Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • THIS – THIS IS HOW

    http://worldif.economist.com/article/13526/electromagnetic-shockREAD THIS – THIS IS HOW

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 00:38:00 UTC

  • Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system

    Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-12 11:24:00 UTC

  • Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system

    Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems.

  • Benvenuto sulla Pagina FB di Ludum, Museo della Scienza a Misterbianco (CT). Sco

    Benvenuto sulla Pagina FB di Ludum, Museo della Scienza a Misterbianco (CT). Scopri il nostro museo con più di 100 esperienze interattive e altre sorprese

  • Benvenuto sulla Pagina FB di Ludum, Museo della Scienza a Misterbianco (CT). Sco

    Benvenuto sulla Pagina FB di Ludum, Museo della Scienza a Misterbianco (CT). Scopri il nostro museo con più di 100 esperienze interattive e altre sorprese

  • Solar Cycles > Climate Changes + Athro-Climate Change =/= Hurricanes. That’s *ps

    Solar Cycles > Climate Changes + Athro-Climate Change =/= Hurricanes. That’s *pseudoscience*. Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:32:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907190176769769472

    Reply addressees: @caraelysse

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907040164865871872

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907040164865871872

  • BTW: TEACHING MOMENT Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of

    BTW: TEACHING MOMENT

    Logic versus Science.

    There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency:

    1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle.

    Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false.

    So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown.

    We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics,

    We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals.

    But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals.

    So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-08 10:55:00 UTC

  • Btw: Teaching Moment

    Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.

  • Btw: Teaching Moment

    Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.

  • The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukrai

    The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukraine reveal a 20 % reduction in smokers over the past 7 years. Following WHO recommendations, Ukraine has strengthened its anti-tobacco legislation resulting in this reduction in the proportion of the population smoking.