The Power and Failure of Predominant Interpretations

[Native]

Hello fellow debaters,

Both in Science and Religion we have predominant interpretations of its contents.

In this video, Ghada Chehade, analyze the standing methodology in science and come up with several critical points of views.

The Power - and Shortcomings - of Predominant Interpretations

Watch this video in its full length and make your overall scientific and personal notions.

- I´ve been along some time on the RF, and I wonder how other debaters see themselves compared to the actual video content.

What are your personal notions?

Best Wishes

 

[cladking]

The world is a mess because the wealthy use science as an excuse to rent government. More and more "science" is mere poppycock founded on inertia and the status quo. We are killing ourselves in the name of science, individual careers and funneling all money to the wealthy.

Across the board inertia is a bigger constituent of theory than experiment. 19th century beliefs define most modern day theory.

There is a huge paradigm shift coming or the end of the species. Beliefs underlie all human actions and we have unsustainable and detrimental beliefs. Reality did not emerge full blown from a point and there are not an infinite number of realities. These ideas are nonsense generated by our belief that the universe is governed by laws and that these laws are mathematically relatable.

These are interesting times but civilizations collapse in interesting times. Ours is collapsing because of belief in nonsense.

 

[Native]

These are interesting times but civilizations collapse in interesting times. Ours is collapsing because of belief in nonsense.

Thanks for your reply, Cladking.

Personally, I don´t have the Norse concept of "Ragnarok" or the biblical "Armageddon" to be an end, but the westerly oriented cultures certainly are in the midst of a HUGE change of paradigm all over the places.

Here, the youngest of alle democracies, (once was such), the 250-year upstart nation of USA leads aggressively on in the world, destroying other ancient cultures, not recognizing that itself is on the brink of dissolution by its (and UK´s) aggressive and warmongering approach.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello fellow debaters,

Both in Science and Religion we have predominant interpretations of its contents.

In this video, Ghada Chehade, analyze the standing methodology in science and come up with several critical points of views.

The Power - and Shortcomings - of Predominant Interpretations

Watch this video in its full length and make your overall scientific and personal notions.

- I´ve been along some time on the RF, and I wonder how other debaters see themselves compared to the actual video content.

What are your personal notions?

Best Wishes

It's 20 minutes long. Care to at least give the key points so we can decide if it's worth watching?

Edit: especially important if you want to have a real conversation: tell us which parts of the video you disagree with (if any).

 

[ratiocinator]

It's 20 minutes long. Care to at least give the key points so we can decide if it's worth watching?

Edit: especially important if you want to have a real conversation: tell us which parts of the video you disagree with (if any).

Quite. I've got about half way through and it's turgid, long winded, and unfocussed. It starts with a long explanation of what 'discourse' and 'dominant paradigm' mean, and at the point I hit pause, lest I lose the will to live, the narrator had gone off on a tangent about politics and whether liberal democracy was the end of political history (or something like that).

The only relevant point to science, so far, has been a gripe that people who question the basic idea of the big bang model are not given research funds and fail to get posts at universities. That's the big bang in the broadest sense, presumably, as I've read multiple radical ideas that question many of the basic ideas, like the nature of time itself, entropy, how the universe might be cyclic without a contraction phase, and so on. All by respected scientists who have posts at universities (or did have and have retired). People have obviously disagreed with them but there has been no crowds with torches and pitchforks wanting to hound them out as heretics or anything...

 

[Native]

It's 20 minutes long. Care to at least give the key points so we can decide if it's worth watching?

Thanks for replying,

Nope. Make your own investment and notions, as I did.

My questions was:
- I´ve been along some time on the RF, and I wonder how other debaters see themselves compared to the actual video content.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for replying,

Nope. Make your own investment and notions, as I did.

I've got quite a long backlog of videos I want to watch already, so I'm generally reluctant to put all of those on hold just because someone I don't know suggests - without any real reasons behind it - that I watch a video that they've picked out.

Also, while it's easy to watch a video, it's a lot harder to discuss its specific points in writing if there's no transcript to refer to. IMO, it takes a disproportionate amount of effort compared to the effort it took you to just post a link.

On top of everything, if you aren't willing to say either "here are the specific points in the video that I don't accept..." or "I agree with every point in the video," anyone who actually takes the time to critique some point in the video runs the risk of you replying with "oh, yeah - that part of the video isn't an argument *I* would make," making their whole effort useless.

 

[Native]

Also, while it's easy to watch a video, it's a lot harder to discuss its specific points in writing if there's no transcript to refer to. IMO, it takes a disproportionate amount of effort compared to the effort it took you to just post a link.

I watched the entire video before I posted it.

On top of everything, if you aren't willing to say either "here are the specific points in the video that I don't accept..." or "I agree with every point in the video," anyone who actually takes the time to critique some point in the video runs the risk of you replying with "oh, yeah - that part of the video isn't an argument *I* would make," making their whole effort useless.

I agree in the entire video content, so just come up with a point or two if you have some.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I watched the entire video before I posted it.

Good for you.

I agree in the entire video content, so just come up with a point or two if you have some.

Post a transcript and I'll do my best.

 

[ratiocinator]

So, I got a bit further but the endless rambling and random gripes wore me down in the end. The presenter seems to want to complain about everything and thinks the whole of science is controlled by vested interests and big business, which is odd, as she then wanders off into global warming models, which are a near perfect example where the science beat the big business vested interest. I'd love to know which business she thinks wants big bang cosmology...

Anyway, I then went away and looked her up, to see what qualifications she had - wow - well that explains a lot, a "Writer, social critic, and performance poet". She has a Phd that was apparently given the "Award For Best Doctoral Dissertation in the Field of Rhetoric, Writing Studies and Discourse". Obviously perfect qualifications to criticise complex science matters.

 

[Native]

So, I got a bit further but the endless rambling and random gripes wore me down in the end. The presenter seems to want to complain about everything and thinks the whole of science is controlled by vested interests and big business, which is odd, as she then wanders off into global warming models, which are a near perfect example where the science beat the big business vested interest. I'd love to know which business she thinks wants big bang cosmology...

It´s called "analysis" and "criticism" for your information.

Anyway, I then went away and looked her up, to see what qualifications she had - wow - well that explains a lot, a "Writer, social critic, and performance poet". She has a Phd that was apparently given the "Award For Best Doctoral Dissertation in the Field of Rhetoric, Writing Studies and Discourse". Obviously perfect qualifications to criticise complex science matters.

You clearly missed the very points in the video OP: The "Power of Predominant Interpretations", how it works and how selfcritism and new ideas seldom comes from the established conventional science.

Apparently, you are a true believer in orthodox academic authorities. Any independent high school student could easily have made serious analysis and criticism when presented for the numerous astrophysical and cosmological problems based on pure assumptions in the standing cosmological science.

 

[Native]

Post a transcript and I'll do my best.

Make your own transcript from the video contents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Make your own transcript from the video contents.

I'm not going to put in that kind of effort for a video some random person on the internet says I should watch, especially after several posters have already described it in terms that make it sound like it's not worth watching.

 

[Native]

I'm not going to put in that kind of effort for a video some random person on the internet says I should watch, especially after several posters have already described it in terms that make it sound like it's not worth watching.

Well, suit yourself.

 

[ratiocinator]

It´s called "analysis" and "criticism" for your information.

Is it? I used to be married to somebody with a PhD in English Literature and she was far, far better at focusing on a point, rather than rambling all over the shop, and presenting a coherent argument, than Ghada Chehade. She also knew better than to spout off about subjects she didn't really understand.

You clearly missed the very points in the video OP: The "Power of Predominant Interpretations", how it works and how selfcritism and new ideas seldom comes from the established conventional science.

Except they do. Endless papers get published with new ideas, new results that don't seem to fit, as well as very radical new suggestions, As I said before, I've read many radical ideas in cosmology recently, that challenge some basic principles. Most recently The Janus Point by Julian Barbour, in which he questions both the nature of time itself and the relevance of entropy to the whole universe, suggesting a different concept is more appropriate, and explaing why we would observe entropy 'locally'.

Any independent high school student could easily have made serious analysis and criticism when presented for the numerous astrophysical and cosmological problems based on pure assumptions in the standing cosmological science.

It really is absurd to think that amateurs can hope to make any serious contribution to science at that level. I know amateurs often don't like to hear that, but understanding these things is difficult, and if you don't fully understand the current theories and why they have been adopted, then your chances of making a serious contribution are next to zero.

 

[ratiocinator]

Here is something else that is a total re-evaluation of the very basis of quantum mechanics, published a few years ago now, but you really can't argue that this guy is doing anything else but trying to radically rewrite one of the most fundamental and often considered to be unquestionable theories we have:

[1405.1548] The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

 

[cladking]

Thanks for your reply, Cladking.

Personally, I don´t have the Norse concept of "Ragnarok" or the biblical "Armageddon" to be an end, but the westerly oriented cultures certainly are in the midst of a HUGE change of paradigm all over the places.

Here, the youngest of alle democracies, (once was such), the 250-year upstart nation of USA leads aggressively on in the world, destroying other ancient cultures, not recognizing that itself is on the brink of dissolution by its (and UK´s) aggressive and warmongering approach.

Being an American I have a different perspective but can't really dispute you.

One area I can dispute and that is that the problem is a few very rich and powerful individuals who are running things now days and they answer to no one and no country. They buy government or rent it. No doubt some are even Danes.

 

[cladking]

- I´ve been along some time on the RF, and I wonder how other debaters see themselves compared to the actual video content.

Cosmology is mired in the 1920's and will have to make fundamental changes.

 

[Native]

Being an American I have a different perspective but can't really dispute you.

One area I can dispute and that is that the problem is a few very rich and powerful individuals who are running things now days and they answer to no one and no country. They buy government or rent it. No doubt some are even Danes.

Cladking, I can recommend you to watch this video by an American economist Professor Richard Wolff .

 

[cladking]

Cladking, I can recommend you to watch this video by an American economist Professor Richard Wolff .

The rich have all the money not because of capitalism but because of government interference in the economy. A rich person can legally rent a congresscritter for mere peanuts and have a million dollar return. It's far more effective buying government than improving quality, lowering price, or advertising. Indeed the race is on to lower quality, raise prices, and virtue signal rather than advertise. If there's any sqawking they buy science that agrees we need lower quality, higher prices, and more inclusion in all things. Then they rent more representation in Washington.

Yes, The US is imploding through mismanagement and the effort to concentrate power and wealth through corruption but it's more like the Roman Empire than like the British Empire that always kept a stiff upper lip even as they sank beneath the waves. We have one Caligula after another guiding us through choppy seas onto the reefs. Meanwhile the American people vote for names they recognize and those with the best hair dos because our schools were wrecked three generations ago.

Unfortunately the entire world will be serfs of the wealthy if all these trends are projected forward. No army can prevent this and an American coup is becoming less likely.

There is no "capitalism" any longer. For 15 years they didn't even ay any interest on capital and the sole reason they do now is to try to tame the inflation caused by printing excessive amounts of money for the rich et al. While the "pandemic" raged the rich still made money.

Every new destruction of the economy, social order, and common sense brings new profit to the few.