SO, THIS IS A THING. Holist, you around?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I started to write up something about general relativity and how it relates to Newtonian physics, and how classical mechanics is just a limited case of general relativity, but then I realized how useless that would be.  Pearls, swine, etc.

The book I linked to, which is essentially the story of Einstein's once-rejected Cosmological Constant, explains the history of non-euclidean geometry and the relationship of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with Newtonian mechanics in detail, in layman's terms, but I think this is another case of classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, in which the victim cannot grasp that is is the limits of his own knowledge that is the major contributor to the disjunct, rather than the ignorance of his conversational partners.

I think that's a much bigger problem in the world at large, than most people are willing to admit.

In fact, one might say this conversation is the micro to the world's macro.

Cough.

Well-played, sir.

[Doktor Howl]

I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...

BUT

BUT

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Holist, although I have not yet read it, I have also heard that LMNO's dad's book is reasonably accessible for novices and laypersons: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107004837/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A84IVOA24OI3N

I found this one enjoyable: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-World-Physics-Everyone/dp/067401832X/

While I am aware that there are segments of academia that place great importance on primary sources, in the sciences it's very important to look not merely at a crystallized moment in the history of our understanding, but at the current state of the research, in order to understand how everything we currently know is tried together. As I mentioned before, it is exceedingly rare for an old and well-tested theory to simply be invalidated by new discoveries; rather, usually the new discoveries and new understanding modify and add to the previous understanding.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...

BUT

BUT

BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.

So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.

Putting aside the  and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?

Ah, but the critical kernel of the homeopathic hypothesis is that you dilute something that causes the same symptoms as that which you are trying to cure. So first we would need to find something that causes hemorrhagic fever, and THEN we would dilute it down to nothing and it would cure ebola.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That sounds way less stupid, right?

[LMNO]

That sounds way less stupid, right?

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I may be missing a something about the homeopathy theory, but I can't see how this would work even assuming the validity of that theory.

So you put a thing in some water that has some property that's supposed to be beneficial for some ailment. Then you dilute that solution down until the beneficial thing is...well...nothing, and the solution is pretty much water, but water that contains the "essence" of whatever the beneficial thing was.

Putting aside the  and assuming that the practice actually works that way, wouldn't we still have to have a thing that actually did something to the Ebola virus before we could disappear that thing and allow its ghost to go right on killing the virus?

Ah, but the critical kernel of the homeopathic hypothesis is that you dilute something that causes the same symptoms as that which you are trying to cure. So first we would need to find something that causes hemorrhagic fever, and THEN we would dilute it down to nothing and it would cure ebola.

Aaaah! I had it totally wrong. No wonder it seemed so hokey and far-fetched.

So where do I sign off to send one of these homie-o's off to the Africans?

[Doktor Howl]

I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...

BUT

BUT

BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.

You should stop being so NIGEL when a man hollers science at you.  It's not HIS fault he's wrong, and you make his wee-wee shrivel up when you go all NIGEL and get uppity.  He's just trying to explain things in terms you little ladies will understand, see?  Small words, enunciated slowly.  And then you NIGELed him with some facts that were less than convenient.  Is it any wonder he lives in a garrett and never shaves?  It's because of YOU.  All of you.  Every last NIGEL.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Something about this whole discussion is harkening me back to that time when Holist was arguing with Cain over the correct phrasing and meaning of a common English turn of phrase. His argument appeared to be something along the lines of "I speak English as a second language, but I have been translating the English language for a living for so long that I know it better than you highly educated native English-speakers".

Likewise, this thing where he is insisting that he, as a philosophy major who has read a lot of articles on the internet, has a better understanding of the relationship of Newtonian physics to relativistic mechanics than people who have backgrounds and training in science and engineering, seems similarly mind-boggling.

Oh, Holist.

If it's any comfort, I have a lawyer friend who does much the same thing. He'll make outlandish claims about subjects he only poorly understands, and then digs in and refuses to believe that anyone else knows more about them than he does. After 25 years of dealing with this, I realize that he is beyond hope, and no longer bother pointing it out or arguing with him about it. I should probably apply that wisdom to Holist as well.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I love phrases like "please don't take this as an insult to your intelligence, but...

BUT

BUT

BUT it totally is, because now I will quote from a Wikipedia article a sentence that I assume you haven't read or don't understand, little lady.

You should stop being so NIGEL when a man hollers science at you.  It's not HIS fault he's wrong, and you make his wee-wee shrivel up when you go all NIGEL and get uppity.  He's just trying to explain things in terms you little ladies will understand, see?  Small words, enunciated slowly.  And then you NIGELed him with some facts that were less than convenient.  Is it any wonder he lives in a garrett and never shaves?  It's because of YOU.  All of you.  Every last NIGEL.

I am deeply ashamed. 

And on that note, I am off to go cram some more electron behavior into my wee little lady brain.

[Doktor Howl]

I am deeply ashamed. 

For some reasons which I can't put my finger on, I find myself in doubt of your sincerity.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I am deeply ashamed. 

For some reasons which I can't put my finger on, I find myself in doubt of your sincerity.

I am a bad, bad man.

[Dildo Argentino]

I think I might be onto something, it's getting easier to notice when I'm being patronising, at least when it's pointed out. Thanks for the reading material, and yes, it's my fault. I never intended to claim Newtonian mechanics got 'shitcanned', I understand about it being a limit case of GR, but I completely failed to take into account that the state of play may have changed significantly and that even 30 years ago, it may have been more complex than my rather classy high school physics, or the philosophy of science courses I took let on. All of that was quite stupid, and there may well be more stupid to come, Rome wasn't demolished in a day! Question: what's your take on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Also, split this off by all means if it's in the wrong place. I'm sorry to say I will be back.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think I might be onto something, it's getting easier to notice when I'm being patronising, at least when it's pointed out. Thanks for the reading material, and yes, it's my fault. I never intended to claim Newtonian mechanics got 'shitcanned', I understand about it being a limit case of GR, but I completely failed to take into account that the state of play may have changed significantly and that even 30 years ago, it may have been more complex than my rather classy high school physics, or the philosophy of science courses I took let on. All of that was quite stupid, and there may well be more stupid to come, Rome wasn't demolished in a day! Question: what's your take on Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Also, split this off by all means if it's in the wrong place. I'm sorry to say I will be back.

Well, this is a significant improvement. Congratulations again.

I haven't read Kuhn, and probably won't anytime soon, given my school-related reading list. Maybe someone else here has?