Ridiculous Reductionism.

[NOIRTRASH]

That's what RECIDIVA calls my way of thinking.

More a little later. Stay tuned.

 

[Adjudicator]

Waiting with bated breath.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Richard Feynman was the king of reductionism. Like with this exposition of an atomic nucleus:

IF YOU TOOK AN ORANGE AND MADE IT AS BIG AS EARTH, ONE ATOM OF THAT ORANGE WOULD FIT INSIDE AN AVERAGE ROOM. INSIDE THAT ROOM THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS WOULD BE AS BIG AS A DUST PARTICLE. ALMOST ALL OF WHAT AN ATOM IS, IS THAT PARTICLE OF DUST.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

My brain naturally seeks the core or soul of things. I come by it honest. One of my ancestors was a lawyer, and this is the essence of his THE LAZIEST NIGGER IN TALLAHASSEE Defense. At trial he represented a black man accused of stealing an axe.

When it came his time to present the defense he stood at the court room window looking out for a few long minutes before he spoke.

I CANT IMAGINE ANY PREMISE MORE ABSURD THAN THE ALLEGATION AGAINST MY CLIENT, HENRY. NO ONE WILL DISPUTE ME WHEN I SAY HENRY IS THE LAZIEST NIGGER IN TALLAHASSEE. HE'D STEAL MONEY. HE'D STEAL MEAT OR A BOTTLE OF LIQUOR. HE'D STEAL A COAT OR A HAT, BECAUSE HE'S TOO LAZY TO WORK. BUT AN AXE? IF HENRY CAME UPON A TOOL LYING IN THE ROAD HE'D RUN FROM IT QUICKER THAN IF IT WAS A SNAKE.

 

[Aella_]

You keep talking about trailer trash. I don't judge you as much as other GBers do, for that, because I don't know about your life experiences.
But trash comes in all colors, white too.

This guy has class, tho. He's a compassionate idealist who quit a lucrative private practice and settled for a lower-paying job.

Bryan Stevenson
https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en

 

[Recidiva]

Richard Feynman was the king of reductionism. Like with this exposition of an atomic nucleus:

IF YOU TOOK AN ORANGE AND MADE IT AS BIG AS EARTH, ONE ATOM OF THAT ORANGE WOULD FIT INSIDE AN AVERAGE ROOM. INSIDE THAT ROOM THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS WOULD BE AS BIG AS A DUST PARTICLE. ALMOST ALL OF WHAT AN ATOM IS, IS THAT PARTICLE OF DUST.

Richard Feynman was not the king of reductionism.

He was a king of Math. That happens to be math, where reductionism is a mechanic.

https://antryump.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/richard-feynman-quotes.jpg

 

[Sean]

Richard Feynman was the king of reductionism. Like with this exposition of an atomic nucleus:

IF YOU TOOK AN ORANGE AND MADE IT AS BIG AS EARTH, ONE ATOM OF THAT ORANGE WOULD FIT INSIDE AN AVERAGE ROOM. INSIDE THAT ROOM THE ATOMIC NUCLEUS WOULD BE AS BIG AS A DUST PARTICLE. ALMOST ALL OF WHAT AN ATOM IS, IS THAT PARTICLE OF DUST.

You don't understand what reductionism is, do you?

 

[Recidiva]

http://static2.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-would-rather-have-questions.jpg

 

[NOIRTRASH]

You don't understand what reductionism is, do you?

Lemme say it different: I don't use your glossary to define things.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mo...e-Goodbye-darling-youre-just-too-dull....html

Here's one of my present excavations. Trying to reconcile why divorce is good and bad.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

You keep talking about trailer trash. I don't judge you as much as other GBers do, for that, because I don't know about your life experiences.
But trash comes in all colors, white too.

This guy has class, tho. He's a compassionate idealist who quit a lucrative private practice and settled for a lower-paying job.

Bryan Stevenson
https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice?language=en

I get diversity and how Jesus loves all the little children of the world. But all the love business isn't a two way street. Plenty of the little children don't love Jesus back.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

re·duc·tion·ism


/riˈdəkSHəˌnizəm/


noun
derogatory

noun: reductionism




the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.


Looks like me and Feynman and the dictionary are on the same page.

 

[Recidiva]

Reductionism has a definition. It occasionally has uses and benefits.

However, you have opnions and conclusions that you seek to reinforce, not challenge or expand. You do not seek to comprehend an organic system with its complications.

What you do is comparable to taking a shell off a beach somewhere in Maine and claiming that from that owned, unchanging evidence you can deduce the nature of land, sea and God.

Bite sized and cherry picked data intended to provide only one representative or meaningful or valid point from which to view is the practice Feynman was famous for opposing.

What it has in its pocketses is not an answer to the riddle.

 

[phrodeau]

*nods*

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

^^^^^


Because he's not much more than a bobble head...

 

[Recidiva]

re·duc·tion·ism


/riˈdəkSHəˌnizəm/


noun
derogatory

noun: reductionism




the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.


Looks like me and Feynman and the dictionary are on the same page.

Yes, when reductionism is done correctly it can be of value, but there are pitfalls that most often manifest in two ways...scope and false equivalency.

So reductionism is useful in things like fluid dynamics, where a tempest in a wind tunnel can help with understanding storms without needing a real tornado

You have to be able to project those conclusions back up though, not conclude that a tiny tornado does no damage and can be contained, therefore a real tornado should do the same.

What you do, though, is limit valid opinions to yourself (error of scope), poll yourself (error of motive) gather only agreeing points of view (failure of due diligence) and present your representative conclusion as science (it is not science) and then you ignore input that disagrees.

So your scope is off and your false equivalency in terms of your experiments, your subject matter and your methods only pass your personal check, and science requires peer review and reproducibility.

Out of your pocket, the event horizon gets chaotic for good reason.

 

[Recidiva]

*nods*

Glad you was droppin' eaves.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Yes, when reductionism is done correctly it can be of value, but there are pitfalls that most often manifest in two ways...scope and false equivalency.

So reductionism is useful in things like fluid dynamics, where a tempest in a wind tunnel can help with understanding storms without needing a real tornado

You have to be able to project those conclusions back up though, not conclude that a tiny tornado does no damage and can be contained, therefore a real tornado should do the same.

What you do, though, is limit valid opinions to yourself (error of scope), poll yourself (error of motive) gather only agreeing points of view (failure of due diligence) and present your representative conclusion as science (it is not science) and then you ignore input that disagrees.

So your scope is off and your false equivalency in terms of your experiments, your subject matter and your methods only pass your personal check, and science requires peer review and reproducibility.

Out of your pocket, the event horizon gets chaotic for good reason.

All true. The problem is: aint many superior to me. I'm 5 feet tall amongst midgets. I change my mind when I'm wrong NOT cause you say I'm wrong.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Reductionism has a definition. It occasionally has uses and benefits.

However, you have opnions and conclusions that you seek to reinforce, not challenge or expand. You do not seek to comprehend an organic system with its complications.

What you do is comparable to taking a shell off a beach somewhere in Maine and claiming that from that owned, unchanging evidence you can deduce the nature of land, sea and God.

Bite sized and cherry picked data intended to provide only one representative or meaningful or valid point from which to view is the practice Feynman was famous for opposing.

What it has in its pocketses is not an answer to the riddle.

"Jim Johnson eats shit" doesn't change my mind.

 

[Recidiva]

So here is Richard Feynman's Caltech commencement address usually called "Cargo Cult Science"

Read it. Reread it. (This advice applies to everyone, including me. I have folowed this advice often)

Feynman managed one of the most astounding feats of applicable reductionism in his formulation of Feynman diagrams.

Stop taking the man's name in vain. Fortunately the guy had a sense of humor. Step out of bit sized data and listen to the actual size, wonder and inclusion of the real guy.

He does not belong in your pocket.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

 

[Recidiva]

All true. The problem is: aint many superior to me. I'm 5 feet tall amongst midgets. I change my mind when I'm wrong NOT cause you say I'm wrong.

Ew. What a load of adolescent stomping about.

 

[Recidiva]

"Jim Johnson eats shit" doesn't change my mind.

Good, because that is not what I said.

Someone else might read it though.

 

[richard_daily]

That's what RECIDIVA calls my way of thinking.

More a little later. Stay tuned.

Her calling it thinking is quite generous of her.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

So here is Richard Feynman's Caltech commencement address usually called "Cargo Cult Science"

Read it. Reread it. (This advice applies to everyone, including me. I have folowed this advice often)

Feynman managed one of the most astounding feats of applicable reductionism in his formulation of Feynman diagrams.

Stop taking the man's name in vain. Fortunately the guy had a sense of humor. Step out of bit sized data and listen to the actual size, wonder and inclusion of the real guy.

He does not belong in your pocket.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

And Jim Johnson adds, 'ABSENCE OF ARTICULATE EXPOSITION ISNT PROOF OF NON EXISTENCE."

 

[Recidiva]

And Jim Johnson adds, 'ABSENCE OF ARTICULATE EXPOSITION ISNT PROOF OF NON EXISTENCE."

Caps don't add gravitas, just noise mostly.

Correlation is not causation.

Bullshit that is clearly bullshit gets to stay bullshit, even if it has a label on it saying "ABSENCE OF ARTICULATE EXPOSITION"

"Well held out, i' faith. No, I do not know you, nor I am not sent to you by my lady, to bid you come speak with her, nor your name is not Master Cesario, nor this is not my nose neither. Nothing that is so is so." - Twelfth Night