gogusrl
Molten Core Raider
- 1,362
- 105
Actually they start at 400$ (http://printrbot.com//http://www.sumpod.com/) but you want one of these bad boys :http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...inter?ref=live
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Reminds me of those documentaries showing early computer enthusiasts--the biggest thing the computers could do was play a small song using beeps, it took like 15 hours to program the song in. The computer cost 5 thousand dollars, or something.
Lenas
Trump's Staff
- 7,559
- 2,299
Sorry dude, but waiting until something is commercially viable to buy and use it doesn't fit any description of the word pioneer.
It does if you are a business in a competitive market and you take a gamble on spending big money on a new technology that may or may not save you money in the long run.
It does if you are a business in a competitive market and you take a gamble on spending big money on a new technology that may or may not save you money in the long run or increase profit.
If he turns it into a personal, long lasting business, then sure it is pioneering. He would be a business pioneer of the 3D printing era.
Cybsled
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 17,087
- 13,610
3d printing on an industrial scale will be big. The key to getting personal adoption of the tech, though, is usefulness. Right now all they can really do is plastic, so you're essentially limited to non-electronic products that will typically have low complexity. Even then, after the novelty wears off, what is the daily/weekly practical usage for the device for average people who aren't interested in toys or model/figurine creation? I see it as more of a big thing for a small business owner. From a business perspective, there is a ton of potential.
Until they can make more complex things, I see it being more akin to a fax machine: Useful to businesses (be they big or small), but less practical to your average person. Now food printers...that is a completely different story for your average person.
Until they can make more complex things, I see it being more akin to a fax machine: Useful to businesses (be they big or small), but less practical to your average person. Now food printers...that is a completely different story for your average person.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,379
- 80,798
Call it what you want. I say using a new methodology for a device in the time period between when it's better than what it replaces and when it is widely used is pioneering. You are free to disagree:
Pioneer 2a:
a person or group that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity or a new method or technical development
I have some science questions.
In another thread, there was some talk about induction, and beliefs in science. In fact, it was stated in one of the worst posts on the internet of the last decade that I "obviously don't understand how science works" because I think "science has induction" and that there is no such thing as "beliefs in science." It was also mentioned that I was not a scientist either which is not relevant. So that aside, let us attend to the question at hand.
I find this interesting, because if that is the case then every online source I locate for either question, in addition to every science class I ever took, is wrong. Nor did I ever state that science is 100% induction, or that all science is belief. Merely that science has induction and that science has beliefs in it.
In the case of induction, I don't know how in the world I would even begin to make a proof about this and it is all over the internet. Isaac Newton, father of our scientific method, started this tradition of induction and also uses sense-perception as a criterion of truth, upon which all scientific endeavors are based. How is science not induction?
http://batesvilleinschools.com/physi...Inductive.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
http://safe-at-last.hubpages.com/hub...e-just-believe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method
I then come to my second question. Does science have beliefs? There is an idea that science is somehow unadulterated truth--that they are facts, and they aren't to be believed, because they are true by their nature. I offer up the following proof that not only is that not true, but that all of science must be "believed."
Premise 1: Science is the attempt by man to catalogue facts or "truth" about the world [Definition]
Premise 2: Within science many things have been proven, and listed as "truth"
Premise 3: Even in the very recent past, things which have been proven or thought of as "truth," have been overturned by other scientific endeavors
So not every conclusion accepted widely or not-so-widely by the scientific community is always correct. There must be a discerning process, that is, one must look at the evidence for the Big Bang Theory, or the laws of motion, or evolutionary theory, or sociology, or geology, and decide whether onebelieves. How is this not belief?
Extrapolating from the premises, we could also assume that some or all of the "truth" that science claims currently is incorrect, as some of the truth science has claimed at any point in human history has been incorrect. Thus, the skeptical scientist that wishes to prove something new, or even build on something existing, must go through a process of selecting, which "truth" do I want tobelieve?Which "truth" do I want to reject? How is this not belief?
So explain please: does science not employ induction?
How is science not full of belief?
As an aside, which should not be relevant but I must state due to the deliberate obtuseness of readers and responders, I believe in almost everything that mainstream science teaches. I am not arguing for a religion or for the necessity of a God. I think the Big Bang Theory is a good model. Relativity is neat. Studies in gravity are indeed ongoing. Everything engineers build is pretty cool. I myself have a science degree. None of this should matter--in fact, everyone who believes in rationality and logic should welcome this.
I restate: does science not employ induction?
I believe I have shown that science is loaded with things one must "believe"--and further, some of these things might turn out to be total falsehoods. Is this not so?
In another thread, there was some talk about induction, and beliefs in science. In fact, it was stated in one of the worst posts on the internet of the last decade that I "obviously don't understand how science works" because I think "science has induction" and that there is no such thing as "beliefs in science." It was also mentioned that I was not a scientist either which is not relevant. So that aside, let us attend to the question at hand.
I find this interesting, because if that is the case then every online source I locate for either question, in addition to every science class I ever took, is wrong. Nor did I ever state that science is 100% induction, or that all science is belief. Merely that science has induction and that science has beliefs in it.
In the case of induction, I don't know how in the world I would even begin to make a proof about this and it is all over the internet. Isaac Newton, father of our scientific method, started this tradition of induction and also uses sense-perception as a criterion of truth, upon which all scientific endeavors are based. How is science not induction?
http://batesvilleinschools.com/physi...Inductive.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
http://safe-at-last.hubpages.com/hub...e-just-believe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method
I then come to my second question. Does science have beliefs? There is an idea that science is somehow unadulterated truth--that they are facts, and they aren't to be believed, because they are true by their nature. I offer up the following proof that not only is that not true, but that all of science must be "believed."
Premise 1: Science is the attempt by man to catalogue facts or "truth" about the world [Definition]
Premise 2: Within science many things have been proven, and listed as "truth"
Premise 3: Even in the very recent past, things which have been proven or thought of as "truth," have been overturned by other scientific endeavors
So not every conclusion accepted widely or not-so-widely by the scientific community is always correct. There must be a discerning process, that is, one must look at the evidence for the Big Bang Theory, or the laws of motion, or evolutionary theory, or sociology, or geology, and decide whether onebelieves. How is this not belief?
Extrapolating from the premises, we could also assume that some or all of the "truth" that science claims currently is incorrect, as some of the truth science has claimed at any point in human history has been incorrect. Thus, the skeptical scientist that wishes to prove something new, or even build on something existing, must go through a process of selecting, which "truth" do I want tobelieve?Which "truth" do I want to reject? How is this not belief?
So explain please: does science not employ induction?
How is science not full of belief?
As an aside, which should not be relevant but I must state due to the deliberate obtuseness of readers and responders, I believe in almost everything that mainstream science teaches. I am not arguing for a religion or for the necessity of a God. I think the Big Bang Theory is a good model. Relativity is neat. Studies in gravity are indeed ongoing. Everything engineers build is pretty cool. I myself have a science degree. None of this should matter--in fact, everyone who believes in rationality and logic should welcome this.
I restate: does science not employ induction?
I believe I have shown that science is loaded with things one must "believe"--and further, some of these things might turn out to be total falsehoods. Is this not so?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
Induction is something like Newton seeing the apple falling and inducing that the reason it falls is because some generally applicable universal (for the context of this discussion gravity doesn't hold absolutely universally but on planets it does for the most part) force is pulling the apple towards the ground. Deduction is noticing that everything touching the ground seems to be pulled back towards it, and determining that because of this fact, the apple falling from the tree will also move towards the ground. This is a very very fast example and probably isn't a perfect one, more a way to give you a picture.
Just as with terms like theory and hypothesis, these do not mean the same thing they might mean in the common every day use of the terms.
Seems like you're trying to equate religion and science here. That is a pretty massive mistake, and in that regards, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Here's another link you should peruse, that which explains the concept of the null hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
My favorite quote, which I"ve quoted here before, is by Robert Heinlein, and I think it applies here as well
To summarize, induction is moving from specifics to generalizations, while deduction is moving from general to specific explanations.
Induction is something like Newton seeing the apple falling and inducing that the reason it falls is because some generally applicable universal (for the context of this discussion gravity doesn't hold absolutely universally but on planets it does for the most part) force is pulling the apple towards the ground. Deduction is noticing that everything touching the ground seems to be pulled back towards it, and determining that because of this fact, the apple falling from the tree will also move towards the ground. This is a very very fast example and probably isn't a perfect one, more a way to give you a picture.
Just as with terms like theory and hypothesis, these do not mean the same thing they might mean in the common every day use of the terms.
All of science is a constant attempt to prove itself wrong, to prove prior conclusions falsehoods. Its how you make yourself super famous in science. The entire concept of peer review, hypothesizing and experimentation are formulated on the attempt to DISPROVE your "beliefs" aka the hypothesis you've come up with to explain a generally observable phenomena.
Seems like you're trying to equate religion and science here. That is a pretty massive mistake, and in that regards, you are definitely barking up the wrong tree.
Here's another link you should peruse, that which explains the concept of the null hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
When you formulate an experiment, you specifically formulate it such that you are attempting to reject one hypothesis or another. Rejection of a null hypothesis is not confirmation of another proposed explanation, necessarily, rather you show that it could not be this, so therefore it could be that, but then you'll need a whole new series of tests to determine whether or not you can reject this other explanation as well. Understanding comes when you have rejected as many hypotheses as possible, hopefully weening down to one or two reasonable explanations. Even then, one does not "believe" in them
My favorite quote, which I"ve quoted here before, is by Robert Heinlein, and I think it applies here as well
To some who engage in science, of course they become as smitten with belief, or with "theory" as any religious person would or could. This is not a flaw with the scientific method, but rather a flaw in human nature that makes many very uncomfortable with uncertainty. Lack of knowledge can be scary to humans for lots of reason. To become obsessed with the theory to the extent that you begin to "believe" in it, aka dogmatize it and make it sacrosanct, is to undermine the entire purpose of science.
No sir I am not trying to equate anything with anything, religion is not a topic here.
You seem to sidestep the question.
Does science employ induction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method
This seems to show that it absolutely did and does. I am not using it in the "everyday use of the term," I am using it in the technical, scientific sense. Does science employ induction?
You gave me definitions for inductive and deductive. I already understand them. From what you've shown, yes, science does employ induction a great deal.
Must I believe things in science? In fact, to prove many things, must I firstdisbelievean accepted thing? It seems to me that you indicated that yes, you must. Further, are some things in science not listed as "self-evident?" Would these things need to be believed as they themselves are not proven?
You seem to sidestep the question.
Does science employ induction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...entific_method
This seems to show that it absolutely did and does. I am not using it in the "everyday use of the term," I am using it in the technical, scientific sense. Does science employ induction?
You gave me definitions for inductive and deductive. I already understand them. From what you've shown, yes, science does employ induction a great deal.
Must I believe things in science? In fact, to prove many things, must I firstdisbelievean accepted thing? It seems to me that you indicated that yes, you must. Further, are some things in science not listed as "self-evident?" Would these things need to be believed as they themselves are not proven?
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
No, I'm a biology, chemistry and anthropology major, we've been over this induction/deducation thing in class about 10000000000 times I'm telling you literally what scientists are taught during their education.
You are treating "science" as a dogmatic organization, rather than what it is, a bunch of different people all conducting research in areas that interest them and trying to find reasonable explanations for observable phenomena.
Except you aren't
What part of "Science employs both deducation and induction" did you not comprehend there, exactly?
Not without observable, quantifiable evidence to support your belief. In science you don't have to believe in anything. Of course if there are literally tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles and experiments all supporting one conclusion, and you claim to believe in a different conclusion, then the burden of proof falls on you to prove all those other people wrong in peer reviewable, quantifiable format.
One can very well say "I think the answer to this question is this. I believe the answer to this question is this" and one can be right, or wrong. Experimentation is required to verify belief. Lysenko believed if you plant seeds in frozen soil that they will adapt to cold climates and be able to grow in Siberia. Turns out his hypothesis was wrong. Lamarck believed that if a giraffe wants to badly enough, it can stretch its neck beyond its natural length in order to reach leaves at the tops of trees, and that it can then pass those acquired traits onto its offspring. Turns out his belief was wrong as well.
You can believe whatever the fuck you want in science, but until you can prove it with observable evidence that is peer reviewable and replicable, no one else will.
A rational and logical response sir. Top lels.I'd neg you again so you'd get pissed again and revenge neg me back but I can't so take this instead
Except I am. I did comprehend it. I didn't ask
DOES SCIENCE EMPLOY BOTH DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION
I asked, does science employ induction? Yes, it does. That's it. That's all I asked.
You said that I can't believe things without "observable, quantifiable evidence to support your belief," so yes, I must believe things. These observable, quantifiable things might turn out to be totally wrong, as they have in the past, or totally right, as they also have in the past.
People seem to think that I am making this about something it is not. I am not a biology major, but I have taken biology, chemistry, and anthropology as well. Neat!
To sum up your answer, yes science employs induction, and yes there are things in science that I must believe or reject.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
And its absolutely clear after reading your post on Godel in the other thread that you are in fact attempting to equate religion and science.
Let me help you.
Religion deals with that which cannot be observed, the supernatural, which is by definition "beyond nature" and therefore, not observable, not testable, and not quantifiable, therefore religion and science can never be equated with one another, because religion inherently deals with the non quantifiable, non observable, while science specifically only deals with that which is quantifiable, that which is observable.
Godel's ontological assertions rely on presumptions, like
Let me help you.
Religion deals with that which cannot be observed, the supernatural, which is by definition "beyond nature" and therefore, not observable, not testable, and not quantifiable, therefore religion and science can never be equated with one another, because religion inherently deals with the non quantifiable, non observable, while science specifically only deals with that which is quantifiable, that which is observable.
Godel's ontological assertions rely on presumptions, like
None of which are proven, or provable. How can we prove the world which we live in today is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived, for example?
No sir, I am not. You continue to make this about something I am not.
I do however agree that science and religion attempt to answer fundamentally different questions. If you must read what I wrote elsewhere, you might note if reading was something you liked to do, that I outright stated there is no scientific proof for God. Already done. Preaching to the choir.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
No, I merely have the capacity to read your statements in the other thread that brought you here to cry about your complete inability to comprehend the difference between blind belief founded in no evidence whatsoever, and induction, which is moving from a specific instance to a broader general definition.
There's a huge difference, but I'm beginning to believe that nuance is beyond your capacity.