jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (155 posts)

Are these people morons?

  1. 0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    A definition is a sentence that describe the meaning of a word precisely and clearly that the word can be used unambiguously. A definition limits the meaning of a word.
    A synonym on the other hand is a word with a similar meaning, a word that may be substituted for a given word. It DOES NOT clarify the meaning but just gives a word with a same or similar meaning.
    There are people here in hubpages who couldn't understand this much. These people always shy away when a definition is asked and always substitute a synonym for a definition. They also seems not to understand the meaning of the word 'objective'.
    Are they really morons or pretending so, that they don't have to abandon long cherished beliefs?
    (This is also one area where there is no difference between a theist, atheist or agnost).

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This make make some (any) sense if you had posted it as a reply to an example of whatever it is you are talking about.

      1. Jonas James profile image60
        Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Usually dishonest hubbers delete those comments where people ask them to define terms unambiguously.  This is standard behavior for those morons that this post is directed at.

      2. 62
        lilacsnowfireposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This discussion screams confusing!

        1. Jonas James profile image60
          Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not to a discerning intellect.

    2. twosheds1 profile image59
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Synonyms can be used as a definition. They aren't strictly definitions, true, but they can offer a sort of definition. Some abridged dictionaries use single words as definitions, so those would, most likely, be synonyms.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have never seen the point in your asking others for definitions of words when there are online dictionaries at your disposal.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you do not know what a definition is?
        "An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something."
        A dictionary has many meanings for a given word. The purpose of definition is to restrict the meaning to a single one, that the word can be used precisely and unambiguously(or To liberate the word  meaning from being contextual).

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I still don't see your point in asking for definitions from others?

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As Voltaire said, if you want to converse, define your terms.
            Well layman do not need definition. Religious people too do not need definitions, as they are out there to cheat but scientists need definition.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And whatever they give you *is* how they define it, whether it makes sense or not.

              Definitions are either proscriptive or descriptive.  In either case criticizing how people define things doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Aren't you reading it fully? People can define any word as they please, but when two people want to do an objective discussion they should define their crucial terms before they start, to understand precisely what the other person is saying. (And it should make sense, or what will they discuss?) Otherwise they'll be simply throwing opinions at each other and trying to shout down each other instead of discussing.

                1. Wesley Meacham profile image93
                  Wesley Meachamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So any time any two people want to talk about anything they should define all the words that they are going to use in their discussion before they even start which sounds almost like a prediscussion discussion to me. You may never actually get to talk about what you want to talk about from all the time you spend on talking about it before hand.

                  Is it just me or does this all seem a little superfluous (please don't ask me to define that).

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you want to be understood correctly, yes. If you just want to talk, no.
                    Try to read the posts above, before commenting.

                  2. Jonas James profile image60
                    Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wesley, only the key terms need strict definitions.  For example, in the following question "Do elephants rumbamumba?" the key term is "rumbamumba".  If I am going to discuss this topic first I must define this strange word so that there is no room for confusion for the audience or myself, right?

                    In the question "does God exist?" which word is the key term?  Have a guess...

                  3. austinhealy profile image82
                    austinhealyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Very funny Wesley !

                2. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I did read fully.  An objective discussion can be based on a shared definition, or based on exploring definitions. You seem to be unwilling to do either.

                  You also seem to want to be able to call people morons while skating just under the forums rules by not specifically defining who you are talking about. Talk about having it both ways.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In a scientific dissertation we do not 'explore' definitions. The presenter define his terms in the hypothesis stage that the audience can understand what exactly he is saying.  And a definition should be objective, it should not have any subjective criteria. Fatfist has elaborated it well that I'm not going to expound. If you still fail to understand I can't help you.
                    Regarding calling morons, human being is distinguished by his analytical brain. Anybody who do not use the faculty is a moron, either by choice or by nature. My question was which is which.

                3. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Usually, we don't wish to insult the intelligence of who it is we're having a discussion with by defining words that are already defined.

                  No, people cannot define any word they please, that is nonsense.

                  Nonsense: Words or signs having no intelligible meaning... Subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for being another example for the OP.
                    Fatfist gave a challenge to you. If maths is the language of science as you claim, let the whole world hear(Read) your mathematical explanation for gravity.
                    Space is defined as a bound-less expanse(by your dictionary). If you have any intelligence, as you claim you have, explain how you can make out the expansion of borderless space? Explain how it 'warps' or 'bends'. As you really 'know' it bend please show a picture of the bend. All these, if you are intelligent, otherwise ignore it or say something that has no relation.
                    Remember, as the claimant, it is your job to 'prove'.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, terms = words? We don't define words in conversations.



              Then, get yourself a dictionary if you are a layman.



              You aren't a scientist so you need not worry.

    4. kess profile image61
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You have been alive so long and still do not realise that since to clearly define one word you must use many, you just adds to the confusion already presented in the one.

      Words are the realisation of the confusion of men, and where the confusion is greater, more words are employed.

    5. Jonas James profile image60
      Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Are they really morons or pretending so, that they don't have to abandon long cherished beliefs?"

      Both, and usually with a generous heaping of dishonesty to go with it.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You nailed it.

    6. kathleenkat profile image89
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How does making grammatical errors mean you're a moron?

      Language is constantly changing and evolving. Here are some examples of words that were used incorrectly, then evolved to have new meaning: Bitch, fag, gay...

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is not about errors, it is about being vague deliberately.

        1. kathleenkat profile image89
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh please. This entire discussion is based off of a post that complains about people misusing words and meanings. If that's not abuse of grammar and mechanics, then I don't know what is.

    7. hockey8mn profile image90
      hockey8mnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you referring to definitions like this:

      Say I was conducting a study on the caliber of musket balls from a French and Indian War Fort.  I have broken down the caliber of balls into 3 categories: small, medium, and large.  I found 100 small, 50 medium, and 75 large.  However, without me defining the differences between small (.01-0.22), medium (0.23-0.5), and large (<0.5) my reader will be lost in my definition of small, medium, and large.  Is that what you are referring too?  If so, I agree.

      1. hockey8mn profile image90
        hockey8mnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that your definition of the word is needed.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Similarly anybody who claim "space expands" has a responsibility to define space.

          1. hockey8mn profile image90
            hockey8mnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I would agree with that as well.  Unless given through context the definition of space can be implied.  However, throwing out a definition never hurts.

            1. fatfist profile image86
              fatfistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "However, throwing out a definition never hurts."

              No, it doesn't hurt. What hurts, and hurts really bad, is if the proponent's definition is shown to be contradictory, circular or shown to commit the Fallacy of Equivocation. The proponent will always get angry and will instantly resort to claiming that words have no meanings whatsoever or that all definitions are circular. Yet another contradiction.

              Obviously, when in such dire straights, the proponent will claim that non-contradictory definitions are just not possible. But when someone provides the whining proponent with an objective and non-contradictory definition which can be used consistently, he will do his best to reject it. Why? Because it destroys his dogma. Sure, the proponent is given ample opportunity to contradict that definition. Problem is....he can't....neither can his peers. Quite an embarrassing situation for the proponent and his Religion.

              The OP is bringing this issue to light because it's a very a common problem, not only here, but in Mathematical Physics.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think a flawed definition is either a basis for productive discussion, or a signal to stop wasting your time.

                If a discussion is completely unproductive the dignified to just throw up your hands and give up.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That might depend on whether or not we were talking about the space between ones ears or the space between distant galaxies. Since there are only few topics that deal with the concept of space and the topic being discussed is cosmology ("space expands") then it would be obvious as to what that definition would comprise, which is the spacetime scientists usually refer.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So space is a CONCEPT. Now tell us how a concept 'expands'. Or don't you even know what a concept is?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps, I'll reword that so as to not cause you confusion.

                "Since there are only few topics that deal with concepts surrounding space such as cosmology ("space expands") then it would be obvious as to what that definition would comprise, which is the spacetime scientists usually refer."

                Is that better?

                1. Jonas James profile image60
                  Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Perhaps, I'll reword that so as to not cause you confusion."

                  That's the general idea being discussed here.  Perhaps your confusion could benefit from an unambiguous definition?  Once you've done that, then we can talk about whether space expands or not.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That is the point, using the English language will usually result in ambiguous definitions, hence we use math instead.



                    Well, does it expand?

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Now there are concepts 'surrounding' space?? Great.
                  Your equation describe a warped space, but about space all you can say is" everybody knows it wink, wink, nudge, nudge!
                  You said there is no need for definition and dictionary is enough. According to dictionary space is a "border-less expanse".
                  So how does this border-less expanse warp/bend/expands?

                  So if you are intelligent(though you do not claim to be one) define space and explain how space bend/warp/expand.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I know you're Fatfist. No need to sock me with your puppet.

    8. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think they're so much morons so much as uneducated. That's not their fault, by the way, but the fault of English teaching.

      Knowing the exact meaning of words is vital to effective communication.

      http://spiceofwriting.blogspot.com/2012 … iting.html

  2. Ericdierker profile image82
    Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago

    Synonyms are helpful for a understanding of what is meant. Every good dictionary has them along with the definition. Thesaurus' are around for a reason.Objective is different for different folks. To a blind man, sounds are far more objective than sights. To someone who is gifted with empathy feelings are quite objective, where they are not to you.
    Moron to me has a medical diagnosis definition in a rating type system for disabilities. You used it as a slanderous remark about people you deem to be not as smart as you. A moron savant is just different.

    Your question is pretty full of typos and bad grammar. Perhaps a glass house is not for you.

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I own two thesaurus - Oxford and Rogets.
      A synonym is what I need when I write poetry. But in an education and science forum, I'm not looking for poetry, but scientific language. In scientific language, definition is a must, so that the crucial terms are clear and precise, that the word can be used through out unambiguously. Also objective in science is different from the way you used it, it means the meaning is irrespective of the observer.

  3. 0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    I will not name anyone.
    I'm not against synonyms. In my 2years in hubpages, I  have asked some persons to define. But they always refused and almost always there answer was that a synonym will suffice.

    1. Ericdierker profile image82
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is fair to say that your average person is not versed in defining words.  Kind of like on Jeopardy, "what is". Some folks have trouble putting the response into a question. Most people on hubpages really like words and their uses. Some though, just want to express their feelings, it is very hard to put feelings into definitions. When a person expresses their feelings and you require them to use a definition -- you are not really getting their point. "what is your definition of feelings?" is really not an intelligent question.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is synonyms that give beauty to language. If Hemmingway is asked to define his words, how boring it would be? But science is different.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A great many science definitions cannot be expressed in English, but only in mathematics; the language of science.  The best that can be done is an approximation in an attempt to promote layman level understanding, and that can often be done best by the use of synonyms.  Others CAN be defined by words, but only by digging through reams of paper as there is no simple definition, and again synonyms can be helpful.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Language of science is not mathematics.
            Science is an explanation, while maths is description.
            An explanation of gravity will be how gravity works, a description(Newtonian) is what we have, difference of hell and heaven.

            1. Ericdierker profile image82
              Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Jomine, I think you may be missing it. Life and human communication is not an encapsulated petre dish. People are wonderful and diverse and not inclined to fit into you nice neat definitions. They are far more interesting than that. I am not a science experiment. I have my own views, thank you.

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not and I think you are not getting my point.
                I'm not discussing about common parlance or the beauty of language, but about scientific language. In science language should be exact, there is no place for ambiguity. One cannot, in between, say that the meaning was not as initially supposed. It is about conveying ones ideas precisely and clearly. Poetry and poetic prose is what you are talking about, but in science even life gas to be defined before one embark on studying it.

                1. Ericdierker profile image82
                  Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My bad, sorry, Mia Culpa,
                  I was applying the matter to social, philosophical, spiritual conversations. Absolutely in science your notion is the goal to strive for as the bottom line.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image81
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Except the example given was definition of faith positions.  Not a scientific concept.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It most certainly is in physics. You can't fathom it without understanding the math.

  4. fatfist profile image86
    fatfistposted 4 years ago

    The OP is correct....they are uneducated morons if they do not understand that all words are first and foremost, lexical concepts. It is impossible to have a concept without a definition. The instant any concept is conceived, so is its definition, whether one realizes it or not. An undefined word (concept) is an oxymoron and obviously impossible to conceive. To those who are ignorant of this: ignorance is bliss!

    People should not be hell-bent on suppressing and railing against education....unless of course they have a Religion to protect from inquiry/scrutiny:
    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ont … -a-CONCEPT

    Only those who wish to protect their contradictory dogma will authoritatively assert their ignorance of undefined words and brainwash their believers to do the same.

    In Science, the theorist is responsible for defining the key terms of his theory in an objective and unambiguous manner. He is never expected to define all the words in his sentences. Just the key terms which make or break his theory. If the theorist gets defensive, angry or does his best to elude any request by the audience to define a term, then he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. He can’t define a term because he doesn’t understand his own argument. He is a hack who is trying to show off and impress, and hopes that nobody asks him questions he can’t answer (crosses his fingers!) Plenty of these uneducated clowns around....they are a dime a dozen. Like Priests, they profess to have fancy authoritative titles to impress upon the gullible pushovers...but are clueless when asked an ultra-basic question about THEIR dissertation..lol.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unless the author has made up a new term for their theory, then yes, they need to define the term.

      However, I've never seen definitions of words in any peer reviewed papers, ever.

      1. fatfist profile image86
        fatfistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        “Unless the author has made up a new term for their theory, then yes, they need to define the term.”

        If the theorist claims that space is an OBJECT that EXISTS....and bends/warps to allegedly keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun.....but humans, trees and houses on the surface of the Earth don’t get crushed when the Earth rolls on this alleged surface of space.....just like an ant on a ball gets crushed when you roll the ball on a surface......then the audience will indeed ask this theorist to define OBJECT & EXIST!
        If the theorist gets defensive, angry or does his best to elude any request by the audience to define a term, then he clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. He can’t define a term because he doesn’t understand his own argument. This clown is nothing but a Priest who is going door to door like a Jehova’s Witness to push his Religion to those who won’t ask him to justify his terms and his argument.
        The theorist is free to change his mind and claim that he wasn’t giving a Scientific dissertation.....that he was only talking figuratively in metaphors, using poetry i.e. that he was only Speaking in Tongues!



        “However, I've never seen definitions of words in any peer reviewed papers, ever.”

        ....just like you’ve never seen definitions of words in the Bible during the peer-review called the Counsel of Nicaea.
        Nobody gives a rat’s behind about the opinions of human apes during any sort of subjectively-biased review. A peer-review found that OJ Simpson did not murder anyone....so what? This is a fallacious argument.....Argument from Authority. There are no authorities in the Universe.....only Priests who claim to be.


        “You can't fathom it without understanding the math.”

        Please use any math you like to explain WHY a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. What compels the ball to do so....a tautological equation invented by a human? Do concepts (relations) perform events...pull objects to the floor? If you can’t answer this question, then it is you who can’t fathom what math has to do with Physics.


        “Usually, we don't wish to insult the intelligence of who it is we're having a discussion with by defining words that are already defined.”

        Yes we do wish to insult those who are not intelligent, but pretend to be in order to propagate lies. If they don’t understand the meaning of the words they use to push their lies, then they have ZERO intelligence. They don’t even know that all concepts are DEFINED.


        “No, people cannot define any word they please, “

        Then they haven’t a clue what they are saying. All words have meaning....you can’t have it both ways. Your God cannot be both a ‘man’ and ‘love’.

  5. Tusitala Tom profile image90
    Tusitala Tomposted 4 years ago

    I've always understood a definition as a succinct, accurate description of an idea, or a system of ideas, such as define the exact purpose of...    The definition is defined by the writer.  The writer has to risk the interpretation of the reader or listener (semantics et al) 

    I've never heard of any one asking someone to define the meaning of just one word; a phrase, yes, but not one word.   Always thought dictionaries were invented and compiled to do that.   And, yes, dictionaries do use synomyms to help with the understanding of a word.

  6. 0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    A TROUBLED MAN's explanation for gravity
    1. Einstein's  field equation explains it.
      But the equation only describe a warped space. It does not say how a ball fall to ground - the mechanism. Besides ATM is not yet able to tell what space is or how it bends/warps/curves.
    2. Earth accelerate towards the ball.
      He is unable to explain what happens when two balls are dropped simultaneously on both poles. He also cannot explain how earth knows that we are about to drop the ball. Magic may be, or god might be telling the earth.
    3. No one does. That is an answer scientists are looking for now
    Honesty, from a relativist. Oh! He could be punished. He could be sent to a black hole. If he hadn't done this blasphemy he would have gone to a space-time chamber or at least a dark matter!

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Science describes how gravity works and thus what it is.  Like mass or velocity it is what it is.  I am not sure how you would provide a "how" or "why" for any of these three.  They just are.

      1. PrometheusKid profile image61
        PrometheusKidposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And God just exist.

        Nice logic bro.

  7. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    I only recently began reading the hubs of those who haunt the Education and Science forums who deny facts and evidence to working theories. They are called cranks or crackpots, of which this forum has several and their hubs show this in spades. They've also created a number of sock puppets that support their nonsense, almost to a tee.

    It's unfortunate enough some may come to this forum seeking answers to questions but instead are inundated with crank nonsense, those same cranks are then compelled to publish hubs with the words: REFUTED in the titles, yet show no evidence to their refutations, no work, no rigor and no math whatsoever, but instead blatant denials complete with hand waving, insults, lies and incredulity.

    Of course, for Hubpages, it becomes a site that is forced to embrace these cranks, and while I understand that it is the purpose of Hubpages to allow them to write stuff, I submit that their hubs degrade the site with extremely bad content and hence degrade the performance of other members hubs.

    I would encourage others to read those hubs and vote on them (thumbs down) accordingly.

    1. Jonas James profile image60
      Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      “those same cranks are then compelled to publish hubs with the words: REFUTED in the titles... I would encourage others to read those hubs and vote on them (thumbs down) accordingly.”

      ATM, you present yourself as an authority on reality yet you are unable to define in no uncertain terms a word as basic as space.  You misunderstand the point being made in this post yet encourage readers to vote down the author’s (and others) hubs.  I offer that this grumbling disgrace of a comment is merely a reflection on you!

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nowhere have I ever made that claim.



        Ah, another Jomine sock puppet. I don't define words that are already defined.

         

        I understand that the author does not understand how science works, and further to that, denies many facts outright without any explanation.

        1. Jonas James profile image60
          Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          “Nowhere have I ever made that claim.”

          No, that’s why I said “you present yourself as an authority on reality…”, what fool would pronounce it openly?

          “Ah, another Jomine sock puppet.”

          You wish.

          “I don't define words that are already defined.”

          I said “in no uncertain terms”.

          “…the author does not understand how science works”

          Did you mean what science IS?  You might know how to add up numbers ATM, but adding up numbers is not science.  Scientists explain how and why things work with spoken language on the basis of unambiguous definition.  You seem opposed to this method without any sensible argument, perhaps it is you who does not understand what science is?

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, YOU decided I'm an authority on reality? What fool would decide that?



            What is that supposed to mean?



            No, they don't. Scientists use math to explain how things work. If you see explanations in a spoken language, those explanations are lacking and are meant to provide some insight for those who have no understanding of the subject matter and can't understand the math.

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Um, indeed, the question of "why" the natural world works the way it does is clearly outside the domain of science. 

              Science does not even assume that there is a "why".

              1. Jonas James profile image60
                Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "the question of "why" the natural world works the way it does is clearly outside the domain of science."

                It's clearly outside the domain of mathematics, but certainly not science.

                1. psycheskinner profile image81
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  As a scientist, I can only disagree.  Gravity requires no why.  It just is.

                  Why relates only to the study of volitional acts, and the great majority of reality is not volitional.  It occurs, it has causes, it has consequence, but none of these things imply purpose.

                  1. Jonas James profile image60
                    Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "As a scientist, I can only disagree.  Gravity requires no why.  It just is."



                    Why a ball falls toward the Earth has nothing to do with volition.  Obviously you are a psychology philosopher up to your neck in statistics – psychology is mostly mathematics (predictive).  Science is not about prediction, that’s what priests and astrologers do, science is about explaining why.

                    “Why is it so?” – Julius Sumner Miller

              2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                +1

            2. Jonas James profile image60
              Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "No, they don't. Scientists use math to explain how things work."

              There you go again, presenting yourself as an authority on what is correct.  Mathematics makes no provision to explain why things work, it's principle use is calculating what something will do (predictive).  Scientists explain why, while mathematicians calculate.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So, by simply stating a fact, you assert I'm an authority? lol



                Of course not, math explains "how" things work, not why.



                It can also calculate what something has done, too. And, whether or not it predicts or presents results, the observations match the math accordingly and accurately.

                 

                Completely false, scientists DO NOT explain "why" - they explain "how".

                1. Jonas James profile image60
                  Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Look ATM, any idiot can describe magnetism and what will happen, but it takes a scientist to explain why opposite poles attract and like poles repel.  Mathematics cannot explain why and is therefore not science.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Once again, it will be explained to you that science does NOT answer the question "why"



                    Then, all I can respond with is a "duh" because math does NOT explain 'why"

                    Do you have anything else to offer?

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Btw Bill, your one hub regarding morals under this userid have so many of your other userids talking with one another in the comments section, all agreeing with you. Curious behavior, Bill.

                2. 0
                  jomine9posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Here is your chance to explain gravity.

                  http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7295663_f248.jpg

                  You say earth accelerate towards the ball, The three balls are dropped simultaneously. If earth accelerate towards ball "A", how does the other two fall to ground. If it is free fall, why the free fall is towards earth and not towards sky. EXPLAIN.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can only explain that using math, but you won't accept that because of your irrational beliefs.

    2. 0
      jomine9posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Blasphemy, let us burn them.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You do realize, Bill, that when one of your sock puppets gets banned, you aren't supposed to create more userids.

  8. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    After reading more hubs, I have found the cranks all post literally identical hubs and all support each other with literally identical responses, insults, lies, format, style of writing and of course, ignorance, and all appear to be the same person, Bill Gaede, crank extraordinaire.

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/

    "This website was officially inaugurated on June 1, 2008 and is intended as a gift to mankind.
    It's purpose is to allow those few individuals blessed with intelligence to understand a little
    bit about our Universe before our species disappears from the face of the Earth.
    You Stupid Relativist . com is committed to the destruction of the religion known as
    Mathematical Physics. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make a travesty of
    Science and should be abolished. They constitute frauds against humanity."

    lol

  9. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    Copied from Fatfist's hub: Big Bang! The Big Lie!

    "In physics, we explain it as follows:

    Object: that which has shape

    Space: that which doesn't have shape; the static distance between objects

    Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.

    An object cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

    Since space has no boundaries, matter cannot escape space.  Matter is eternal. It has always been there and will continue to be there after humans are gone."


    http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-BIG-LIE



    Copied from Gill Gaede's hub: The Big Bang Never Happened

    "As always, we begin by defining the crucial words of the dissertation, the ones that make or break a proponent's theory.

    object: that which has shape (syn: something, thing, entity, medium, body, etc.)

    space: that which doesn't have shape (quick and dirty version) (syn: nothing, vacuum)

    Now it's a piece of cake. Space cannot spontaneously acquire length, width, and height and morph into an object. An object cannot surreptitiously, of its own volition, lose length, width, and height and convert into space. Likewise, no atom can leave ‘that which has no borders’ (i.e., space). "


    http://billgaede.hubpages.com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-20



    All other sockpuppets of Bill argue the same thing. lol

    1. Jonas James profile image60
      Jonas Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      An observer-independent definition is all about consistency.  This is precisely the point of Jomine9's post.  It just goes right over your head. doesn't it?  You really are, huh?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And, yours too, Bill, along with all the others.

    2. monkeyminds profile image84
      monkeymindsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A Troubled Girl is paranoid, and sees sock puppets everywhere. He calls persons that use non-contradictory, unambiguous, non--circular definitions in their explanations, sock puppets and cranks. Yet, he also asks, "Why define when one can use the popular use of a definition from a dictionary?"

      Using a popular term from the dictionary could be considered the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Also, fallacy of argument from authority.

      Rational science understands that definitions are limitations on words to make clear to ALL the meaning for purposes of discussing a hypothesis and theory.

      A couple of buds over beer can talk about hanging ten, shooting the curl, or riding the wave. A couple of scientists must agree to define the term wave unambiguously, rationally, and without contradiction for purposes of a scientific discussion. But A Troubled GirlyMan wants us to accept his key terms without a proper definition, so he can wiggle and weasel out of any discussion.

      He also wants others to believe that math explains reality, when all it does is describe motion. Math tells us that there are infinite masses, or that we can halve a distance an infinite number of times. Reality shows us that this is clearly not the case, as one can not halve their distance to a brick wall an infinite number of times and never arrive. All who have tried this wind up smacking their forehead on the wall.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Is this the userid "monkeyminds" you have chosen as the one you're going to stick with, Bill?



        Yes Bill, that is exactly the very same assertions put forth by all your other userids.

        If indeed, that is going to be your userid here (monkeyminds), please confirm, and I'll be happy to begin responding to your posts. Thanks. smile

        1. monkeyminds profile image84
          monkeymindsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Freud would have had something to say about these issues with gender, and possibly they relate to how a person's mother (didn't) love them.

            1. monkeyminds profile image84
              monkeymindsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Touched a nerve, did I?

  10. A Troubled Man profile image61
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    "This website was officially inaugurated on June 1, 2008 and is intended as a gift to mankind."

    http://youstupidrelativist.com/

    At first glance, I had to laugh as it appeared to be a joke. But now, I'm beginning to get the impression it's something you actually believe.

    Bill, I have no problem with you coming out with your own userid or not, but at the very least, pick one and stick with it.

    I would expect at the very least, of course, to talk strictly about the subject matter and see exactly where you believe Relativity is wrong, without resorting to calling it a religion or anything other names, or to refer to everyone else as idiots or any other name calling. Just the subject matter.

    If your problem is with definition of words, pick the ones you have issues with from an online dictionary with a link and we'll discuss those too.

    We can start with the very basics of Relativity, if you wish. Give me the get go and I'll create a thread just for our discussion. I understand that I may have somewhat of an advantage considering I have access to all your websites and the contents there within.

    If you wish, I can ignore them or refer to them, your choice.

  11. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    If you think assigning someone female gender is an insult, that says a lot about you.

    Also: methinks the sock doth protest too much.

    Closed to reply
     
    working