Open and Free discussion?

Hachem

Open and Free discussion?
Certainly. This is a general forum with all kinds of people participating, with different levels of knowledge and different interests. That is why some threads get more attention than others, solicit more reactions from more people. That is certainly a win for the OP's, one that they should enjoy and be proud of.
I am afraid that I consider my own threads differently, even if I am fully aware that they are not better, but not necessary worse, than other threads.
They reflect my own interests and even obsessions. There are subjects on which I have been ruminating from quite some time now, and I am far from being done reflecting upon them. From time to time I feel the need to express my thoughts, to get some feedback, but also just to clarify them for myself.
As any "writer", I like of course the idea of many people reading my posts. But I am not participating in a popularity concept.
In fact, I would hate it if dozens of people reacted to a thread of mine (except this one). I would find the distraction intolerable.
I welcome critical comments and objections, but I am afraid that I put a limit to the time I devote to them. My views are controversial, unorthodox and, not least of all, unproved. That means that it is very easy to recite the gospel and show me as the heathen that I am. I have tried to make my position clear regarding for instance the theory of the dual nature of light. Not to convince, but simply to show where I stand.
I did that a few times, but it would be waste of time to do it each time I open a thread or a post. There comes a time where people who do not agree with me will have to accept that they will not change my mind, as I will not change theirs.
That means concretely that I will choose whether or not I will answer to objections that can be presented to my views. I will simply ignore those which defend established theories because I do not need to defend myself each time.
So, in a sense, I am closed to familiar objections, but welcome any comment or criticism that might help enrich my thinking.

Jake Tarragon

You need a FAQs sort of blog to which you can simply point to as a reply. If you are "different" then you need to make an effort to help others understand your POV - don't expect others to make big efforts. As for me I like intense mavericks but I'm afraid I have no particular interest in your special interest but I might be tempted to post in your threads if your posts were short and snappy; but of course I realise that that might not be appropriate for your topics.

Your discussions are too technical for me, but I wish you'd separate your paragraphs with a line in between them - which you often don't do, and have not done in your opening post here - as it makes what you write easier to read. I have edited quite a lot of your posts for that reason, and I thought that you might have picked it up by now.

If you like the idea of many people reading your posts, then something as simple as properly separating your paragraphs could help with that.

Hachem

↪Sapientia

Thank you for the tip. I will try and put it into practice all the time.

MysticMonist

Hachem,
To repeat what some others have said if you want more interaction on your posts, you need to make it relatable. I'm new here so I went back to your last few threads and they are very technical in areas of science I'm not that knowledgeable in. Maybe others here are. But if you want me to participate then you need to relate to a philosophy or even just a common experience/question we all have. You may not care if I comment, because I really have nothing to add in regards to the science, but if you related it to a common interest then I could at least give my perspective. Again maybe you don't want hundreads of perspectives and comments. Think more about why are you posting.

I need to do a better job with that too though. My main purpose on the forum is to get help understanding the specific works of Plato and Plotinus. I think it's fine to have posts where I ask on page 351 of the Republic plato says this and what does he mean. In that case though I don't expect a lot of responses. But if I wanted a wider response and I were to follow my own advice on my thread "Repentance?" I should have lead off with a general statement like "if you don't believe in divine grace, then what does it mean to repent?" After stating that question then I can launch into Plato. That way there is a common starting point people can work off. That way, in your posts, someone like me who bombed their AP physics exam can have something to go off.

Is that helpful?

P.S. I just noticed that when posting on my phone I need to put in an extra line between paragraphs to keep it from looking like a solid block of text. Maybe that will help?

BC

I will try and put it into practice all the time. — Hachem

As Yoda said, "Do or do not, there is no try."

Hachem

↪Bitter Crank

You mean: "Stop trying to hit me and hit me!"?

T Clark

I'm new here so I went back to your last few threads and they are very technical in areas of science I'm not that knowledgeable in. Maybe others here are. But if you want me to participate then you need to relate to a philosophy or even just a common experience/question we all have. You may not care if I comment, because I really have nothing to add in regards to the science, but if you related it to a common interest then I could at least give my perspective. Again maybe you don't want hundreads of perspectives and comments. Think more about why are you posting. — MysticMonist

People should realize that the things Hachem talks about are not science, they are pseudoscience. I asked one of the moderators what the forum policy is toward pseudoscience. He said it is not allowed, but no move has been made to enforce the ban.

Everything Hachem says is completely outside the bounds of normal science. He says that relativity is wrong, quantum mechanics is wrong, the expanding universe is wrong. He also says this - "Sound can be propagated through empty space, even if we are unable to hear it. Our hearing needs the movement of air molecules to activate it. The question whether sound is more than moving air molecules is for us irrelevant. We wouldn't hear it anyway. But it has to be there, otherwise there would be no communication possible with astronauts." So, there is sound in outer space with no atmosphere.

Do you have any idea how absurd that is? MysticMonist - you say that you are not experienced in "very technical .. areas of science." You're a smart guy. Even someone with limited experience should be able to see that Hachem's beliefs belong with creation science and the 6,000 year old earth. Hachem deserves the right to be heard, but not here.

Hachem

↪T Clark

I think T Clark, that you belong with the so-called philosophers of the middle ages that considered everything that Aristotle said a word of truth. May I remind you that in science, and I am neither creationist nor flat-earther, a theory is only considered true until it is "proven" false. The ether was considered a scientific concept for more than three hundred years.

Considering sound, you should read my threads more carefully. Sound as a sensation is impossible in empty space because it needs a medium, not necessarily to propagate, but to affect our hearing.
What I was talking about was the biological component of sound.

At the same time, sound can be considered, just as light, as an electromagnetic wave. And just as light, it would not be surprising if it could cross distances of empty space. We would not hear the effects of a nova, but that does not mean that the "noise" is not reverberating through space.
It is therefore not as simple as you would like it to be.

Unless you have an explanation for how certain electromagnetic waves can travel through empty space, while others cannot.

I was therefore using "sound" as physicists use "light", whether we can perceive it or not.

By the way T Clark , this is the third time that you attacked me personally, and I really wonder what your problem is.

T Clark

I think T Clark, that you belong with the so-called philosophers of the middle ages that considered everything that Aristotle said a word of truth. May I remind you that in science, and I am neither creationist nor flat-earther, a theory is only considered true until it is "proven" false. The ether was considered a scientific concept for more than three hundred years. — Hachem

I have no problems with your ideas. I find them interesting. If they were just wrong, that would be one thing, but they are willfully in opposition to what we understand about the way the world works. Whatever power they have comes from their controversiality, not from their truth. And that's not the real problem for me. For me, there are two things that matter here 1) This forum is important to me. In order for it to continue and keep it's value, there have to be standards of truth. As I said above, your ideas deserve a place to be heard, but not here. 2) @MysticMonist is a really smart, perceptive guy who apparently doesn't have confidence in his understanding of science. There are people on this forum he can learn a lot from - @apokrisis; @fdrake; @StreetlightX. I want to tell him that there are standards in science and that your ideas do not meet those standards. It's not that they're wrong, although they are, it's just that they are not science.

Unless you have an explanation for how certain electromagnetic waves can travel through empty space, while others cannot. — Hachem

I am not aware of any such electromagnetic waves.

By the way T Clark , this is the third time that you attacked me personally, and I really wonder what your problem is. — Hachem

I went back and double-checked what I wrote. There is no personal attack there. I only attacked your ideas - admittedly with some fervor.

Hachem

↪T Clark

I suggest you open threads where you disassemble "wrong" ideas about scientific issues. That would be a positive contribution to this forum, much more than trying to ban people with whom you do not agree.

Hachem

↪T Clark

I would be, to name but a few themes, very interested in your views about the double slit effect, interference and Newton rings.

I am not inviting you to participate in my threads. I think it would be quite a sterile dialogue. But you are of course free to quote me and criticize me in your own threads. And I would do the same in mine.

The advantage of such a construction is that we both would have the freedom to pursue our own line of thought, and only react to others when we deem fit.

It would also be much less confusing for members who are not really into Physics.

By the way, I do not see this as a competition, but simply as a sharpening of the arguments on both sides.

T Clark

I suggest you open threads where you disassemble "wrong" ideas about scientific issues. That would be a positive contribution to this forum, much more than trying to ban people with whom you do not agree. — Hachem

I have no authority to ban anyone.

T Clark

I am not inviting you to participate in my threads. I think it would be quite a sterile dialogue. But you are of course free to quote me and criticize me in your own threads. And I would do the same in mine — Hachem

I don't need to be invited. As long as I am civil, on post, and responsive, I can post my comments here. If it were only a disagreement, I wouldn't waste either of our times. But when I see other intelligent posters who may not have a good background in science responding to your ideas as if they should be taken as seriously as tested theories that have stood up for more than a century of intense scrutiny, I feel an obligation to say something.

Actually, I have no problem with you presenting your ideas here, but I worry that others may join you and the forum will lose it's direction.

Hachem

Actually, I have no problem with you presenting your ideas here, but I worry that others may join you and the forum will lose it's direction. — T Clark

I am curious as to how you intend to counter my malevolent influence.

T Clark

I am curious as to how you intend to counter my malevolent influence. — Hachem

I plan nothing other than my comments, and I'll only do that when I think it's important. To tell the truth, I think it is good practice for philosophers to learn to deal respectfully with people with whom they disagree on fundamental issues. As I said, my only problem is that I worry that the forum will be hijacked and it's nature changed significantly.

Hachem

I think it is good practice for philosophers to learn to deal respectfully with people with whom they disagree on fundamental issues. As I said, my only problem is that I worry that the forum will be hijacked and it's nature changed significantly. — T Clark

I couldn't agree with you more. But you should do something about it if you really believe that the forum is in any danger of being perverted.

T Clark

I couldn't agree with you more. But you should do something about it if you really believe that the forum is in any danger of being perverted. — Hachem

If I thought the personality of the forum was in danger, which I could see happening if there were more posters with your views, I would discuss it with the moderators. For now, I'm satisfied. As I said, I don't intend to harass you and I haven't up till now, although I have commented several times. I will comment if I think someone is being mislead.

Hachem

↪T Clark

good luck and so be it.

Open and Free discussion?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions