“Are you going to tell me 0 dimensions make sense?”
No, but we might ask you why you take intuition as the basis for accepting truth at all. That’s a pretty big implicit assumption you’re making.
“Theories didn’t make transistors. People did at Bell Labs with trial and error. Predictions had nothing to do with it. Math had nothing to do with it.”
Ah. The people did it without theories, math, or predictions? I’d like to know more!
Because I don’t know how one would go about constructing anything, e.g. a transistor, otherwise. You mineswell walk into a lab with equipment and randomly jam things together. (Heya, cat? ‘Meow’ Wanna help me build a transistor? ‘Meow’ Okay, let’s place you on top of this computer, maybe that will do something—I don’t know, because I don’t even theories! ‘Meow’ Hm, that didn’t work. But at least you look warm, curled up on top of my computer tower—oh wait, I’m still making inferences based on the prediction that temperature evens out, which comes from my theory!--so I guess you might be freezing for all I know)
Your comments will be a bit easier to read if you use > to start quoted text. (Make sure to leave a line separating them and your response, or they’ll be part of the same paragraph.)
OK, I am sorry I responded to your insulting post in kind. I was afraid it would come to this. First I am accused of trolling. Not being serious and not understanding. Now insulting responses.
I have learned to expect this when I challenge religious folks beliefs, I didn’t expect it from this community.
However, I can take and dish it out -if that’s what you want. Otherwise. I call truce.
You might still love this community, if you stick around, given your intellectual openness.
And you have a good point about the accidental inventions.
However, my point about theory—well, it’s so basic that it can’t really be denied. The transistor may have been invented by accident, but if the scientists didn’t have theories about how things worked, they couldn’t possibly have messed around with things in the right away to come up with accidental inventions on top of purposeful inventions. Like I said, if you truly had no theories, you mineswell stick your cat on top of your computer tower to make a transistor.
And I’m still puzzled about your response to Swimmer963′s comment. Do you really think that if a theory, that made no sense at all to you, but nevertheless made many successful predictions and was even the basis of a new technology, you still wouldn’t believe it? Because, if that’s so, then you’re just stupid. Your comments indicate you’re not actually that stupid.
That’s where I got the “you take intuition as the basis for accepting belief” comment, because your reply to her (I think Swimmer is female and has written posts on her) indicates that you do in fact take your intuition—“but that just can’t be”—over empirical demonstration.
“Are you going to tell me 0 dimensions make sense?” No, but we might ask you why you take intuition as the basis for accepting truth at all. That’s a pretty big implicit assumption you’re making.
“Theories didn’t make transistors. People did at Bell Labs with trial and error. Predictions had nothing to do with it. Math had nothing to do with it.” Ah. The people did it without theories, math, or predictions? I’d like to know more! Because I don’t know how one would go about constructing anything, e.g. a transistor, otherwise. You mineswell walk into a lab with equipment and randomly jam things together. (Heya, cat? ‘Meow’ Wanna help me build a transistor? ‘Meow’ Okay, let’s place you on top of this computer, maybe that will do something—I don’t know, because I don’t even theories! ‘Meow’ Hm, that didn’t work. But at least you look warm, curled up on top of my computer tower—oh wait, I’m still making inferences based on the prediction that temperature evens out, which comes from my theory!--so I guess you might be freezing for all I know)
Your comments will be a bit easier to read if you use > to start quoted text. (Make sure to leave a line separating them and your response, or they’ll be part of the same paragraph.)
x
OK, I am sorry I responded to your insulting post in kind. I was afraid it would come to this. First I am accused of trolling. Not being serious and not understanding. Now insulting responses.
I have learned to expect this when I challenge religious folks beliefs, I didn’t expect it from this community.
However, I can take and dish it out -if that’s what you want. Otherwise. I call truce.
You might still love this community, if you stick around, given your intellectual openness. And you have a good point about the accidental inventions. However, my point about theory—well, it’s so basic that it can’t really be denied. The transistor may have been invented by accident, but if the scientists didn’t have theories about how things worked, they couldn’t possibly have messed around with things in the right away to come up with accidental inventions on top of purposeful inventions. Like I said, if you truly had no theories, you mineswell stick your cat on top of your computer tower to make a transistor.
And I’m still puzzled about your response to Swimmer963′s comment. Do you really think that if a theory, that made no sense at all to you, but nevertheless made many successful predictions and was even the basis of a new technology, you still wouldn’t believe it? Because, if that’s so, then you’re just stupid. Your comments indicate you’re not actually that stupid. That’s where I got the “you take intuition as the basis for accepting belief” comment, because your reply to her (I think Swimmer is female and has written posts on her) indicates that you do in fact take your intuition—“but that just can’t be”—over empirical demonstration.