Test your educational level.

[PsychoSarah]

Now read ohms paper and discover ohms law.

" for a range of materials and operating points....."

And Read the distinction I asked you to make between the universe, axiomatic model, and experimental laws ohms law) that identify limits of correspondence.

I refuse, on the grounds that it would just waste my time and make you act all the snootier.

IQ certainly does correlate with the ability to see the distinctions I made.

As I am sure that you know the IQ of everyone you try to talk about it with (sarcasm).

I can list dozens of materials that defy your definition of ohms law. An assumption repeated so often it gained the status of fact, whilst wrong. You are proving the problem, that journeymen taught science don't go far enough to see the problem, which is why I suggested the test. They use the equation in a rote way without ever questioning its true significance.

You managed to claim I was wrong without explaining any of the reasons why. Congratulations on wasting your own time typing that. If you can list those materials, then do it.

I Suggest as a business major, you don't contradict a postgrad professional physicist who specialised in mathematical physics, indeed has held senior positions in both electronic physics and astronomic physics.

Pfft, I was mentioning business majors as an example of people with an advanced education that would have no reason to know what Ohm's law is. I never stated that I was a business major. In fact, I am pretty sure I mentioned that I was a Biomedical Sciences major in this thread, but if I didn't, there it is.

Science is two things - a process and model - and it certainly does have associate philosophy, which should be taught in schools, but is not, so all understand the limitations, which they don't , and is part of why they can't see through Dawkins B/S.

Pfft, I didn't even know who Dawkins was until I joined this site, and theists act as if he is atheist Jesus or something. He's not, fyi.

Science doesn't make errors per se, because all it is is just a model.

-_- the scientific method is imperfect, so yes, running a completely valid experiment can still result in mistakes being made. How could you say otherwise when one of the steps of the scientific method is analysis of the data? There's a good portion of error right there. Even viewing science as the method that it is, an imperfect method results in errors from time to time.

It just makes the model worse or better at prediction or corresponding old data by refining it in different ways.

Not sure why you brought up old data specifically, as if the models never are adjusted to better fit new data.

The critical distinction I am making is that the universe and the model are two completely different things, the distinction I made using ohms law example,

Enough.

Let's move on.

Wow, you managed not to explain your own words the difference between Ohm's law and the equation associated with it correctly such that a layman would actually understand the difference between them. Especially since the universe thing was something you brought up that I didn't even bother with, because it is obvious that the universe and the models by which we try to understand it are two separate things. I highly doubt any of the equations or laws pertaining to physics match up with observations in the universe 100% of the time.

 

[mama2one]

But I guess that is the problem.
People see the definitions.
Dont really connect with them
Then put them down forever.

the 3rd graders learning the steps of the scientific method is only beginning of their introduction to the topic, lol

many more experiments will follow

 

[Mountainmike]

I refuse, on the grounds that it would just waste my time and make you act all the snootier.


As I am sure that you know the IQ of everyone you try to talk about it with (sarcasm).


You managed to claim I was wrong without explaining any of the reasons why. Congratulations on wasting your own time typing that. If you can list those materials, then do it.


Pfft, I was mentioning business majors as an example of people with an advanced education that would have no reason to know what Ohm's law is. I never stated that I was a business major. In fact, I am pretty sure I mentioned that I was a Biomedical Sciences major in this thread, but if I didn't, there it is.


Pfft, I didn't even know who Dawkins was until I joined this site, and theists act as if he is atheist Jesus or something. He's not, fyi.


-_- the scientific method is imperfect, so yes, running a completely valid experiment can still result in mistakes being made. How could you say otherwise when one of the steps of the scientific method is analysis of the data? There's a good portion of error right there. Even viewing science as the method that it is, an imperfect method results in errors from time to time.


Not sure why you brought up old data specifically, as if the models never are adjusted to better fit new data.


Wow, you managed not to explain your own words the difference between Ohm's law and the equation associated with it correctly such that a layman would actually understand the difference between them. Especially since the universe thing was something you brought up that I didn't even bother with, because it is obvious that the universe and the models by which we try to understand it are two separate things. I highly doubt any of the equations or laws pertaining to physics match up with observations in the universe 100% of the time.

The distinction between the universe and the model is vital.

In the "shrinking God of the gaps" falasy, the presumption is that as science explains more and more, there is less and less room for God. But that is based on the false presumption that science is explaining what the universe is and why it is, rather than an observation model of what it does. Once you get the distinction - you realise God is not eroded one iota by science. Indeed the deeper you go, the more you get to marvel at the complexity , beauty and patterns of nature.

There are many other philosophical issues that have to be explained to atheists. The fact for example that our entire perception of the universe is a projection.
Think for example of a red circle in a 2D TV picture. What can we really say about the object? It could be a spiral or cylinder viewed end on, or a disc.
Our senses (and instruments ) are just such a limited dimension projection. And our axiomatic model, models in those same terms. So the axiomatic model cannot be a fundamental model of other than how the universe interacts with our ability to sense it. And when we say red it is not a description of what the surface is , it is the way one aspect of the surface interacts with our senses.The science of high dimensional "superstrings" designed to go beyond the normal perceived dimensions. hits the buffers precisely because we cannot model what we cannot observe.

Anyway...for those "Dawkins" atheists whose philosophy is scientific realism - they would be amazed at how fickle and limited the thing is they have put their faith in. If only they knew the truth of it. The cracks dont show till you go postgrad.
The latest models of quantum science literally believe that nothing is there until you observe it, and to get round that absurdity they contend that all possible futures and pasts coexist, so when you observe you are not in essence "bringing the object into existence" but selecting one of an infinite (and growing) number of multiverses in which all exists in infinite variations, so you just select one when you observe. All utter nonsense until you realise it is just a game, played on computers , on paper and in peoples minds, that happens to fit what the universe normally does reasonably well for some practical purposes, but throws up paradoxes and anomalies that are part of the model, and the way we define it, not the universe.

Anyway, I will move on.
The ohms law example is one of many that can be used to question what is the true nature of science, for those who think it is somehow built into the fabric of the universe, they should think again...... and it is only in higher up education you start to see the cracks in science.

 

[jayem]

Variously called "Post Hole Digger", or, "Piled High and Deep".

I like the extended version:

B.S. (we know what that stands for); M.S. (More of Same); Ph.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper.)

 

[jayem]

A better measure of your educational level is your education & your career.

Maybe. I have a medical degree. Which in the US is equivalent to a PhD. But it's basically a glorified trade school diploma. (Residency is essentially apprenticeship.) And I know a number of medical people who aren't that educationally well-rounded.

 

[Go Braves]

Maybe. I have a medical degree. Which in the US is equivalent to a PhD. But it's basically a glorified trade school diploma. (Residency is essentially apprenticeship.) And I know a number of medical people who aren't that educationally well-rounded.

Well, I think that depends on how you're defining educationally well-rounded. I'd quantify someone who has graduated from college, graduated from medical school, & is a board certified MD as being educated. Folks who've gone that route have taken classes beyond those just in medicine, but of course their focus in their professional trade. That doesn't mean I assume they could get every answer correct on a trivial quiz like the one posted here. I don't see possessing that knowledge as lacking in any benefit but I think workable knowledge like what you use in a trade is more advantageous in life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The distinction between the universe and the model is vital.

And no one with half a brain would view the model of the universe and the actual universe to be the same thing, who are you kidding?

In the "shrinking God of the gaps" falasy, the presumption is that as science explains more and more, there is less and less room for God.

God of the gaps fallacy refers to when people suggest that deities exist in what is unknown. It is a fallacy because what is unknown to atheists is also unknown to theists, so they can't possibly know that the deity they believe in is responsible for various processes not yet understood. Some people mention that the gaps are shrinking to point out one of the flaws in committing to that fallacy, which is that it banks on processes being unknown.

But that is based on the false presumption that science is explaining what the universe is and why it is, rather than an observation model of what it does.

Asking "why" it is beyond the processes that contribute to universe formation (which is more of a "how") is silly, because you'd be presuming a purpose, which in turn presumes design. Science doesn't presume design.

Once you get the distinction - you realise God is not eroded one iota by science. Indeed the deeper you go, the more you get to marvel at the complexity , beauty and patterns of nature.

And we still observe no evidence of deities. Complexity is not nor has it ever been an indication of design, for just as much as a computer is designed by humans, so too is the simple arrowhead. Design is determined via distinctions between design and natural formation, which is why if a person believes that everything is designed, they are passively stating that from their perspective, it is impossible to tell if something is designed or not, because they don't think "not designed" applies to anything. It's like trying to distinguish light from dark without there being light.

There are many other philosophical issues that have to be explained to atheists. The fact for example that our entire perception of the universe is a projection.
Think for example of a red circle in a 2D TV picture. What can we really say about the object? It could be a spiral or cylinder viewed end on, or a disc.

Try pulling the same illusion with an actual object people are allowed to hold in their hands. You can only do that on a TV screen because the item in question is purely an image so you can easily control the perspective of the object. It's one of the reasons why magic tricks are never as impressive on TV as they are in person, because we know camera tricks can aid in the illusion.

Our senses (and instruments ) are just such a limited dimension projection. And our axiomatic model, models in those same terms. So the axiomatic model cannot be a fundamental model of other than how the universe interacts with our ability to sense it. And when we say red it is not a description of what the surface is , it is the way one aspect of the surface interacts with our senses.The science of high dimensional "superstrings" designed to go beyond the normal perceived dimensions. hits the buffers precisely because we cannot model what we cannot observe.

-_- the vast majority of atheists do not claim that it is impossible for deities to exist, only that the evidence for them is insufficient for us to believe in them. No more and no less. All you are saying amounts to "you can't prove this negative". No duh.

Anyway...for those "Dawkins" atheists whose philosophy is scientific realism

-_- which I am not. Heck, I don't know a single atheist on here that refers to Dawkins regularly without prompting by creationists bringing him up as if he is atheist Jesus.

- they would be amazed at how fickle and limited the thing is they have put their faith in. If only they knew the truth of it. The cracks dont show till you go postgrad.

I'm an atheist because I don't have any faith. A real PhD in a scientific discipline would encounter so many atheists just by virtue of how education has a positive correlation with atheism as to not make the mistake you are making. And what person with a PhD would ever think that people actually confuse models for the real deal, especially the scientifically minded? I learned the purpose of models at the age of 12, but apparently, you think the masses can't tell the difference between the model of a human heart and the real deal. No one looking into physics specifically to hope to mistake any of the models in it for an absolute representation of reality because of the speculative nature of the field resulting in so many competing theories.

The latest models of quantum science literally believe that nothing is there until you observe it,

I would like a citation for your suggestion that physicists are treating the universe similarly to Schrodinger's cat. I said similarly, not identically, don't get your panties in a twist derailing on that.

Anyway, I will move on.
The ohms law example is one of many that can be used to question what is the true nature of science, for those who think it is somehow built into the fabric of the universe, they should think again...... and it is only in higher up education you start to see the cracks in science.

Wow, you can try to keep dodging my request if you want, but I'm not going to stand for it. Explain the difference between Ohm's law and the equation associated with it correctly, in a way laymen could understand.

I honestly do not think that you are a PhD in anything, let alone physics. You don't talk like a person that actually knows what they are talking about, you talk like a person trying to appear smarter. Yet, the most annoying thing has to be that you don't even section out your responses by the section of my post they are responding to, despite it being so easy and a standard part of the etiquette of this site when responding to long posts. Not an ad hominem, I am just bad at giving subtle hints.