Yes= all interesting material you post.

It's still not at cross purposes to what I posted- not even a bit.

All I said was that the <scientific method> is the best method to test truth claims that is currently available.

Of course the <idea> can never be even close to perfect- and people who use any method- even the best available- will always make mistakes.

But this method is all we have at the moment.

The alternatives are even worse- much worse in fact.

IE_

Ok I"m God and I live in your closet.

Prove me wrong?

Well you can't.

That's why

<burden of proof is on the claimant> is so important.

So that we don't listen to obviously absurd and ridiculous truth claims.

My daughter came home from 8th grade years ago and announced that she had learned the scientific method. She then proceded to rattle off <THE> steps of <THE METHOD> just as she had been taught.

I went nuts.

<All I said was that the <scientific method> is the best method to test truth claims that is currently available.>

In fact, the scientific method is <by definition> (well, mine) the best method...currently...available. If it weren't, then whatever better method existed would be the scientific method (rather than whatever was second best).

Yes- I get your point there and it's a good reminder because I don't think that many people really understand the basic idea even.

The scientific method actually is an idea that <Means> "the most accurate way of discovering facts."

Wittgenstein on ontology- The only perfect way to express the concept of ontology is with his tautology that opens the <Tractatus>:

Proposition one: "The world is all that is the case."

Note that this tautology is not descriptive of any specific "contents" of this "world". All it claims is that there is such a thing as ontology, or the ontic realm, or most simply, "reality".

You know-- stuff. Galaxies. Toasters.

Finding out "what is the case" is the challenge of knowledge, or just trying to know phenomena "as such," or "as they are."

The best definition of the scientific method would also be tautologous-

What is "the best method to find the facts?"

Well, the best method to find the facts.

Oddly enough...

The concept of "best" doesn't allow for gradations.

CASE CLOSED

<Bad Experimental Designs>

Part One- "Bears"

Here is an extremely poorly designed experiment to find out facts about bear behavior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=KR&...

the direction of scientific pursuit is but one more expression of that amorphous evolving entity know as culture. It is directed by the needs of power. You need to just stand back, let go, and watch the endless consternation of frustrated control freaks.

You know Tesla, yes? The creator of AC generator systems and pretty much the father of our modern day power grid? (edison, I hear, believed in DC and did not think AC would work). Well his vision of the technological future involved using static energy (energy present everywhere in generators prolifically placed that our machines could recharge just by passing by. He believed in FREE ENERGY availiable to ALL. Also he succeeded in lighting up a bank of lights without wires at a distance (a mile? a long distance) from the power source. This was in like 1910. His vision did not include a network of wires and cables so that a central authority could profit off the power grid...this is a response to the needs of power...it is not the "ultimate technology availiable" In fact the notion of "static energy" and "wireless power transmission" seems like crazy sci-fi crap...but it came from the same mind that introduced the world to Alternate Current...so whatchya gonna do? Give in to the whims of the powerful and sneer at "crazy" technological ideas? Or accept the fact that culture/power evolves and scientific pursuit is just another tool for this amorphous complex of human interaction.

By the way, if we could wait around a few hundred years for our current system of fossil fuel power to utterly collapse what will evolve is something that Tesla envisioned I predict. The shortage of fossil fuels and the explosion of population won't allow such luxuries anymore as holding billions of people hostage to a power grid.

Well I leave it to y'all. I personally have embraced the notion of infinity and understand that only small corners of the universe can ever be "understood". Chess is actually a perfect metaphor for this. It is a very limited infinite system but infinite nonetheless.

Sorry HMS nothing personal whenever I rattle off to academians they respond in a sensitive manner....but I have embraced the same economic system you have so its a criticism of my own reality as well as yours!

Well I'd be hard pressed to disagree with your last post there.

I'm a <Tesla> fan as well. There are all manner of <BBC Documentaries> and <Whack movies> about him available on the FREE ELECTRONIC GRID

Which he would probably like.

Viz- I watch these films for free by stealing them from "internet streaming video sites".

Lots of the films are in public domain I suppose, but for a paltry 20 bucks a month IP fee, I can watch all the movies anyone posts. And rest assured, they all get posted- including perfect DVD HD quality "screener editions" of all the major Hollywood releases before they hit the theatres.

That said, you're certainly not riling me up- course i'm not a scientist.

But you're also not contradicting anything <Howard> or I have said in the thread either.

Doubtless you are aware of this.

The relationship between cultural evolution and human scientific inquiry is a separate topic.

Unless you adopt an <extreme phenomenological position>, the "facts" about reality certainly don't need or care about humans.

Trying to find out as many of these facts as possible is probably a good idea though.

But it's all tiny stuff compared to this infinity you speak of.

Humans aren't needed for that trip.

CASE CLOSED

Everyone!

(I wonder if he will show up)

On the grounds that 567 of those pages were about World Cup Soccer.

However, that said, even a cursory examination of the thread in my forum here, currently at number two in all time record page count--

--will reveal stretches of up to thirty pages at a time that consist of nothing more than me typing the word <quack> over and over.

Which is the more legitimate content for a record breaking thread on a <chess website>?

You be the judge!

I had a nice little pamphlet of "unused tesla inventions"...one was a one-way fluid valve with no moving parts...it just doubled the fluid backwards on itself so if the movement was the wrong way it would cancel itself out.

And the movie Coffee & Cigarettes (Jarmush) movie features Jack Black (of the White Stripes) pulling out his Tesla coil!

I don't know what a tesla coil is atall.

I can see you are very much on top of the topic of the scientific method and I agree completely that it is the most reliable way to pursue knowledge of the 'facts'.

I would also stress though that the 'scientific method' is very much an ideal to be aimed at, rather than an accurate reflection of the way science is conducted. There are countless examples of this, Global Warming is the most recent. Due to the current political climate, there is probably $1 granted for research which might undermine the theory for every $1000 dollars that goes into something which will probably support it. This is not really in the spirit of the 'method' I'm sure you would agree.

Also, the scientific method such as it stands is *just* a method for coming closer to the facts, and no more. It is not a justification for the pursuit of the facts in all circumstances to the limits of our technological know how.

This is the mistake that modern science is making IMO. Projects like the genetic engineering of crops are deeply worrying because we are making changes to whole eco-systems and we have no idea of the end result, however promising some short term empirical data may be.

There is a good comparison here with the 'preposterous' religious doctrines you mention. We are eager to dismiss many of these doctrines because of their lack of empirical evidence, but we are gambling the future of our entire species on only a few shreds of evidence ATM anyway, because the 'scientific method' is as blindly accepted by those in power now as many primitive religious ideas went unquestioned for so many generations.

This is really a different topic to the one I raised with the articles, but it is very interesting. I would stress I understand the problem is not the 'scientific method' itself, but the way scientists and politicians mistakenly use it to justify their actions. Religion itself was and is twisted in the same way, to justify actions it was never meant to.

I agree that no archaelogical dig can prove a metaphysical understanding of the Garden of Eden as a religious reading of Genesis would dictate, but it might go a long way towards supporting an allegorical interpretation of it. This is the thing that interests me the most, trying to discover the balance of truth and fiction in these sorts of documents which have their origins so far back in our pre-history.

Anyway, sorry if my thoughts aren't exactly arranged very coherently, but I was eager to respond to your very interesting post.

Thanks for your thoughts <JFQ>.

You know what I'm thinking.

Ok remember when <Loseson> was paired with <Ironing and Washing Up Like a Woman> in the "mini-Candidates" matches, and <Loseson> almost managed to win?

But didn't?

After that <Loseson> punished <Ironing and Dusting Like an Old Woman> in virtually every encounter.

Like revenge.

So maybe last night, <Ironing and Getting Dinner on the Table by Six or He'll Get Slapped> decided enough was enough and it was time to take back his dignity.

Remember, <Ironing and Shopping> lost a lot of dignity for getting in a fight over that <Austrialian bint>.

How embarrassing!!

So <Ironing and Doing What He's Told Around the House> may have felt he needed to prove he was a man again.

Prediction? This will be short lived.

<Magnus Loseson> will triumph in the end.

Might take a few more years.

BTW, your post couldn't be better organized or more coherent.

I agree with every word of it--

However, it doesn't address the original question:

The aritcle was really irresponsible in the way it "wanted" the find to be evidence that Chrisitian doctrine is true.

Also, remember that every single creation myth has some version of Paradise, A great disaster like a Flood, Exile, Redemption, etc.

This is what myths teach us most about humanity and human history-

These are the things we care about now and also 50000 years ago.

Surviving in a hostile environment.

Look <Wood> you have to remember that nobody is going to find "The Lost Island of Atalantis".

It was actually never lost in the first place.

It's in <New Jersey>, but not too many people know about it because..

Let's face it- if American movies and TV have taught us anything, it's this-

Ok remember this?

<Some guy>: "Chess base said it's true."

<Woody>: "Chess base says a lot of things."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Yea you are right I kind of got side tracked from the original question there. That article was certainly too supportive of Christian doctrine for my taste as well.

I will have to think about some of your other points more, and carefully vet how much of my wacko X-Files supporting side I want to reveal.

In the meantime, I can see you have really begun to embrace your dislike of Aronian, in a hugely comical way!

I did wonder who you were talking about, then I *got* it.

haha

Going back to the chess base thing, they are making their heavy handed support of Kramnik felt again in their latest article on Linares, referring to it as Anand's first tournament as World Champ and therefor very disappointing so far.

I'm fed up to the back teeth with that rubbish web site.

I wonder how Aronian's ironing is coming along?

hahaha

I'll say it again-- NOT A SINGLE OTHER CHESS WEBSITE IN THE WORLD offere <English language service> without bothering to hire a proofreader.

Unbelievable slovenliness, no professionalism of any kind.

<Chessbase> is merely a marketing platform.

It is an abomonation.

What about that <lunkhead> on the <Linares> page who claimed he could have held <Magnus Loseson's> posiition in Blindfolded Blitz?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

I don't know why people feel free to embarrass themselves in public like that.

Well I suppose it's quite easy on the internet, as you can't actually hear the laughter of the other people.

Yes, it's true that <Jersey> has some things to offer.

For example, speaking of <religious cryptozoology>, do you know the

<Legend of the New Jersey Devil>?

It's been around for a hundred years or so.

People keep seeing the <Devil> in the swamps of Jersey.

Here is an excellent news report about it.

It's also a great example of <public access TV cable stations> that get to do all the things a <network news channel> can do, but on Loopy subjects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rohd...

And for hockey fans, you may not know that this legend is the reason for the name of the multiple Stanley Cup winning <New Jersey Devils>

"offere"

heh.... DOH!

Well I suppose I had that coming.

Stupid poetic irony.

<Magnus Loseson> is indeed a "big baby," as you so brilliantly posted on the <Loseson Thread>.

But babies grow up to be World Chess Champions.

Just look at <Bobby>.

But a woman can't grow up to be a man.

That's why <Ironing and Cleaning Off Kitchen Surfaces> will never be World Champion.

Cripes I'm awfully sexist, it's true.

I'd blame it on hanging out with too many men.

I think I might be like Elaine on <Seinfeld>;;;