Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 03-07-2020, 11:39 PM
Tim McGrath Tim McGrath is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 220
Default

Besides composing "The Rubaiyat," one of the greatest poems of all time, Khayyam wrote a treatise on Pascal's Triangle, one of the most intriguing of all mathematical entities. And he was not alone in his mastery of quatrains and quadratics. The Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler, who left us some of math's most beautiful equations, also knew "The Aeneid" by heart, all 10,000 lines of it, in Latin.

Last edited by Tim McGrath; 03-08-2020 at 12:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 03-08-2020, 01:42 PM
Allen Tice's Avatar
Allen Tice Allen Tice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Posts: 6,119
Default

I think the only "hand-waving" in paragraph two is this: "It is probably not "unitary" since if it possesses awareness even slightly like what we as humans have". That's direct opposite is an emotionally cold Everything indeed. (At least from time to time.) Very, very, cold by my human emotional standards. All the more reason to act as responsibly as I at least can endure. Which has its limits. I've spent years trying to figure out the World War II holocaust and the huge inhumanities we have seen around us recently in Africa and elsewhere and know from the past, as well as historical plagues. I have no answers that are likely to comfort.

Last edited by Allen Tice; 03-08-2020 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 03-09-2020, 04:27 PM
Allen Tice's Avatar
Allen Tice Allen Tice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Posts: 6,119
Post

Julie, some words on the ways of scientific research. Setting aside all corporate funded research that clearly has a maybe not-so-hidden agenda, good researchers often have an idea they want to confirm (a previous study OR a theory or hunch of their own). This is the case in post graduate work under a thesis or dissertation supervisor. For instance, suppose my advisor said to me (he did): “Here’s a psychological test where we know that when the independent variable is the word count of a person’s answer, the dependent variable (a speculative construct of uncertain merit) closely varies with the word count. Can you look at this?” I thought that word count was crude, and having ideas of my own and knowing about Fechner’s work in audiology, I said, “How about I do something with what I think is a more basic variable, syllable count?” (“I wanna ‘prove’ syllable count is better....”). So I counted thousands of syllables and threw the results onto a graph. Next, thanks to knowing about Fechner, I logarithmically adjusted the axes to “prove” that a similar central nervous system scaling process operated. Bingo. Ultimately, the logarithms gave way in my work to a power-law or exponential relationship that was even better. More Bingo! Correlations in the .90 region. On the other hand, just looking at something new like Galileo did is science too.

Last edited by Allen Tice; 03-10-2020 at 11:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 03-09-2020, 05:23 PM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

But testing a hypothesis to determine whether your hunch is right is not the same thing as setting out to prove that your hunch is right.

In the first scenario, the experiment can be a success even if the results surprise you.

In the second, if the results surprise you, you're a failure.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 03-10-2020, 08:35 AM
Allen Tice's Avatar
Allen Tice Allen Tice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Posts: 6,119
Default

I’ve never mentioned all this above before and it’s not a boast. I put “prove” in quotes because it is a much abused word that people use casually. “Show” is a much better word. What is “proof”? Demonstration is pretty much all that is possible. How can I prove that I was born where my birth certificate (circumstantial evidence, possibly fraudulent) says I was? We can’t even prove that yesterday existed. There’s lots of evidence that it did, that’s all. Can I prove that I’m not a robot? Bertrand Russell tried to prove that 2+2=4. (Rick Mullin is still happy with that!) Can anyone “prove” that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that the earth is not flat? How can I prove that I love my wife? The best that is possible is to demonstrate that recently something like the International Space Station reappeared when predicted. Etc. In a sense, I was lucky with the syllable count. A negative result would have spurred some other conclusion.

I spit on “research” like that which once “proved” that tobacco didn’t kill.

Last edited by Allen Tice; 03-10-2020 at 08:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 03-10-2020, 11:22 AM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

The Spanish cognate of "to prove" (probar) is usually translated with agenda-neutral words like "test" and "try" and "check out."

An implied agenda is still there in a legal context, in expressions such as the burden of proof, proof of innocence, etc. But that makes perfect sense. Advocates are supposed to pick a side. If your lawyer doesn't have an agenda to favor you, and is just dispassionately interested in getting at the truth of the matter, you need to find a new lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 03-10-2020, 11:32 AM
Allen Tice's Avatar
Allen Tice Allen Tice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Posts: 6,119
Default

I have to agree. My wife is a very good lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 03-10-2020, 11:49 AM
Roger Slater Roger Slater is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 16,475
Default

It's not really an "agenda" just because someone says "We are trying to prove that . . . " if the attempts are conducted objectively using the scientific method or sound mathematics/logic. Mathematicians tried for years to prove Fermat's Theorem, for example, and eventually succeeded. Looking for a proof to something you strongly suspect to be true is perfectly fine as long as you don't talk yourself into seeing something that isn't there.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 03-10-2020, 01:43 PM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

Yes, I'm being way too doctrinaire about this. As about most things.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 03-10-2020, 05:36 PM
Allen Tice's Avatar
Allen Tice Allen Tice is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY USA
Posts: 6,119
Default

Of course, because you are the exception that proves the rule.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,839
Total Posts: 270,784
There are 2131 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online