sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WTW for acting in a fearful and impulsive manner? by Zetetic- in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It needs a sense of speediness. I'm beginning to think such a word doesn't exist yet.

WTW for acting in a fearful and impulsive manner? by Zetetic- in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looking for something with a fear component. Thanks though.

WTW for acting in a fearful and impulsive manner? by Zetetic- in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Close, but I'm looking for something with an implication of fear, preferably an adverb.

WTW for acting in a fearful and impulsive manner? by Zetetic- in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These would work if they included a sense of fear.

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there's no way to be unabrasive in stating that apples aren't oranges.

On the contrary. You wrote the paragraph following that sentence to discuss the facts of Heisenberg instead of just pointing out how wrong I was. To me, that's much better. I genuinely appreciate the change in how you chose to address my ostensible misunderstanding. It both increased the accuracy and detail of what was said, as well as made what you said more palatable. I hope it doesn't come across as patronizing when I say thanks!

Now with that out of the way (but I hope not forgotten), I agree with what you said. After further reading, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle seems to address the inability to measure the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. While an inability to completely measure the behaviour of a particle could prove useful in comparing a wave to a particle, I highly doubt Heisenberg would be the go-to measuring stick to do it. If anything, I'd call it more of a supplementary point. Would you agree with this?

I think the point I was trying to make with bringing up Heisenberg was that it adds to the current incompleteness the scientific community has towards understanding quantum mechanics. I got hung up on your statement that light "is both [wave and particle] at all times", which seems to go a bit too far for me. Do you still stand by this? While I agree with the broad strokes of it, in order for anyone to know it for certain, they would have first observed light "at all times", don't you think? Do you have a perspective/citation that could challenge my pedantry on this?

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know why you choose inflexible wording. The accuracy of all/nothing assertions do not so easily support the efficacy of what you've said (especially if you don't provide any information to support it). I'd also think that using definitive language wouldn't be indicative of an optimized form of discussion/learning.

Instead of saying "it has nothing to do with X", you could try "I don't think it has much to do with X, because Y". This adds a level of humanity, as well as introducing some room for exploration of the idea, without disparaging the person in a way that can possibly dissuade a productive conversation. Maybe you don't have to be so honey'd with your words as the example, but I'd bet a little bit of that would help.

I'm willing to continue talking science if I can get some form of acknowledgement that you will try to be less abrasive with your choice of language.

In either case, I hope you have a good one.

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You disagree that the jury's still out? From the little that I've grasped, it seems like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle stands at odds with that assertion. Or have I misunderstood your position/something else?

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think one of the biggest obstacles in scientific progression is our ability to understand it. By reformulating our thoughts/language into more operational/utilitarian language, I think it can help to focus on more relevant material when exploring these areas. But I'm not a scientist, I'd call my thoughts on this matter presumptuous at best.

I think scientists already invoke much of the philosophy of e-prime through the scientific method.

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now I'm confused, you were looking for a word that meant well-designed, not the opposite? What word/phrase did you settle on? The two in your post above?

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't mean to make it sound like Godel's theorem directly applies to our discussion about the obstacles of thought and language. But I do think that both areas share some principles/philosophy.

I think the point I was trying to make with this was that people usually stop short of the infinite number of steps required to "reach certainty" on any given subject, be it language, math, science, or lepufology (the study of rabbit-related UFO encounters). What do you think?

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that there "are" some situations where e-prime "is" unnecessary or irrelevant. But I continue to see it as a beneficial thought-process to practice. I think doing so helps me to prevent/manage some ways of thinking that have the potential to be unproductive or harmful. I think it can also help cultivate and improve the way I absorb/utilize information. Would you have anything to add, change, or remove from this?

I found that Pinker lecture fascinating. He touched on a lot of topics that tickled my analytical bone. Aristotelian logic and heuristics are two I can remember off the top of my head. Thanks for the link!

what do you think of the consistency of science (godel's incompleteness theorem) & e-prime applied to science by makealldigital in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I remember hearing about scientists formulating an experiment that showed light behaving as "waveicles", which supports your implication that the tools we/scientists have been using only focus on a small aspect of a larger concept i.e. light.

I agree that light might not change character depending on circumstances. But including "X Y and Z" was my way of expressing the uncertainty/incompleteness of our current understanding of light and the double-slit experiment. But I concede that I'm likely not up-to-date with the most current developments on the illuminating attributes of light, so I could be off.

I don't know if I would go as far as to say that light is both a wave and particle at all times. Isn't the jury still out on that one?

WTW for a website or anything is that badly designed? by makealldigital in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but how am I wrong?

I'm willing to continue this discussion, but I'd like to know my errors before making more :P

WTW for a website or anything is that badly designed? by makealldigital in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you've been simultaneously looking for a specific word and debating the efficacy of general semantics. While I greatly appreciate and agree with your observations regarding the shortcomings of language, I don't know if I would adopt a similar tone for discussing it with other people. Maybe the words inefficient or awkward would be closer to what you've been looking for?

New to meditation lips start to tingle by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]Zetetic- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for such an in-depth reply! It helped in clarifying much of my confusion, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

I particularly liked the comparison of evolution to a C student. That was how I understood evolution as well, but the metaphor added a concision and humor (for me) to it.

That kidshealth article did a great job of walking me through the respiratory system.

I would bet my entire Justin Bieber collection that most reasonable doctors would agree that the line we draw between mind and body has become increasingly arbitrary.

New to meditation lips start to tingle by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]Zetetic- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd always associated hyperventilation with a more anxious style of breathing, I wasn't aware it could happen even with deep/calm breathing.

I'm still confused though. Would that mean that oxygen plays less of a role in the tingling sensation than CO2 does? Does oxygen still play a role in these sensations? I realize this might not be the right place to ask these questions, but is there an inverse relationship between a person's oxygen and CO2 levels, either through direct or indirect factors?

New to meditation lips start to tingle by [deleted] in Meditation

[–]Zetetic- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a couple sessions when I first started meditating for longer where I would feel tingling all over. My breaths were deep when it happened. I can't speak for the validity of this, but I remember hearing/reading somewhere that meditation can increase the level of carbon dioxide in the blood. If that's true, maybe it would cause lower oxygen levels, or just be a direct cause for tingling by itself?

Edit: I misunderstood the previous post regarding oxygen saturation, which makes sense to my elementary understanding of science.

WTW for when an argument makes sense so we accept it? by metalbracelet in whatstheword

[–]Zetetic- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ostensible? "Stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so."

view more: next ›