From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #116 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Sunday, April 25 2004 Volume 04 : Number 116 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Relativity [was: The Seasons] ["Jackie M. Young" <] Re: [chakram-refugees] Jinx jinxed--Xena too? [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Re Jinx jinxed ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Relativity [was: The Seasons] [cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Relativity [was: The Seasons] Well, in my absence, I see Ife was keeping up my end of things..... ;) I only have 3 words: Whatever Ife says! ;) LOL You *go*, girl!! ;) (OK, that's 6. ;) ) On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, cr wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:20, Jackie M. Young wrote: > > > --English grammar doesn't define reality. It sets parameters, but it > > can't tell us if something actually exists or not. > > Well if you want to look at it that way, *nothing* spoken or written can > guarantee reality. That wasn't my point. I said that "It was > such-and-such" purports to be a statement of fact. I stand by that. This > is why we so often add a 'IMO' to our posts when we wish to make clear it's > an opinion we're expressing rather than claiming fact. - --I think "purports" is the key word here. IMO, *NOTHING* is a statement of fact. It is all "relative" to our own experiences. I can see that, to you, some things are opinion and others are facts. We obviously disagree. We will probably need to agree to disagree. ;) > This is why I asked you to define 'exploitative' because that (IMO) is a term > subject to far greater variability than different shades of colour are. - --I think we both knew what I meant. We both gave examples, we just didn't agree on the application of the word in certain situations. So, that just meant we disagreed the use of the word, not on its meaning. Just because there are variations in people's use of a word doesn't mean we have to define EVERY SINGLE WORD we use all the time. Like one of the philosophers in my dept. said, "that's what a dictionary's for". ;) > Probably my example "It was blue" was a poor choice, but it does imply that > the item in question is some shade of blue as understood by the speaker - and > certainly not red, for instance. A better example would be "The [traffic] > light was green" - there is no doubt about the purported meaning of that > statement. It's either correct or not - no room for 'opinion'. - --Again, I disagree. A good real-life example of how perspective can affect reality is when I was traveling in Canada, this one guy I met on a bus thought I had a Chinese accent because I'm Chinese-American. I.e., just by *looking* at me, he thought I had an accent. Now, let me say that I've been on radio, done commercials, etc., and *no one's* ever said that I had a foreign accent. To me, I have a real flat, "baseball" American accent. Of course, I was shocked. I asked the guy to close his eyes and listen to me speak for a minute. When he opened his eyes he said, "You're right. If I hadn't seen you to begin with, I would've thought you were white." Another good example is that story I heard about recently on the mainland on one of the news programs about that FBI agent who was accused of killing 2 boys by driving on the freeway going the wrong way because he was drunk. The agent was seen earlier in the evening at a restaurant drinking 3 pitchers of beer, but claimed he wasn't drunk (he was a big guy). A taped 911 caller claimed seeing the agent's white car going the wrong direction on the freeway. But, 4 witnesses came into the courtroom to testify that the blue car the kids were in was going the wrong way on the freeway. "Scientific" evidence was produced showing how the cars would end up on opposite ends of each other if they glanced off each other a certain way. Crime scene photos showed the blue car facing the wrong way on the freeway, the white car facing the right way. Who was right? Even though the jury thought the agent was at fault, they had to acquit him because they all said more witnesses said they saw a blue car going the wrong way. But was the one 911 caller wrong? They all thought they were correct. > Well, in that case they have totally failed to understand Einstein's theory, > or alternatively don't care. Particularly if their 'theory' is informal, > since both Einstein's theories can be expressed entirely formally, > mathematically. It would be hard to find a greater contrast between their > 'subjective perspective' and Einstein's theories. - --It's interesting. The more philosophers I ask in the dept., the more they break down into age/longevity groups. The older, more established philosophers agree with you. The younger, more adventurous philosophers agree with me. One of them gave me this URL to check out: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ It does say relativism is different from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but I remember hearing or reading somewhere that "relativity" or "relativism" was based on the fact that Einstein found objects in space/time to be "relative" to each other. I.e., that it was based on perspective. In any case, although the author of the entry doesn't seem to like relativity/relativism, he/she does say it is useful to study and is recognized as an area of philosophy. I don't necessarily believe in "coincidence" anymore (mostly since my accident), and I'm believing a lot more in spirituality. As we were discussing relativity here recently, there was that news report Ife also heard about scientists re-testing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Then, as I was reading my school text, who should pop up but.....Einstein! From _News Reporting and Writing_ by Melvin Mencher, pp. 386-388: "Even scientists admit the nonrational to their universe. Albert Einstein wrote approvingly of 'intuition, supported by being sympathetically in touch with experience.'" "Albert Einstein drew this diagram for a friend who asked the famous physicist to explain the roles of experience, intuition and logic in making discoveries or in formulating a theory. Einstein did not limit his ideas about thinking to science. The 'whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking,' he said." "In his first paper on relativity, Einstein referred sketchily to some experiments and then wrote that they 'lead to the conjecture,' which he called the Theory of Relativity. 'There is no logical path to these elementary laws; only intuition, supported by being sympathetically in touch with experience.'" > I have my definition (I got it from a tagline) - Reality is that which, when > you stop thinking about it, doesn't go away. That'll do me :) - --Mine is more along the lines to the Matrix trilogy. ;) We don't *really* know what reality is......we may all wake up someday and discover we're actually in some Matrix...... > > 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the > > theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). > > So is religion, so is superstition. What is the relevance of this? - --Many times there's some validity to things that have lasted a long time, and that people continue to study and discuss. I agree with Ife; you are making religion and superstition sound like they are invalid, and that science is "more valid". I don't believe this at all. I actually believe science is its own sort of religion, and that it doesn't necessarily work if you don't believe in it. > Well, if you were using some philosophical theory, why did you mention > Einstein? If not just for effect? ;) - --I forgot that you were an engineer, and would take the mention of Einstein personally. To me, he was simply an "identifier". I'm actually more interested in relativity than in Einstein. If I had known you would react this way, I wouldn't've used his name at all. > > > > Since when did Ebert and Roper represent The Truth or Objectivity? > > > > > --They are an American film critic team on syndicated TV. Roger Ebert > > used to be paired with Gene Siskel, when the show was called Siskel and > > Ebert, but Siskel died of cancer several years ago. > > > > Basically, the team gives their opinions on whether films are good or not, > > and their interpretations of the films, much like we are doing on this > > list. > > What about 'em? - --They spout opinions, just like we do on this list. They don't "define terms", they just use examples. Everything they say is opinion, by definition of the forum they're in. They each believe they're right. They each think they're giving a "statement of fact". How are they any different than we are on this list? That's what I meant. > Well, you've just (finally) provided your definition of 'exploitative', and I > can now say I don't agree at all that the Rift was exploitative. Which I > couldn't have said before since I didn't know what you meant by it. OK? - --Yes, you could've. You knew enough of what I meant by giving examples of what you thought was "faux exploitative", i.e, Hooves & Harlots. I already knew you didn't find my examples of demon gods and the melodrama of S3 --> to be "exploitative". I don't see how this disagreement has been advanced by my stating the obvious. > BTW, ask your philosophers whether it's possible to have a meaningful > discussion about abstract concepts (such as 'exploitative') without first > defining your terms. ;) - --Most of them think you only need to define terms if they are unusual. If they are not "normal language", then a definition would be useful. Otherwise, use a dictionary. Besides, like I've told some foreign friends, you can't always define some shades of meaning of a word. It really all comes down to one person's personal experience and connotation. That's why examples are given. And why things are all "relative". ;) On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:42:27 +1200, cr wrote: >Where opinion comes in is, I suppose, that some people may have doubts >whether they are correct (though they're established about as solidly as >it is possible for a scientific 'law' to be), but any such shades of >opinion are extraneous to the theories themselves. - --How can opinions about the theories be extraneous to the theories, since isn't having opinions how theories are first formulated and tested? Isn't that what this recent re-examination of Einstein's theory is all about, that they want to re-test it? Again, I'm agreeing with Ife that you're putting this theory on a pedestal, when to me, it's just another way of looking at the world. >OTOH there's a quite different meaning of 'relative' that contrasts two >positions or circumstances - "Relative to Athens, Amphipolis is a >northerly town" or "Relative to Tokyo, Auckland is small" - or, more >closely possibly to where Einstein derived his usage from, "Relative to >Concorde, a 747 is slow". So I'd say any connection between >Einstein's use of 'relativity' and 'family relations' is vanishingly >small. - --I don't think Ife meant "family relations", but I do think Einstein's use of the term "relativity" to mean "relative to" is where the informal use of "relativity/relativism" came from. I believe I heard that in the one-person play about Einstein that I saw by Dowd, based on Einstein's life and writings. Yes, Einstein was talking about space/time/geography, but also perspective. >Well now, firstly I'd say that, just because something is older (or >newer!), that has no bearing at all on whether it's more likely to be >correct. - --I agree, but lots of times things last because they are valid. And who will be the "determiner" of what is "correct" or "incorrect"? >Second, there is a 'philosophy of science', I believe, which mostly deals >with how we know what we know and the 'scientific method', (Karl Popper >being its best-known practitioner). - --Yes, several of our faculty are specialists in this area. So, philosophy and science _can_ mix....... ;) >I believe in philosophy there are many different 'schools', some of which >doubtless shade into mysticism and religion. > >In science there are possibly even more different branches, including >some self-proclaimed 'sciences' which also shade into mysticism and >religion (psychology, economics :) > >Scientists themselves distinguish between the 'hard sciences' (physics, >mathematics, astronomy, possibly chemistry) and softer sciences like >biology. >Some of these began as superstition - astrology, alchemy - and many of >the public still can't tell the difference. - --So science may have developed from a much "softer" area, such as religion or philosophy? And perhaps all these delineations you're making in subjects are just one big universal way of defining things? Per the quotes from my text above, I don't see why experience and intuition and irrationality can't mix to form "valid" opinions? >This is one reason why I get annoyed when any well-known scientific >theory (relativity, evolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which is >quite precise in its own field, gets misquoted and misapplied in some >completely different area where it is completely irrelevant. - --I don't agree that it's completely irrelevant. Einstein might've been talking physics, but why can't we apply it to figurative perspectives? Why does everything have to be in its own little container? To bring this all back to XWP, didn't Gab create her own little reality in Quill Is Mightier every time she redescribed a scene in her scroll? Isn't that "relativity"? ;) - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * "I think New Zealand geographically comes from * * ... Hawai'i." --Lucy Lawless, Late Show, 4/9/96 * * * * "Feel the fear and do it anyway." --Lucy Lawless, * * Evening Post, 7/4/98 * * * * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * * * ****************************************************** ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:47:28 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Jinx jinxed--Xena too? On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:12, KLOSSNER9@aol.com wrote: > Variety , April 19, 2004, p. 22 of the supplement on United Artists studio, > has a picture of Halle Beery as Jinx from her James Bond film, with a > caption reading -- "Plans to spin off Halle Berry's Jinx character from > "Die Another Day" are on hold, partly due to such femme [female] > actioners as the "Charlie's Angels" and "Tomb Raider" sequels > underperforming." The accompanying article says plans for a Jinx > spinoff have "collapsed" rather than being "on hold." That sounds bad > for the prospects for a Xena movie. But I never expected it to happen > anyway. > > Boeotian On the subject of Halle as Jinx, I thought she was pretty good at the action-hero stuff in Die Another Day. She seemed to be enjoying the part. I think she could have done well in a spin-off movie. Now I think of it, that's two Pierce Brosnan - James Bond movies that have had female leads who are 'action heroes' - Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies, and Halle Berry in Die Another Day. Previously, IIRC, any girls who got really physical in the James Bond movies were always villains. Wonder if that reflects some sort of trend? cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:35:09 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re Jinx jinxed No it doesn't (but it doesn't look good that no one can figure out who owns her - how that is possible with DVDs being produced since some one sold those rights - I don't know). Howeve cost also counts. Both pictures had high priced actors in them especially Charlie's Angles (four major stars) that the films had to make a lot of money to recoup their costs. Xena on the other hand will have LL and ROC who don't command the money that Drew Barrymore or Angelie Jolie does - also it would be made Rob Tapert who knows how to control cost and it woul dbe made in New Zealand another plu. Also they may count on a good after market. If the film was also released when theatrical business is usually slow it might do surprisingly well. I however have often said I would prefer a nice mini series on Scifi or USA instead of a theratical film. Given lets say 4 or 6 hours to tell the story you could have a more compicated plot and more charater development then a two hour film which, in todays market, would have to be 80% fighting and blowing things up. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:09:36 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Relativity [was: The Seasons] On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:47, Jackie M. Young wrote: > Well, in my absence, I see Ife was keeping up my end of things..... ;) I rather think Ife was keeping up _her_ end of things, actually. ;) > I only have 3 words: Whatever Ife says! ;) LOL You *go*, girl!! ;) (OK, > that's 6. ;) ) > > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, cr wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:20, Jackie M. Young wrote: > > > --English grammar doesn't define reality. It sets parameters, but it > > > can't tell us if something actually exists or not. > > > > Well if you want to look at it that way, *nothing* spoken or written can > > guarantee reality. That wasn't my point. I said that "It was > > such-and-such" purports to be a statement of fact. I stand by that. > > This is why we so often add a 'IMO' to our posts when we wish to make > > clear it's an opinion we're expressing rather than claiming fact. > > --I think "purports" is the key word here. IMO, *NOTHING* is a statement > of fact. It is all "relative" to our own experiences. I can see that, to > you, some things are opinion and others are facts. We obviously disagree. > We will probably need to agree to disagree. ;) Yes. > > This is why I asked you to define 'exploitative' because that (IMO) is a > > term subject to far greater variability than different shades of colour > > are. > > --I think we both knew what I meant. We both gave examples, we just > didn't agree on the application of the word in certain situations. So, > that just meant we disagreed the use of the word, not on its meaning. > > Just because there are variations in people's use of a word doesn't mean > we have to define EVERY SINGLE WORD we use all the time. Straw man. I never said we should. > Like one of the > philosophers in my dept. said, "that's what a dictionary's for". ;) See your own reply, further down (*******) > > Probably my example "It was blue" was a poor choice, but it does imply > > that the item in question is some shade of blue as understood by the > > speaker - and certainly not red, for instance. A better example would > > be "The [traffic] light was green" - there is no doubt about the > > purported meaning of that statement. It's either correct or not - no > > room for 'opinion'. > > --Again, I disagree. > > A good real-life example of how perspective can affect reality is when I > was traveling in Canada, this one guy I met on a bus thought I had a > Chinese accent because I'm Chinese-American. I.e., just by *looking* at > me, he thought I had an accent. (snip irrelevant (IMO) discourse on the unreliability of witnesses which is not in dispute) > > Well, in that case they have totally failed to understand Einstein's > > theory, or alternatively don't care. Particularly if their 'theory' is > > informal, since both Einstein's theories can be expressed entirely > > formally, mathematically. It would be hard to find a greater contrast > > between their 'subjective perspective' and Einstein's theories. > > --It's interesting. The more philosophers I ask in the dept., the more > they break down into age/longevity groups. The older, more established > philosophers agree with you. The younger, more adventurous philosophers > agree with me. > > One of them gave me this URL to check out: > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ > > It does say relativism is different from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, > but I remember hearing or reading somewhere that "relativity" or > "relativism" was based on the fact that Einstein found objects in > space/time to be "relative" to each other. I.e., that it was based on > perspective. > > In any case, although the author of the entry doesn't seem to like > relativity/relativism, he/she does say it is useful to study and is > recognized as an area of philosophy. I've just read it. Yes, very interesting. And Relativism (not 'Relativity') is a philosophical field of study with its own defined meanings. But (IMO) quite unrelated to anything of Einstein's. It actually has some relevance for XWP, I think. As I read it, 'Descriptive relativism' says that people view everything in terms of their own culture. This does not mean their views are morally 'right' or 'wrong'. (I'm a descriptive relativist in that sense). 'Normative relativism' says (if I interpret it correctly) that peoples' actions can only be judged in the light of their own culture. (This I totally disagree with. I can understand why some hypothetical tribe in New Guinea, say, might believe they have to strangle their wives after ten years of marriage, but I reserve the right to believe that they are *wrong*). Of course, there's always heaps of shades of grey in all these things. Just in case I may have been misinterpreting what the article said, here's the URL again for anyone on the list who hasn't killfiled this ever-growing thread..... ;) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ > I don't necessarily believe in "coincidence" anymore (mostly since my > accident), and I'm believing a lot more in spirituality. As we were > discussing relativity here recently, there was that news report Ife also > heard about scientists re-testing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. > > Then, as I was reading my school text, who should pop up but.....Einstein! > From _News Reporting and Writing_ by Melvin Mencher, pp. 386-388: > > "Even scientists admit the nonrational to their universe. Albert Einstein > wrote approvingly of 'intuition, supported by being sympathetically in > touch with experience.'" > > "Albert Einstein drew this diagram for a friend who asked the famous > physicist to explain the roles of experience, intuition and logic in > making discoveries or in formulating a theory. Einstein did not limit his > ideas about thinking to science. The 'whole of science is nothing more > than a refinement of everyday thinking,' he said." > > "In his first paper on relativity, Einstein referred sketchily to some > experiments and then wrote that they 'lead to the conjecture,' which he > called the Theory of Relativity. 'There is no logical path to these > elementary laws; only intuition, supported by being sympathetically in > touch with experience.'" BUT - now you (or Einstein) was talking about the intellectual process of having ideas. NOT about the physical meaning of his theories. > > I have my definition (I got it from a tagline) - Reality is that which, > > when you stop thinking about it, doesn't go away. That'll do me :) > > --Mine is more along the lines to the Matrix trilogy. ;) We don't > *really* know what reality is......we may all wake up someday and discover > we're actually in some Matrix...... Been there, done that. "None of you exist. The listmum types it all in". > > > 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the > > > theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). > > > > So is religion, so is superstition. What is the relevance of this? > > --Many times there's some validity to things that have lasted a long time, > and that people continue to study and discuss. > > I agree with Ife; you are making religion and superstition sound like they > are invalid, and that science is "more valid". I don't believe this at > all. Were you claiming that philosophy (which you noted is older) is more valid than science? If you weren't, why mention it? I just said that the age of something is irrelevant to its validity. If it is relevant, then ancient tribal religions and superstitions must be more valid than either science or modern religions. > I actually believe science is its own sort of religion, and that it > doesn't necessarily work if you don't believe in it. Hmm. Science is an attempt to explain the workings of Nature, I guess. You can believe the explanations or not, but the phenomena will still work. If someone drops a brick or an H-bomb on you, it will still work. Your computer manifestly works, whether you know or care or believe the scientific discoveries that led to its design. I won't get into whether religion 'works' (other than in the psychological effect it has on its adherents) because I have no wish to start a religious flamewar in this list :) > > Well, if you were using some philosophical theory, why did you mention > > Einstein? If not just for effect? ;) > > --I forgot that you were an engineer, and would take the mention of > Einstein personally. To me, he was simply an "identifier". I'm actually > more interested in relativity than in Einstein. Identifying the *wrong* theory.... > If I had known you would react this way, I wouldn't've used his name at > all. That would have been a very good idea. ;) > > > > > Since when did Ebert and Roper represent The Truth or Objectivity? > > > > > > --They are an American film critic team on syndicated TV. Roger Ebert > > > used to be paired with Gene Siskel, when the show was called Siskel and > > > Ebert, but Siskel died of cancer several years ago. > > > > > > Basically, the team gives their opinions on whether films are good or > > > not, and their interpretations of the films, much like we are doing on > > > this list. > > > > What about 'em? > > --They spout opinions, just like we do on this list. They don't "define > terms", they just use examples. > > Everything they say is opinion, by definition of the forum they're in. > > They each believe they're right. They each think they're giving a > "statement of fact". > > How are they any different than we are on this list? That's what I meant. Because, I think, though I haven't seen them, I woud imagine by the nature of a TV show they never discuss anything in any depth. > > Well, you've just (finally) provided your definition of 'exploitative', > > and I can now say I don't agree at all that the Rift was exploitative. > > Which I couldn't have said before since I didn't know what you meant by > > it. OK? > > --Yes, you could've. You knew enough of what I meant by giving examples > of what you thought was "faux exploitative", i.e, Hooves & Harlots. I most certainly didn't say I thought it was 'faux exploitative'. I think those half-clad Amazons were entirely exploitative T&A. > I already knew you didn't find my examples of demon gods and the melodrama > of S3 --> to be "exploitative". I don't see how this disagreement has > been advanced by my stating the obvious. Ah well, I didn't want to go through the motions of debating what was 'exploitative' about the seasons and then have you trump the whole thing by saying e.g. "exploitative is what makes *me* feel exploited" ;) > > BTW, ask your philosophers whether it's possible to have a meaningful > > discussion about abstract concepts (such as 'exploitative') without first > > defining your terms. ;) > > --Most of them think you only need to define terms if they are unusual. > If they are not "normal language", then a definition would be useful. > Otherwise, use a dictionary. (*****) IMO, 'exploitative' is not 'normal language'. And we all know perfectly well that dictionaries disagree. Mine says, inter alia: "exploit n. ..... 2. to take advantage (of a person, situation etc) for one's own ends - - exploitative, adj." I guess, viewed narrowly enough, one could claim that every scene written for TV falls into that category. :) > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:42:27 +1200, cr wrote: > >Where opinion comes in is, I suppose, that some people may have doubts > >whether they are correct (though they're established about as solidly as > >it is possible for a scientific 'law' to be), but any such shades of > >opinion are extraneous to the theories themselves. > > --How can opinions about the theories be extraneous to the theories, since > isn't having opinions how theories are first formulated and tested? > Isn't that what this recent re-examination of Einstein's theory is all > about, that they want to re-test it? No. What they are looking for, so far as I can tell from the brief accounts I've seen in the news, is direct confirmation by experiment of the predictions of the theory. This is, AFAIK, the General Theory of Relativity, not the Special Theory which is what we've been arguing about. The two are quite distinct, though related. So far, the General theory has proved correct in every situation where it is applicable, but all the effects have been 'indirect' i.e. measurements undertaken with something else in mind have varied a little from what Newtonian mechanics would predict, and the variation has been in accordance with Einstein's General Theory. But neither the Special nor the General Theory leaves room for 'opinion'. Nor do most other scientific 'theories', 'laws' or 'principles'. They say "If such-and-such apply, then this WILL BE the result". Not 'in most cases' or 'in someone's opinion', but in *every* case. In fact, a theory that left room for 'opinion' would probably not be an acceptable scientific theory under Karl Popper's dictum that a valid theory must be 'falsifiable' - that is, it must give predictions that can be tested and found to be wrong if the theory is incorrect. A theory that left room for opinion would probably fail to meet that criterion. > Again, I'm agreeing with Ife that you're putting this theory on a > pedestal, when to me, it's just another way of looking at the world. When did Ife say that? I must have missed it. I'm not putting it on a pedestal, just try misquoting any other scientific theory and watch my reaction > >OTOH there's a quite different meaning of 'relative' that contrasts two > >positions or circumstances - "Relative to Athens, Amphipolis is a > >northerly town" or "Relative to Tokyo, Auckland is small" - or, more > >closely possibly to where Einstein derived his usage from, "Relative to > >Concorde, a 747 is slow". So I'd say any connection between > >Einstein's use of 'relativity' and 'family relations' is vanishingly > >small. > > --I don't think Ife meant "family relations", but I do think Einstein's > use of the term "relativity" to mean "relative to" is where the informal > use of "relativity/relativism" came from. I believe I heard that in the > one-person play about Einstein that I saw by Dowd, based on Einstein's > life and writings. > > Yes, Einstein was talking about space/time/geography, but also > perspective. If by 'perspective' you mean people's viewpoints (i.e. opinions), then no he wasn't. The term 'relativity' could have come from that but it was not an accurate application of the meaning. > >Well now, firstly I'd say that, just because something is older (or > >newer!), that has no bearing at all on whether it's more likely to be > >correct. > > --I agree, but lots of times things last because they are valid. > > And who will be the "determiner" of what is "correct" or "incorrect"? N/A. Red herring. > >Second, there is a 'philosophy of science', I believe, which mostly deals > >with how we know what we know and the 'scientific method', (Karl Popper > >being its best-known practitioner). > > --Yes, several of our faculty are specialists in this area. So, > philosophy and science _can_ mix....... ;) > > >I believe in philosophy there are many different 'schools', some of which > >doubtless shade into mysticism and religion. > > > >In science there are possibly even more different branches, including > >some self-proclaimed 'sciences' which also shade into mysticism and > >religion (psychology, economics :) > > > >Scientists themselves distinguish between the 'hard sciences' (physics, > >mathematics, astronomy, possibly chemistry) and softer sciences like > >biology. > >Some of these began as superstition - astrology, alchemy - and many of > >the public still can't tell the difference. > > --So science may have developed from a much "softer" area, such as > religion or philosophy? Well-known that it did. Not from religion per se, though many early philosopher/scientists had religious connections. Ditto philosophy. And from alchemy, astrology, folk medicine, many of whose empirical observations were valid though their theories were (usually) quite wrong. > And perhaps all these delineations you're making > in subjects are just one big universal way of defining things? Not sure what that means. > Per the quotes from my text above, I don't see why experience and > intuition and irrationality can't mix to form "valid" opinions? What's a 'valid' opinion? People have opinions, most of which are subjective and debating their 'validity' is probably futile. OTOH, if they're opinions about purported 'facts' (e.g. "There are little green men on Mars") then I guess they will be either factually correct or not. > >This is one reason why I get annoyed when any well-known scientific > >theory (relativity, evolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which is > >quite precise in its own field, gets misquoted and misapplied in some > >completely different area where it is completely irrelevant. > > --I don't agree that it's completely irrelevant. Einstein might've been > talking physics, but why can't we apply it to figurative perspectives? Because that's not what he was talking about and applying it in the way you wish to do is, therefore, meaningless. > Why does everything have to be in its own little container? If you wish to blur all meaning in some fuzzy haze of pseudo-philosophical double-talk, don't expect me to go along with it. > To bring this all back to XWP, didn't Gab create her own little reality in > Quill Is Mightier every time she redescribed a scene in her scroll? Isn't > that "relativity"? ;) No, by whatever meaning you assign to 'relativity'. Not in Einstein's sense, and not even from different peoples' points of view, since the physical reality actually changed. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:48:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel T. Miller" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Xena made the Monday April 19 Chicago Tribune crossword This is the second time I've seen it in the Tribune crossword. (But I don't do it every day.) 16 across - Warrior Princess of TV :~) The puzzlebs author needed something to work with 10 down - Puts on a pedestal EXALTS Which I thought was very appropriate. I love these examples of Xena slowing sneaking into the top, the zenith ;~)of pop culture consciousness. I donbt think it has happened yet, but someday X:WP will be like the original Star Trek or Gunsmoke -- people who know basic popular culture, who never saw the TV show, will get a least the basic references. :~) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25" http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #116 **************************************