Stephen Hawking, the renowned cosmologist and author, purportedly said:

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Yea; Stephen Hawking did say that: The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

It sounds catchy and even convincing to some degree on the surface.
Nevertheless, it's shallow and hollow also to some degree below the surface.

Obviously, ignorance can't be the greatest enemy of knowledge; because ignorance is nothing more than the absence of knowledge.


What about the illusion of knowledge?
But first, what is exactly the illusion of knowledge?

Now matter how you try, you can never find any objective procedure for distinguishing knowledge from the illusion of knowledge. And most of the time, one man's knowledge is quite simply another man's illusion of knowledge. And this means that the illusion of knowledge can't really be the greatest enemy of knowledge, just as the illusion of happiness can't be the greatest enemy of happiness.


So, what is the greatest enemy of knowledge?

If you think about it seriously and without paying too much attention to catchy phrases and linguistic niceties, you would certainly find out that throughout history, CENSORSHIP in its various forms was and is always the greatest enemy of knowledge.

This is vastly exagerated as far as scientific knowledge is concerned:

"... CENSORSHIP in its various forms was and is always the greatest enemy of knowledge."

Since today there is no scientific censorship, the would-be sensor have recourse to disinformation.
This is essentially harmless as it is mainly kind of US folklore around creationism, ID or the age of the universe.

The hard censorship is always related to the political power struggle.
Today three good examples I can think of are:

- the nuclear weaponry
- the world trade organisation
- the patent system

All these three are hard examples of censorship in various forms including physical aggression.
(Iraq being only one example)
These examples also illustrate how in the end censorship is always bound to fail.

The only solution to end the nuclear thread is the disarmament of the nuclear powers instead of a military control of the world.
The world trade organisation that pressure poors countries to follow the worst evils of the capitalist system against their best interrest will fail, because it is irrational and does not serve the interrests of all countries.
Just like the patent system intended to make a living of a few without the effort of production, not to mention the global stealing and corruption of natural resources. Anyway, soon the developping countries dominate both in the production means and the intellectual means ... and they will get their own freedom.

These are real censorship of today.
The ignorants staging scientific persecution in this forum are free-speeching clowns.

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 9 2009, 1:52 PM

Anonym: "The ignorants staging scientific persecution in this forum are free-speeching clowns."

You Ass, you are trying to impose your own form of censorship here by dictating how and what we should discuss, "free-speeching" [sic] is your enemy!

I don't impose you anything, I just give you the feedback you don't want.

Anon: This is vastly exaggerated as far as scientific knowledge is concerned: "... CENSORSHIP in its various forms was and is always the greatest enemy of knowledge." Since today there is no scientific censorship, the would-be sensor have recourse to disinformation. This is essentially harmless as it is mainly kind of US folklore around creationism, ID or the age of the universe. The hard censorship is always related to the political power struggle. Today three good examples I can think of are: - the nuclear weaponry - the world trade organization - the patent system All these three are hard examples of censorship in various forms including physical aggression. (Iraq being only one example) These examples also illustrate how in the end censorship is always bound to fail. The only solution to end the nuclear thread is the disarmament of the nuclear powers instead of a military control of the world. The world trade organization that pressure poor countries to follow the worst evils of the capitalist system against their best interest will fail, because it is irrational and does not serve the interests of all countries. Just like the patent system intended to make a living of a few without the effort of production, not to mention the global stealing and corruption of natural resources. Anyway, soon the developing countries dominate both in the production means and the intellectual means ... and they will get their own freedom. These are real censorship of today. The ignorants staging scientific persecution in this forum are free-speeching clowns.







AAF: Vastly exaggerated? I don't think so, Anon! Yes, it's true that the hard censorship is always related to politics; but the soft types of censorship can be found everywhere. Furthermore, the three examples you mentioned above are not really examples of knowledge censorship. You see, Anon; there is a huge difference between having knowledge of something and acting on and making use of that knowledge. Actions are subject to the law; but knowledge can only be subjected to censorship. Take the case of nuclear weaponry for example! It's absolutely legal to have or try to have knowledge of how those weapons are made. But it's against the law to build a private factory for making them. And that is not a form of censorship. That is just an act of commonsense and in accordance with the law of the land. It's the same as teaching school kids about cyanide. It would be extremely stupid to censor chemistry textbooks and take the cyanide sections out of 'em. And at the same time, it would be criminally insane to make labs for cyanide at school and give the kids free samples of it!

In summary:

There is no drive for scientific knowledge censorship today.
The reason is that today, no political power is at risk by scientific knowledge.
There is no faith-based power at risk by scientific knowledge. (even in Iran)
However, my few examples show where political power IS at risk and where (world) censorship is indeed applied.
There are of course many other examples.

These cranks complaining here and elsewhere about scientific censorship are just ridiculous, if they are not insulting the victims of today's real hard censorship.
After all, they have every means they want: they have web sites, blogs, and even several reviews and journals and magazines.
They even have sponsors, mainly in the religious right.
Why would they then preffer to be published in "mainstream journals"?
And why would "mainstream journals" publish their rantings that all readers just want to be screen out?
These cranks are just expressing their frustation instead of improving their abilities.

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 9 2009, 3:25 PM

Anonym: "I don't impose you anything, I just give you the feedback you don't want."

I said you are "trying" to impose your own form of censorship here; "trying" (as in, making an effort), I don't for a minute think you will actually get away with it! I don't mind the feedback Anonym, it's your lying and false accusations that belie your intellect.

I am even not trying.
You as others here are your best censors.
You are able to do the most effective scientific censorship on yourself: common stubbornness.
The rabbit hole story (1) is as good an example as the center-of-earth story.
Canada Dry physics.

(1)http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1249814597/last-1249816944/Further+journey+in+Wonderland+down+the+rabbit+hole

Anon: In summary: There is no drive for scientific knowledge censorship today. The reason is that today, no political power is at risk by scientific knowledge. There is no faith-based power at risk by scientific knowledge. (even in Iran) However, my few examples show where political power IS at risk and where (world) censorship is indeed applied. There are of course many other examples. These cranks complaining here and elsewhere about scientific censorship are just ridiculous, if they are not insulting the victims of today's real hard censorship. After all, they have every means they want: they have web sites, blogs, and even several reviews and journals and magazines. They even have sponsors, mainly in the religious right. Why would they then prefer to be published in "mainstream journals"? And why would "mainstream journals" publish their rantings that all readers just want to be screen out? These cranks are just expressing their frustration instead of improving their abilities.







AAF: The drive for censorship and excluding competitive and viable alternative theories and different methods of doing things, in recent times, has never been this strong. And the main reason for that beside competing selfishly for fame, higher social ranking, and academic prestige, is undoubtedly the obvious fact that science has gone industrial and has become a big money maker. In other words, Scientists Are Human, Too! However, the most damaging and scandalous and outrageous forms of censorship are the ones that have been directed at many outstanding researchers and professional scientists. For example, the book entitled "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", by Halton Arp (Interstellar Media Press, Berkeley, 1987) documents in detail many instances of the Establishment's idiotic censoring of Arp's criticisms of the use of galactic redshifts as astronomical distance indicators. "His criticisms, if taken seriously, would be a major blow to the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology": The Suppression of Dissent and Innovative Ideas In Science and Medicine There is absolutely no excuse for such corrupt and moronic practices by those selfish and unthinking proponents of current theories.

"His criticisms, if taken seriously, would be a major blow to the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology": ... "

Leave the freedom to the scientists.
Just do not impose them to take seriously something that could kill them in a laugh crisis.
If you want to blow something, do it yourself.

Anon: anon: "His criticisms, if taken seriously, would be a major blow to the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology": ... " Leave the freedom to the scientists. Just do not impose them to take seriously something that could kill them in a laugh crisis. If you want to blow something, do it yourself.






AAF: It is not up to me, Anon! It's up to the governments of the world to leave the freedom to the scientists. However, we should reserve the right to call the one-eyed man 'one-eyed' when we see one. And the current scientific establishment is clearly a biased and one-eyed one; am I wrong?

"It's up to the governments of the world to leave the freedom to the scientists."

Democracy is the answer to that, as far as funds are concerned.
If some science can be carried out without funds, then government is not involved.
We have seen already a lot of garage science here, by the way!

It seen that (right) anarchists are also fierce enemy of science.
By fighting democracy and government, they fight science.
By fighting science, they can them impose ID or creationosm or racism or the like.

So sorry, but I do want government involved in good science and I do want an effective selection of the projects. I also want all the churches to be banished from government.

Anon: I also want all the churches to be banished from government.
==========================

The science as far as the "democracy" has become a Church. That IS the problem. So your light doesn't move or propagate. c IS NOT speed. Gravity IS NOT acceleration.

WAKE UP! Free yourself!


GOD bless...

Anon: I am even not trying. You as others here are your best censors. You are able to do the most effective scientific censorship on yourself: common stubbornness. The rabbit hole story (1) is as good an example as the center-of-earth story. Canada Dry physics. (1http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1249814597/last-1249816944/Further+journey+in+Wonderland+down+the+rabbit+hole





AAF: It might! But the most effective censorship in the world of science is undoubtedly the one done routinely under all sorts of flimsy rationalizations by the scientific establishment itself, not only against outsiders, but also against more than its entire half of professional researchers.

Yet another conspiracy theory ...

Anonymous said: "Yet another conspiracy theory ..."

Jose responds: Yea, and a damnice one at that: Sexy, funny, and lots of evidence to back it up.

By the way, First grader, what a goofy title you gave this thread. You criticize my posts, and you know I am very thin skinned, now I get to criticize you: You probably type like cinci, and you meant "of" instead of "if", am I right?

AAF: It is not up to me, Anon! It's up to the governments of the world to leave the freedom to the scientists. However, I reserve the right to call the one-eyed man 'one-eyed' when I see one. And the current scientific establishment is clearly a one-eyed one; am I wrong?






Anon: Democracy is the answer to that, as far as funds are concerned. If some science can be carried out without funds, then government is not involved. We have seen already a lot of garage science here, by the way! It seen that (right) anarchists are also fierce enemy of science. By fighting democracy and government, they fight science. By fighting science, they can them impose ID or creationism or racism or the like. So sorry, but I do want government involved in good science and I do want an effective selection of the projects. I also want all the churches to be banished from government.






Rebis: The science as far as the "democracy" has become a Church. That IS the problem. So your light doesn't move or propagate. c IS NOT speed. Gravity IS NOT acceleration. WAKE UP! Free yourself! GOD bless...





AAF: I agree with Rebis; science has become some kind of religion thanks to Relativity & Quantum Mechanics. Now, let me try to explain to Anon the implications of this science-democracy thing! When science projects are funded by the government, they're in fact funded by the tax payers. Creationists and their supporters are big tax payers. And as you may expect, they don't want their tax money to go for funding the projects of the Darwinians. They want their tax money or some part of it at least to go for funding the Intelligent-Design and the Noah-Ark and the Deluge and similar Genesis-based projects. Creationists, by nature, are good-hearted people and don't wish harm to anybody even to the Darwinians. And they don't ask for cutting any funding to Darwinian projects; they don't even ask for public funding for their own projects. All they want is to have the best of the best of their work to be given a few pages in every other issue of two or three Darwinian journals; not for the sake of being published of course; but as a sign of recognition from the Darwinian Establishment. Is that too much to ask for? For this small concession on the part of the Darwinians, the Creationists are more than ready to give up the fight in court and in school boards as well. Is that too much to ask for? I guess not....

"When science projects are funded by the government, they're in fact funded by the tax payers. Creationists and their supporters are big tax payers. And as you may expect, they don't want their tax money to go for funding the projects of the Darwinians. ..."

There was also a huge majority of people against the Iraq war.
It is very funny to see all these tax anarchist that can become militarist in a wink.

The way government allocate public fund may have flaw sometimes.
Nevetheless, it is based on the general interrest and consensus, rationality and competence.

Would you expect the government to fund those cranks who will make a clean sweep of everything and promise free energy energy for all?
Sorry, but there was already too much public funds lost in cold fusion!
It is obvious from the progress of science and the technical achievments that the allocations of fund (in the US) is effective.
It is no surprise however that some will complain, that's just the result of a decision.
Cutting the funds in ideological pieces would bring the US back to the level of Iran.

"All they want is to have the best of the best of their work to be given a few pages in every other issue of two or three Darwinian journals; not for the sake of being published of course; but as a sign of recognition from the Darwinian Establishment."

That's really ridiculous!

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 14 2009, 4:24 AM

AAF: "All they want is to have the best of the best of their work to be given a few pages in every other issue of two or three Darwinian journals; not for the sake of being published of course; but as a sign of recognition from the Darwinian Establishment."

Anonym: "That's really ridiculous!"

But why is it ridiculous? Anonym. Evolution itself speaks to an Intelligent Design!

There are only two choices:
1. Existence by creation from nothing.
2. Existence without having been created.

Can you name a third choice?

Anon: "The way government allocate(sic) public fund(sic) may have flaw(sic) sometimes. Nevetheless,(sic) it is based on the general interrest(sic) and consensus, rationality and competence."

Jose: To repeat: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

The way government allocates public funds is flawed, always. It is based on special interests, and they get away with it out of the "illusion of knowledge" on the part of the "public".

Consensus is the tyranny of the majority.

Rationality: Ha! Look at "carbon caused Global Warming" for instance: Additional carbon in the atmosphere causes increased plant growth, creating diversity and abundant life on Earth. It is a benefit, not a liability. (Carbon dioxide contributes .03% to the atmosphere.)

Look at the "Bail Out:" The thieves are rewarded for the theft and manipulation of the economy. You might research the founding of the "Federal Reserve." It ain't federal, and it has no reserve, except the illusion of knowledge held by the public.

Competence: You are deluded if, which is obvious, you think the Congress and the so called President are competent. They may be competent in making sure they are receiving special benefits, provided by the special interests, and they are gifted in providing the illusion of knowledge to the "public," but, to them, the "public" is there to provide the resources for their own power and private wealth.

"But why is it ridiculous? Anonym. Evolution itself speaks to an Intelligent Design!

There are only two choices:
1. Existence by creation from nothing.
2. Existence without having been created.

Can you name a third choice?"

Ridiculous because that's simply not a scientific debate.

You multiple choice is also rather ridiculous to me and I would favor a third hypothesis:
The existence (of our universe) cannot be understood by the (old) classical logic.
Maybe the word "existence" in itself has a restricted meaning.
What means "existence" when the universe was a few Plank-lengths wide? (hypothetical question)
Therefore your 1 vs 2 choice is ridiculous. (as our existence is ridiculous too)
However, learning from the facts will probably allow us to understand, if time allows.

Quantum mechanics has already learned us about the possiblity of a new logic.
This new logic might lead us soon to new types of computers!
Bits replaced by qbits!

I suggest you replace your binary question by a q-binary question !

Anon: "Quantum mechanics has already learned(sic) us about the possiblity(sic) of a new logic."

Jose: QM has already learned us? You can't make a logical sentence, and you want us to follow your logic?

Did you know that teach and taught are verbs?


Transitive and Intransitive Verbs

Depending on the type of object they take, verbs may be transitive, intransitive, or linking.

The meaning of a transitive verb is incomplete without a direct object, as in the following examples:

INCOMPLETE
The shelf holds.
COMPLETE
The shelf holds three books and a vase of flowers.
INCOMPLETE
The committee named.
COMPLETE
The committee named a new chairperson.
INCOMPLETE
The child broke.
COMPLETE
The child broke the plate.

An intransitive verb, on the other hand, cannot take a direct object:

This plant has thrived on the south windowsill.

The compound verb "has thrived" is intransitive and takes no direct object in this sentence. The prepositional phrase "on the south windowsill" acts as an adverb describing where the plant thrives.

The sound of the choir carried through the cathedral.

The verb "carried" is used intransitively in this sentence and takes no direct object. The prepositional phrase "through the cathedral" acts as an adverb describing where the sound carried.

The train from Montreal arrived four hours late.

The intransitive verb "arrived" takes no direct object, and the noun phrase "four hours late" acts as an adverb describing when the train arrived.

Since the company was pleasant and the coffee both plentiful and good, we lingered in the restaurant for several hours.

The verb "lingered" is used intransitively and takes no direct object. The prepositional phrase "in the restaurant for several hours" acts as an adverb modifying "lingered."

The painting was hung on the south wall of the reception room.

The compound verb "was hung" is used intransitively and the sentence has no direct object. The prepositional phrase "on the south wall of the reception room" acts as a adverb describing where the paint hung.

Many verbs can be either transitive or intransitive, depending on their context in the sentence. In the following pairs of sentences, the first sentence uses the verb transitively and the second uses the same verb intransitively:

transitive
According to the instructions, we must leave this goo in our hair for twenty minutes.

In this example, the verb "leave" takes a direct object, the noun phrase "this goo."

intransitive
We would like to stay longer, but we must leave.

In this example, the verb "leave" does not take a direct object.

transitive
The audience attentively watched the latest production of The Trojan Women.

In this example, the verb "watch" is used transitively and takes the noun phrase "the latest production of The Trojan Women" as a direct object.

intransitive
The cook watched while the new dishwasher surreptitiously picked up the fragments of the broken dish.

In this example, the verb "watched" is used intransitively and takes no direct object.

intransitive
The crowd moves across the field in an attempt to see the rock star get into her helicopter.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/post?messageid=1249778376
Here the verb "moves" is used as an intransitive verb and takes no direct object.

transitive
Every spring, William moves all boxes and trunks from one side of the attic to the other.

In this sentence "moves" is used as a transitive verb and takes the noun phrase "all the boxes and trunk" as a direct object.

Written by Heather MacFadyen
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

Maybe You should go back to school?

Anon: Yet another conspiracy theory ...





AAF: It is not a conspiracy, Anon! It's a fact. The Emperor of physics, in recent years, has no clothes at all:

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 14 2009, 5:08 PM

bob s: "But why is it ridiculous? Anonym. Evolution itself speaks to an Intelligent Design!

There are only two choices:
1. Existence by creation from nothing.
2. Existence without having been created.

Can you name a third choice?"

Anonym: "Ridiculous because that's simply not a scientific debate."

You tell that to Richard Dawkins. Those two statements are the basis for scientific study:
Who are we?
Why are we here?
How did we get here?
Where are we going?

But your statement does show what a shallow thinker you are Anonym!.

Anonym: "Therefore your 1 vs 2 choice is ridiculous. (as our existence is ridiculous too)"

I doubt you will feel existence is ridiculous in your last few moments of life, but you need not worry, Atheists don't die!

For sure you are right Bobs.
But my limited abilities are enough to get a good pay and to see the stupidities around here.

By the way, would you deign to give your opinion on the Ritz hypothesis and its experimental status?
Or do you consider that as miserable compared to the big question of my end-of-life?

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 15 2009, 10:36 AM

Anonym: "For sure you are right Bobs."

As is usual!

Anonym: "But my limited abilities are enough to get a good pay..."

"good" is subjective!

Anonym: "...and to see the stupidities around here."

Your contribution does not go unnoticed Anonym!

ANONYM: "By the way, would you deign to give your opinion on the Ritz hypothesis and its experimental status?"

An hypothesis is just what it says it is, an hypothesis!

Anonym: "Or do you consider that as miserable compared to the big question of my end-of-life?"

Miserable, is a tooth ache on a Sunday morning! And I told you, Atheists don't die!

"Atheists don't die!"

I will die the day I want or before, and I will not be rescucitated.

You don't have any proof!
What is your proof, Anon?

No need for any proof since this is not a scientific statement.

AAF: When science projects are funded by the government, they're in fact funded by the tax payers. Creationists and their supporters are big tax payers. And as you may expect, they don't want their tax money to go for funding the projects of the Darwinians. ...





Anon: There was also a huge majority of people against the Iraq war. It is very funny to see all these tax anarchist that can become militarist in a wink. The way government allocate public fund may have flaw sometimes. Nevertheless, it is based on the general interest and consensus, rationality and competence. Would you expect the government to fund those cranks who will make a clean sweep of everything and promise free energy energy for all? Sorry, but there was already too much public funds lost in cold fusion! It is obvious from the progress of science and the technical achievements that the allocations of fund (in the US) is effective. It is no surprise however that some will complain, that's just the result of a decision. Cutting the funds in ideological pieces would bring the US back to the level of Iran.






AAF: As a matter of fact, there was, in the beginning, a huge majority for the Iraq war! And only when the war got tough, this huge majority had a second thought. Anyway, all what the Creationists want is to have the best of the best of their work to be given a few pages in every other issue of two or three Darwinian journals; not for the sake of being published of course; but as a sign of recognition from the Darwinian Establishment.




Anon: That's really ridiculous!




Bob: But why is it ridiculous? Anonym. Evolution itself speaks to an Intelligent Design! There are only two choices: 1. Existence by creation from nothing. 2. Existence without having been created. Can you name a third choice?




AAF: It is not ridiculous; Anon! Creationists have the right to challenge and corner and punch their chief opponents every time they get the chance to do so! War is war. What is ridiculous about that?




Jose: To repeat: "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." The way government allocates public funds is flawed, always. It is based on special interests, and they get away with it out of the "illusion of knowledge" on the part of the "public". Consensus is the tyranny of the majority. Rationality: Ha! Look at "carbon caused Global Warming" for instance: Additional carbon in the atmosphere causes increased plant growth, creating diversity and abundant life on Earth. It is a benefit, not a liability. (Carbon dioxide contributes .03% to the atmosphere.) Look at the "Bail Out:" The thieves are rewarded for the theft and manipulation of the economy. You might research the founding of the "Federal Reserve." It ain't federal, and it has no reserve, except the illusion of knowledge held by the public. Competence: You are deluded if, which is obvious, you think the Congress and the so called President are competent. They may be competent in making sure they are receiving special benefits, provided by the special interests, and they are gifted in providing the illusion of knowledge to the "public," but, to them, the "public" is there to provide the resources for their own power and private wealth.




AAF: Hey; Jose! Are you really, here, the MAN named 'Jose' or George Washington railing at the British King? Why do you want the government to keep the money to itself? Let them spend it to get the economy up and running again. Let them spend it even on the illusion of Global Warming to clean up the air and to reduce the amount of those horrible fumes of the Industrial Age.... Global Warming may well be a myth; but clean air is good for your health....

Re: Anonym, Enemy if Knowledge: August 15 2009, 4:03 PM

bob s: "Atheists don't die!"

Anonym: "I will die the day I want or before, and I will not be rescucitated."

True enough Anonym, but you won't die an Atheist, Atheists don't die!

AAF: Hey; Jose! Are you really, here, the MAN named 'Jose' or George Washington railing at the British King? Why do you want the government to keep the money to itself? Let them spend it to get the economy up and running again. Let them spend it even on the illusion of Global Warming to clean up the air and to reduce the amount of those horrible fumes of the Industrial Age.... Global Warming may well be a myth; but clean air is good for your health.... [linked image]

Jose: What the hell, They just make up the money from thin air, as long as we can pay it back with thin air, why not? The problem is; they expect us to work our butts off for their phony paper. (I didn't get to see your [linked image])

Anonymous said "Would you expect the government to fund those cranks who will make a clean sweep of everything and promise free energy energy for all? Sorry, but there was already too much public funds lost in cold fusion! It is obvious from the progress of science and the technical achievements that the allocations of fund (in the US) is effective."

Jose says: The funds were not lost on "cold fusion," It's "hot fusion" that got away with theft. Cold fusion will be accomplished by private funds. The experiments are so inexpensive they can be done at home. Hot fusion will never bear fruit, It's just like finding the cure for cancer, there is too much money available for the search, to spoil the search with success.

Richard Feynman, lecturing his students on how to look for a new law in physics, said, First you guess. Don't laugh; this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.

You are totally right FG.
But you should admit that the cold fusion guys has a really bad smell and a lot of bad faith.

Your mother should give you a bath, it's you that stinks.

I was talking about smell as a sense.
I think this should be the correct word, as this is what I found on WordReference.com .
I this is indeed correct, then again, you have chosen the reading track that suits you.

Sure you were. Thought you said you had something important to do? Happy to see you can use a dictionary.

First Grader: Richard Feynman, lecturing his students on how to look for a new law in physics, said, First you guess. Don't laugh; this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.







AAF: Clearly, Mr. Feynman was way wrong! The most important step in the formulation of a new hypothesis is not making the guess. Everybody can easily make guesses. The most important step in this regard and the most difficult as well is by far the quantification of the guess and the computation of the consequences. This step or more accurately this series of steps takes months or even years to carry out and to debug and to finish.

Richard Feynman






I discovered a very strange phenomenon: I could ask a question, which the students would answer immediately. But the next time I would ask the question - the same subject, and the sane question, as far as I could tell - they couldn't answer it at all! for instance, one time I was talking about polarized light, and I gave them all some strips of polaroid.

Polaroid passes only light whose electric vector is in a certain direction, so I explained how you could tell which way the light is polarized from whether the polaroid is dark or light.

We first took two strips of polaroid and rotated them until they let the most light through. From doing that we could tell that the two strips were now admitting light polarized in the same direction - what passed through one piece of polaroid could also pass through the other. But then I asked then how one could tell the absolute direction of polarization, from a single piece of polaroid.

They hadn't any idea.

I knew this took a certain amount of ingenuity, so I gave them a hint: "Look at the light reflected from the bay outside."

Nobody said anything.

Then I said, "Have you ever heard of Brewster's Angle?"

"Yes, sir! Brewster's Angle is the angle at which light is reflected from a medium with an index of refraction is completely polarized."

"And which way is the light polarized when it's reflected?"

"The light is polarized perpendicular to the plane of reflection, sir." Even now, I have to think about it; they knew it cold! They even knew the tangent of the angle equals the index!

I said, "Well?"

Still nothing. They had just told me that light reflected from a medium with an index, such as the bay outside, was polarized; they had even told me which way it was polarized.

I said, "Look at the bay outside, through the polaroid. Now turn the polaroid."

"Ooh, it's polarized!" they said.: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman

It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazillian way!

I can't tell and can't figure it out, Bob!
Who is it?


Anyhow, it's obvious that Prof. Feynman was asking too much from his students.

They were students; not full-time physics researchers.

They didn't have much time for examining polarization from every possible angle.

They just wanted to know just enough to pass the physics exam and get down to work.

And that was it....

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 17 2009, 3:06 PM

bob s: "It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazillian way!"

AAF: "I can't tell and can't figure it out, Bob! Who is it?"

I'm sorry, I thought you had read the link you provided "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" and would recognize the problem and the poster(s) here who fit the profile.

I don't think Mr. Feynman had unreasonable expectations on the students abilities. Any good instructor would encourage their students to ask questions. "Polarization" was just one example of the overall problem. You did read the article didn't you?

It is not an article, Bob!
"Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself.

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 18 2009, 12:54 AM

AAF: "It is not an article, Bob!
"Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself."


The link you provided AAF, was only five pages long which hardly constitutes the BOOK!

Page header:
The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997).
at;http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html

Main Entry: article
* Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm
* Date: 13th century

1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing
b: a separate clause
c: a stipulation in a document (as a contract or a creed)
d: a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine)
2: an item of business : matter
3: any of a small set of words or affixes (as a, an, and the) used with nouns to limit or give definiteness to the application

If you are going to critique you should check your facts; it was an article.

That should be my name in the previous post!

AAF: It is not an article, Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself.






Bob S: The link you provided AAF, was only five pages long which hardly constitutes the BOOK! Page header: The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). athttp://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html Main Entry: article * Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm * Date: 13th century 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing b: a separate clause c: a stipulation in a document (as a contract or a creed) d: a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine) 2: an item of business : matter 3: any of a small set of words or affixes (as a, an, and the) used with nouns to limit or give definiteness to the application If you are going to critique you should check your facts; it was an article.






AAF: That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt: "The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). Feynman is a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics. Here he recounts his experiences while teaching in Brazil." So, Bob; dig deep in your pocket and get ASAP Feynman's most entertaining book....

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 18 2009, 4:24 PM

AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself."

Bob S: "The link you provided AAF, was only five pages long which hardly constitutes the BOOK! Page header: The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). ahttp://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html Main Entry: article * Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm * Date: 13th century 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing b: a separate clause c: a stipulation in a document (as a contract or a creed) d: a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication (as a magazine) 2: an item of business : matter 3: any of a small set of words or affixes (as a, an, and the) used with nouns to limit or give definiteness to the application If you are going to critique you should check your facts; it was an article."

AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt: "The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). Feynman is a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics. Here he recounts his experiences while teaching in Brazil." So, Bob; dig deep in your pocket and get ASAP Feynman's most entertaining book...."

Yes, but evidently not informing enough for you. The excerpt...:
"excerpt
* Pronunciation: \ek-srpt, eg-zrpt, ek-, eg-\
* Function: transitive verb
* Etymology: Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, from ex- + carpere to gather, pluck more at harvest
* Date: 15th century

1: to select (a passage) for quoting: extract... (emphasis added)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excerpt

...was extracted from Feynman's book...:
book
* Pronunciation: \buk\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter
* Date: before 12th century

c: a long written or printed literary composition... (emphasis added)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book

...and presented to the audience as an article...:
article
* Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm
* Date: 13th century

1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing
b: a separate clause... (emphasis added)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article

...it became an article because it was a separate clause...:
clause
* Pronunciation: \kloz\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin clausa close of a rhetorical period, from Latin, feminine of clausus, past participle of claudere to close more at close
* Date: 13th century

1: a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex or compound sentence... (emphasis added)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clause

Un zo, in my original question, "You did read the article didn't you?" the use of the word "article" was quite correct and quite proper...don't you see!

Why you had to make such ado over something so trivial is beyond me but at least now you know it was not a book, (as you called it) but rather an excerpt from a book presented as an article having its own subject and its own predicate. And, drawing a quite accurate conclusion I might add!

But moreover, have you noticed any poster(s) here who fit the profile of the students in the article? As per my original observation, "It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazillian way!"

You did read the article didn't you?
http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html

You wouldn't be thinking of Cement Brain, would you, Bob?

Re: Jose, - Enemy of Knowledge: September 19 2009, 10:57 AM

Jose: "You wouldn't be thinking of Cement Brain, would you, Bob?"

I am not so sure that "Cement Brain" (Anonymous) fits the learning deficit profile of the students in the article excerpted from Dr. Frynman's book, http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html

CB's disorganized thought process is to real to have come from a legitimate institute of higher learning.

AF: That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt: "The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). Feynman is a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics. Here he recounts his experiences while teaching in Brazil." So, Bob; dig deep in your pocket and get ASAP Feynman's most entertaining book...."





Bob S: Yes, but evidently not informing enough for you. The excerpt...: excerpt * Pronunciation: \ek-srpt, eg-zrpt, ek-, eg-\ * Function: transitive verb * Etymology: Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, from ex- + carpere to gather, pluck more at harvest * Date: 15th century 1: to select (a passage) for quoting: extract... (emphasis added)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excerpt ...was extracted from Feynman's book...: book * Pronunciation: \buk\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter * Date: before 12th century c: a long written or printed literary composition... (emphasis added)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book ...and presented to the audience as an article...: article * Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm * Date: 13th century 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing b: a separate clause... (emphasis added) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article ...it became an article because it was a separate clause...: clause * Pronunciation: \kloz\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin clausa close of a rhetorical period, from Latin, feminine of clausus, past participle of claudere to close more at close * Date: 13th century 1: a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex or compound sentence... (emphasis added) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clause Un zo, in my original question, "You did read the article didn't you?" the use of the word "article" was quite correct and quite proper...don't you see! Why you had to make such ado over something so trivial is beyond me but at least now you know it was not a book, (as you called it) but rather an excerpt from a book presented as an article having its own subject and its own predicate. And, drawing a quite accurate conclusion I might add! But moreover, have you noticed any poster(s) here who fit the profile of the students in the article? As per my original observation, "It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazilian way!" You did read the article didn't you? http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html





Jose: You wouldn't be thinking of Cement Brain, would you, Bob?



AAF: Jose; Bob might be thinking about the ADO of his above post! Look; Bob; if you were teaching English this way in Malaysia or South Korea, they would have probably fired you for confusing your pupils and driving 'em nuts; wouldn't they? Articles are articles; and books are books. And that is not Much Ado About Nothing, the play by William Shakespeare

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 21 2009, 12:23 AM

AF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt: "The following is an excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" (p. 211-219, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997). Feynman is a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics. Here he recounts his experiences while teaching in Brazil." So, Bob; dig deep in your pocket and get ASAP Feynman's most entertaining book...."

Bob S: "Yes, but evidently not informing enough for you. The excerpt...: excerpt * Pronunciation: \ek-srpt, eg-zrpt, ek-, eg-\ * Function: transitive verb * Etymology: Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, from ex- + carpere to gather, pluck more at harvest * Date: 15th century 1: to select (a passage) for quoting: extract... (emphasis addedhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excerpt ...was extracted from Feynman's book...: book * Pronunciation: \buk\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Old English bc; akin to Old High German buoh book, Gothic boka letter * Date: before 12th century c: a long written or printed literary composition... (emphasis addedhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book ...and presented to the audience as an article...: article * Pronunciation: \är-ti-kl\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin articulus joint, division, diminutive of artus joint, limb; akin to Greek arariskein to fit more at arm * Date: 13th century 1 a: a distinct often numbered section of a writing b: a separate clause... (emphasis added)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article ...it became an article because it was a separate clause...: clause * Pronunciation: \kloz\ * Function: noun * Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin clausa close of a rhetorical period, from Latin, feminine of clausus, past participle of claudere to close more at close * Date: 13th century 1: a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex or compound sentence... (emphasis added)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clause Un zo, in my original question, "You did read the article didn't you?" the use of the word "article" was quite correct and quite proper...don't you see! Why you had to make such ado over something so trivial is beyond me but at least now you know it was not a book, (as you called it) but rather an excerpt from a book presented as an article having its own subject and its own predicate. And, drawing a quite accurate conclusion I might add! But moreover, have you noticed any poster(s) here who fit the profile of the students in the article? As per my original observation, "It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazilian way!" You did read the article didn't you?http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html"

Jose: "You wouldn't be thinking of Cement Brain, would you, Bob?"

AAF: "Jose; Bob might be thinking about the ADO of his above post! [linked image] Look; Bob; if you were teaching English this way in Malaysia or South Korea, they would have probably fired you for confusing your pupils and driving 'em nuts; wouldn't they? Articles are articles; and books are books. And that is not Much Ado About Nothing, the play by William Shakespeare"

I did not flush this adodo toilet AAF, you did, with this comment from September 18, 2009 @ 12:54 AM:
AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! happy.gif "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself."
Followed by this comment on September 18, 2009 @ 4:24 PM:
AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt:..."
It, http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html is, just as I said, an article, an article excerpted from a book!

And cement Head only talks ad homenim, arrogant self-promotion, and silly Big Bang religion.

AAF: Jose; perhaps, Bob should be thinking about his above post! Look; Bob; if you were teaching English this way in Malaysia or South Korea, they would have probably fired you for confusing your pupils and driving 'em nuts; wouldn't they? Articles are articles; and books are books. And that is not Much Ado About Nothing, the play by William Shakespeare






Bob S: I did not flush this adodo toilet AAF, you did, with this comment from September 18, 2009 @ 12:54 AM: AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself." Followed by this comment on September 18, 2009 @ 4:24 PM: AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt:..." It,http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html is, just as I said, an article, an article excerpted from a book!





AAF: "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is not an 'adodo toilet', Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is one of the best books ever written by any physicist anywhere. And even though this book is an autobiography by the physicist Feynman, it's mostly about the physics of the twentieth century. So go out and get it....

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 23 2009, 7:08 PM

AAF: "Jose; perhaps, Bob should be thinking about his above post! [linked image] Look; Bob; if you were teaching English this way in Malaysia or South Korea, they would have probably fired you for confusing your pupils and driving 'em nuts; wouldn't they? Articles are articles; and books are books. And that is not Much Ado About Nothing, the play by William Shakespeare"

Bob S: "I did not flush this adodo toilet AAF, you did, with this comment from September 18, 2009 @ 12:54 AM: AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! happy.gif "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself." Followed by this comment on September 18, 2009 @ 4:24 PM: AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt:..." Ithttp://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html is, just as I said, an article, an article excerpted from a book!"

AAF: "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is not an 'adodo toilet', Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is one of the best books ever written by any physicist anywhere. And even though this book is an autobiography by the physicist Feynman, it's mostly about the physics of the twentieth century. So go out and get it...."

Oh, I got it for sure AAF, but be that as it may, one thing is for sure, like I said after reading the excerpt from the book, It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazillian way!

Bob S: I did not flush this adodo toilet AAF, you did, with this comment from September 18, 2009 @ 12:54 AM: AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself." Followed by this comment on September 18, 2009 @ 4:24 PM: AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt:..." It,http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html is, just as I said, an article, an article excerpted from a book!





AAF: Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is not an 'adodo toilet', Bob! Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is one of the best books ever written by any physicist anywhere. And even though this book is an autobiography by the physicist Feynman, it's mostly about the physics of the twentieth century. So go out and get it....





Bob S: Oh, I got it for sure AAF, but be that as it may, one thing is for sure, like I said after reading the excerpt from the book, It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazilian way!




AAF: You haven't tried to tell it yet? So, how can you be sure that it is not hard to tell it; Bob?

Re: AAF, Enemy if Knowledge: September 26 2009, 4:20 PM

Bob S: "I did not flush this adodo toilet AAF, you did, with this comment from September 18, 2009 @ 12:54 AM: AAF: "It is not an article, Bob! happy.gif "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman" is the title of a book written by R. Feynman himself." Followed by this comment on September 18, 2009 @ 4:24 PM: AAF: "That is informing, Bob! But it is not an article. It is an excerpt:..." Ithttp://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html is, just as I said, an article, an article excerpted from a book!"

AAF: "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is not an 'adodo toilet', Bob! Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman is one of the best books ever written by any physicist anywhere. And even though this book is an autobiography by the physicist Feynman, it's mostly about the physics of the twentieth century. So go out and get it...."

Bob S: "Oh, I got it for sure AAF, but be that as it may, one thing is for sure, like I said after reading the excerpt from the book, It is not hard to tell on this message board who has learned physics the Brazilian way!"

AAF: "You haven't tried to tell it yet?"

By "it" I assume you are referring to those on this message board who (have) learned physics the Brazilian way...right! I have not tried to tell "it" because I am only the "tellee", it is the article that is the "teller". A reading of the article will "tell" [v] (identify) those on this message board who have learned physics the Brazilian way.

AAF: "So, how can you be sure that it is not hard to tell it; Bob?"

Quite simple and easy AAF, I read the article and recognized the learning deficit of some of the poster(s) on this board as being parallel to the learning deficit of the Brazilian students. My failure, I guess, is not recognizing that, what is not hard for me might be hard for others!