Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2015 - 08:54pm PT
|
I’m saying that you can’t be sure of anything (MikeL)
Good point, DMT. MikeL is certain that one cannot be certain of anything.
This is the kind of garbled thinking that some bring to the table here. I'm tempted to attach blame to the meditators, but Jan and PSP seem like intelligent, reasonable people.
I'm curious about the "experiential adventures" JL frequently refers to. It seems to me that as a Zen practitioner there is basically one such adventure: leading to an epiphany of no-thing. There is also the notion that one's "I" is a kind of fabrication induced by evolution - but I have no argument against that pronouncement, as I suspect it's true after personal experience.
When one reaches, after years of sitting in an ashram, this eye-opening mental state (BFZZ), then the adventure it seems is over. Or is it? All I see here are metaphysical speculations about the existence of objects independent of the observer, all matter reduces to no-thing, minds are in peculiar ways independent of brains, etc.
Where's the adventure? It's like doing a particular climb over and over sinking deeper into the flow. That's pleasant, but not very adventurous.
Now if we were discussing the art of dreaming I can testify there is an amazing variety of "experiential adventure" to be had as one's I-consciousness seemingly escapes the body and has a wild ride.
Abstaining from data-driven theory and calculations places any remaining discussion in philosophical camps, primarily metaphysics - which we all warmly acknowledge has provided extraordinary insight into the nature of reality.
Does the moon exist if we are not observing it?
Ponder that for the rest of your life.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2015 - 09:32pm PT
|
Does the moon exist if we are not observing it?
Common sense tells us that of course, the moon exists regardless who is or is not looking at it.
Common sense also tells us that the world is flat, that the sky is blue, that time and hard forms are static phenomenon, that "solid" bodies are not, in fact, filled mainly with space, that if we ran next to a ray of light, the speed of said ray would be the "normal" speed of light minus how fast we are running, etc.
An MH2, change meds cause the ones you're taking are making you mean. And loopy. And no, nothing has a stand-alone or independent essence separate from the rest of reality.
JL
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:17am PT
|
Along the thinking of jgill, from what I understand of the various positions expressed here, Largo is trying to apply inner experiences to explanations of the material world (metaphysics), while the problems with science that Paul points out, are the result of trying to apply emotionless logic to the subjective inner world of human beings. MikeL concludes that since the mind has tricked us about our egos and individual selves, it has tricked us about everything else as well, so we can't really know anything in an ultimate sense. This argument seems to me to only be carrying to the ultimate, what the science folks are saying anyway, that we are just semi evolved apes who can't know much about anything ultimately (adding that there is no truth or purpose anyway), but that it is fun trying and makes useful technology.
Paul points out that following and especially creating, the subjective arts is satisfying to humans at a deep level that logic doesn't reach. PSP points out that understanding the subjective makes you a freer, happier person, and I would argue that it makes you a freer, happier, more socially useful person. Blueblocr emphasizes the socially useful aspects, thinking they originate in a knowable God. Because religion has at its aim social usefulness for the most part (not metaphysics as the scientists are misled to think), this aspect is not emphasized by the physical scientists, but certainly by the social scientists.
Emphasis on the individual and possibly a God, emphasis on science and no God, or emphasis on society and possibly a God are the major positions here it seems to me. The problem comes from any one position insisting that they are the only correct one and also, from the mistaken thinking that humans can ever come up with a single correct explanation. As a cultural anthropologist my position is to savor human variety, rather than looking for one explanation or truth.
I suspect that having argued a particular position and often being backed into a corner with it, has made most participants argue a more extreme version of what they believe than they normally would. And finally, the psychological view, which is both physically, individually and socially oriented, would say these proclivities to certain positions were formed early, some in the womb, and many more by our childhoods, long before we developed any intellectual justification for them.
Finally, I'm sure if there's anything I have missed or misrepresented, I will be informed of that fact shortly.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:27am PT
|
"Science is a method, no more no less." Paul R
"No more no less." Really?
Is science not a system of knowledge?
Is science not a collection of studies (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, medicine...)?
Is science not a human endeavor?
...
...
...
Is science only a method, Paul? "No more no less" Paul?
This is especially interesting to me because YOU are the literary aficionado here. Right?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:36am PT
|
And we could add...
Rockclimbing is a sport, no more no less.
Religion is worship of a supernatural figure, no more no less.
Trump is an egomaniac, no more no less.
...
...
...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:52am PT
|
"Science is a method, no more no less." Paul R
So do you stand by this statement, Paul?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 11:59am PT
|
I think that Paul doesn't really understand science. There is theoretical science and there is applied science.
With regard to applied science, there are many things that we know, no matter how extreme your view of not knowing anything may be. MikeL is a glaring example of this. He admittedly knows nothing, but regularly criticizes others whom he knows nothing about. His cup is filled with nothingness. He sounds like he would refuse any knowledge. That's OK, but he criticizes others on a daily basis.
MikeL could never find oil. Some can do it, and some can't. Most geologists never find a drop of oil. Either you can do it or you can't, and you are never fully certain. This uncertainty paralyzes some geologists, and they typically find work in the groundwater or environmental field. Truly brilliant people can't find oil. It has always been a curious fact.
After all of this time, the so-called experiential types have refrained from even a description of what it is that they are doing, other than a vague no-thing. I'm more than willing to describe what I do. It is abbreviated, because a career can't be distilled into one post, but I'm an open book. If you work in the sciences, you must be honest, first and foremost with yourself.
With regard to applied science, after a scientific discovery is made, and it is confirmed with repeated experiment, it tends to fall into the realm of engineering. Engineers take science and do things with it. I remember Feynman saying that the Manhattan project was mostly engineering.
The Hubble Space Telescope was built by engineers. Theoretical scientists use it to make observations.
I am not much of a theoretical scientist. I'm an applied scientist. I use what I've learned to find oil. Some of it is very simple. Some of it is not. For instance the huge deep Springer Sand gas wells used to be found almost by luck. Now we know that you can see them using a sheer wave anomaly, and nobody misses. The accumulations have been pretty much all found. Too bad gas is nigh worthless right now, because just one of those wells will produce enough gas to service a large city for its lifetime.
I look for oil these days. It is nigh impossible to make money from natural gas at the moment, but in the past I found a very large gas field. It took years to drill and develop. How I found it was pretty simple. There were a bunch of older wells that targeted much deeper zones and drilled right through it without noticing it. That is my favorite way to find oil. I've looked at a least 100,000 wells and their logs, and can, in about two minutes, see if they missed something. I'm so good at log analysis that I can SEE it. In this case numerous wells drilled right through it and missed it, so we had good control on where to drill, often only 50 feet away from the old, plugged, wellbore.
I look for uphole zones, and I look for zones that they didn't drill deep enough to find the zone. I also do a fair amount of wildcatting..drilling miles from established production, but the odds are always against you there.
Some prospects require 3D seismic. That data is interpreted by a geophysicist. He hands me his maps and then I incorporate them into mine, and make the final interpretation. If I see something; a hydrocarbon trap, on the seismic, then I put a little gold star and say, "Please drill here."
The prospect is the hypothesis. The well tests that hypothesis. I'm always struggling with an incomplete dataset, so I can never be 100% certain or 100% correct. Now and then I am surprised by something not in the old data, and it is back to the computer drawing board for a different interpretation, but oil and gas trap in very well known ways.
With very expensive industry software, I can now work 100,000 well datasets, but to do that, I interpret geophysical well logs whose function is more in Ed's domain. Each well is logged, dry hole or producer, and each one is a data point. Log analysis involves all sorts of measurements, and you need a basic knowledge of how each curve works. These logs basically help with the geology and tell you if you have a dry hole or a producer.
The problem with logs is that most wells I key off of are of differing age. Some logs are crude, from the 1940's. Some logs are incomplete. I have to know how to interpret every log ever invented, because wells are usually drilled in an area over a long time span.
A typical modern logging suite uses a lot of instruments. Induced current that is focused at different depths from the wellbore. One uses the photoelectric effect to determine lithology. Others measure porosity. They use neutron bombardment. We have MRI's, wellbore imagers, Sonic logs to measure velocity (this helps refine the seismic if you are lucky to have one in the area). Spontaneous potential, gamma scintillometers...it goes on and on. I can look at a 100 foot strip of squiggly lines and SEE oil or gas.
One of the most valuable logs is the mud log. That is where a geologist or trained technician looks at the sample cuttings as they reach the surface. That person describes lithology and notes any oil and gas shows. You can measure gas in the drilling mud with a chromatograph. If a dry hole had shows of oil in certain intervals of economic importance, we call them "show wells." The problem is that most mudlogs aren't released.
I've done a lot of well site geology. I'm the well doctor. After the hole is drilled and logged, I sit down with my calculator and determine if this is a dry hole that should be plugged, a non-commercial well that should be plugged, or an economic producer. It took me decades to be good at.
It is high pressure. The total cost of the well needs to recoup its cost. It normally takes about 40% of the total well cost to just drill and log the hole. You have years to decide whether or not to drill the well. The decision to go ahead and make this well a producer takes place in only a few hours. That rig is sitting outside your trailer, billing you by the hour, so you only have a few hours to make the casing point decision. You are often working off of a lack of sleep, and that decision involves the cost of casing, cementing, perforating, and installing surface equipment. Normally I can tell you how good of a well it will be, run the economics on another software program, and give a good answer, but I love plugging dry holes.
Some companies just don't like having "dry hole" attached to their company name. They will set casing on the most ludicrous garbage, that has no hope of paying out, and that drives me nuts. I don't work for those guys if I can help it. Regardless, I type up my recommendation and if they chose not to show it to their investors, fine. I keep my copy. I've sat a lot of wells that won't pay out. Most are from the work of another geologist and they just bring me in to be the wellsite geologist. I've sat hundreds of wells.
I've learned a lot over the decades. A guy like MikeL wouldn't stand a chance. He is incapable of making a decision, and I know the type. He is one of those guys whose lives are filled with such doubt about everything that he could never prospect. A dry hole would crush him. Being wrong is tough for young geologists. You have to get over it, or you will never be able to work.
So what part of that do you disagree with, MikeL? I've described my profession as best I can. I'm not even sure what you do for a living, but one thing is certain, you have a lot of free time on your hands to keep up with this thread.
Gotta go. A 60 minute gridding function just finished. It is a 1300 well dataset that took me a year to work.Here is a copy (with location data removed):
Here is another one. I have to pick the thickness and porosity of every potential pay zone. In this area there are about 12. I'm making the final maps right now. There will probably be over 100, considering that there are 10 prospects on the map which merit 3D seismic to find the sweet spot of the structures.
Here is a map of one of the pay zones. They are porous zones of rock that can contain oil, gas, or salwater. I have to map their distribution to get an idea of our chances of having this zone present on a structure and in our wellbore:
OK MikeL. What do you do? You've already said that I'm not a good scientist, so back at ya. Do you do anything or do you live off of a rich father?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 12:18pm PT
|
The scientific method is indeed a large part of science. Without it, people can invent explanations for data out of thin air. This was common in the early days of science, but now it can hurt your career.
Theoretical science is indeed steeped in the method. It is a rigorous method, designed to further and further refine our knowledge of how things are.
Applied science is a little different. That is where you apply what the theoreticians have discovered. The scientific method must still be followed, but the applied (or experimental if you like) side of things produces knowns and wrongs.
Many times, an experimentalist has shot down the work of a theoretician. It is part of the process, and very necessary.
With applied science, like I do, we quickly get an idea of wrong theories. The results don't jibe with theory, and if you have done your experiment well, then theory is WRONG. Hell, Feynman said exactly that.
Both types of scientist are very important.
With spiritual ventures, if you discover that something is wrong, such as te genesis account of creation, you are bound to release your results.
The genesis account was shot full of holes many years ago. Now it is just quaint. The genesis account does not, in any way, agree with evidence.
Evidence is key in any scientific theory. If the theory can't be tested, it isn't of much use. Look at Einstein. He had many detractors, but when the eclipse evidence showed that the sun's mass bended light from distant stars, he was vindicated. His idea was tested, and it precisely matched observation. A nice and tidy way to do science.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 01:11pm PT
|
After all of this time, the so-called experiential types have refrained from even a description of what it is that they are doing, other than a vague no-thing.
That's because a description would have to include "content," and the whole schtick is that there is no "content" to describe, and therefore how absurd and foolish it is to ask for any. You have to go sit and watch your breath, etc. under the guidance of some venerable expert to get it. There is no other way, unless you happen onto some similar epiphany utterly by chance.
All in all a very tidy tautological perch.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 01:59pm PT
|
"Science" has been around WAY before man perverted it..
Our solar system is doing science right now, only it's opposite the method we do! That is if you believe everything happens by Chance, Randomness, or Luck. Take the spawning of Earth, with its exact diameter, orbit, and speeds along with the exact ratio of water to dust. Within this perfect recipe an oxygen rich atmosphere is enabled allowing animals to arise giving way to Consciousness. Chance, Randomness or Luck??
Either way, Nature is pretty much a bottom- up Scientist. Whereas man is a top-down Scientist.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 02:06pm PT
|
Base 104 that was a wackie ramble; great example of excessive "splaining" with periodic negative critiques of Mike L . what's up with the negative spin on "no-thing" that only means a wide open curious mind. your idea about "no-thing " is way off.
Hey i climbed "jelly roll arch" last weekend at donner had never been to grouse slab, cool place and climb!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 03:17pm PT
|
Hey here's a thought...
Maybe many (conservatives? non-science types? those literary junkies who don't really get science?) have it reversed. Maybe religions in partic the Abrahamic religions ( Islam and Christianity above all) ARE THE ONES WHO do the disservice - insofar as it exists - to metaphor, myth, the arts and humanities at large... Paul R's darlings.
Maybe it's not science or the science types at all!
I don't know, I've been skimming through my copy of Dawkins' The Magic of Reality the last couple of days, and so far it bristles with metaphor... good, useful, insightful if not exciting ones.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 03:29pm PT
|
All:
Hola from Los Osos, CA.
When I say that people can’t seem to get to the bottom of anything, I’m saying that I haven’t found the bottom of anything either through my own personal “look-see,” from the reports of academic 3rd parties, or from my own observations of internal operations (thoughts, feelings, instincts, narratives, etc.). I am unaware of any peer-refereed journal article that ever said that it found the final bottom of anything. (The reason is, I think, is that no one can, and it is recognized that would be imprudent to do so.)
I consider the implications of those findings. What does it mean when nothing can be found, finally?
And, hey, Base and HFCS, Paul is right. Science is a method. Pardon me for saying this, I think what you really want to talk about is knowledge. I think you want to talk about truth. I think you want to talk about what is real. I think you want to talk about what is right. Science is a method by which to talk about some of these things. It provides a rigorous system by which to frame questions and derive answers. There are other systems, but most of them are not viewed as very legitimate currently and formally, but all of those other systems are probably more often relied upon in day-to-day activities of people.
Be well.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 03:33pm PT
|
Loose with the language per usual.
And, hey, waste of time per usual.
Giggles.
PS
Atheist God willing. ;)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 03:42pm PT
|
Nice description of your work, Mark. Your comment about the young scientists adjusting to the hard knocks and not folding and creeping away is particularly appropriate. You can't be weak-kneed and survive. I've seen mathematicians - more than a few - who have turned against research because of one or two frustrating experiences. This is unfortunate if they work at large universities as tenure and promotion chances dwindle rapidly.
Common sense also tells us that the world is flat, that the sky is blue, that time and hard forms are static phenomenon, that "solid" bodies are not, in fact, filled mainly with space (JL)
Another garbled message. Does common sense really tell me that time is static - not passing? That's just plain weird. Ed has attempted to explain the "hardness" of (empty) solids but that seems to have gone over your head. Better stick with experiential adventure(s) - if the plural is accurate.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 06:20pm PT
|
Hola from Los Osos, CA.
Oh Boy! My moms in Pismo. Go check out my favorite, Avala Beach. The pier at the end has great food and a good little fish market with wonderfully smoked salmon : )
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 06:44pm PT
|
Hola from Los Osos, CA.
The beaches that spread up and down the coast from the headlands around Montaña de Oro are an absolute treat--especially from a beach combing perspective. Low tide can reveal caves in the cliffs; which can all be thought of as a Big Sur scaled down to say a tenth of the Sur's size.
I once found a secluded beach on the north side of a small peninsular headland which required some really dicey soloing through poison oak and crumbling dirt to finally arrive at a pristine sandy cove bordered by massive cliffs on either side. Few people can get down there because of the seemingly impossible and perilous down climbing and so this beach was mine to spend the entire glorious day beach combing, napping, and figuring out the pelican hierarchy as they noisily jockeyed for dominance on the 40 ft. high sea stack in the center of the small bay.
Good times.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:06pm PT
|
Base 104 -- "MikeL could never find oil."
Oh bullsh!t!!!!
Grandma can find it at the auto store and in the supermarket.
Take the drain plug off the oil reservoir on your car and ....
Eureka .... it's oil.
There's oil everywhere ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2015 - 07:51pm PT
|
JL says:
nothing has a stand-alone or independent essence separate from the rest of reality.
And JL also said:
Sentience is simply unlike any other phenomenon in reality.
How is sentience unlike any other phenomenon in reality? Can you give us your view on what sentience is? Is your statement any different than saying, "Life is unlike any other phenomenon in reality?"
I could as easily claim that chocolate is unlike any other phenomenon in reality.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!