quote:

---

Certainly experiences influence our intuition, there is no question about that. But what exactly is the difference between an educated guess and intuition? To me, the lines get blurry there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricky

This may be getting way off topic, but I believe we already are.

The following quote was posted by Neurosis.

quote:

---

Intuitive/feeling is worthless. Going with your gut feeling is not scientific or skeptical and the definition of intuition, so it precludes the scientific, empirical, and historical. It is also Faith. Note also that you have NO scientific, empirical, and historical evidence, so you only have faith any way you look at it.

---

I wouldn't say worthless. In fact, many scientists use intuition to form a hypothesis. I use it myself in math, and heavily while debugging programs when I do not know where the error lies.

However, once one wishes for a theory to be accepted by others, then it is worthless. But it is very important for the process of discovery, just not justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricky

Certainly experiences influence our intuition, there is no question about that. But what exactly is the difference between an educated guess and intuition? To me, the lines get blurry there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zebra

Intuition is the sub-conscious recognition of patterns one has seen before (including recall of knowledge one has previously acquired, and rapid connection formation between areas of knowledge) with a resultant "sense" of how to complete the pattern - what to do next, what would be the next best step, etc. The recall and processing are not explicit, and the person may not recognize how they came to the conclusion, but after the fact people can often piece out (far more slowly than in the intuitive moment) what clues they recognized, and what knowledge they have that tells them what those clues mean.

Gary Klein, Ph.D. is one psychologist who has spent years studying intuition, especially rapid, intuitive decision-making by firefighters at fires, and other experts in various fields who have to make rapid, important decisions under stress.

The way Neurosis used "intuition" is different:

quote:

---

Intuitive/feeling is worthless. Going with your gut feeling is not scientific or skeptical and the definition of intuition, so it precludes the scientific, empirical, and historical. It is also Faith. Note also that you have NO scientific, empirical, and historical evidence, so you only have faith any way you look at it.

---

Neurosis is explicitly referring to "feelings" based on "NO...evidence". That's not intuition, though at times it may seem like experts using intuition are not using evidence (not so).

The mixup probably comes because people sometimes say they are basing something on "intuition" when really it's "wishful thinking" - they hope it's so. Faith seems like one kind of wishful thinking.

Edited to fix the links & clarify one point.
And edited again to fix 2 stupid typos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
I read a book about Isaac Newton that says nuclear scientists can actually change materials into gold but the expense would not make it worthwhile. So much for people who criticise Newton for looking into alchemy. Those same people would probably laugh at Edison for trying human hair as a conductor in the light bulb.

---

Reading so many non-fictional books, do you know how physicists go about changing some other element into gold?
Who wrote that book about Newton anyway?
For someone claiming to read many non-fictional books, your grasp of general (scientifically derived) knowledge seem to be wanting.

If you had read more fiction, you would see that the Bible has much more in common with fiction than with non-fiction. And even more in common with other religious myths.

You know, I once worked with a woman who had no clue what was fiction and what was non-fiction. After a lengthy discussion with her it was clear that she really believed that "Murder on the Orient Express" actually happened and that Agatha Christie was some find of historian/correspondent.
The Swedish word for literary fiction as you would find it in a library marking out that particular section doesn't say "made up stories" but more like "beautiful stories" (as in could-be-real-stories). For someone not native Swedish and very gullible, I still left the discussion with her wondering how the world looked through her eyes...

Just because you're saying that you don't read fiction, GK Paul. How do I know what you read? And just because you're reading fact-books doesn't necessarily mean that you understand what you read. What conclusions did you make from that book saying it that it is possible to transmute another element into gold? Was Isaac Newton on the right track in his alchemy studies?

If the biblical story of the Tower of Babel is true, given that God is spiritual in nature and not physical, what threat could the tower possibly pose to God? I can't imagine. So why stop the people from making it, since when the tower was finished, they would have realised that they made it all in vain. Would it not be punishment alone?
Besides, many buildings have been raised after that, that's been much higher, and no one ever saw God there. Neither on the Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, nor World Trade Center.
I cannot find any sane reason to believe the story of the Tower of Babel is real, because it contains so many of these logical flaws. Flaws that would make sense if you assume that the story is fictional to begin with, written by a mediocre author who hadn't thought through the implications of the various critical plot-points.

Then, realise that the story originated during the later Bronze-age.


OK, I'm done ranting for now.

Oh yeah...
The story about the female coworker, who believed that "The Murder on the Orient Express" was real, is actually true!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

---

quote:

---

I'm sure Bush couldn't make an atomic bomb on his own - he just has the power to use one. Scientists with IQ's of 200 invent and make the bomb. Layman with IQ's of 100 make the decision whether or not to use it. For example Harry Truman the farmer and clothing store owner who didn't go to college was the one who made the decision to use Oppenheimer's baby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

---

Ah, so you do know why people who criticize Newton for his attempts to use alchemism to make gold are completely justified in that criticism. So why did you pretend not to in an earlier post?

quote:

---

I'm sure Bush couldn't make an atomic bomb on his own - he just has the power to use one. Scientists with IQ's of 200 invent and make the bomb. Layman with IQ's of 100 make the decision whether or not to use it. For example Harry Truman the farmer and clothing store owner who didn't go to college was the one who made the decision to use Oppenheimer's baby.

---

Is there any relevance to this? I'm trying to reconcile it with the post you are answering to, but there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul
Anybody who has taken high school chemistry knows about electrons, neutrons, protons and atomic weight.

I really don't understand why anyone should try to discredit Newton for looking into alchemy (I didn't pretend anything). I say looking into it because he never did publish a paper on alchemy. Newton never heard the words electron, neutron, proton, or atomic weight and I think thats what all the critics don't understand. If you all lived in the 1600's you might be looking into alchemy too.

---

quote:

---

But if you all want to criticize the guy who invented calculus, the reflecting telescope, formulated the laws of gravity, did important work on light properties, and was able to figure out that the poles of the earth flattened out, than go ahead.

---

quote:

---

I forgot his work on tides, figuring out the radius of the earth, and being the first to mathematically prove that planetary orbits were ellipses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neurosis

As an interjection, I would like to say that Newton is criticised for investigating Alchemy not because it was stupid of him to do so but because he was so smart. It is used as a "even the smartest people can make mistakes" tale. I believe it was first stated to you GK as an argument against authority citing. It may have well been a respectable undertaking during the Dark Ages, but currently it is veiwed as a farce, and rightfully so. This is the whole point, actually. If one were to say well Newton thought it was a good idea as a justification of practicing it today, it would not serve his argument no matter what discoveries Newton did make. No more than suggecting that since blood-letting was the foremost medical treatment it should be practiced today. Arguments from authority are fallicious. One must have data and evidence.

---

quote:

---

BTW Atheists are much less likely than Christians to end up in Federal prisons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pleco

quote:

---

BTW Atheists are much less likely than Christians to end up in Federal prisons.

---

Meh, they aren't [b]real[b] christians, otherwise they wouldn't be in jail.

---

quote:

---

In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art. Alchemy has been practiced in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Persia, India, and China, in Classical Greece and Rome, in Muslim civilization, and then in Europe up to the 19th century—in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2500 years.

Western alchemy has always been closely connected with Hermeticism, a philosophical and spiritual system that traces its roots to Hermes Trismegistus, a syncretic Egyptian-Greek deity and legendary alchemist. These two disciplines influenced the birth of Rosicrucianism, an important esoteric movement of the seventeenth century. In the course of the early modern period, mainstream alchemy evolved into modern chemistry.

Today, alchemy refers to a basic three step process: Analysis, [understanding the structure and properties of the thing that is about to be transmutated], Deconstruction/Decomposion [breaking down the substance into it rudimentery properties], and Reconstruction/Recomposion [rebuilding it in a different form, or with different properties]. The discipline is of interest mainly to historians of science and philosophy, and for its mystic, esoteric, and artistic aspects. Nevertheless, alchemy was one of the main precursors of modern sciences, and many substances and processes of ancient alchemy continue to be the mainstay of modern chemical and metallurgical industries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GK Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Reading so many non-fictional books, do you know how physicists go about changing some other element into gold?

---

I assume metals are changed into gold by adding or removing protons, neutrons, and electrons so that they equal golds atomic number...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HalfMooner
The corollary being, the few atheists in prison are the only real atheists.

---