a common atheist fallacy

[cuchulain]

how did scientists determine the factual speed of light?  what subjective evidence led to a concrete and factual, non subjective number?  

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

what subjective evidence led to a concrete and factual, non subjective number?  

The number is not concrete, it is an abstraction. It is also not non-subjective. It also may not be very accurate. Personally, I'm not able to check it for myself. You? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

You misunderstood because you misinterpreted the evidence. While you might not misinterpret different evidence, or the same evidence presented differently, that isn't really something I can know. So how would I go about being "more careful?"

 

 

You have a lengthy history of asking "what if" questions about God.  You have been confusing me for years.  I finally understand  -- I do mean finally -- that you were not speaking of your own perspective.  You are a master of language.  Please be more careful.  All this time, I thought what you were doing was pushing intellectual purity as an agnostic.  Now, I find that I have been misunderstanding you.  

 

In future, I will try to ask better questions.  My own expectations probably contributed to the miscommunications.  

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

38 minutes ago, mererdog said:

The number is not concrete, it is an abstraction. It is also not non-subjective. It also may not be very accurate. Personally, I'm not able to check it for myself. You? 

you remember a time back when, in a different topic, i asked about hypocrisy?  you responded by saying you were consistent.  this topic in conjunction with others proves(subjectively) that you aren't.  in one, you argue that definiitions are subjective.  in another, you cite a definition as evidence as if it weren't subjective.  now you refuse to accept the different definitions of subjective and objective...and still, i assume, claim no hypocrisy?  amazing.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

Fun stuff: Riding through Kansas for the first time, today, I keep seeing billboards that feature a picture of an infant and the words "There is evidence for God." Coincidence, kismet, dharma?

 

 

Perhaps, "synchronicity".  These billboards were put up by the same mindset.  The mindset that looks at a star filled  night -- and says -- "Look!  Proof of God!!".  

 

Star filled skies fill me with awe also.  It is the natural.  Not the supernatural.  People do not understand the meaning of evidence.

[mererdog]

"All art is unstable. Its meaning is not necessarily that implied by the author, There is no authoritative active voice. There are only multiple readings."

- David Bowie

Edited June 2, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

20 hours ago, cuchulain said:

 proves(subjectively) 

You have an opinion about something you saw? It happens.

[Seeker]

On 6/1/2018 at 9:14 PM, cuchulain said:

how did scientists determine the factual speed of light?  what subjective evidence led to a concrete and factual, non subjective number?  

 

There is some good info in the measurement section of the Wikipedia speed of light article.

 

The metre is now defined relative to the speed of light, so the speed of light in m/s is now 100% accurate by definition. The value of the second has a separate source, so it is still meaningful to ask how accurate the measurements are. Prior to adopting the current definitions, the accuracy was around 0.02 parts per billion.

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, Seeker said:

The metre is now defined relative to the speed of light, so the speed of light in m/s is now 100% accurate by definition. 

 From the wiki link you provided- "Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c." 

Lets say I define a meter as the distance from my head to my feet. I measure the distance from my head to my feet and come up with 3 inches. So a meter is now defined by me as 3 inches. Does this mean my measurement is accurate, by definition? No.

Lets say I define a dog as a horse. A horse is still a horse and a dog.is still a dog. The only thing that changes is how well I can communicate about dogs and horses with others.

so, pretend we discover that light actually travels twice as fast as currently measured. So, by definition, a meter is two meter sticks long. This means only half a liter fits in a one liter jug. It means, in other words, that not everyone is using the same basis of comparison in their measurements, creating a situation with competing definitions and a lack of mutual understanding.

Edited June 3, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/22-burden-of-proof

[mererdog]

Riding through Georgia today, a billboard says-

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

JESUS IS ALIVE

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Riding through Georgia today, a billboard says-

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

JESUS IS ALIVE

 

 

There is nothing new about fraudulent advertising, for misleading or defective products -- with unproven claims.  

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

34 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is nothing new about fraudulent advertising, for misleading or defective products -- with unproven claims.  

I dont think it is fair to call it fraudulent. Most people who advertise Reiki honestly believe it works.

Edited June 3, 2018 by mererdog

[Seeker]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

 From the wiki link you provided- "Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c." 

Lets say I define a meter as the distance from my head to my feet. I measure the distance from my head to my feet and come up with 3 inches. So a meter is now defined by me as 3 inches. Does this mean my measurement is accurate, by definition? No.

Lets say I define a dog as a horse. A horse is still a horse and a dog.is still a dog. The only thing that changes is how well I can communicate about dogs and horses with others.

so, pretend we discover that light actually travels twice as fast as currently measured. So, by definition, a meter is two meter sticks long. This means only half a liter fits in a one liter jug. It means, in other words, that not everyone is using the same basis of comparison in their measurements, creating a situation with competing definitions and a lack of mutual understanding.

But that presupposes that "dog" and "horse" have fixed referents. If everyone called the riding animal a dog and the domestic pet a horse there would be no communication difficulty.

 

Units of measurement need a defined reference or they are meaningless. The metre was originally defined as 1/10,000 of the distance between the Equator and the North Pole measuring along the meridian which passed through Paris. That's a little difficult to use when you are measuring cloth, so a measuring stick was created which was as close as they could make it to the desired length, and then copies were made (to varying degrees of accuracy) and distributed, and copied, and distributed, and used for practical measurements.  It doesn't matter whether you call it a metre or a sticklength or a horse, the important thing is the underlying unit.

 

In the case of the speed of light, we have a physical constant (c), measured in units of distance over time. Representatives of the scientific community got together (hence bypassing your linguistic quibble) and decided that rather than defining c in terms of the metre and the second, they would instead define the the metre in terms of c and the second. The relationship between the 3 remains the same in the real world, but it means that the length of the metre is now fixed unless either c or the definition of the second changes. If the real-world value of c were discovered to have changed, then the length of the si metre would by definition change. It's like inflation. If the value of the dollar falls, the value of the cent falls with it. Unlike inflation, though, we're pretty sure that c is a constant.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

I dont think it is fair to call it fraudulent. Most people who advertise Reiki honestly believe it works.

 

   What are you doing?

 

[cuchulain]

just keep on playing those mind games, forever...

 

john lennon

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

just keep on playing those mind games, forever...

 

john lennon

 

meredog  knows from previous discussions that I have a background in Reiki.  From the manner in which meredog intrudes Reiki into this thread, it was clearly a shot at me.  The question is why.  Now, I'm waiting to see if he had a reason beyond annoying me.  I have grown accustomed to his pushing intellectual purity beyond all reason.  This is personally insulting aimed at me.

 

    

 

 

[mererdog]

18 hours ago, Seeker said:

But that presupposes that "dog" and "horse" have fixed referents. If everyone called the riding animal a dog and the domestic pet a horse there would be no communication difficulty.

 

Ok. I have a meter stick. I can point to it and say "That is a meter." When you use meters in your measurements, that is ,essentially, my basis for comparison. This is how I, and the majority of the world, define a meter. Change the length of a meter and you have to change everyone's speedometerss, you know?

The relationship to c is used as the basis for the meter because it is assumed to be a constant that has been accurately measured (within reasonable tolerances). These assumptions let the math line up so that the common definition and the scientific definition match up. As such, our definitions can only match by the degree to which those assumptions are accurate. If it turns out that the assumptions are exceedingly wrong, my definition will be the one that survives.

In other words, the measurement is only accurate by definition if we use a definition that assumes the measurement is accurate. And most people don't.

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

   What are you doing?

 

You implied people were liars simply because they said something that you do not believe is true. I was trying to point to the existence of honest disagreement. I attempted to do it in a lighthearted manner, by reminding you of a subject that we have had an honest disagreement over.

When we look at the same evidence, we become convinced of different things. This is part of the human condition. Some of us believe things that aren't true and some of us won't believe things that are true. And we all have a level of confidence in our beliefs despite the conclusove proof that we are all capable of being wrong without knowing it. Once again, this is a part of the human condition. Not "Them" but "Us".

Edited June 4, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Ok. I have a meter stick. I can point to it and say "That is a meter." When you use meters in your measurements, that is ,essentially, my basis for comparison. This is how I, and the majority of the world, define a meter. Change the length of a meter and you have to change everyone's speedometerss, you know?

The relationship to c is used as the basis for the meter because it is assumed to be a constant that has been accurately measured (within reasonable tolerances). These assumptions let the math line up so that the common definition and the scientific definition match up. As such, our definitions can only match by the degree to which those assumptions are accurate. If it turns out that the assumptions are exceedingly wrong, my definition will be the one that survives.

In other words, the measurement is only accurate by definition if we use a definition that assumes the measurement is accurate. And most people don't.

You implied people were liars simply because they said something that you do not believe is true. I was trying to point to the existence of honest disagreement. I attempted to do it in a lighthearted manner, by reminding you of a subject that we have had an honest disagreement over.

When we look at the same evidence, we become convinced of different things. This is part of the human condition. Some of us believe things that aren't true and some of us won't believe things that are true. And we all have a level of confidence in our beliefs despite the conclusove proof that we are all capable of being wrong without knowing it. Once again, this is a part of the human condition. Not "Them" but "Us".

 

Lighthearted?    

 

   

 

 

This is what you do with personal information?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Geordon]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

I attempted to do it in a lighthearted manner, by reminding you of a subject that we have had an honest disagreement over.

 

Lighthearted my ass.  That was a personal attack an you know it.