What is matter?

[untermensche]

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

Have you ever analyzed the contents of a so called "cause"? 'Cause if you do you will see the "cause" to be nothing more than a situation and what happens is not so much a matter of "the cause", which is purely incidental, but of the behavior of the structures involved.

I basically say this right above.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors

You posted it, but never bothered to read it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And "Rebel Without a Cause" Meant That the 50s Establishment Wanted to Hide the Cause

Silly goose. What the hell does that have to do with what anyone has said? You are the only one I see stating absolutes. "We don't know that which we don't know" is a long way from meaning what you want it to mean.

So how about offering some support for your confident assertions.

You are claiming we do know.

You claim we do know we do not know.

I claim we know.

If we claim we know there are only two options, so we should start by simplifying and assuming we do know. I hope you can comprehend that assuming is used to explore an option. It is not any dogmatic claim.

1. For there to be behavior there is a cause.

2. There can be behavior without a cause.

So let's explore option 2.

What does "without a cause" mean? Is it even a logical conception or merely just words strung together?

Here we get stuck of course because I can't dogmatically define "without a cause".

So that is for the people who say we don't know to define.

Option 1 is something observed. Option 2 is not.

So for the people who say option 2 is possible, and therefore "we don't know" it is up to them to define "without a cause".

What could that possibly mean?

Free will can prevent a cause from creating an effect.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

God Does Not Play Dice, But Godwin Does

So do show how you answer the question "what is matter" without talking of behavior.

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

I'm glad to see that independent minds are asserting themselves and rejecting the Indeterminacy Theory of that Nazi Heisenberg.

 

[untermensche]

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

I'm glad to see that independent minds are asserting themselves and rejecting the Indeterminacy Theory of that Nazi Heisenberg.

I don't know which physicist I should believe but I have heard Lawrence Krauss say many times that the universe is a deterministic universe.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Root cause. What is the essence of the thing that causes it to behave as it does.

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?

The root cause itself. To say that there is a root cause is precisely to say that there is no other cause that would explain it. Either because there is no explanation to be had or because the root cause explains everything therefore itself.

"Root cause" is a chimera.

Not necessarily.

You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

If there is a root cause, whether you need one is of course irrelevant.

I also don't see how it's necessarily a contradiction. Could you explain?
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Yes; and I should. But it's like driving past a pile-up on the freeway - you don't want to look, but you just can't help it.

I am not laughing at you.

I am partially sickened by you.

So you have chosen not to engage. Fine. Thanks for trying.

hahahahaha... hilarious exchange.

 

[Juma]

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?

The root cause itself. To say that there is a root cause is precisely to say that there is no other cause that would explain it. Either because there is no explanation to be had or because the root cause explains everything therefore itself.

"Root cause" is a chimera.

Not necessarily.

You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

If there is a root cause, whether you need one is of course irrelevant.

I also don't see how it's necessarily a contradiction. Could you explain?
EB

Seems you havent considered what "cause" really is.

 

[James Chapman]

Root cause. What is the essence of the thing that causes it to behave as it does.

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

"Root cause" is an engineering term. I don't think it has an accepted meaning in either science or philosophy. In engineering, it refers to the cause whose removal effects the most complete elimination of a specified defect.

 

[untermensche]

"Root cause"?
Then what explains the "root cause"?
"Root cause" is a chimera.
You dont need it and it is a logical contradiction.

"Root cause" is an engineering term. I don't think it has an accepted meaning in either science or philosophy. In engineering, it refers to the cause whose removal effects the most complete elimination of a specified defect.

Engineering IS science.

Are you Sheldon Cooper?

 

[Juma]

Engineering IS science.

No it is not. They are interdependent but definitely not the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

Engineering IS science.

No it is not. They are interdependent but definitely not the same thing.

What parts of engineering are not part of science?

 

[fromderinside]

No it is not. They are interdependent but definitely not the same thing.

What parts of engineering are not part of science?

...using tables as benchmarks for analysis and conclusion and making stuff rather than new knowledge.

 

[Kharakov]

Applied vs. theoretical/experimental. Lots of overlaps- engineers experiment and record data from various materials, etc.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Authoritarian Irrationalism, Just Like the Dogmatic Christianity That Gave Us the Dark Ages (476--1453)

This has been the diversion.

You talk about the cause of the behavior.

Which yes, is a preceding behavior, but we can't ignore the implication of this apparent string of behaviors.

It is not the claim that all behaviors has causes that is wrong, it is your stronger and unsupported claim that there are a single root cause for everything.

A root cause to any observed behavior.

Unless there can be behavior "without a cause".

Then "without a cause" is in need of rational definition such that it is shown to possibly exist and to possibly lead to effect.

I'm glad to see that independent minds are asserting themselves and rejecting the Indeterminacy Theory of that Nazi Heisenberg.

I don't know which physicist I should believe but I have heard Lawrence Krauss say many times that the universe is a deterministic universe.

What seemed to be indeterminacy should have been a clue that there is an outside dimension affecting the movements. Only an intentionally mindless culture would answer that things "just happen," the Willy-Nilly Theory. Not only that, the postmodernists insist on it and ban any attempt to return to puzzling things out.

 

[untermensche]

What parts of engineering are not part of science?

...using tables as benchmarks for analysis and conclusion and making stuff rather than new knowledge.

Sounds like science to me.

Not much like religion or random behavior.

 

[Juma]

...using tables as benchmarks for analysis and conclusion and making stuff rather than new knowledge.

Sounds like science to me.

Not much like religion or random behavior.

So to you everything humans do can only be divided into science, religion or random behavior?

 

[untermensche]

Sounds like science to me.

Not much like religion or random behavior.

So to you everything humans do can only be divided into science, religion or random behavior?

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

 

[fromderinside]

...using tables as benchmarks for analysis and conclusion and making stuff rather than new knowledge.

Sounds like science to me.

Not much like religion or random behavior.

I use data from experiments and benchmarks exactly calibrated to processes used to collect the data rather than referring to published tables as would your standard engineer on a similar evaluation task. I have an experiment. I have a hypothesis, you have a population of stimuli and observers or data generating apparatus calibrated precisely for observing the specific measurements and conditions. I compute acceptance boundaries based on specifics rather than averages etc. Engineers often use tables for this sort of thing.

I get offended when someone says why didn't you refer to this or that table. I did not because this or that table was generated to some general principle and not to a specific set of unique conditions.

When one has ten airplanes with five different environments for rivets one has five tables as a engineer. When one has an experimental plane, a one off, one has unique requirements for rivets which might entail seventeen different sets of data drawn numerous time to determine what will become tables. The latter is science, the former is not.

 

[skepticalbip]

So to you everything humans do can only be divided into science, religion or random behavior?

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

 

[untermensche]

Sounds like science to me.

Not much like religion or random behavior.

I use data from experiments and benchmarks exactly calibrated to processes used to collect the data rather than referring to published tables as would your standard engineer on a similar evaluation task. I have an experiment. I have a hypothesis, you have a population of stimuli and observers or data generating apparatus calibrated precisely for observing the specific measurements and conditions. I compute acceptance boundaries based on specifics rather than averages etc. Engineers often use tables for this sort of thing.

I get offended when someone says why didn't you refer to this or that table. I did not because this or that table was generated to some general principle and not to a specific set of unique conditions.

When one has ten airplanes with five different environments for rivets one has five tables as a engineer. When one has an experimental plane, a one off, one has unique requirements for rivets which might entail seventeen different sets of data drawn numerous time to determine what will become tables. The latter is science, the former is not.

Again, it all sounds like science or a reliance on science.

I see no magic dividing line.

Where is the non-scientific behavior?

- - - Updated - - -

That need not be read into what I wrote.

I just don't see how the practical application of science is not also science.

My view of science seems broader than some.

Someone who is actually engaged in science or engineering would likely have a better understanding of the difference than someone who has never been schooled in either. Just because someone works at Bell Labs (or uses an instrument with blinking lights ) doesn't make them a scientist.

These are only matters of opinion.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between opinion and fact.