Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


And, of course, wrong.

Right

Right

Right

Right,

And of course, Right!

Do you know anything at all about the scientific method?

Yup.

 

[PixyMisa]

And how are we going to make these panels? What will you do when the sun isn't shining?

That processor uses 0.1W of power. A healthy human can produce 200W of power. You do the math.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yup.

Then what are the key requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, and how do these requirements show that everything you have said about empiricism is wrong?

 

[TFian]

That processor uses 0.1W of power. A healthy human can produce 200W of power. You do the math.

So what? We'll harvest humans like the matrix? Scary...

 

[PixyMisa]

You're not even trying, are you?

 

[TFian]

Then what are the key requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, and how do these requirements show that everything you have said about empiricism is wrong?

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

My question is, why is this chain of methodology the one that is correct for everything?

 

[TFian]

You're not even trying, are you?

How will we utilize that human power to power the processor?

 

[excaza]

How will we utilize that human power to power the processor?

 

[PixyMisa]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

10/10 for cut-and-paste. 0/10 for actually demonstrating any understanding of the subject.

My question is, why is this chain of methodology the one that is correct for everything?

Let me get this straight. You're asking why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

 

[TFian]

10/10 for cut-and-paste. 0/10 for actually demonstrating any understanding of the subject.

Let me get this straight. You're asking why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

Nope. I'm asking why that particular method is the only way we can determine reality. Why is it an absolute?

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.[1] The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[2] or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology.[3] The classic statement of scientism is from the physicist Ernest Rutherford: "there is physics and there is stamp-collecting."[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism Why is this the worldview that's right?

 

[PixyMisa]

Try answering the question next time rather than just cutting-and-pasting something you think might be relevant.

Nope. I'm asking why that particular method is the only way we can determine reality. Why is it an absolute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism Why is this the worldview that's right?

So what you're asking is, why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

 

[ben m]

But the problem there is, what if we don't build that infrastructure before we run out of the cheap petroleum?

a) Then we'll build the infrastructure with expensive petroleum.

b) We've already built some of the infrastructure. 30% of US electricity is non-fossil (mostly nuke and hydro). In Switzerland it's 95%. In Iceland it's 100%.

No, but if it became prohibitively expensive, I'd switch to carrier pigeons.

That was the question. Is $10 per computer prohibitively expensive? How about $20 per computer?

Sure, if you have that extra distant power source available.

You still miss the point. The distant power source is always available. It's already available. Making in infrastructure (grid, etc) worse just makes it more expensive. It's like "Electricity costs $0.50/kWh when the sun is shining and the local solar plant is running. At night the power gets transmitted, inefficiently, all the way from Hetch Hetchy, so it costs $0.99/kWh. In bad years, top customers pay up to $3/kWh and everyone else gets occasional nighttime brownouts." Or something like that.

 

[TFian]

Try answering the question next time rather than just cutting-and-pasting something you think might be relevant.

Please, you'd just say that regardless of how I answered it.

So what you're asking is, why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

Nope, try reading harder. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Why should I accept that particular brand of dogma?

 

[PixyMisa]

Please, you'd just say that regardless of how I answered it.

Try answering the question next time rather than just cutting-and-pasting something you think might be relevant.

Nope, try reading harder. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Why should I accept that particular brand of dogma?

So I guess what you're asking is, why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

 

[TFian]

So I guess what you're asking is, why does testing our ideas against reality give us a better understanding of reality than not testing our ideas against reality?

Nope.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nope.

Then why aren't you asking that? Do you know anything at all about the scientific method?

 

[TFian]

a) Then we'll build the infrastructure with expensive petroleum.

Ever hear of EROEI?

b) We've already built some of the infrastructure. 30% of US electricity is non-fossil (mostly nuke and hydro). In Switzerland it's 95%. In Iceland it's 100%.

For their residential energy use yeah. Neither country produces much at all though.

That was the question. Is $10 per computer prohibitively expensive? How about $20 per computer?

Not for me no.

You still miss the point. The distant power source is always available. It's already available.

From what?

 

[TFian]

Then why aren't you asking that? Do you know anything at all about the scientific method?

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

Why should I accept that particular brand of dogma?

 

[drkitten]

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Well, these first three aspects of science are not, strictly speaking, aspects of science. They're aspects of any attempt by humans to describe the world -- magic, myth, and theology also use these three aspects.

The real difference is in the fourth aspect, which is what distinguishes science from other modes of inquiry.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

My question is, why is this chain of methodology the one that is correct for everything?

Because testing a prediction doesn't change it. If the theory that you thought up in your armchair happens to be correct, then testing will merely confirm its correctness; testing will do it no harm.

But if the theory that you thought up in your armchair happens not to be correct, you won't know it unless you test it. While testing isn't guaranteed to reveal the flaws in your theory, not testing is guaranteed not to reveal them.

And, as Pixy pointed out, science subjects itself to this sort of testing all the time; that's one reason that scientific practice has changed over the ages. When scientists find that a particular testing scheme is unreliable and produces too many false positives (or false negatives), then that testing scheme is abandoned. That's why no one uses introspection in psychology any more (and in thirty years, no one will use introspective evidence in linguistics, either), and why doctors use double-blind placebo controlled experiments whenever possible. They've learned, the hard way, that if you don't use placeboes, your results are likely to be unreliable -- or simply wrong.

If you have a better method of sorting correct descriptions of reality from incorrect descriptions of reality than testing, feel free to propose it.

 

[PixyMisa]

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/ge...iism-body.html

Why should I accept that particular brand of dogma?

What dogma?

Try again.

What are the key requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, and how do these requirements show that everything you have said about empiricism is wrong?

Note that your first answer was wrong. Not that it was untrue, but that it was the correct answer to a different question.

Answer my question, and you'll have answered your question. If you don't know, then check the question I said you should be asking for clues.