RT @WalterIII: The difference between science and pseudoscience is that science can be tested–you can drop an object in an evacuated tube…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-09 15:33:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733510193483239797
RT @WalterIII: The difference between science and pseudoscience is that science can be tested–you can drop an object in an evacuated tube…
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-09 15:33:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733510193483239797
RT @AprilPawluk: happy CRISPR FDA Approval Day to those who celebrate
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-08 17:59:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733184628603625761
RT @LukeWeinhagen: Choice represents the demarcation between science and philosophy.
Map vs Directions
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 17:16:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732448894783545840
A Discussion with GPT4+ On Science vs Philosophy
CURTD
What is the difference between science and philosophy, and scientist and philosopher. My understanding is that the difference is science=true, and philosophy=good.
ChatGPT
The distinction between science and philosophy and between a scientist and a philosopher is more nuanced than a simple binary of “true” versus “good.” Here’s a more detailed comparison:
Science vs. Philosophy:
Science: Focuses on empirical methods to understand the natural world. It relies on experimentation, observation, and testing hypotheses. Science seeks to establish truths about the physical universe and its phenomena.
Philosophy: Concerns itself with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. While it can inform scientific inquiry, philosophy is more abstract and includes normative and conceptual analysis.
Scientist vs. Philosopher:
Scientist: A professional engaged in the systematic activity of acquiring knowledge through experimentation and methodology. Scientists often specialize in specific fields and focus on empirical evidence.
Philosopher: Someone who practices philosophy, which includes a broader scope of inquiry, often involving critical thinking and argumentation about abstract concepts such as ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology.
The distinction isn’t as simple as science being about “truth” and philosophy about “good.” While science aims to uncover factual truths about the natural world, philosophy explores broader existential and ethical questions, some of which may not be empirically testable. Both disciplines, however, contribute significantly to our understanding of the world and our place in it.
CURTD
Hmm… I think the results you have provided are normative but that they are not necessarily true – since as far as I know we have demarcated philosophy and science into the good and the true.
That said, in my work I have found that the science (research) produces a set of logics (first principles) which then inform applied science (philosophy), consisting of sets of choices that are not false and no irreciprocal – in other words, both true and good.
I am fairly certain I am correct in this analysis because science does result in (converge on) first principles, and first principles in a coherent logic of what is and what is possible. But the decision of what to do with those principles is one of choice of ‘goods’: philosophy.
ChatGPT
Your perspective on the demarcation between science and philosophy aligns with a more functional and integrative view.
In this framework:
Science: Produces a set of first principles or fundamental truths about what is and what is possible. This encompasses empirical research and the establishment of foundational concepts.
Philosophy: Applies these first principles in making choices about ‘goods’ or ethical, moral, and practical decisions. It interprets and utilizes scientific findings to inform decisions that are not just true (in a factual sense) but also good (in a normative or ethical sense).
In this model, science provides the foundational knowledge, while philosophy bridges the gap between this knowledge and its application in making value-based choices.
This perspective acknowledges the interdependence of empirical truths and ethical considerations, suggesting a more holistic understanding of knowledge and decision-making.
CURTD
😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 15:02:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732415284185534464
The difference is that my work consists of the science of why such a thing happens and why it will always happen. It’s one thing to make an observation of correlation as many have done in history and another a description of causation.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-21 16:29:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727001185079742940
Reply addressees: @agathon_helo @WalterIII
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726995004261020007
Well, Haeckel was wrong a lot because he made unsupported leaps. He was a Lamarckian, he denied the common human origin, thought humans evolved in india, and he was quite silly in many ways trying to unify religion in science and art – to be consistent with religion instead of religion to be consistent with science and art. So I would have to understand how you mean thet term. Because I cant tell if you are confusing selection with drift or not?
The sequence is generally:
Regulation (expression)
Mutation (content)
Result (Neutral,Beneficial/Harmful, usually Neotenic/Not.)
Selection (Natural selection by survival and reproduction)
Drift (spread in a small population)
Drift Explained
Evolutionary drift, often referred to as genetic drift, is a mechanism of evolution that refers to random fluctuations in the frequencies of alleles (variants of a gene) within a population. Unlike natural selection, which is a non-random process where alleles become more or less common due to their effect on the reproductive success of their bearers, genetic drift is random and can increase or decrease allele frequency even if they have no impact on the survival or reproduction of individuals.
Here are key points about genetic drift:
Small Populations: Genetic drift is most pronounced in small populations, where chance events can lead to large changes in allele frequencies from one generation to the next.
Bottleneck Effect: This is a form of genetic drift where a population’s size is significantly reduced for at least one generation, often due to a catastrophic event, causing a loss of genetic variation. The resulting gene pool may not be reflective of the original population’s gene pool.
Founder Effect: Another form of genetic drift occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. The small population size means that the new population may have significantly different allele frequencies than the original population, often leading to reduced genetic diversity.
Random Change: In genetic drift, allele frequencies can change in a population due to random sampling errors. This means that some alleles may become fixed (reach a frequency of 1) while others may be lost entirely from the gene pool, regardless of their effects on the phenotype or fitness.
Non-adaptive Evolution: Genetic drift is a non-adaptive process. Unlike natural selection, which “selects” for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, genetic drift can change allele frequencies in a population even if the changes are neutral or slightly deleterious.
Loss of Genetic Variation: Over time, genetic drift can lead to the loss of genetic variation within populations, which can make them more susceptible to extinction due to reduced adaptive potential.
Evolutionary Significance: While genetic drift is a random process, it plays a significant role in evolution alongside natural selection, particularly in small populations and over long periods of time.
It is important to note that while genetic drift can lead to evolutionary change, it does not work towards optimization or improvement of a species in any directed manner. It is a stochastic effect that contributes to the evolution of populations in a way that is not inherently beneficial or harmful.
Reply addressees: @ObsidianLining
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 19:04:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721242076631760896
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721236765346771079
HOW TO CUT GRANITE AT SCALE
Quite easily. I’m trained in sculpture so these things are easily understood. They just take a lot of human time and effort. Even cutting the top of that stone is easy with oil, water, copper or copper-alloy wire or even chain (more easily repaird), ground aggregates, tar, a wheel, a bunch of men to manage each little bit of the process, and time. We do the same thing today in a tiny fraction of time with more advanced metals and machine power, but it’s still the same process.
4500 years later we’re doing the exact same thing:
https://t.co/RuXxhbxK3v
It’s just faster and takes fewer men to do the work (even if the same or more men if we include the manufacture of the cutting materials).
Reply addressees: @plushpete
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 20:46:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720542907239661568
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720537191464493358
–“It’s crazy to think the Egyptians carved on granite thousands of years ago”–
Not when you understand what harder rocks, heat, sand, and acid do to rock. 😉
If you learn to sculpt it will include a pointed chisel and a rake chisel. a very hard rock on a slightly softer rock (granite) will produce small predictable indentations just like a pointed steel chisel. A steel, iron, bronze, copper alloy, copper, or rock chisel differ only in the size and rate of removal. On the other hand it’s actually easier and takes less skill to just have a rock hammer with a rounded and not overly large end, on the end of a handle to just rapidly tap divots into the stone. And because you’re taking off consistent bits of stone (pulverizing it really), from a consistent material, it’s relatively eays and NOT difficult. it’s just time consuming and the ancient egyptians had food and population and time. 😉
If you want to pull stone from a quarry, you just build little fires and then hit it with a rock and you pull out regular but larger segments of stone.
If you want to drill a hole in stone you create a bronze or copper sheet, fold it into a round tube, pour in sand (or a tiny aggregate of a harder stone) and water, (or oil) and then use a rope back and fort to drill. It takes three or five men but it’s not complicated, and it’s a lot faster than you’d think.
If you want to finish stone you can use both sand ‘sand leather or sand cloth’. And if you happen to have access to a mine where acids form, you can use that too (south american in particular).
We forget sometimes these people were just coming out of the stone age and their undestanding of rock was culturally deep.
Just as contemporary art is largely sh*t because we can’t afford to put time into it – ancient art is great because EMPIRES could afford to put human time and effort into it.
It really is that simple.
ps: What’s older? The pyramids or stonehenge? Stonehenge is older than the pyramids. Stonehenge was erected around 3100 BC, while the first pyramid was built around 2600 BC. Though what we see today was erected about contemporaneously with the pyramids. And gobekli tepe is much older at around 10,000BC
Cheers
Curt Doolittle The Natural Law Institute The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 16:32:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720479050643177472
WHY IS MARBLE PREFERRED FOR SCULPTING – AT LEAST THE HUMAN FORM?
Marble has been the preferred material for stone monumental sculpture since ancient times, with several advantages over its more common geological “parent” limestone. Here are some reasons why marble is preferred by sculptors:
Translucency: Among the commonly available stones, only marble has a slight translucency i.e. subsurface scattering that is comparable to that of human skin.
Texture and Sheen: The sheen and texture of marble are unmatched by other stones, making it an ideal choice for creating sculptures.
Grain Fineness: The fineness of marble’s grain enables the sculptor to render minute detail in a manner not always possible with limestone1.
Workability: Some types of marble also have the advantage that, when first quarried, it is relatively soft and easy to work, refine, and polish. As the finished marble ages, it becomes harder and more durable.
Hardness and Compressive Strength: Marble has a high level of hardness and compressive strength, making it ideal for sculpting.
Durability: Marble is resistant to weathering and decay, making it an ideal material for outdoor sculptures that must withstand the elements.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIMESTONE AND MARBLE
The minerals in limestone are cemented together by natural processes, while marble is a result of metamorphism which recrystallizes the calcite and dolomite.
Formation: Limestone is a sedimentary rock, typically composed of calcium carbonate fossils (shells and skeletons). When sedimentary limestone is compressed through rock-forming processes under extreme heat, marble is formed by the recrystallised grains.
Metamorphism: Marble is a metamorphic rock formed by the alteration of limestone by heat and pressure. The calcite in the limestone changes and fossils and layering in the original limestone disappear as interlocking grains grow. If the limestone is pure, a white marble is formed.
Recrystallization: The recrystallization process results in smaller grains and increases the overall strength of the marble.
Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5 @FlashGorgone
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-03 16:03:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720471783910895616
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720464328833269970
It means there is no evidence at any scale on non determinism, and no evidence that we can’t explain everything if we can’t make an observation. As such I can testify that we would need some evidence of indeterminism to fail to explain everything.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 20:33:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719814836324806890
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719812483886785012