I’m not accepting this as a obvious truth. I want to see the proof.
That premise reads to me like a variation on the theory that anything temporary is valueless, only eternal things have value.
I’ve been pretty dubious about that one since I first ran into it (no longer remember for sure when/where that was, but probably in Plato.) For one thing, it would mean that all life is valueless, because anything alive is constantly changing and can’t be eternal.
Cites, please.
As in, provide links to the actual evidence given in each of multiple times when this theory has been “proved”.
You can make statements all you want; but you need to provide evidence if you actually want people to acknowledge them as accurate.
You also would need to provide better answers to contradictory evidence provided by others. I’m dubious that Einstein’s work had no influence on the mathematics involved in the space program; but even if there’s no direct connection specifically to the moon landings, that wouldn’t mean his work was unimportant.
Methinks our good host hath stumbled unto the lyon’s den. Quick poll: How many of y’all are or were teachers or professors, besides not me?
Not me, either – though wait a minute, I have trained farm interns. Does that count?
One of the things I remember about being 15 was that I really resented being written off or ignored specifically because I was 15. And I think, actually, that I was right about that.
People who are 15 generally have both less experience, and less information, than they will when they’re older; that much is true. And they shouldn’t be chided for not having the experience or the information that they haven’t had time to accumulate. But that doesn’t mean that they never have genuinely good ideas; or that they don’t, occasionally, know something that most or even all older people don’t.
However – people who at 15 expect their theories to be taken seriously as adult theories should also expect said theories to be put to the test just like those of adults, and to learn to back them up (if they can) in the same fashion. And, ideally, should have the ability to back off and reconsider, if they can’t support a statement, whether it’s actually so – an ability that unfortunately some people don’t learn even if they live to be 90.
Tachyon Theorist, I hope you’re out looking for evidence that you think will be convincing. Even if you can’t convince us, it’s good practice trying; and, if you’ve actually got evidence, maybe you will.
Were the farm interns human?
Either human or very well disguised as such.
On the farm, I can generally tell if someone’s a dog. Humans may also chase woodchucks, but they do it differently.
Einstein’s math is essential for GPS accuracy. That is post moon landing, but still a real world contribution.
I don’t believe that this theory is very great at all. Until it is a law, it will not be an accomplishment until it is proved by multiple people making multiple experiments.
More importantly, were they Ant-Farm interns?
** Tachyon Theorist** Exactly what claims are you making? What evidence do you have to support them?
Remember that they laughed at Galileo. BUT, they also laughed at Krusty the Klown.
I don’t know what you mean by this.
Do you mean that you’ve decided your theory is wrong? That it might be right, but has no support because there’s not enough information? That somebody else’s theory isn’t great, and if so which one?
What do you mean by “accomplishment” and “law”?
I just meant that as an example. Football can be educational and good exercise. Just saying that it shouldn’t be all a person would do. It should be a part time job
Tachyon Theorist, AKA Pyuriel Hanner, this is your sig: ℘ყųཞıɛƖ ɧ.
Google translate says that is Estonian, but cannot render it to English. Can you supply a translation for us Estonian illiterates?
Professional football players are entertainers. Are you saying that no one should make entertainment a career?
Sorry Steven Speilberg, get a real job. And all you actors, comedians, movie producers, musicians, painters, singers, dancers, etc. that goes for you too.
You are over (or possibly under?) thinking it.
℘=p
ყ=y
ų=u
ཞ=r
ı=iɛ=e
Ɩ=l
ɧ=h
(eta: that fake “i” seems to screw with formatting.)
To me, it sounds like you are mixing scientific theory with philosophical theory. That doesn’t work too well.
Scientific theory is proven by scientific method, and it can be performed by anyone and still result in the same conclusion.
I do take exception to Einstein not having anything to do with the moon landing? E=mc2 has been so handy for many things…
~VOW
I don’t think you got the point. I actually agree with you that our system of professional entertainment is problematic, but “professional football can’t be anything more than a part time job” is a silly statement. If you want to argue that case you need to be more detailed, present more arguments for why you think so, present how you think such a moral judgement could be enforced, explain what similar activities would be affected and which would not.
And you need to be prepared with a better defense against the extremely basic philosophical question “who are you to say what people are allowed to enjoy and pay for?”, than “I just meant that as an example”.
“It shouldn’t be all a person would do” is not something you can “just say”. It’s a moral judgement challenging what is the norm in our current society and by making it seem you think it’s an obvious truth, you make yourself seem like someone not worth debating with.
In that case, he should cease and desist using the term “ant farm theory” since I have been using it for over 50 years to refer to a completely different theory of my own. (You will be hearing from my solicitor, young man!) 