In this thread, science gets disproven

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Part 1: Gravity
Gravity operates on mass. Mass is a property of matter. Objects with differing masses feel the same effect of gravity.
Using Leibniz law these objects must therefore be the same or gravity must be fictional.


Part 2: Colour
Red and yellow mixed make green. I tried it with paint- it makes brown.

Part 3: Evolution
Intensional fallacy- incorrect use of Leibniz law.
Confusion of "selection of" with "selection for", coexistence of essential traits makes selection for fitness a meaningless concept.

Part 4: Empirical Method
Incompleteness theorum- we cannot establish the rules of the universe, empirical rules we create are only valid in their own self-contained set.

QED.


All theories are wrong. Human history is wrong. I challenge ou with a theorum that cannot be taken apart.

[Amake]

It's blue and yellow. Red and yellow makes orange. I know this works because I went for years to a school where we were only allowed a yellow, two reds and two shades of blue when painting. Likely you got brown instead of orange because of some impurity in the paint or the paper.

But okay. An unassailable theory: Imagination exists. It may in fact be the only thing in the entire universe we know for sure is real.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Yeah IQ is right there dude, see;

http://www.graphic-design.com/Photoshop/color_cast/color_wheel.jpg

Mixing any 2 colours together creates whatever colour is halfway between those colours. brown is closer to orange, so depending on how much red you threw in there, it's gona sway it more that way.

As for gravity, I think that has more to do with how much force gravity applies to the planet as a whole, rather than individual objects. The planet spins through space at what, 1000 mph? And it travels around the sun at around 67,000 mph. That's what causes gravity to make things stick to the surface with a determined amount of force, regardless of the mass of the object.

[Marc v4.0]

Part 2: Colour
Red and yellow mixed make green. I tried it with paint- it makes brown.

I know this is all that has been mentioned so far but, seriously, what the fuck man?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's blue and yellow. Red and yellow makes orange. I know this works because I went for years to a school where we were only allowed a yellow, two reds and two shades of blue when painting. Likely you got brown instead of orange because of some impurity in the paint or the paper.
Are you saying my method is not scientifically valid? Are you saying that colour in paint is a byproduct of electronic adsorption by d band electrons and htus mixing them is not mixing two colours as such but is the mixing of compounds which will alter the available orbitals in ways they are determined by quantum mechanics with no reference to the final colour? Because that would be a stupid thing to say.


But okay. An unassailable theory: Imagination exists. It may in fact be the only thing in the entire universe we know for sure is real.
Define imagination. Just so you know, your theory can be taken apart.



As for gravity, I think that has more to do with how much force gravity applies to the planet as a whole, rather than individual objects. The planet spins through space at what, 1000 mph? And it travels around the sun at around 67,000 mph. That's what causes gravity to make things stick to the surface with a determined amount of force, regardless of the mass of the object.
Are you saying that gravity has some sort of "equivalence principle" the formulation of which would lead us to discover things like some form of strange, undetectable, perhaps "dark" matter and perhaps relies more upon geometrical effects in spacetime than direct grabbing of the object with invisible hands?
Cause that would also be stupid.


Holy fuck guys, way to kill my buzz.

[Mr.Bookworm]

But okay. An unassailable theory: Imagination exists. It may in fact be the only thing in the entire universe we know for sure is real.

Except imagination is just the twisting of known ideas into new forms, influenced by your preconceived ideas. Everything you "imagine" is simply a variation on things you know and your prejudices.

[Amake]

Imagination is the process of mixing immaterial objects and subjects into new forms. The process of making things outside of the natural world, if you will.

As for colors, I didn't say anything about electrons or quantum mechanics, just the way mixing paint works when you're painting. Unless you're color blind. Colors in themselves are of course interesting as an example of the subjective nature of reality, how do we know we both see the color blue the same way and what meanings and associations does it have and so on. You probably have a point if I could understand anything you said there.

[Geminex]

The more Smarty posts, the less I am convinced that he is not constantly drunk. On Vodka. Communist vodka.

Gravity operates on mass. Mass is a property of matter. Objects with differing masses feel the same effect of gravity.
Using Leibniz law these objects must therefore be the same or gravity must be fictional.
And objects with differing masses actually do feel differing gravitational force. Or, rather, they exert force as well as feeling it, but because of the whole equal-and-opposite-reaction thing, they also feel the force they exert. The force that an object with comparatively low mass exerts on a planet is just insignificant compared to the force of the stellar body this object is probably located on, but there's still a difference between the acceleration that, say, a 1-ton orb experiences and the acceleration that a 1-gram orb experiences, all other things being equal.

As for a theorem...
What would you do if I dared you to take apart Marxism? It's arguably a science.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Imagination is the process of mixing immaterial objects and subjects into new forms. The process of making things outside of the natural world, if you will.
Everything you think of is composed of structural forms composed of the dialogue of the world of which you live. It is impossible for you to create a thought not already constructed by society.
Basic structuralism backed up by lots of linguistical theories, try harder next time.

As for colors, I didn't say anything about electrons or quantum mechanics, just the way mixing paint works when you're painting. Unless you're color blind. Colors in themselves are of course interesting as an example of the subjective nature of reality, how do we know we both see the color blue the same way and what meanings and associations does it have and so on. You probably have a point if I could understand anything you said there.
Well we know vaguely how the brain processes colour- it is pretty uniform though there is lots of things we don't understand about it.

But yeah, depending on what kind of paint you are using, the final colour you end up with can rely on all kinds of things- it depends on how the pigment particles interact.

But this thread is going in a terrible direction so:
Part 5: Dinosaurs:
Simply too heavy. They would never get enough food to sustain themselves. Fossil records also rely on circular science.

Part 6: Superconducitvity:
Relies upon 0 resistance, to get to superconductivity there is an asymptotic relationship between temperature and resistance- thus superconductivity doesn't exist.

Updated because suggestions:
Part 7:

What would you do if I dared you to take apart Marxism? It's arguably a science.

You are an evil evil man. To take apart the most glorious theory in all of science will take some time- thus I must wait till I'm at home. Placeholder post.

[Loyal]

The more Smarty posts, the less I am convinced that he is not constantly drunk. On Vodka. Communist vodka.Well, duh.

All vodka is communist. Except here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EoJpNSSWTQ)

[Amake]

Even if you could begin to prove that no original thoughts can be formed, you're missing the point. Building a house doesn't involve creating matter, or even making an original design. You're still changing things, forming things into new shapes. Imagination is the same thing except with no physical component. I'm imagining building a house right now. I have not done this before. That's pretty boring stuff but the point is the process involved in me forming those thoughts is a valid reality. Not the thoughts themselves, nor the physical world.

It's not much of a theory and probably not what you wanted to talk about. I really just like saying "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real."

[BitVyper]

If you're using scientific method to disprove itself, you've either proved nothing, or proved that it works. Besides; proving theories wrong is half of what science is for.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Even if you could begin to prove that no original thoughts can be formed, you're missing the point. Building a house doesn't involve creating matter, or even making an original design. You're still changing things, forming things into new shapes. Imagination is the same thing except with no physical component. I'm imagining building a house right now. I have not done this before. That's pretty boring stuff but the point is the process involved in me forming those thoughts is a valid reality. Not the thoughts themselves, nor the physical world.
The way you make thoughts is dictated by the physical world. If the physical real is false, so is your imagination.
As my good buddy, John P Lacan would say- You are Never Alone- the Big Other is watching you. Even in the shower.

If you're using scientific method to disprove itself, you've either proved nothing, or proved that it works. Besides; proving theories wrong is half of what science is for.

I was using logic to show that the scientific method is internally limited, not that it was wrong, just that it can only represent certain things.
Learn to readzzzzz.


As for a theorem...
What would you do if I dared you to take apart Marxism? It's arguably a science.

Part 7) I've just read all of Capital. OH fuck is it dumb. If people don't get rewarded based upon job performance noone is going to go to work, there will be no production. Human race extinct.
Yeah you would like that you little German fuck wouldn't you, Marx.

Part 8) Pain is a warning mechanism designed to create a fight or flight mechanism. Sadomasochism

IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!

The more Smarty posts, the less I am convinced that he is not constantly drunk. On Vodka. Communist vodka.
Are you suggesting I would be drunk on this most important of all days, that of glorious electoral uprightness? ARE YOU SAYING I@M NOT DOING MY CIVIC DUTY.

[Geminex]

The way you make thoughts is dictated by the physical world. If the physical real is false, so is your imagination.
What if the source, or defining element of imagination were non-physical, an abstract entity that we would describe as a "soul"?

[Si Civa]

I've this theory that you're right about things, you know, about those little things. Would you like to disprove that?

[Amake]

Sure, the immaterial may be dictated by the material world, we'll accept that for the sake of the discussion. But why would that mean it shares the same validity? Who can say where reality begins?

I think we're both overcomplicating things. When I quote Promethea, "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real", I'm assuming the world we know is possibly an illusion, a popular philosophy. The line is simply pointing out that if what we see and what we are is an illusion, we are still evidently something that is capable of observing something, and that act of observation can't in itself be illusion* any more than the shaft of light from a torch can shine on itself. Or something.

*At least not our illusion.

[Grimpond]

Oh man smarty, you are such an asshole, I mean, I am busting my gut at these shenanigans. so silly.

[Kim]

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."

[Grimpond]

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."

Doesn't that kinda go without saying here?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What if the source, or defining element of imagination were non-physical, an abstract entity that we would describe as a "soul"?
Are we talking some kind of interactionism? If that's the case I need to find my cheesecutter and pipe before I answer that. You know, cause it from the 19th century.

I've this theory that you're right about things, you know, about those little things. Would you like to disprove that?
While normal minds would ignore this as A) it's not a published theory b) it's not even a scientific theory c) it's not even postulated properly but luckily for you I'm an intellectual Titan and thus will take it on.
While my own mental postulates are self-evidentely genius, the medium of expression that I rely upon to transmit them to others rely upon socially integrated means of communication which are inherentely flawed and so my genius ideas are distorted in the telling and such the representation of them in my own mind will distort to fit that telling as numerous studies upon memory have shown that it is highly susceptible to how we are prompted to remember events.
Sure, the immaterial may be dictated by the material world, we'll accept that for the sake of the discussion. But why would that mean it shares the same validity? Who can say where reality begins?

I think we're both overcomplicating things. When I quote Promethea, "Imagination is the only thing in all the worlds we can be sure is real", I'm assuming the world we know is possibly an illusion, a popular philosophy. The line is simply pointing out that if what we see and what we are is an illusion, we are still evidently something that is capable of observing something, and that act of observation can't in itself be illusion* any more than the shaft of light from a torch can shine on itself. Or something.
This idea has been throughly and recklessly questioned over hte last hundred years of philosophy. It is hardly self-evident and people have postulated everything from social structures to language to physical forms to be ontologically more present than that of hte individual mind.
Go look up consciousness on wikipedia or something.


Oh man smarty, you are such an asshole, I mean, I am busting my gut at these shenanigans. so silly.
Are you suggesting I am anything but a humble seeker of truth.

I am reminded of a thread a while back where someone used "logic" to come to incorrect conclusions, and Krylo came in and basically went "No. That's fucking dumb. That's not how logic works."
Logic is inherentely limited- see ref point 3 and the incompleteness theorum. Also see analysis of neural structure and linguistic and musical forms- logic is possibly a product of our brain interpretation of the universe not the other way around. Also this is not a scientific problem for me to challenge.

Doesn't that kinda go without saying here?
Again, lies and slander. I am foremost a gentleman, secondly a scholar.

[Kim]

Logic is inherentely limited- see ref point 3 and the incompleteness theorum. Also see analysis of neural structure and linguistic and musical forms- logic is possibly a product of our brain interpretation of the universe not the other way around.

There is a great difference between explaining the limitations of logic and using incredibly faulty logic to come to incorrect conclusions as "proof" that logic is flawed.

Also this is not a scientific problem for me to challenge.

But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[01d55]

In this thread, science gets disproven

I was using logic to show that the scientific method is internally limited, not that it was wrong, just that it can only represent certain things.
Learn to readzzzzz.

Man you lyin'. You a lyin' commie.

[BloodyMage]

A
Again, lies and slander. I am foremost a gentleman, secondly a scholar.

It's written not spoken therefore it's libel, not slander, no?

[Fifthfiend]

Part 2: Colour
Red and yellow mixed make green.

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/v-1.gif Complete thread collapse in three sentences, impressively executed.

[Amake]

Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

Although I will give The Origin of Consciousness another try. I've been looking for an excuse to read it.

[Archbio]

Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

The mind itself still isn't disprovable, re: Descartes via Nietzsche (something thinks, therefore something is.) Of course, that's not science, but so isn't this thread!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

There is a great difference between explaining the limitations of logic and using incredibly faulty logic to come to incorrect conclusions as "proof" that logic is flawed.
Godel disagrees with pages and pages of maths.



But can you see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
I'm not sure what the question is here. Do I need to disprove that kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Because this thread is about destroying science not proving it.

Man you lyin'. You a lyin' commie.
9) See 7 where I dismiss Marx as a hack

It's written not spoken therefore it's libel, not slander, no?
10) I spoke it aloud as I read it.
http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/v-1.gif Complete thread collapse in three sentences, impressively executed.
11) Thread still going, postulate disproven.
Still talking about the bridges between the mind and other realms, not the mind itself.

Although I will give The Origin of Consciousness another try. I've been looking for an excuse to read it.
Bridges that have been shown to rely heavily on physical world. No matter how you spin it, your imaginary functions relies upon physical processes.

12) Human intelligence lead to tool making, dominance over other animals
Latest poll result shows Tories leading by wide margin. Thus humans are stupid, thus this is fault.

13) Neurotransmitters only work in certain kinds of neuroreceptors based on lock and key type mechanisms- Patentely false, molecular mechanic hard sphere type models consistently fail in modelling organic processes due to theri soft electron systems which are easily perturbed, particularly the pi bonding networks of neurotransmitter type molecules.

14) Origin of life started in water- Water promotes hydrolysis of early peptide bonds rather than their formation, solutions would be too diluted to feasibly react, common energy sources for the reactions are hindered by the presence of water.

The mind itself still isn't disprovable, re: Descartes via Nietzsche (something thinks, therefore something is.) Of course, that's not science, but so isn't this thread!

Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Lacan- all would take you up on that.
Also of course this thread isn't Science- it's showing Science is wrong!

[Amake]

It's only physical tools that have shown the physical world to be the origin of all existence. I think it was Buddha who said, "We are spiritual beings having a human experience".

But anyway, like I said, even if imagination is a product of a physical world which is a figment of imagination, that's no reason to assume imagination also is a figment of imagination.

[Rejected Again]

Ok SMB, what about the theory of the average IQ in the world dropping due to the accelerated breeding of humans with inferior minds, our heightened medicines, and no natural predators, combined with the fact that lower IQ families have, on average, twice as many children as higher intelligence families do. Can you disprove that, while the human race is growing, we are getting less intelligent as a whole?

[Fifthfiend]

11) Thread still going

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/1273089569_mini_crashes_into_crowd.gif

[BloodyMage]

10) I spoke it aloud as I read it.


That's still not slander, as slander requires publication. You could argue that, because Libel requires publication too, it isn't libel either due to internet forums not being a viable form of publication (at least not yet). Either way you're still wrong, because it isn't 'lies and slander' it's just lies.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's only physical tools that have shown the physical world to be the origin of all existence. I think it was Buddha who said, "We are spiritual beings having a human experience".

But anyway, like I said, even if imagination is a product of a physical world which is a figment of imagination, that's no reason to assume imagination also is a figment of imagination.

By this point you're "imagination" is so fragmentary it's nonexistant. There is reasonable evidence that even the unconcsious mind, let alone the concious is so much a product of our environment that it's ridiculous. Sure you can go back further than nthe unconcsious but it's pretty meaningless by that stage and just handwaving.

Ok SMB, what about the theory of the average IQ in the world dropping due to the accelerated breeding of humans with inferior minds, our heightened medicines, and no natural predators, combined with the fact that lower IQ families have, on average, twice as many children as higher intelligence families do. Can you disprove that, while the human race is growing, we are getting less intelligent as a whole?
15) All studies which have monitored IQ over time show that it increases. That theory out and out ignores the actual numbers. Also Heighetened medicines (alongside nutrition) lead to increased intelligence due to healthier brains. Also genetic factors in intelligence are laughably small.
Also IQ is a terrible indicator of intelligence.

That's still not slander, as slander requires publication. You could argue that, because Libel requires publication too, it isn't libel either due to internet forums not being a viable form of publication (at least not yet). Either way you're still wrong, because it isn't 'lies and slander' it's just lies.
US laws aren't global laws...

[Amake]

I heard the stupid have always had more kids than the clever. But anyway if you've got twenty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of four billion by selective breeding rather than thirty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of ten billion you're still falling behind in the end of the world race.

[Rejected Again]

I heard the stupid have always had more kids than the clever. But anyway if you've got twenty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of four billion by selective breeding rather than thirty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of ten billion you're still falling behind in the end of the world race.

This. This is what I was getting at.

[BloodyMage]

US laws aren't global laws...

We're both from the UK. Actually, that's an assumption, because while I know I'm from the UK, I just assume you are because of the British Election complaint thread.

[Bob The Mercenary]

US laws aren't global laws...

Since when?

<3

[Professor Smarmiarty]

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/1273089569_mini_crashes_into_crowd.gif

My scientific analysis only deals with words. Please respond in textual format.

I heard the stupid have always had more kids than the clever. But anyway if you've got twenty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of four billion by selective breeding rather than thirty earth-shattering geniuses among a population of ten billion you're still falling behind in the end of the world race.

This. This is what I was getting at.


Genetic influences on intelligence are small enough as to be virtually worthless, environmental factors are so much more prominent. And in this regard increased nutrition and overall health has icnreased average intelligence in the world as well as increasing mechanisation of labour allowing more time to study, rest less time to work..

[Fifthfiend]

My scientific analysis only deals with words. Please respond in textual format.

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/reactions/5vqc6u.gif

[Professor Smarmiarty]

:(. Fifth has made me sad. Emotions eating away at my reasoning function.
I have been defeated.
Thread over!

[Fifthfiend]

Boosh!!

[Loyal]

You should just get the mods to make that your avatar, Fifth.

[Archbio]

Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Lacan- all would take you up on that.

And they'd be wrong!

Not that names are arguments, really.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

And they'd be wrong!

Not that names are arguments, really.

I was totally just copying your post of name-checking Mr Smart Alec!!!

[Archbio]

My post contained the actual argument, somewhat.

Either sober up, or get more drunk!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My post contained the actual argument, somewhat.

Either sober up, or get more drunk!

An argument so ludicrously out of date it does't count.
It's a long slow night of watching the tories somehow win votes, so more drunk is teh direction I'm in.

[Archbio]

An argument so ludicrously out of date it does't count.

There's no expiry date on truth!

But there is on some liquor. Watch out.

[Fifthfiend]

You should just get the mods to make that your avatar, Fifth.

I asked Fenris and he was all like

"_____________"
"http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/someavvies/fen-1.png

[Professor Smarmiarty]

There's no expiry date on truth!
What if you forget to put it in the fridge?

But there is on some liquor. Watch out.[/QUOTE]

That won't be an issue! Every percentage swing take a shot!

[Premmy]

You know what I love about Smarty science posts? whenever he makes them, Sithdarth swoops in and goes

"You know nothing of my work"

waiting on that post.

[krogothwolf]

There's no expiry date on truth!


Ha, once everyone who knows the truth is dead the truth can be whatever you want it to be!