Hide/show banner
Fantasy Cricket

Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion.
Go Back   World A-Team Cricket Forum > Members & Guest Lounge > MGL Archived Threads 2005 Onwards.
Sitemap Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Contact Us Chat Room Shoutbox News Podcasts Fantasy Cricket

MGL Archived Threads 2005 Onwards. All topic forum.

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 07:30 AM in reply to Alison's post starting "I have a tv, but I hardly ever watch it."
Zainub Zainub is offline
WAT Pakistan A Selector
WAT selector - Zimbabwe A 2005
Founder of the Official World-A-Team King of Spain Fan Club
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(ENG-captain) Passed Ted Dexter's 4502 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Karachi
My main national team: Pakistan
Posts: 4,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison
I have a tv, but I hardly ever watch it.
I would love to reduce the amount of Tely I watch, would love to. That is one thing that is always on me New Year / Birthday / Other Special Milestones' Resolution list . I think I've reduced the amount of telly I watch off late, but still watch a little too much.

I'm a real sucker for quiz shows. I love The Weakist Link, can't get enough of it. I even have a CD version of the game on my computer
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 07:36 AM in reply to Zainub's post starting "I would love to reduce the amount of..."
greg's Avatar
greg greg is offline
Selector of WAT Cricketers of the Year 2005
WAT England A Selector-2005
Selector-World XI (1980 onwards)
(AUS-captain) Passed Ian Chappell's 5345 Test runs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Salop/England
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Yorkshire
Posts: 5,346
Terrible news about Richard Whiteley who i have watched for so long it's like losing a friend.Countdown will never be the same again without his ties,jackets and awful puns.RIP twice nightly,you'll be sadly missed.
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 08:15 AM in reply to Beny's post starting "He's one of the most respected..."
Lemming Lemming is offline
(NZ-captain) Passed Jeff Crowe's 1601 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
Alot of it is educated guess work, but most is based on fairly substantial evidence.
I absolutely agree with you there. Of course history is based on evidence, some of it substantial. But you cannot deny there is alot based on hearsay, and I would refuse to believe otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
You know that the first great philosophers were also scientists and mathamaticians. They can all learn from each other and people such as Aristotle set up acadamies for all three.
Yes I'm aware of this people and what they did, but the fact they did everything only reflects the closeness of the subject in those times. Natural philosophy was taught until Newton's time, I believe Newton (this is going to be a little bit of history) got a little cheesed off with not being able to use natural philosophy to answer the questions he had, meaning he went away and practically invented physics, bringing certainty with him and frankly left philosophy behind. No philosopher ever put men on the moon, NASA needs only Newton's Principia, no philosopher created nuclear power, or the internet and no philospher will cure cancer. As far as I'm aware philosophy and physics have become quite detached (there was one course on physic's philosophy in my university's physics department, it was a chance for poorer students to get good marks) and philosophy is pretty redundent in physical research. Obviously ethics plays a huge part in medical research, genetics etc. and it always will do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
You dont think it's important to know that sort of thing went on? How has it influenced today's society?
Listen, as a scientist it's not important to me at all. History, philosophy etc. has an importance but it's not for me or the physics community. All I ever wanted to say was that historians are in a position to speculate rather too much for my liking. I prefer mathematics which is 100% certain, it is the only certain study we have, I prefer certainty (personally) that's all. History is nowhere near 100% certain and thus I'm not a fan, that's all I've said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
...Napoleon...
I've just been thinking and I'm not sure exactly who Napolean was.
__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 08:41 AM in reply to Lemming's post starting "I absolutely agree with you there. Of..."
Zainub Zainub is offline
WAT Pakistan A Selector
WAT selector - Zimbabwe A 2005
Founder of the Official World-A-Team King of Spain Fan Club
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(ENG-captain) Passed Ted Dexter's 4502 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Karachi
My main national team: Pakistan
Posts: 4,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lem
Of course history is based on evidence, some of it substantial. But you cannot deny there is alot based on hearsay, and I would refuse to believe otherwise
A lot in every science is based on assumption Leming. In fact every law or theory that existed today started in the form of a simple guess which is scientifically reffered to as "hypothesis".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lem
philosophy is pretty redundent in physical research
Philosophy is never redundant, it is relavant to every brach of science. The Theory of Relativity (Einstein) and Evolution (Darwin) is as much a part of philosphy as Sovran Maxims (Epicurus) or The Symposium (Plato). People often mistake philsophers as bunch of freaks with really bad hair and clothing who have nothing better to do then speculate, but we often neglate the fact that many of the greatest philosophers were also scientists, and philosophy still considers the methods (as opposed to the materials) of science as its province.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand RUSSELL
Philosophy is not a waste of time
One of the best philosophy books I have read is called Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. 3000 years of ideas compiled into just 400 pages - just remarkable.
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 08:42 AM in reply to Leafy Seadragon's post starting "I can see this in maths and, to a..."
Lemming Lemming is offline
(NZ-captain) Passed Jeff Crowe's 1601 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon
...my understanding is that the broader context of physics and science are more about the most probable or most workable explanation than they'll ever be about truth...
This statement is of course true. Nature isn't an easy thing to understand, the deeper we probe with better experiments the more difficult things become. Current theories are not neccessarily correct but work well in certain situations. Newton's laws hold well for most macroscopic behaviour but break down at extremely high speeds or with extremely small objects. Einstein solved the first problem (special relativity) and with a huge number of people working in particle physics his theories have been tested practically ad infinitum (spelling?) and found to be pretty true. Quantum mechanics solves the small object problem and we believe this to be a workable theory too (there is plenty of experimental evidence).

Einstein went on to set up the general theory of relativity which describes gravity's effect on masses and light. Experiment shows this theory to also be true. The next goal for physicists is to link both general relativity and quantum mechanics into one unified theory, now it may be possible we uncover some hidden problems needing more accurate theories, or it may be possible we can go ahead and set up the unified theory. If we can do that we will know more about the truth than we ever will do, in some respects we will know the mind of God.

So I agree that currently our theories are not matching up and are therefore not truthful (they break down at certain extremes), but that is purely a refletion of where we stand with our progress and understanding, it doesn't mean we won't ever get there, we are striving to of course. What we have are indeed most probable and workable explanations for certain situations, what we strive to reach is indeed truth! We will get there, it may be in our lifetime, it may not, but we will get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon
...One of the key differences between science and art subjects is the greater confidence with which supporting evidence can be gathered to support or disprove a theory...
That is exactly my point. That is why I prefer science rather than art, it is only a personal thing (a simple opinion or preference), but I like to have certainty, that is why I have studied mathematics - it is indeed 100% certain. I want my career to be as a theoretical physicist because I am interested in how things work (physics) and mathematics provides a high degree of certainty in theories (hence the theoretical bit).
__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 09:01 AM in reply to Beny's post starting "I'm a stargate nut... Ohhh love it! ..."
Andy Mellon's Avatar
Andy Mellon Andy Mellon is offline
Moderator
WAT selector - England A 2005
WAT New Zealand A Selector
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(NZ-captain) Passed Ken Rutherford's 2465 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Essex and New Zealand
Posts: 2,477
Send a message via Yahoo to Andy Mellon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
You can also read Simon Sharma, who might be more relevant to you as an Englishman.
I find Simon Sharma's books leave a lot to be desired. Terrible writing style with poorly constructed sentances and occasional lapses in grammar. Some sentances are as long as paragraphs and you have to read them 3 or 4 times to understand what he's trying to say. The content is good, once you can get around his poor use of prose.

The best history writers I've read include Orlando Figes, whose opus on the Russian Revolution is truly the fount of all knowledge of that period in Russian history - but this isn't a book that's easily accessible to those who don't have a good grounding in history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beny
I'll tell you why you dont like history Lemming... because its hard. I mean this with no malice, you, like most modern day kids grew up in a classroom where the teacher told you 'this is how it works, now remember this for the exam'
Whilst this may be true in the UK for GCSE history, A-Level history is much more about historiography and different points of view of the same events. For the Russian Revolution we looked at a book by an author called Acton who looked at the same events in 4 different ways 'traditional' 'revisionist' 'post-revisionist' and 'libertarian'. I didn't particularly like this as none of the views really seemed to make the events. All 4 views were the different authors trying to get their side's view across.

Last edited by Andy Mellon : 27-06-2005 at 09:14 AM.
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 09:09 AM in reply to Zainub's post starting "A lot in every science is based on..."
Lemming Lemming is offline
(NZ-captain) Passed Jeff Crowe's 1601 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi
A lot in every science is based on assumption Lemming. In fact every law or theory that existed today started in the form of a simple guess which is scientifically reffered to as "hypothesis".
You are correct Zainub, hypotheses exist in all sciences but are never true or claimed to be true until there is enough supporting evidence. Hypotheses are the way we proceed in understanding. We make a "guess" based on previous knowledge, develop the theory often with the help of the most reliable tool mathematics, and test it and test it and test it until it fails or holds out. Only when we have tested a theory from all angles in all situations can we safely say the theory is truth!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi
Philosophy is never redundant, it is relavant to every brach of science. The Theory of Relativity (Einstein) and Evolution (Darwin) is as much a part of philosphy as Sovran Maxims (Epicurus) or The Symposium (Plato).
I've just completed my degree, including a very difficult, professional -what you need to know to suceed - course on relativity this year. The Theory of Relativity may be a part of philosophy and philosophers may argue about it, but no philosophy was required (in fact no philosophy was required throughout my whole 4-year degree!). If you pick up a relativity textbook there are no chapters or even appendices or even mentions of philosophy, they are unrequired and as far as is aware relativity is correct and is pretty close to truth. Einstein used no philosophy in his relativity theory, of course his status as a genius meant he was constantly asked to comment on philosophical ideas and you can find quotes from him about God and religion (he was a religious man), but these contributed nothing to his work. I'm not really in a position to comment on Darwin and Evolution, but I suspect that there was plenty to argue about after he published his theory. But we must remember that Darwin used scientific evidence to compile his theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi
People often mistake philsophers as bunch of freaks with really bad hair and clothing
That really is physicists!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi
...but we often neglect the fact that many of the greatest philosophers were also scientists...
I brushed on this point earlier, I think that is true but is only a reflection of the low level of understanding in such times, meaning the subjects were closely linked, the development of mathematics whisked physics away from philosophy.
__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

Last edited by Lemming : 27-06-2005 at 09:11 AM.
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 09:29 AM in reply to Lemming's post starting "You are correct Zainub, hypotheses..."
Zainub Zainub is offline
WAT Pakistan A Selector
WAT selector - Zimbabwe A 2005
Founder of the Official World-A-Team King of Spain Fan Club
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(ENG-captain) Passed Ted Dexter's 4502 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Karachi
My main national team: Pakistan
Posts: 4,515
Philosphy and Physics have always been interlinked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikepedia
Imagine now that we are in a room, and in the middle of the room there is a table, and in the middle of the table there is a big, fresh, juicy, red apple. We can ask many metaphysical questions about this apple. This will, hopefully, help us understand better what metaphysics (branch of philosophy) is.

The apple is an excellent example of a physical object: one can pick it up, throw it around, eat it, and so on. It occupies space and time and has a variety of properties. Suppose we ask: what are physical objects? This might seem like the sort of question to which one cannot give an answer ("What is, what is?"). What could one possibly use to explain what physical objects are? But philosophers actually do try to give some general sorts of accounts of what they are. They ask: Are physical objects just bundles of their properties? Or are they substances which have those properties? That is called the problem of substance or objecthood.

Here is another sort of question. We said that the apple has properties, like being red, being big, being juicy. How are properties different from objects? Notice, we say that things like apples have properties like redness. But apples and redness are different sorts of items, of things, of entities. One can pick up and touch an apple, but cannot pick up and touch redness, except perhaps in the sense that you can pick up and touch red things. So how can we best think about what properties are? This is called the problem of universals.

Here is another question about what physical objects are: when in general can we say that physical objects come into being and when they cease to exist? Surely the apple can change in many ways without ceasing to exist. It could get brown and rotten but it would still be that apple. But if someone ate it, it would not just have changed; it would no longer exist. So there are some metaphysical questions to be answered about the notions of identity, or being the same thing over time, and change.

This apple exists in space (it sits on a table in a room) and in time (it was not on the table a week ago and it will not be on the table a week from now). But what does this talk of space and time mean? Can we say, for example, that space is like an invisible three-dimensional grid in which the apple is located? Suppose the apple, and every other physical object in the universe, were to be entirely removed from existence: then would space, that "invisible grid," still exist? Some people say not—they say that without physical objects, space would not exist, because space is the framework in which we understand how physical objects are related to each other. There are many other metaphysical questions to ask about space and time.

There are some other, very different sorts of problems in metaphysics. The apple is one sort of thing; now if Sally is in the room, and we say Sally has a mind, we are surely going to say that Sally's mind is a different sort of thing from the apple (if it is a sort of thing at all). I might say that my mind is immaterial, but the apple is a material object. Moreover, it sounds a little strange to say that Sally's mind is located in any particular place; maybe we could say it is somewhere in the room; but the apple is obviously located in a particular place, namely on the middle of the table. It seems clear that minds are fundamentally different from physical bodies. But if so, how can something mental, like a decision to eat, cause a physical event to occur, like biting down on the apple? How are the mind and body causally interconnected if they are two totally different sorts of things? This is called the mind-body problem, which is now typically relegated to a philosophical subdiscipline called philosophy of mind. The mind-body problem is sometimes still considered part of metaphysics, however.
I am sorry I have to quote the whole thing, but to prove my point I have to. All these questions, or problems rather, such as problem of substance or objecthood or the problem of universals or the mind-body problem have been raised by philosophers and answered by philosopher and physicts and mathematicians in tandem. Neither can be denied credit.
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 09:47 AM in reply to Zainub's post starting "Philosphy and Physics have always been..."
Lemming Lemming is offline
(NZ-captain) Passed Jeff Crowe's 1601 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,641
I'm not denying philosophers talk about what they do, they can talk about what they want. But just because they write about this stuff doesn't mean they contribute to actual scientific research. I know for a fact the theoretical physics department where I shortly will be starting my Ph.D (please don't be fooled by the philosophy bit of that title) has no collaboratory work with philosophers, yet they still kick out world-class research year after year. I will reiterate my point, if philosophers want to talk about whether apples exist, what is space and time, space-time or even what the time is, that is not for the physicist to decide. In the real world of actual scientific research and development - of which I have some experience (little I agree, i'm only 22 which is too young to have real experience or knowledge of anything) - that is actual scientific progress, the philosophers contribute nothing, I'm afraid to say. How can they? They may talk about it and argue about it until the cows come home but they get in the way.

Physicists don't care about what an "object" really is, they are quite prepared to let the philosopher debate that with his peers, physicists go past the philosophy and actually concentrate on what happens when the apple is thrown for example.

Don't be fooled into thinking that philosophy must contribute to scientific research just because philosophers talk about it. I talk about cricket every day on this forum, it doesn't mean the powers that be in the cricket world consider my opinions.

From experience of scientific research I don't agree that philosophy has a huge impact on developments.
__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

Last edited by Lemming : 27-06-2005 at 10:01 AM.
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 27-06-2005, 10:13 AM in reply to Zainub's post starting "Philosphy and Physics have always been..."
Lemming Lemming is offline
(NZ-captain) Passed Jeff Crowe's 1601 Test runs
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Birmingham
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Warwickshire
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi
...problem of substance or objecthood or the problem of universals or the mind-body problem have been raised by philosophers and answered by philosopher and physicts and mathematicians in tandem. Neither can be denied credit.
I'm willing to give credit to the philosophers if they want it. I've never even heard of these problems and I'm not a bad student. My degree was heavily designed by the theory department of my physics school to give good enough grounding for students to go on and research, the best go to Cambridge (not me I'm afraid, even though I never tried) but if I work really, really hard there is no reason why I could not find myself at the world's best institutions doing the finest research. Now, I daresay many scientists and mathematicians have chanced their arm at a bit of philosophy, that's fine by me. But no philosophy has contributed to my schooling, I have never been asked to read a book on philosophy for example, neither will it contribute to my future as a scienist unless there is something my tutor is hiding from me (I have asked this quesiton, making sure I can stay away from philosophers ). I hate to say it but at a research level philosophers do not work with physicists to develop ideas and theories, that is simply a fact.
__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 AM.

Page generated in 0.665 seconds (74.39% PHP - 25.61% MySQL) with 13 queries

Partner Sites: - pakistancricketzone.com | Fantasy Cricket | Cricket World Cup Images | Cricket 24/7 | Third Umpire | Indian Cricket League

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0