much more powerful than a humans would be, or for that matter most other animals. On top of that the action of the wing that causes the vortexes (using a vestigial pair of wings), that give it lift are new. By understanding the effect of the tiny movements will allow science to make better flying machines. Put in another way conventional aerodymic analysis methods simply don't apply to insect wings. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY SCIENCE.

 

Honestly people, this is really basic science, did anybody actually take a science in School? This is GCSE stuff (this actually is on the curriculum these days), it really isn’t that hard. Mysteries do not prove science is bad, they are THE REASON for science. Instead some people will have us believe UFOs are abducting us, people can cast spells or magnets will cure you of illnesses. Take your choice, but if you want to live a prosperous life, and not have people laugh at you, then you better start educating yourselves. I suggest everybody who thinks the bee story is true, find themselves an urban myth site and BOOKMARK IT. It the dumbest argument I have ever seen on one of these boards. But it does go to show how the misconceptions spread and how people use bad science to justify their own weird theories.

 

Here –

 

Look down the bottom of the page….

 

http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos.html

 

One typical urban myth explanation of the "Bees Can't Fly" story:"Once upon a time some scientists and engineers or college professors (different versions have different names and specialties) were at a dinner party. The subject of bee flight came up and the aerodynamic engineer that just happened to be present decided to do a quick calculation on bee aerodymics. He used a conventional stiff airfoil-shaped wing, with steady state, or partially steady state, air flow analysis techniques, and lo and behold, the calculations did not work for the bee. Someone jokingly said, "I guess that proves bees can't fly", and they all had a good laugh. But, of course, they all knew it just proved that bee flight is too complicated to analyse with conventional airplane aerodynamic methods." Unfortunately the story spread in its many inaccurate forms and, to borrow from Jonathan Swift, it appealed to peoples' "nut notes". It caught on - bad luck for science, good luck for inspirational speakers and science nay-sayers.

Well, I doubt if that story is true. It may be that something like that really happened, or has happened in various forms more than once.

However, I do not believe that any knowledgeable scientist or aerodynamics engineer ever seriously and straight faced claimed they have proven insects can't fly, or that insects violate the laws of physics. It's just plain silly.

 

“Plain silly”, I have to say I agree.

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by Siân

 

PS - I don't know if I've understood you Moon but I took what you were saying about the bumble bee to be a reference to something I was told once :

 

"according to the current laws / theories of aerodynamics bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.

 

Not having studied the subject I have no idea if this is true - the friend who said it has a PhD in aeronautical engineering. Mind you he added :

 

but there are also lots of theories flying around about how how they do

 

 

Can I just put to bed this myth that according to current laws/theories of aerodynamics bumblebees shouldn;t be able to fly.

 

It is a myth. If you doubt me you might like to take it up with the boffins at Cornell University

"The rumor probably started in the 1930s with students of the noted aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl at Gottingen," she said. "That was a time when we were just beginning to think we understood aerodynamic principles, as applied to fixed-wing aircraft, but scientists recognized their limitations in applying the principles to the birds and insects and other creatures in the natural world.

 

Fifty years ago, the science of aeodynamics may have had trouble working it out simply because of a lack of computational power.

 

But this merely shows the strengths of science, it is a self correcting system whose accuracy tends to improve constantly.

 

Science is a belief system that starts out from the proposition that it is wrong, whereas most others start out from the opposite standpoint, that they are right.

 

Bumblebees fly with assistance from well understood concepts of computational fluid dynamics. The reason it wasn't well understood until recently is that no-one had actually investigated it.

 

Insect flight is a hot topic amongst flight engineers as modern aero companies are now looking to try and build micro ornithopters (planes that flap their wings).

 

I would like to hear the magical or mystical explanation for how bumblebees fly. Presumably it is much more accurate and explanatory than the scientific explanation

 

=edit=

corrections to above.

[Siân]

Bumblebees fly using with assistance from well understood concepts of computation fluid dynamics. The reason it wasn't well understood until recently is that no-one had actually investigated it.

 

I will be sure to berate said friend next time I speak to him for spreading false information to the uneducated

[Jamie]

I never even mentioned bumble bees ...

 

Dear B2B,

 

I have already said the same thing twice? Is there a law? How many times am I allowed to say a thing?

 

KNOWING IS SUBJECTIVE

 

All *knowing* is ignorance ... a fabrication ... and this truth is not something that can be 'grasped' by the intellect (this is where you are having problems sir).

 

I really am not convinced that you have any understanding of what I am trying to convey to you ....

 

I am not saying that science has no place or use ... it's bloody fantastic mate ... if I am hit by a bus ... I don't want hocus pocus accupuncture etc ... I want to be at the hallamshire !!.

 

When your spark of awarness begins to see the truth that KNOWING IS SUBJECTIVE ... I may be interested in discussing things further with you.

 

But quite frankly sir ... as things stand right now ... I would prefer to have a philisophical discussion with a dead hamster.

 

ps. Accupuncture is not hocus pocus.

[Hodge]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

I would like to hear the magical or mystical explanation for how bumblebees fly. Presumably it is much more accurate and explanatory than the scientific explanation

 

They live on a strict diet of shrooms.

[nomme]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

I would like to hear the magical or mystical explanation for how bumblebees fly. Presumably it is much more accurate and explanatory than the scientific explanation

 

Originally posted by Hodge

They live on a strict diet of shrooms.

 

Nonsense - you're thinking of badgers.

 

Everyone knows that the yellow powder you see on bumble bees is anti-gravity powder. This causes the bees to float. They then merely use there wings like paddles in a canoe to steer through the air.

 

Nomme

[Hodge]

Originally posted by nomme

Nonsense - you're thinking of badgers.

 

Everyone knows that the yellow powder you see on bumble bees is anti-gravity powder. This causes the bees to float. They then merely use there wings like paddles in a canoe to steer through the air.

 

Nomme

 

That's the one. An easy mistake to make though - badgers and bees both have stripes, of sorts.

[back2basics]

Jamie i am sorry but your just another alert_bri, your making this up as you go along. You are so wrong and your comments make so little sense it's untrue. I think a dead hamster is your best bet, mean while i will go flog a dead horse.

 

It crazy you seem to be suggesting that people who say they know are ignorant, but some how YOU can grasp this concept. I am calling you out i don't believe you have read a philosophical book in your life, i believe this is YOUR philosophy and if so ("sir") your are the most arrogant and deluded person in this thread.

 

Jamie post a single philosophers work who talks about what you are talking about. I have never heard anything like this, and if your going to say something like 'no philosopher could know' then it does seem you have some sort of superiority complex.

 

I eagerly await your response. Alas i am pretty sure you just make it up as you go along.

[Jamie]

I am not the arrogant and deluded one here ...

 

I would also advice you sir ... there is no need to take things quite so personally ... don't get so excited on my account *smiles*.

[back2basics]

Jamie i am not getting excited or upset. This isn't personal (although if we look back you made the first personal comment, which contradicts the whole rest of your posts, the folly comment). But i seem to be on a roll outing the people who make things up, why stop now? This is perfectly in line with the rest of the thread/debate, debunking fakers.

 

Don't accuse me of being arrogant without telling me where i have gone wrong, where there is a fact that cannot be verified. Because truth does not equal arrogance, it never does, only to the people who feel undermined by truth and that my friend is ignorance. You also said i didn't understand what you were saying, well i also beg to differ. Arrogance is when YOU put forward the theory (that you made up) that intellects who say they know and fooling themselves. You basically said you can understand this, but others cannot.

 

Please post a link to a site that explains your theory in more detail if you didn't make it up. Once again we have somebody using vagueness and using the line 'you just cannot/don't understand' (maybe your explanation is weak, have you considered that?), and then not able/willing to back up their claims.