Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

[Guest guest]

It was probably embarrassment. He once told us [and I believe him] that

there had never in all of human existence been more than a dozen humans

who could understand the math he did. And I think that no more than two

of them are now alive [besides him].

I have from a science perspective basically no math; although I had

advanced algebra in school and a semester or so of calculus in college.

But I had paid enough attention and study to what actually happens in

Lorenz transforms between frames (I hope that is the correct term) in

special relativity [none accelerating] that I could follow the viewpoint

of either frame and specify what either would observe of the other's

frame at any point. At least in such thought experiments as the twins

paradox, where one twin goes on a space journey and returns on his 21st

birthday, and on that same day the stay at home twin is 30 years old

[where acceleration is brief, and ignored].

So our celebrated mathematician made a statement about same the was

contrary to what I thought would be observed at one point and I called

him on it. After several in the group stated my position was correct he

dropped his defense of his position; although he never did admit he was

wrong. And a couple of the group were very harsh in their response to

him, given his exulted math status and my total lack of any. However, I

guess my grasp was more intuitive and did not depend upon math.

But I'm a million miles of topic; sorry...

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35920;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbDl1bDB\

kBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU5MjAEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTMwMTI0OA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:28 am (PST)

>

> I can't recall, either, but if you realize " math is like drugs " , it

> might explain the reluctance to admit the error.

>

> Sam

> (weekend with the fiance)

>

>

> >

> > I haven't kept up with it either; but I had heard/read that a

> massive

> > neutrino had been supported by experiment a few years back. A

> quick

> > look at Google suggests those results were first obtained in 1999.

> > Subsequent experiments have given ranges for the mass; but I don't

> know

> > if any are definitive.

> >

> > I sure miss the old science and physics BBS groups. I could easily

> keep

> > up with the leading edge in many things. We had some world class

> > scientists there; Dave Knapp, for example. And one of the world's

> top

> > mathematicians. Who, incidentally, committed a faux pas WRT

> relativity

> > that a few of us called him on; and he never would admit the

> error.

> > Brilliant person, though. I can't remember his name...

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Sounds like a very interesting experiment. Lucky devil...[ggg]

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/35921;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGQzcjl\

wBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzU5MjEEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTMwMTI0OA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Sam " k9gang@...

>

<mailto:k9gang@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> stealthwind <stealthwind>

>

>

> Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:34 am (PST)

>

> You know, , in a few short hours I will be partaking in a

> scientific experiment of my own to find out 'how many hours of the day

> does the love of my life spoil and pamper me'... hahaha

>

> Sam :-D

[Guest guest]

Results of the " experiment " are:

'all of them'

Sam :-D

>

> Sounds like a very interesting experiment. Lucky devil...[ggg]

>

>

>

> >

> > Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

> >

> > Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:34 am (PST)

> >

> > You know, , in a few short hours I will be partaking in a

> > scientific experiment of my own to find out 'how many hours of

the day

> > does the love of my life spoil and pamper me'... hahaha

> >

> > Sam :-D

>

[Guest guest]

You are using the word " proof " with a lay person meaning, which is

rather loose. Within that meaning it may well be accepted as correct.

However, I'm using " proof " in a scientific or logical exercise meaning,

which is much more rigorous and sharply defined. It is the definition

that one must use in discussing the validity of a scientific theory.

Within that meaning you have provide no proof at all. As a matter of

fact, your argument [from the perspective of logic and science] is

totally false.

At the same time your argument [that if you hit me in the head with a

baseball it will hurt] is totally valid.

> .

>

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/36048;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbG5sMG5\

xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzYwNDgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTU0MjQzMw-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:47 am (PST)

>

> I am sure there are some things that can adhere to this, but others not.

>

> For example, if I show you a baseball and tell you it can hurt, you

> are perceiving something outside of yourself and have no proof that my

> assertation is true. However, if I throw the

> baseball at you and hit you in the head, you have proof.

>

> Roni

>

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> It is a little involved, and probably of no interest to most of the

> list; who for the most part do not care or understand much about

> science. The concepts are far removed from our everyday lives, and

> given your recent statement [MOL] that a certain bit of evidence " is

> proof enough for me " I doubt that you would be impressed with the formal

> explanation. And actually I am not sufficiently educated to present a

> formal explanation. It's quite possible you will not accept the

> validity of the concept even if you do understand it; and actually

> understanding it is a leap for most of us [it may take a while; and a

> lot of thought]. As I mentioned before, at one time I debated a number

> of matters with someone who had no less than three PhD's, and certainly

> considered himself a scientist; but he was unable to grasp such concepts.

>

> But for now let me just say that [as I posted in another message] by

> rigorous rules of logic and science you cannot prove that there is an

> objective universe external to yourself. The existence of a universe

> external to ourselves [note logic error there] that can be detected by

> our physical senses and that conforms within the limitations of those

> senses to what we observe is among the limited assumptions of science.

>

> In a rigorous proof there can be no steps unproved. As long as there is

> even ONE assumption in the attempt an absolute proof must fail.

>

> The specific argument to which I referred is know as the BIJ [brain In a

> Jar] thought experiment. Here is one discussion of the concept [see

> page 97]:

>

>

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0eEbR2-Xt4C & pg=RA1-PA97 & lpg=RA1-PA97 & dq=bij+br\

ain+in+a+jar+thought+experiment & source=web & ots=uSxaSAUWBw & sig=TCnP_7rwMIsFuo8hUb\

aho9QJFp0#PRA1-PA97,M1

>

<http://books.google.com/books?id=X0eEbR2-Xt4C & pg=RA1-PA97 & lpg=RA1-PA97 & dq=bij+b\

rain+in+a+jar+thought+experiment & source=web & ots=uSxaSAUWBw & sig=TCnP_7rwMIsFuo8hU\

baho9QJFp0#PRA1-PA97,M1>

>

> Or check out Philosophy: The Basics By Nigel Warburton; that is the

> reference in the link above [page 97].

>

>

[Guest guest]

No; it is more likely that Matrix and the WW2 brainwashing are derived

from the philosophical concepts; rather than the other way around.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/36063;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdXVqbW5\

wBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzYwNjMEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTU1NjM4NA-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " PATRICK REYNAUD " dauphine999@...

>

<mailto:dauphine999@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was\

%3A%20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> ryn564 <ryn564>

>

>

> Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:47 am (PST)

>

> Matrix??? Ahhhhhhhhhh! Are you all talking about that old WW2

> brainwash that creates confusion among the populous? The one that

> makes people deny their own existence??? Well now we live here in this

> existence. This is our reality. Real or not we have to make the best

> of what we got. If you see your glass as half full, it isn't that bad.

> LOL Dauphine999

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> These concepts were provided in response to a direct request for a

> scenario that could invalidate any fact that you/we presume to be

> absolutely determined, or to show that no theory is ever proved. They

> do that remarkably well for anyone who understands the concepts. They

> are known as " thought experiments "

> .

>

> And AFAIK thats _all_ they are; just a logical proof. They have no

> bearing on the nature of the " real " world. While we obviously cannot

> rule them out we also cannot establish any reason to assume they

> represent reality. Given the massive assumptions that would have to be

> made to support such a view such a position would appear to be the

> opposite of good science. If you're looking at something with a

> probability about the same as winning the megalottery every time you

> play it then it would appear a good idea to not " bet " too much on it.

>

> However, a number of statements you made below are in fact exactly

> correct; but we have a great deal of trouble accepting them. See

> response below...

[Guest guest]

A rigorous proof fails if any link in the chain contains an [unproved]

assumption. Every proof of any kind that deals with the physical

universe contains one or more assumptions. Thus science can never

" prove " any of its theories; nor can you " prove " any of yours nor I of mine.

Remember, a proof hasn't necessarily anything to do with what is true or

false; but only with whether you can prove the same. Even in

mathematics there are propositions that are true but which cannot be proved.

>

> Re: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Was: Low Iron and Hypothyroidism

>

<hypothyroidism/message/36188;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOTlkdXB\

mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE0NTY2NARncnBzcElkAzE3MDkyNTEwODIEbXNnSWQDMzYxODgEc2V\

jA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIwMTY2MTQyOQ-->

>

>

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20SCIENTIFIC%20EVIDENCE%20Was%3A%\

20Low%20Iron%20and%20Hypothyroidism>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:58 am (PST)

>

> ,

> You say my argument is totally false in the scientific meaning of

> " proof " . Plese tell me

> how and why.

>

> Roni

>

> <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>> wrote:

> You are using the word " proof " with a lay person meaning, which is

> rather loose. Within that meaning it may well be accepted as correct.

>

> However, I'm using " proof " in a scientific or logical exercise meaning,

> which is much more rigorous and sharply defined. It is the definition

> that one must use in discussing the validity of a scientific theory.

> Within that meaning you have provide no proof at all. As a matter of

> fact, your argument [from the perspective of logic and science] is

> totally false.

>

> At the same time your argument [that if you hit me in the head with a

> baseball it will hurt] is totally valid.

>

>