rgbatduke:
You’re a terrific thinker, writer, and user of the tools of science. That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology. Reading your well written prose, I get the sense that this idea is foreign.
Things which cannot be explained to me to my satisfaction are not necessarily untrue. No amount philosophical, scientific or rhetorical scribes will change the deep belief that some people own because their senses are filtered differently their some others.
You seem deeply concerned that Janice doesn’t see things the way you do. From a man (me) who is is not deeply religious, I am perfectly comfortable in the company of fine people, regardless of their religious beliefs. I am uncomfortable when I am judged and energy is put forth with fervor to change my religious views. Then, I walk away.
@rgbatduke at 8:23 am
Dr. Brown, do you have an opinion on the merits of The New Chronology (Rohl) that realigns the pre 664 BC Egyptian chronology in a way that Egyption Archeology aligns with Old Testament and Canaan and Assyrian Archeology.
This account of a battle near Mount Gilboa is particulary interesting. The old chronology has two similar battles, with similar rulers meeting similar fates, at similar locations, told by two cultures with a time period 360 yeas apart. The Rohl New Chronology realigns reigns so that these are the same battle told bey the two cultures.
Rohl identifies Labaya, a local ruler in Canaan whose activities are documented in the Amarna Letters, with King Saul, and identifies King David with Dadua (“Tadua”), also mentioned in Amarna Letter EA256. Saul and Labaya share the same demise – “both die in battle – against a coalition of city states from the coastal plain – on or near Mount Gilboa, both as a result of betrayal.”[5] Both also have a surviving son whose name translates as “Man of Baal.”
There are also some archeaoastronomy evidence. In particular there is a sunset solar eclipse in the reign of Amenhotep IV described from Ugarit. Conventional dating puts this 1375 BC, but the New Chronology could place it May 20, 1078 BC. The account also mentions a blood red star near by, which some have taken to mean Mars, but some others think it is the red-giant precursor to the Crab Nebula supernova only 1.5 degrees off the eclipic which supports an early-middle May eclipse date.
I love the smell of uncertainty in the morning.
It smells like … SCIENCE!
Gunga Din says:
December 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Mario Lento says:
December 15, 2013 at 10:50 am
===================================================================
I brought some of that up a year ago. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#comment-1184128
++++++++
I think this is an all too important point for some of us to concede Guga Din. I am an anomaly in that I am certain my opinions are flawed. That humble belief (in that my opinions are flawed) keeps my ego humbled and drives my quest for truth. I do not wish to quell others’ beliefs, but rather question them to coax out the truth. It leads me to learn more by being wrong than being right.
That all said, I want Steven Mosher to tell the whole truth along with the obfuscation that I “believe” comes with his seemingly trolling prose.
@Zeke Hausfather at Dec 13, 6:32 pm
RE: Stephen Rasey at 12:19 am
Let’s take a look at BEST results for Iceland.
You say that BEST has over 40,000 stations. The page lists 40,747.
Dumb question #1. Are these 40,747 stations
A) separate thermometer locations with potentially discontinuous records, before the application of the BEST scalpel? or
B) virtual stations CREATED by taking a slice from far fewer locations. For example they are from 8000 geographic locations with an average of 4 scalpel-slice “breakpoints” in each location records.
C) Neither (A) nor (B).
Under (B), you get more “stations” by making more breakpoints. The claim that you have more stations implies you have more coverage and better data. But if stations are created by a new breakpoint, more stations hints at worse data, greater uncertainty and more loss of low frequency information.
So what is closer to the truth?
(A) where you have 40,747 stations thermometer records you slice into 200,000 segments or
(B) you have fewer than 10,000 thermometer locations you slice into 40,747 “stations.”
Dumb question #2: RE: Iceland 1885 to 1940, there are 3 stations with years where it drops to two.
When yoiu have a partial year, either as a start up, shut down, or drop out for a few weeks, what is the criteria for counting it? At least half a year?
Iceland is a great test case. See: GHCNS Dodgy Adjustments in Iceland It is good to see BEST keep the warming pulse in the 1930-1945 period seen in the local records. But I cannot help noticing that the earliest observation is 1870, yet the top graph shows an Iceland mean profile starting in 1755.
So 1755 to 1870 iceland trends come from thermometers 500 to 2000 km away from Iceland over open, Gulf Stream warmed, ocean. Why do you do this?
Pamela Gray
December 15, 2013 12:55 pm
Mario, those that liberally pepper their conversation with religious jargon and prose (while not actually overtly and directly trying to convert) are hoping that some spark is ignited in the person or people they are speaking to. An even greater hope is that someone unenvolved in the discussion but who happens to hear it or read it is converted. Climate science is peppered with such style and it is grating. Indirect or cross talk in the hopes that some listener might be converted is, in my view, more irritating than direct debate when it comes to beliefs. It’s a throw something and hope some of it sticks maneuver. As such it is certainly not a higher level form of debate in my opinion.
That said, I did appreciate the biblical vignette Janice penned. But only as it stands as a religious vignette. I think it was ineffective in a climate science debate.
@Mario Lento at 10:50 am That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
X-rays?
Cat-Scans
MRI medical imaging
Magneo-Tellurics?
Accustic 3D prestack depth migration?
Ultrasound scanning?
Radio Astronomy?
Tevatron particle accelerator?
Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.
This web page list other separate senses, at least nine and potentially many more that could be special cases of touch and taste. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/
Pamela:
Points well taken. You’re one of the fascinating technical posters here on WUWT. I as well appreciate Janice’s perspectives. She’s well spoken, and a seeker of truth. That puts her into a cherished category. As she’s stated to be a person with no formal science background, she has a keen eye to understanding the political science of climate issues with an excellent filter for discerning truth. I value Janice’ input into what could be often times be dull for the non-technical folks who visit.
Janice’ feedback and commentaries contribute to the advancement of understanding for many of us. Though I lack a spiritual connection to a higher power, I believe there are forces greater than I can comprehend that guide the perfection found in the universe. As we technically trained individuals grapple with science with what tools we muster, Janice offers to some (perhaps many) a perspective some of us are incapable of finding on our own. To some, perhaps it complicates or offends what they believe. I am grateful for people like Janice –who in the end, does not seem to need to tax me or anyone to get what she wants. In that respect, she is nothing at all like the political climate science folks whose actions tend to bring havoc to the human population.
Stephen Rasey says:
December 15, 2013 at 1:05 pm
@Mario Lento at 10:50 am
That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
X-rays?
Cat-Scans
MRI medical imaging
Magneo-Tellurics?
Accustic 3D prestack depth migration?
Ultrasound scanning?
Radio Astronomy?
Tevatron particle accelerator?
Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.
This web page list other separate senses, at least nine and potentially many more that could be special cases of touch and taste. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/
+++++++++++
Stephen Rasey, thank you for helping clarify. I work in process control and automation and I appreciate your comment.
None of these things can be comprehended without using some combination of our senses. We can see “evidence” of X-Rays by translating their energy into other formats that we can then see or handle. We cannot see infra red, however by translating that invisible light into wavelengths, we can see images in visible light that were sensed by the “invisible” light. Bats can see fairly well by “hearing” the way disturbances in air bounce off of things – some deaf people can do the same to a lesser extent.
@Mario Lento at 1:25 pm
Then I don’t know what you mean by mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
We comprehend subject matter well enough to transform a manefesation of that remote sensing subject matter into a format tuned to high resolution by our existing senses. Those transformations just don’t happen by accident. We comprehend them before we are able to create the mechanisms to transform them into convenient formats.
We comprehend more than 3 spatial dimensions through the use of mathematics.
Richard D
December 15, 2013 3:58 pm
“Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bravo, re: sense of humor 🙂
More formally, there are six modalities or types of information detectable by the senses. 1) Chemical – taste and smell. 2) Heat. 3) Mechanical – touch, balance, sound. 4) Electrical. 5) Light. 6) Magnetic. Humans aren’t very good at this one, although some organisms may navigate by the magnetic field of the earth. Pain is perhaps a special case and is distinguished from other modalities because of the emotional distress that is associated with it. Pain receptors aka nociceptors detect tissue damage.
Richard D
December 15, 2013 4:19 pm
“I measure things and observe stuff and write down what I saw and slice and compute averages and all sorts of junk like that. Guess that makes ME a scientist!! Cool!”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are broad and narrow definitions of science; however, it’s indisputable that empirical/natural science relies on formal sciences, like mathematics, statistics, logic, computer science and modeling. It’s also indisputable that scientists today often work across disciplines and in teams. Feel free to disagree with BEST all you want. Kick holes in their assumptions, methods and conclusions as some very able commenters here have done. I’m simply learning from others and have no set opinions on their work. But to deny as you do that a guy like Mosher is not doing science when he is a named coauthor on BEST papers is beyond inane – its mendacious.
Richard, if all that it takes to be a “scientist” is to be name a co-author on a paper than the term is meaningless. I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.
Richard D
December 15, 2013 5:24 pm
“Truth hurts, but truth and nothing else, is what matters.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth does matter. But how do we know what’s true or anything at all for that matter? Natural science are empirical and based on observation and experiment. The formal sciences are ultimately rational and based on philosophical reasoning. I was bashed pretty good on another thread in arguing that philosophy prepares one for science and scientific thinking, e.g. Mosher’s philosophical training. Which is what I think Janice was mocking me about in her reference to science. We’ve been treated to a world class mini-seminar on the philosophy of science by rgb@duke. Some of the smartest people I know majored in philosophy. Philosopher physicists are just plain scary. Now I would wager from experience that less smart folks in say Anatomy/Physiology and applied human biology can crush most people with TOIL. Ultimately a well rounded undergraduate EDUCATION in the Liberal Arts is useful in helping students make connections between disciplines and knowledge.
Richard D
December 15, 2013 5:30 pm
“I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps fair? I honestly don’t know. Show me why….show your work. I have looked at BEST papers with Mosher as a coauthor and I know from this Blog’s owner A. Watts that his contribution was not insignificant.
u.k.(us)
December 15, 2013 5:43 pm
Poptech says:
December 15, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Richard, if all that it takes to be a “scientist” is to be name a co-author on a paper than the term is meaningless. I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.
=============
Seems a rather harsh statement.
We are awash in data, more than we can comprehend, if we don’t try manipulating/understanding it, what was the point of collecting it ?
Stephen Rasey says:
December 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm
@Mario Lento at 1:25 pm
Then I don’t know what you mean by mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
We comprehend subject matter well enough to transform a manefesation of that remote sensing subject matter into a format tuned to high resolution by our existing senses. Those transformations just don’t happen by accident. We comprehend them before we are able to create the mechanisms to transform them into convenient formats.
We comprehend more than 3 spatial dimensions through the use of mathematics.
++++++++++
Stephen: I think you miss the points entirely. If you’re nit picking OK, I get it.
My career involves sensors and actuators and signal processing. That’s not what I’m talking about. Everything you described can be comprehended but requires various of the 5 senses. Things you cannot sense, you cannot comprehend. If you could not see and hear, you’d not have been able to read or hear people describe wave theory, frequency, vectors, induced fields and so on. I submit there are senses beyond that which humans are endowed with – and without them we are blind to what those senses reveal. To think otherwise, may require one to have a god complex, which I don’t have.
@Mario Lento at 6:23 pm
No, I’m not picking nits. The issue is whether you can comprehend something without the human sense to detect it. You say the sense is required. I say that comprehension often comes before our building the sensor that allow us to detect it and to transform the manifestation into a format useful to our senses.
A case in point is the neutrino.
The neutrino was comprehended as a potential answer to an apparent violation of conservation of momentum in sub-atomic partical decay. The “little-neutral-one” was invisible to existing cloud chambers and other detectors. So, comprehending the nature of the ghost people built detectors to find what they suspected was flying around “in the dark”. Lo and behold they found it. Still, human senses are so much used as it is photo-multiplier tubes generating arrays of time series and data events in a recognizable patterns.
Come Supernova SN1987a and three neutrino detectors captured the passing of 25 neutrinos 3 hours before the flash of light from the exploding star 168,000 light years away.
It is a wonderful example of mind over senses. Comprehension came first. The visualizaiton of it came later.
Correction to Stephen Rasey 7:19 pm Still, human senses are NOT so much used as it is photo-multiplier tubes generating arrays of time series and data events in a recognizable patterns. Eventually the most sense is made projecting 4D or 5D data into 2D projections and 3D animated projections.
How did the evidence of present itself in its final incarnation? Did someone see something – and point out there… there is what we were looking for? Was it with their eyes after the sensors sensed and presented the electrical signals to processors which displayed the sensed signals onto some sort of media?
I get what you are saying – and it’s not what I was trying to get across. If people could not perceive sight none of this would be possible.
Richard D
December 15, 2013 7:58 pm
The issue is whether you can comprehend something without the human sense to detect it. You say the sense is required. I say that comprehension often comes before our building the sensor that allow us to detect it and to transform the manifestation into a format useful to our senses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well said and an interesting example. We have interneurons/grey matter in our cerebral cortex that allow us to remember, reason, comprehend, imagine, decide, etc.
Janice Moore
December 15, 2013 10:16 pm
Dear Mr. Brown,
After this, I really must stop. I feel that I’m abusing our wonderful host’s hospitality by even answering you, here. Please forgive me for just going silent on you after this. As I said above, if it turned out that you really are genuinely seeking to know, I would so very much like to talk with you in person (aaack! I did it again! I MEAN, (eye roll) I wish someone who in your opinion has “grown up,” a scientist or scholar whom you respect, could sit down and answer any questions you’d really like answered).
“… the very way you {refer to me} … as {a} “non-believer{}” is highly revealing. What does “belief” have to do with anything?…
… he can hardly fault me for doing my best and thereby disbelieving in him.”
(you at 8:23am today)
You do yourself (you’re better than that) a gross injustice in your above two posts. Your reply is internally inconsistent and full of errors and gross distortions. Your great intellect is blinded by your emotional attachment to your worldview. You are emotionally blinded to your own logical inconsistencies and even to the internal inconsistencies within your post. There is no point to my responding to you for: 1) you can find the answers yourself if you are really seeking truth; and 2) so far, you are clearly not interested in listening to, only in talking at, me.
Further: 1) WUWT is not the place for such a discussion; and 2) to attempt such a discussion in THIS particular format would be a fool’s errand. Written correspondence is far too prone to misunderstanding for a topic as complex as this one.
Re: “It would be easier for Jesus to save me by providing some concrete basis for belief … ,” (ibid.) — he died on a cross for you.
Yes, indeed, I. Corinthians 13:11 is a wise verse (and so are the two verses following it):
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Why write so sharply? I hope these barbs will trouble your mind enough that you will genuinely (you know good and well you are selectively filtering what data you will consider; I think you underestimate my intelligence a little… I see more than you realize…) seek the truth.
Well, what I will say next will probably sound to Ms. Gray like I’ve just dumped half a bottle of Rose’s lime juice into the glass, but, I care about you. If I did not, I would not have bothered to write all this. I hope that you can believe that. Certainly, there is some ego involved, some base desire just to refute someone who has attacked my views, but, the overwhelming motive (conscious, I mean) on my part is that I want so much for you to have light where there is darkness, peace where there is turmoil, joy where there is despair. And if you think that you can have light, peace, and joy without Jesus, you are doing a mighty fine job of kidding yourself. That, O Mighty-brained One, is why the “rich” have such a hard time “entering the kingdom.” Your brilliant mind is not revealing truth to you; it is hiding it from you.
Do seek out someone who believes and whose mind you respect and keep on seeking. You are worth it!
And… I just thought of more stuff I would like to write!!! It is so hard to just let this drop. Okay. I’m finally stopping.
With respect for you as a person,
And with love (agape),
Janice [With this, until Anthony begins a specific thread dissecting/discussing/dissenting such Origins and Topics and Books or otherwise directs this holiday season, let the matter stop. Mod]
Janice Moore
December 15, 2013 10:31 pm
Dear Mario,
Thank you for your generous and kind words above. That you, someone who does not believe as I do, would support me is great-hearted, indeed. You are, indeed, a delightful anomaly, here: a world-class scientist (yes, I can tell by your many technical posts over the past 8 months) with a big heart and global (not just linear) thinking ability. Congratulations on being so broadly and deeply gifted!
btw: I could see that Mr. Rasey was completely missing what you tried to say (and over and over, too!). He’s so intelligent, I think it had to be intentional — didn’t it? Maybe not!
Ask him how he explains: 1) how both a strong “survival instinct” and a jump-in-front-of-the-train altruism lives within the human heart; 2) how is it that he and his wife fell in love? 3) why did the idea of a Designer (or of “God”) ever even occur to a purely materialistic mind? All he can do is ignore such questions. He cannot answer them outside religion. You are right. There ARE things that cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard.
Well, I’m going on about spiritual things again and I should not, so, I’ll stop.
Thank you for your enduring, generous, encouragement. You are a shining light.
Your grateful and admiring WUWT friend,
Janice
Janice Moore
December 15, 2013 10:33 pm
Just saw your request above, Mod. I will abide by it. Sorry for such remarks in my post below your request — I was writing it while you were posting.
This may well be way across that “sometimes fuzzy line” that is the site policy. But it is also highly instructive and accurate in this.
(Apologies to Caleb if he preferred I not link to his blog.)
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/attention-surplus-disorder-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-456
rgbatduke:
You’re a terrific thinker, writer, and user of the tools of science. That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology. Reading your well written prose, I get the sense that this idea is foreign.
Things which cannot be explained to me to my satisfaction are not necessarily untrue. No amount philosophical, scientific or rhetorical scribes will change the deep belief that some people own because their senses are filtered differently their some others.
You seem deeply concerned that Janice doesn’t see things the way you do. From a man (me) who is is not deeply religious, I am perfectly comfortable in the company of fine people, regardless of their religious beliefs. I am uncomfortable when I am judged and energy is put forth with fervor to change my religious views. Then, I walk away.
Mario Lento says:
December 15, 2013 at 10:50 am
===================================================================
I brought some of that up a year ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#comment-1184128
@rgbatduke at 8:23 am
Dr. Brown, do you have an opinion on the merits of The New Chronology (Rohl) that realigns the pre 664 BC Egyptian chronology in a way that Egyption Archeology aligns with Old Testament and Canaan and Assyrian Archeology.
This account of a battle near Mount Gilboa is particulary interesting. The old chronology has two similar battles, with similar rulers meeting similar fates, at similar locations, told by two cultures with a time period 360 yeas apart. The Rohl New Chronology realigns reigns so that these are the same battle told bey the two cultures.
There are also some archeaoastronomy evidence. In particular there is a sunset solar eclipse in the reign of Amenhotep IV described from Ugarit. Conventional dating puts this 1375 BC, but the New Chronology could place it May 20, 1078 BC. The account also mentions a blood red star near by, which some have taken to mean Mars, but some others think it is the red-giant precursor to the Crab Nebula supernova only 1.5 degrees off the eclipic which supports an early-middle May eclipse date.
I love the smell of uncertainty in the morning.
It smells like … SCIENCE!
Gunga Din says:
December 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Mario Lento says:
December 15, 2013 at 10:50 am
===================================================================
I brought some of that up a year ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#comment-1184128
++++++++
I think this is an all too important point for some of us to concede Guga Din. I am an anomaly in that I am certain my opinions are flawed. That humble belief (in that my opinions are flawed) keeps my ego humbled and drives my quest for truth. I do not wish to quell others’ beliefs, but rather question them to coax out the truth. It leads me to learn more by being wrong than being right.
That all said, I want Steven Mosher to tell the whole truth along with the obfuscation that I “believe” comes with his seemingly trolling prose.
@Zeke Hausfather at Dec 13, 6:32 pm
RE: Stephen Rasey at 12:19 am
Let’s take a look at BEST results for Iceland.
You say that BEST has over 40,000 stations. The page lists 40,747.
Dumb question #1. Are these 40,747 stations
A) separate thermometer locations with potentially discontinuous records, before the application of the BEST scalpel? or
B) virtual stations CREATED by taking a slice from far fewer locations. For example they are from 8000 geographic locations with an average of 4 scalpel-slice “breakpoints” in each location records.
C) Neither (A) nor (B).
Under (B), you get more “stations” by making more breakpoints. The claim that you have more stations implies you have more coverage and better data. But if stations are created by a new breakpoint, more stations hints at worse data, greater uncertainty and more loss of low frequency information.
So what is closer to the truth?
(A) where you have 40,747 stations thermometer records you slice into 200,000 segments or
(B) you have fewer than 10,000 thermometer locations you slice into 40,747 “stations.”
Dumb question #2: RE: Iceland 1885 to 1940, there are 3 stations with years where it drops to two.
When yoiu have a partial year, either as a start up, shut down, or drop out for a few weeks, what is the criteria for counting it? At least half a year?
Iceland is a great test case. See: GHCNS Dodgy Adjustments in Iceland It is good to see BEST keep the warming pulse in the 1930-1945 period seen in the local records. But I cannot help noticing that the earliest observation is 1870, yet the top graph shows an Iceland mean profile starting in 1755.
So 1755 to 1870 iceland trends come from thermometers 500 to 2000 km away from Iceland over open, Gulf Stream warmed, ocean. Why do you do this?
Mario, those that liberally pepper their conversation with religious jargon and prose (while not actually overtly and directly trying to convert) are hoping that some spark is ignited in the person or people they are speaking to. An even greater hope is that someone unenvolved in the discussion but who happens to hear it or read it is converted. Climate science is peppered with such style and it is grating. Indirect or cross talk in the hopes that some listener might be converted is, in my view, more irritating than direct debate when it comes to beliefs. It’s a throw something and hope some of it sticks maneuver. As such it is certainly not a higher level form of debate in my opinion.
That said, I did appreciate the biblical vignette Janice penned. But only as it stands as a religious vignette. I think it was ineffective in a climate science debate.
@Mario Lento at 10:50 am
That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
X-rays?
Cat-Scans
MRI medical imaging
Magneo-Tellurics?
Accustic 3D prestack depth migration?
Ultrasound scanning?
Radio Astronomy?
Tevatron particle accelerator?
Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.
This web page list other separate senses, at least nine and potentially many more that could be special cases of touch and taste.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/
Pamela:
Points well taken. You’re one of the fascinating technical posters here on WUWT. I as well appreciate Janice’s perspectives. She’s well spoken, and a seeker of truth. That puts her into a cherished category. As she’s stated to be a person with no formal science background, she has a keen eye to understanding the political science of climate issues with an excellent filter for discerning truth. I value Janice’ input into what could be often times be dull for the non-technical folks who visit.
Janice’ feedback and commentaries contribute to the advancement of understanding for many of us. Though I lack a spiritual connection to a higher power, I believe there are forces greater than I can comprehend that guide the perfection found in the universe. As we technically trained individuals grapple with science with what tools we muster, Janice offers to some (perhaps many) a perspective some of us are incapable of finding on our own. To some, perhaps it complicates or offends what they believe. I am grateful for people like Janice –who in the end, does not seem to need to tax me or anyone to get what she wants. In that respect, she is nothing at all like the political climate science folks whose actions tend to bring havoc to the human population.
Stephen Rasey says:
December 15, 2013 at 1:05 pm
@Mario Lento at 10:50 am
That said, mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
X-rays?
Cat-Scans
MRI medical imaging
Magneo-Tellurics?
Accustic 3D prestack depth migration?
Ultrasound scanning?
Radio Astronomy?
Tevatron particle accelerator?
Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.
This web page list other separate senses, at least nine and potentially many more that could be special cases of touch and taste.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/humans-have-a-lot-more-than-five-senses/
+++++++++++
Stephen Rasey, thank you for helping clarify. I work in process control and automation and I appreciate your comment.
None of these things can be comprehended without using some combination of our senses. We can see “evidence” of X-Rays by translating their energy into other formats that we can then see or handle. We cannot see infra red, however by translating that invisible light into wavelengths, we can see images in visible light that were sensed by the “invisible” light. Bats can see fairly well by “hearing” the way disturbances in air bounce off of things – some deaf people can do the same to a lesser extent.
@Mario Lento at 1:25 pm
Then I don’t know what you mean by mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
We comprehend subject matter well enough to transform a manefesation of that remote sensing subject matter into a format tuned to high resolution by our existing senses. Those transformations just don’t happen by accident. We comprehend them before we are able to create the mechanisms to transform them into convenient formats.
We comprehend more than 3 spatial dimensions through the use of mathematics.
“Whole science are based upon extending our abilty to perceive nature beyond our magic 5: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. There is at least one more: a sense of humor.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bravo, re: sense of humor 🙂
More formally, there are six modalities or types of information detectable by the senses. 1) Chemical – taste and smell. 2) Heat. 3) Mechanical – touch, balance, sound. 4) Electrical. 5) Light. 6) Magnetic. Humans aren’t very good at this one, although some organisms may navigate by the magnetic field of the earth. Pain is perhaps a special case and is distinguished from other modalities because of the emotional distress that is associated with it. Pain receptors aka nociceptors detect tissue damage.
“I measure things and observe stuff and write down what I saw and slice and compute averages and all sorts of junk like that. Guess that makes ME a scientist!! Cool!”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are broad and narrow definitions of science; however, it’s indisputable that empirical/natural science relies on formal sciences, like mathematics, statistics, logic, computer science and modeling. It’s also indisputable that scientists today often work across disciplines and in teams. Feel free to disagree with BEST all you want. Kick holes in their assumptions, methods and conclusions as some very able commenters here have done. I’m simply learning from others and have no set opinions on their work. But to deny as you do that a guy like Mosher is not doing science when he is a named coauthor on BEST papers is beyond inane – its mendacious.
Richard, if all that it takes to be a “scientist” is to be name a co-author on a paper than the term is meaningless. I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.
“Truth hurts, but truth and nothing else, is what matters.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Truth does matter. But how do we know what’s true or anything at all for that matter? Natural science are empirical and based on observation and experiment. The formal sciences are ultimately rational and based on philosophical reasoning. I was bashed pretty good on another thread in arguing that philosophy prepares one for science and scientific thinking, e.g. Mosher’s philosophical training. Which is what I think Janice was mocking me about in her reference to science. We’ve been treated to a world class mini-seminar on the philosophy of science by rgb@duke. Some of the smartest people I know majored in philosophy. Philosopher physicists are just plain scary. Now I would wager from experience that less smart folks in say Anatomy/Physiology and applied human biology can crush most people with TOIL. Ultimately a well rounded undergraduate EDUCATION in the Liberal Arts is useful in helping students make connections between disciplines and knowledge.
“I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps fair? I honestly don’t know. Show me why….show your work. I have looked at BEST papers with Mosher as a coauthor and I know from this Blog’s owner A. Watts that his contribution was not insignificant.
Poptech says:
December 15, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Richard, if all that it takes to be a “scientist” is to be name a co-author on a paper than the term is meaningless. I don’t believe Mosher is doing science at all but simply manipulating existing data.
=============
Seems a rather harsh statement.
We are awash in data, more than we can comprehend, if we don’t try manipulating/understanding it, what was the point of collecting it ?
Stephen Rasey says:
December 15, 2013 at 1:40 pm
@Mario Lento at 1:25 pm
Then I don’t know what you mean by mankind has not the capability to comprehend subject matter beyond that which can be sensed by the limited sensory capabilities of the human physiology.
We comprehend subject matter well enough to transform a manefesation of that remote sensing subject matter into a format tuned to high resolution by our existing senses. Those transformations just don’t happen by accident. We comprehend them before we are able to create the mechanisms to transform them into convenient formats.
We comprehend more than 3 spatial dimensions through the use of mathematics.
++++++++++
Stephen: I think you miss the points entirely. If you’re nit picking OK, I get it.
My career involves sensors and actuators and signal processing. That’s not what I’m talking about. Everything you described can be comprehended but requires various of the 5 senses. Things you cannot sense, you cannot comprehend. If you could not see and hear, you’d not have been able to read or hear people describe wave theory, frequency, vectors, induced fields and so on. I submit there are senses beyond that which humans are endowed with – and without them we are blind to what those senses reveal. To think otherwise, may require one to have a god complex, which I don’t have.
@Mario Lento at 6:23 pm
No, I’m not picking nits. The issue is whether you can comprehend something without the human sense to detect it. You say the sense is required. I say that comprehension often comes before our building the sensor that allow us to detect it and to transform the manifestation into a format useful to our senses.
A case in point is the neutrino.
The neutrino was comprehended as a potential answer to an apparent violation of conservation of momentum in sub-atomic partical decay. The “little-neutral-one” was invisible to existing cloud chambers and other detectors. So, comprehending the nature of the ghost people built detectors to find what they suspected was flying around “in the dark”. Lo and behold they found it. Still, human senses are so much used as it is photo-multiplier tubes generating arrays of time series and data events in a recognizable patterns.
Come Supernova SN1987a and three neutrino detectors captured the passing of 25 neutrinos 3 hours before the flash of light from the exploding star 168,000 light years away.
It is a wonderful example of mind over senses. Comprehension came first. The visualizaiton of it came later.
Correction to Stephen Rasey 7:19 pm
Still, human senses are NOT so much used as it is photo-multiplier tubes generating arrays of time series and data events in a recognizable patterns. Eventually the most sense is made projecting 4D or 5D data into 2D projections and 3D animated projections.
How did the evidence of present itself in its final incarnation? Did someone see something – and point out there… there is what we were looking for? Was it with their eyes after the sensors sensed and presented the electrical signals to processors which displayed the sensed signals onto some sort of media?
I get what you are saying – and it’s not what I was trying to get across. If people could not perceive sight none of this would be possible.
The issue is whether you can comprehend something without the human sense to detect it. You say the sense is required. I say that comprehension often comes before our building the sensor that allow us to detect it and to transform the manifestation into a format useful to our senses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well said and an interesting example. We have interneurons/grey matter in our cerebral cortex that allow us to remember, reason, comprehend, imagine, decide, etc.
Dear Mr. Brown,
After this, I really must stop. I feel that I’m abusing our wonderful host’s hospitality by even answering you, here. Please forgive me for just going silent on you after this. As I said above, if it turned out that you really are genuinely seeking to know, I would so very much like to talk with you in person (aaack! I did it again! I MEAN, (eye roll) I wish someone who in your opinion has “grown up,” a scientist or scholar whom you respect, could sit down and answer any questions you’d really like answered).
“… the very way you {refer to me} … as {a} “non-believer{}” is highly revealing. What does “belief” have to do with anything?…
… he can hardly fault me for doing my best and thereby disbelieving in him.”
(you at 8:23am today)
You do yourself (you’re better than that) a gross injustice in your above two posts. Your reply is internally inconsistent and full of errors and gross distortions. Your great intellect is blinded by your emotional attachment to your worldview. You are emotionally blinded to your own logical inconsistencies and even to the internal inconsistencies within your post. There is no point to my responding to you for: 1) you can find the answers yourself if you are really seeking truth; and 2) so far, you are clearly not interested in listening to, only in talking at, me.
Further: 1) WUWT is not the place for such a discussion; and 2) to attempt such a discussion in THIS particular format would be a fool’s errand. Written correspondence is far too prone to misunderstanding for a topic as complex as this one.
Re: “It would be easier for Jesus to save me by providing some concrete basis for belief … ,” (ibid.) — he died on a cross for you.
Yes, indeed, I. Corinthians 13:11 is a wise verse (and so are the two verses following it):
Why write so sharply? I hope these barbs will trouble your mind enough that you will genuinely (you know good and well you are selectively filtering what data you will consider; I think you underestimate my intelligence a little… I see more than you realize…) seek the truth.
Well, what I will say next will probably sound to Ms. Gray like I’ve just dumped half a bottle of Rose’s lime juice into the glass, but, I care about you. If I did not, I would not have bothered to write all this. I hope that you can believe that. Certainly, there is some ego involved, some base desire just to refute someone who has attacked my views, but, the overwhelming motive (conscious, I mean) on my part is that I want so much for you to have light where there is darkness, peace where there is turmoil, joy where there is despair. And if you think that you can have light, peace, and joy without Jesus, you are doing a mighty fine job of kidding yourself. That, O Mighty-brained One, is why the “rich” have such a hard time “entering the kingdom.” Your brilliant mind is not revealing truth to you; it is hiding it from you.
Do seek out someone who believes and whose mind you respect and keep on seeking.
You are worth it!
And… I just thought of more stuff I would like to write!!! It is so hard to just let this drop. Okay. I’m finally stopping.
With respect for you as a person,
And with love (agape),
Janice
[With this, until Anthony begins a specific thread dissecting/discussing/dissenting such Origins and Topics and Books or otherwise directs this holiday season, let the matter stop. Mod]
Dear Mario,
Thank you for your generous and kind words above. That you, someone who does not believe as I do, would support me is great-hearted, indeed. You are, indeed, a delightful anomaly, here: a world-class scientist (yes, I can tell by your many technical posts over the past 8 months) with a big heart and global (not just linear) thinking ability. Congratulations on being so broadly and deeply gifted!
btw: I could see that Mr. Rasey was completely missing what you tried to say (and over and over, too!). He’s so intelligent, I think it had to be intentional — didn’t it? Maybe not!
Ask him how he explains: 1) how both a strong “survival instinct” and a jump-in-front-of-the-train altruism lives within the human heart; 2) how is it that he and his wife fell in love? 3) why did the idea of a Designer (or of “God”) ever even occur to a purely materialistic mind? All he can do is ignore such questions. He cannot answer them outside religion. You are right. There ARE things that cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard.
Well, I’m going on about spiritual things again and I should not, so, I’ll stop.
Thank you for your enduring, generous, encouragement. You are a shining light.
Your grateful and admiring WUWT friend,
Janice
Just saw your request above, Mod. I will abide by it. Sorry for such remarks in my post below your request — I was writing it while you were posting.