Morality doesn't make sense.

[teo123]

You're acting here like Teo claiming that thermodynamics proves bombs are impossible when instead he should be saying "Obviously bombs exist and scientists are not morons incapable of spotting such a contradiction, so what am I misunderstanding about thermodynamics?"

But sometimes rather educated people don't notice such contradictions. Most high-school physics teachers probably believe the explanation they teach about how airplanes fly (air moving significantly faster above the wing than below the wing and that causing the dynamic pressure due to the Bernoulli's principle) is correct, even though it's easily proven wrong: if it were true, airplanes couldn't fly upside down, but they clearly can. Of course, bombs not existing would require a conspiracy because it's highly implausible nobody would notice such a contradiction.

[brimstoneSalad]

But sometimes rather educated people don't notice such contradictions.

You think that over a hundred years of physics students, the vast majority just as inquisitive but more intelligent than you, would not have asked that question?
You think that many thousands of scientists working in the field and criticizing the theories when they were postulated would not have noticed something so incredibly obvious?

Science is not a history of blind compliance with the newest idea.

Most high-school physics teachers probably believe the explanation they teach about how airplanes fly (air moving significantly faster above the wing than below the wing and that causing the dynamic pressure due to the Bernoulli's principle) is correct, even though it's easily proven wrong: if it were true, airplanes couldn't fly upside down, but they clearly can.

You're doing it again Teo, you never fail to disappoint.

Planes with airfoils can also fly DOWN without slowing. This is another VERY obvious thing that yes they would have noticed if it were a problem and that AGAIN you misunderstand something. The airfoil shape is not the only component of lift, tilt or attack angle is another, and that can be changed with various flaps on the wings in modern planes (that's what those are for).
When perfectly horizontal it is the airfoil that provides lift forces and this can be proven very easily in a wind tunnel. Teaching about airfoils is just much more interesting because it demonstrates a number of physical principles, you can also model it based on the vortices that come off the trailing edge of the wing and the equal and opposite angular momentum that imparts (which is a very interesting way to do it).
The bottom line is that with a severe enough wing angle the airplane can overcome the effect of an airfoil fairly easily. Due to these opposing forces upside-down flight is pretty inefficient by comparison which is one reason why most modern planes have airfoil wings and do not regularly fly upside down.

Thanks for the live demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect, though.

@Kaz1983 is this how you want to be? A conspiracy theorist who won't do basic research or consider the possibility that he misunderstands something when the consensus is against him?

[teo123]

the vast majority just as inquisitive but more intelligent than you

Why exactly do you think the vast majority of physics students have IQ higher than 125? And why would IQ matter here?

You think that many thousands of scientists working in the field and criticizing the theories when they were postulated would not have noticed something so incredibly obvious?

It seems obvious once somebody points it out to you.

Science is not a history of blind compliance with the newest idea.

Of course, but sometimes appealing but false ideas stick, especially in introductory education. Physics is no exception.
The idea that airplanes fly primarily because of the Bernoulli's principle is probably the most well-known such idea, there is even a name for it: "equal transit-time fallacy". Airplanes being able to fly upside down is probably the easiest-to-understand problem with it, but there are also other problems (it allegedly also contradicts the Newton's third law, though I don't understand why).
And there are many such appealing but false ideas widely taught in introductory courses: cholesterol you eat being a significant contributor to heart disease, the glucose you eat being a significant contributor to type-2-diabetes, the vowel quality being primarily determined by the shape of your tongue...

Planes with airfoils can also fly DOWN without slowing. This is another VERY obvious thing that yes they would have noticed if it were a problem and that AGAIN you misunderstand something. The airfoil shape is not the only component of lift, tilt or attack angle is another, and that can be changed with various flaps on the wings in modern planes (that's what those are for).
When perfectly horizontal it is the airfoil that provides lift forces and this can be proven very easily in a wind tunnel. Teaching about airfoils is just much more interesting because it demonstrates a number of physical principles, you can also model it based on the vortices that come off the trailing edge of the wing and the equal and opposite angular momentum that imparts (which is a very interesting way to do it).
The bottom line is that with a severe enough wing angle the airplane can overcome the effect of an airfoil fairly easily. Due to these opposing forces upside-down flight is pretty inefficient by comparison which is one reason why most modern planes have airfoil wings and do not regularly fly upside down.

You are obviously contradiction the scientific consensus here (that "equal transit-time fallacy" is false), and I won't bother to try to understand what you are writing here.

[brimstoneSalad]

the vast majority just as inquisitive but more intelligent than you

Why exactly do you think the vast majority of physics students have IQ higher than 125? And why would IQ matter here?

A 125 IQ is not very high, most students who have gotten past first year physics in university probably have roughly that IQ or better.
IQ correlates to being able to spot patterns and relationships that would reveal such contradictions.

The idea that airplanes fly primarily because of the Bernoulli's principle is probably the most well-known such idea, there is even a name for it: "equal transit-time fallacy". Airplanes being able to fly upside down is probably the easiest-to-understand problem with it,

I already explained that's not a problem with it. Post again without trying to understand that and expect consequences.

but there are also other problems (it allegedly also contradicts the Newton's third law, though I don't understand why).

I'm glad you can admit to not understanding something.

And there are many such appealing but false ideas widely taught in introductory courses: cholesterol you eat being a significant contributor to heart disease

It is, but there are diminishing returns meaning you'd have to eat virtually no cholesterol at all. This has been discussed elsewhere.
It's true but also kind of not in practice because it's complicated.

the glucose you eat being a significant contributor to type-2-diabetes

Who is teaching that? The relationship is pretty complicated.

You are obviously contradiction the scientific consensus here (that "equal transit-time fallacy" is false)

I'm not here to stan for equal time as a perfect explanation of air foil physics, indeed the air above the airfoil actually moves a little faster, I'm explaining why planes being able to fly upside down is not obvious evidence against it -- it only means as I said that it's not the ONLY component of lift, and your physics teacher didn't believe it was the ONLY component of lift either (go ask). Attack angle is common knowledge.
Lift and how air foils work is actually very complicated and there are a number of competing models as well as various things at play, but yes air foils work and generate lift which is what you were arguing against with your asinine claim of a counterexample that you did not understand.

Read this, and see how the example is only against Bernoulli as a single and exclusive explanation with no other factors. There still remains truth to that model:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-the-air/

Now stop replying in this thread, this is completely off topic.

[Kaz1983]

Classic Dunning Kruger. You're acting here like Teo claiming that thermodynamics proves bombs are impossible when instead he should be saying "Obviously bombs exist and scientists are not morons incapable of spotting such a contradiction, so what am I misunderstanding about thermodynamics?"

You seem to be appealing to scientific consensus here. Just because a bunch of scientists or come to the same consensus, that does not mean the consensus itself is incorrect and therefore the scientists to be misguided. But regardless, who is calling scientists morons or is that just you putting words in other peoples mouth?

Sometimes it's you. You need to consider the fact that you are so deeply incorrect about all of your preconceptions that you personally may not be able to understand any of this without starting with some serious unlearning.
And Red is correct that the little fit about me not replying fast enough wasn't impressive. I've had this tab open and had not gotten to it yet, educating a hostile student who thinks he's teacher isn't always priority number one. I'm happy to explain this stuff, but you need to do your part and work on understanding it instead of trying to lecture when you have no idea what you're talking about. It's like you walked into calculus, didn't understand derivatives, and you decided the problem was that the professor needed you to teach him addition.

I'm not throwing a little fit or anything, maybe it was un-necessary - that might be true, I will admit that; ohhhh and I'm really sorry if I hurt your feelings; anyways you seem to have put words in my mouth. It was quite clear that what I was talking about was just “if morality is based on reason, What is reason itself based upon?” It's a valid question, not some crazy thought on my part - Red understood what I ask but it seems you didn't– anyways it's something both David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein asked, your acting like I’m stupid for asking questions. And you're right it might just be you who don't understand the concepts that being questioned, You are kinda acting like I am questioning your beliefs and not certain assumptions that have been made by not just you but other people too; so it's nothing personal

@Kaz1983 is this how you want to be? A conspiracy theorist who won't do basic research or consider the possibility that he misunderstands something when the consensus is against him?

So David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein, were conspiracy theorists too?

[Your_Construct]

Hi Kaz1983,

I'm just commenting that this is a very good question. If you are religious; your morality is objective, absolute, never-changing, and based on God. However, the individual will often twist this to his or her own benefit. If you are an atheist, morality does appear to change and evolve. At one point in American history having slaves was considered normal, but today of course it is considered immoral. If morality can change and evolve then there is no true morality. Again, I'm saying this is a very good question. For the record, I am an atheist who does believe in economic reparations for slavery.

[Red]

If you are religious; your morality is objective, absolute, never-changing, and based on God. However, the individual will often twist this to his or her own benefit.

I'd say I agree with this.

If you are an atheist, morality does appear to change and evolve.

Not really; Just because what society deems right or wrong is not necessarily what is right or wrong.

At one point in American history having slaves was considered normal, but today of course it is considered immoral. If morality can change and evolve then there is no true morality as we understand it.

In the middle ages they thought the Earth was at the center of the Universe; They thought that weather patterns like thunderstorms and earthquakes were signs of God's displeasure. They believed in Witches, Omens, demons, and they believed that God created the Universe and the Great Flood was an actual historical event. They were wrong about all of this.

Just because a view was accepted in a time that doesn't mean it was right in that time. Slavery was wrong in America and everywhere today, 200 years ago, and thousands of years before that. This is one of the reasons why I think preserving traditions just for the sake of tradition is dangerous.

In science, as we improve our methodology and stop seeking evidence for a particular thing (that is, not expecting God to be the answer for things), we learn more and improve our understanding and quality of life based on objectivity. Similarly, with philosophy, we know there are objective standards to adhere to to help us accomplish the most amount of good as we socially progress.

Think about it; If morality were subjective, what's even the point of it? In Saudi Arabia (and many other countries) they pretty much gives women and LGBT people no rights whatsoever, execute you for relatively petty crimes, and have virtually no religious tolerance. Who are you to say that the system they're basing their law on is flawed if morality is objective? I'm sure what they think they're doing is the right thing to do. Medieval Europe was in a similar place few hundred years ago; I don't see why they can't change for the better too. We need to stop looking at morality being a cultural thing if we want to make changes in the world.

I can see why people apply different standards to morality than science; It makes some intuitive sense. But there's no reason or evidence to make this distinction.

[brimstoneSalad]

Slavery was wrong in America and everywhere today, 200 years ago, and thousands of years before that.

Going back thousands of years is legitimately complicated, because food used to be very expensive which made prisons functionally impossible. Criminals were instead either sold into slavery (which paid for their keep in captivity) or executed. Sometimes slavery is preferable to death.

Whether somebody should go to prison (or be sold into slavery as the case was) for stealing a loaf of bread was also a more complex issue due to food prices and the fact that today it's unconscionable to even imprison somebody for stealing food to survive.

[Red]

Going back thousands of years is legitimately complicated, because food used to be very expensive which made prisons functionally impossible. Criminals were instead either sold into slavery (which paid for their keep in captivity) or executed. Sometimes slavery is preferable to death.
Whether somebody should go to prison (or be sold into slavery as the case was) for stealing a loaf of bread was also a more complex issue due to food prices and the fact that today it's unconscionable to even imprison somebody for stealing food to survive.

This would be an interesting thing to discuss though; What would have been the best method of rehabilitation in Ancient Times? Was punishment still the best course of action?

I should have clarified that context matters.

[brimstoneSalad]

Going back thousands of years is legitimately complicated, because food used to be very expensive which made prisons functionally impossible. Criminals were instead either sold into slavery (which paid for their keep in captivity) or executed. Sometimes slavery is preferable to death.
Whether somebody should go to prison (or be sold into slavery as the case was) for stealing a loaf of bread was also a more complex issue due to food prices and the fact that today it's unconscionable to even imprison somebody for stealing food to survive.

This would be an interesting thing to discuss though; What would have been the best method of rehabilitation in Ancient Times? Was punishment still the best course of action?

I should have clarified that context matters.

I don't know what else they could have done.

The point is more that morality hasn't really changed as much as people think; the situations have changed. The people of ancient times weren't quite as monstrous as we often imagine, jut in more dire situations.
So is the case with veganism, where it's practicable today thanks to modern nutritional knowledge and resources (like B-12, year-round availability of digestible high protein plant foods, etc.).

Evil generally comes from conservative laggards who want to continue outdated practices despite changes in the situation.