Temperature?

[Solomani]

I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
Celsius) as the optimum number.

Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
21? 28? Celsius?

(I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
Fahrenheit numbers!).

Thanks.

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Solomani wrote:
>
> I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
> recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
> Celsius) as the optimum number.
>
> Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
> 21? 28? Celsius?
>
> (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
> Fahrenheit numbers!).
>
> Thanks.

either is fine. Fancy goldfish seem to do better in temperatures of 27oC
As long as the water is stable then you're ok.

[[email protected]]

GF are often said to be coldwater fish... which they arent. fancy GF need warmer
temps, like 25-27oC. Ingrid

(Solomani) wrote:

>I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
>recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
>Celsius) as the optimum number.
>
>Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
>21? 28? Celsius?
>
>(I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
>Fahrenheit numbers!).
>
>Thanks.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Günther Ritter]

"Solomani" > schrieb

Hi Solomani

> I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
> recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
> Celsius) as the optimum number.
>
> Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
> 21? 28? Celsius?

Normal for my Ryukin, Fantail and Shubunkin in my tanks is ~ 21 Celsius

In ponds the temperature change from 4 Celsius (under the ice) in winter to
26 Celsius now
Ryukin and Shubunkin I bred at 20-21 Celsius

Look here at my pond-fishes Ryukin:

http://www.shubunkin.de/upload/details.asp?id=69

Ryukin 2004

http://www.shubunkin.de/jungfische04.html


hth
Günther
http://www.shubunkin.de


> (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
> Fahrenheit numbers!).
>
> Thanks.

[Mookie]

For the fancier ones, I've heard about 76 degrees is about right.

[Tom L. La Bron]

Solomani,

Goldfish are warmwater fish. I have Fantails, Comets
and Shubunkins that stay outside in the ponds all
winter. Temperatures get down to about 38 degrees F.
(3 degrees Celsius). My Philly Veils I bring inside
for the winter, because they do not do well below 55
degrees F. (13 degrees Celsius). All my other fish,
which are Ranchu, Phoenix and Orandas I bring in also,
but over the winter in the house they are maintained at
temperatures around 60 - 65 degree F. (15 - 18 degrees
Celsius). My Philly Veils, while inside are also kept
that the inside temperatures mentioned. All my fish do
great and are health and have not problems.

I will admit that fish between 24 - 26 degrees Celsius
will be more active, but that does not relate to being
better for your fish. They do not need or is it better
for them to be that temperature.

Tom L.L.
-------------------------------------------
Solomani wrote:
> I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
> recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
> Celsius) as the optimum number.
>
> Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
> 21? 28? Celsius?
>
> (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
> Fahrenheit numbers!).
>
> Thanks.

[surewest]

62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will
survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one.

--


Dr5000

| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>

All I ask is a chance to
.....prove money CAN'T make me happy.
_______________________
"Solomani" > wrote in message
om...
> I have read some conflicting numbers for this. Ive read that people
> recommend 28 degrees Celsius on one page and then another has <70f (21
> Celsius) as the optimum number.
>
> Any recommendations on where I should attempt to maintain my tank? 20?
> 21? 28? Celsius?
>
> (I am from Australia so I work in Celsius, but feel free to list
> Fahrenheit numbers!).
>
> Thanks.

[[email protected]]

????? why would being at an optimal temp shorten their lives? Ingrid

"surewest" > wrote:
They will
>survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Thats like saying people who live in Alaska will live longer than people who
live in Florida! ?



surewest wrote:
>
> 62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will
> survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one.
>

[Donald K]

Uh, Geez?

Humans are warm-blooded, which mean they regulate their own body
temperature.

Fish are cold-blooded, which means they are at the whim of their
environment.

Most chemical reactions run faster with heat, so, without actual
testing, I find it creditable that fish metabolisms run faster, hence,
all other factors being equal, shorter lives...

Although I would be willing to wager that the life expectancy of people
moving to Alaska is longer than that of people moving to Florida...
(But temperature would only be a second or third order cause...)

;-)

-Donald

Geezer From The Freezer wrote:

> Thats like saying people who live in Alaska will live longer than
> people who live in Florida! ?
>
>
>
> surewest wrote:
>>
>> 62-70f usually works well for goldfish. They will
>> survive warmer water but life will be a much shorter one.
>>

--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[[email protected]]

warm blooded mice live maybe 5 years and warm blooded humans live 72 years. the
correlation doesnt hold. INgrid

Donald K > wrote:

>Uh, Geez?
>
>Humans are warm-blooded, which mean they regulate their own body
>temperature.
>
>Fish are cold-blooded, which means they are at the whim of their
>environment.
>
>Most chemical reactions run faster with heat, so, without actual
>testing, I find it creditable that fish metabolisms run faster, hence,
>all other factors being equal, shorter lives...
>
>Although I would be willing to wager that the life expectancy of people
>moving to Alaska is longer than that of people moving to Florida...
>(But temperature would only be a second or third order cause...)
>
>;-)
>
>-Donald


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Donald K]

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish kept
at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors held
equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.

-D

wrote:

> warm blooded mice live maybe 5 years and warm blooded humans live 72
> years. the
> correlation doesnt hold. INgrid
>
> Donald K > wrote:
>
>>Uh, Geez?
>>
>>Humans are warm-blooded, which mean they regulate their own body
>>temperature.
>>
>>Fish are cold-blooded, which means they are at the whim of their
>>environment.
>>
>>Most chemical reactions run faster with heat, so, without actual
>>testing, I find it creditable that fish metabolisms run faster, hence,
>>all other factors being equal, shorter lives...
>>
>>Although I would be willing to wager that the life expectancy of
>>people moving to Alaska is longer than that of people moving to
>>Florida... (But temperature would only be a second or third order
>>cause...)


--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Donald K wrote:
>
> Perhaps I wasn't clear.
>
> The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish kept
> at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors held
> equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.
>
> -D

I'd be highly interested if anyone can find some scientific studies on this.
Donald, I'm not claiming you aren't correct (I'll remain open minded about
this).
I can see the pros and cons of the arguments.

[[email protected]]

read up on ideal temperature ranges for parasites, bacteria and viruses of fish.
Ingrid

Donald K > wrote:

>Perhaps I wasn't clear.
>
>The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish kept
>at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors held
>equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.
>
>-D


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Donald K]

Pathogens, if allowed, would taint the results.

I considered that and lumped it in with... "all other factors held
equal."

-D

wrote:

> read up on ideal temperature ranges for parasites, bacteria and
> viruses of fish. Ingrid
>
> Donald K > wrote:
>
>>Perhaps I wasn't clear.
>>
>>The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish kept
>>at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors held
>>equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.
>>
>>-D
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
> http://puregold.aquaria.net/
> www.drsolo.com
> Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
> compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
> endorsements or recommendations I make.

--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Donald K]

Geezer From The Freezer wrote:

>
>
> Donald K wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear.
>>
>> The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish
>> kept at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors
>> held equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.
>>
>> -D
>
> I'd be highly interested if anyone can find some scientific studies on
> this. Donald, I'm not claiming you aren't correct (I'll remain open
> minded about this).
> I can see the pros and cons of the arguments.

I'm not saying I _know_, I'm saying, from chemisty/biology, one can
argue that...

The best way to determine it would be to...

.... gasp... perform an experiment and see what science thinks...

;-)

-Donald
--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Happy'Cam'per]

"Donald K" > wrote in message
...
> Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Donald K wrote:
> >>
> >> Perhaps I wasn't clear.
> >>
> >> The correlation I was implying would be between cold blooded fish
> >> kept at 65 deg F and 75-80 deg F. My thesis is that all other factors
> >> held equal, the 75-80 deg F fish would live shorter lives.

I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer
water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish?
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Happy'Cam'per wrote:
>
> I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer
> water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish?
> --
> **So long, and thanks for all the fish!**

Not everything is as logical as it seems. I'd love to see a scientific study on
this
for proof.

[Happy'Cam'per]

"Geezer From The Freezer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Happy'Cam'per wrote:
> >
> > I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the
warmer
> > water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish?
> > --
> > **So long, and thanks for all the fish!**
>
> Not everything is as logical as it seems. I'd love to see a scientific
study on
> this
> for proof.

Sorry Geezer, why don't you just do a google search and draw your own
conclusions. I'll bet you its as logical as we say. KISS. keep it simple
stupid. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor (spelling). Look that up. Life
need'nt be that difficult if you don't want it to be!
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**

[[email protected]]

yes, correct. GF in warmer water have higher metabolic rate for example digestion of
food. but your hypothesis: higher temp = shorter life has no evidence.
Ingrid

>I kind of Agree with Mr. Kerns on this one. Is'nt it logical that the warmer
>water fish would have a higher metabolic rate than cold water fish?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[[email protected]]

because in science KISS doesnt hold up and neither does Occam's razor as a "rule".
many many things are counterintuitive. Ingrid

>why don't you just do a google search and draw your own
>conclusions. I'll bet you its as logical as we say. KISS. keep it simple
>stupid. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor (spelling). Look that up. Life
>need'nt be that difficult if you don't want it to be!



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Happy'Cam'per]

With all due respect Dr. Solo,
Thats exactly why Occams razor was invented was'nt it??, if we did not we'd
never be able to prove anything. Not that I'm a rocket scientist or a doctor
like yourself but I'm a keen reader. It was just my 2 cents anyway. Did not
mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;)
(Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek.
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**

> wrote in message
...
> because in science KISS doesnt hold up and neither does Occam's razor as a
"rule".
> many many things are counterintuitive. Ingrid
>
> >why don't you just do a google search and draw your own
> >conclusions. I'll bet you its as logical as we say. KISS. keep it simple
> >stupid. Are you familiar with Occam's Razor (spelling). Look that up.
Life
> >need'nt be that difficult if you don't want it to be!
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
> http://puregold.aquaria.net/
> www.drsolo.com
> Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
> compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
> endorsements or recommendations I make.

[[email protected]]

"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William
of Occam (or Ockham)."
philosopher, not scientist.
Philosophers such as Aristotle gave us the earth is the center of the universe, the
sun revolves around the earth
Scientists like Galileo gave us the earth etc revolves around the sun. Which fits
the facts.
INgrid

"Happy'Cam'per" > wrote:

>
>With all due respect Dr. Solo,
>Thats exactly why Occams razor was invented was'nt it??, if we did not we'd
>never be able to prove anything. Not that I'm a rocket scientist or a doctor
>like yourself but I'm a keen reader. It was just my 2 cents anyway. Did not
>mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;)
>(Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Donald K]

I believe the term "natural philosopher" was used for what we now call
"scientists" (certainly physicists) well into the 1800's... (While
acknowledging that Occam was a religious philosopher rather than a
natural one.)

And I'll point out that a geocentric model is still perfectly useful
within it's limitations.

As is a "flat earth model"

AS IS the heliocentric model. Which is also "incorrect" because the sun
is not the center of the universe...

Does the fact that Galileo's theories don't hold under relativistic
conditions, while Einstein and Lorentz (sp?) do, make Galileo a
"philosopher?" After all Galileo's theories don't fit those facts...

I really don't think we want to toss Occam's razor out of the scientific
method because he was a "mere" philosopher...

As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the
debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple
of times off-group... ;-)

-Donald

wrote:

> "Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval
> philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham)."
> philosopher, not scientist.
> Philosophers such as Aristotle gave us the earth is the center of the
> universe, the sun revolves around the earth
> Scientists like Galileo gave us the earth etc revolves around the sun.
> Which fits the facts.
> INgrid
>
> "Happy'Cam'per" > wrote:
>
>>
>>With all due respect Dr. Solo,
>>Thats exactly why Occams razor was invented was'nt it??, if we did not
>>we'd never be able to prove anything. Not that I'm a rocket scientist
>>or a doctor like yourself but I'm a keen reader. It was just my 2
>>cents anyway. Did not mean to upset anyone. Keep it simple doctor ;)
>>(Note the wink at the end of the sentence)...it's all tongue in cheek.

--
Everything that counts can't necessarily be counted. (Einstein)

[[email protected]]

That is why the term scientist was invented and used to describe people like Galileo
who used a multistep scientific procedure that included experimentation. Take a look
at Galileo's work on kinetics and give him a break he was under house arrest by the
church for much of his adult life. Yes, Kepler et al were able to modify Galileo's
solar system work to better fit the observations. Just as Newton was able to improve
on Galileo's work on kinetics. It is the nature of science to be repeatedly tested
and confirmed or corrected.
the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is
not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science.
Ingrid

Donald K > wrote:
>I believe the term "natural philosopher" was used for what we now call
>"scientists"
>And I'll point out that a geocentric model is still perfectly useful
>within it's limitations.
>AS IS the heliocentric model. Which is also "incorrect" because the sun
>is not the center of the universe...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Happy'Cam'per]

> wrote in message
...
> . Observations without scientific methodology is
> not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science.
> Ingrid


--
**So long, and thanks for all the pseudoscience!**

[Lilly]

I observe that the sun rises daily in the east and sets in the west. I
observe that negative effects happen when freshwater fishes are placed
into sal****er conditions, and vice versa. I observe that when I put
my foot on the gas pedal, the car accelerates and when I put it on the
brake, it slows down.

Does the fact that here has been no "scientific methodology" make
these events any less true? Or, in your words, "junk science"?
Sometimes you don't need to "do the math" to see what is happening
because it is as plain as the nose on your face.

BTW, if you are going to use big fancy words, look up the definition
beforehand.
Geocentric; adj. Relating to, measured from, or with respect to the
center of the earth. Having the earth as a center. But then again, you
don't read books much do you?

Lilly

wrote in message >...

> the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is
> not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science.
> Ingrid

[Happy'Cam'per]

"Donald K" > wrote in message
...
>
> As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the
> debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple
> of times off-group... ;-)
>
> -Donald

Greetings Mr. Kerns :)
I too find it all fascinating and entertaining and stuff :)
We can take turns dashing round that table, I'm always keen on a good
earbashing, what say you old chap?
If no-one else minds lets keep it here, maybe we can all learn something
fresh!
--
**So long, and thanks for all the fish!**

[[email protected]]

actually... the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west. This is a false
observation. The sun doesnt move around the earth, the earth's rotation creates the
ILLUSION that the sun is rising or setting. This is a perfect example of the reality
being counter intuitive. Observations are observations. They may be true or false
but they are not science.

Yes. the geocentric theory by Aristotle, et al, that is the earth as the center of
the universe is incorrect. Copernicus proposed that the Sun was the center of the
Solar System (on his deathbed). Galileo et all provided experimental data to support
this. http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/copernican_system.html
Ingrid

(Lilly) wrote:
>I observe that the sun rises daily in the east and sets in the west. I
>observe that negative effects happen when freshwater fishes are placed
>into sal****er conditions, and vice versa. I observe that when I put
>my foot on the gas pedal, the car accelerates and when I put it on the
>brake, it slows down.
>
>Does the fact that here has been no "scientific methodology" make
>these events any less true? Or, in your words, "junk science"?
>Sometimes you don't need to "do the math" to see what is happening
>because it is as plain as the nose on your face.

>BTW, if you are going to use big fancy words, look up the definition
beforehand.
Geocentric; adj. Relating to, measured from, or with respect to the
center of the earth. Having the earth as a center. But then again, you
don't read books much do you?

Lilly

wrote in message
>...

> the geocentric model is 100% wrong. Observations without scientific methodology is
> not science, it may be pseudoscience or junk science.
> Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Gunther]

In article >, says...
> "Donald K" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As resubjected, this has nothing to do with goldfish, but I do find the
> > debate enjoyable, and wouldn't mind chasing it about the table a couple
> > of times off-group... ;-)
> >
> > -Donald
>
> Greetings Mr. Kerns :)
> I too find it all fascinating and entertaining and stuff :)
> We can take turns dashing round that table, I'm always keen on a good
> earbashing, what say you old chap?
> If no-one else minds lets keep it here, maybe we can all learn something
> fresh!


Well then, PMJI:
Occam's Razor is usually misinterpreted today as meaning
"the simplest explanation is always true." That's a simplified and
mistaken version. Really, what William of Occam (a 14th century
English philosopher and Franciscan monk) said was
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necesitate" which translates
as "plurality should not be posited without necessity."
But he didn't invent the theory, commonly known as the Principle
of Parsimony. He just used it a lot in his writings.

Regardless, it's decidedly NOT a scientific law, rather a philosophical
outlook, and one that is in general quite useful. The best way of
paraphrasing it today really is K.I.S.S., in my opinion.
It doesn't mean that simple is always true, rather that given
a choice, one should strive for simplicity, elegance, and straight
forward thinking. But it's important to recognize that "choice"
implies quite a bit, and that the entire process involves a lot
of consideration of context.

E.g. in explaining the existence of life, a religious person may
invoke OR to justify belief that "life exists because God wanted it."
In his/her mind, that's certainly simpler than the Neodarwinist's
explanation. However, the Neodarwinist sees that explanation as
much less elegant, and carrying a lot of unnecessary baggage.
In fact, that explanation isn't even a choice for such a person,
since it's no explanation at all. One may as well say that fire
can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create
heat and light.

But to use Occam's Razor as "proof" of either claim is specious
and dishonest. One should only apply it when weighing equally
reasonable explanations within a well-delineated set of metrics
for "reasonableness" and even then with caution.

Now, unless there are further questions, I suggest we turn to
the next topic on the syllabus, "Business Ethics: Oxymoron?"

Gunther of Sunnyvale, C.S.V. (Cleric of St. Viator)

[Donald K]

wrote:

> the geocentric model is 100% wrong.

Funny, there are several very useful geocentric models / coordinate
systems documented in "Space Mission Analysis and Design."

Yes, the geocentric model is "wrong" in the fact that it doesn't fully
reflect known "reality" however, the geocentric model is _useful_
within its limitations.

For gross satellite behavior a straight geocentric model is just fine.
If one needs greater precision, then modeling the earth as a multi-pole
body, and bringing the moon and sun into play are probably indicated.
But still, to first order, it is a geocentric model...

-Donald
--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Donald K]

Lilly wrote:

> But then again, you
> don't read books much do you?

[whistle blowing - tweet]

Unsportsperson-like conduct.
Personal attack, minus 5 style points

-Donald
--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Donald K]

wrote:

> actually... the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.
> This is a false
> observation. The sun doesnt move around the earth, the earth's
> rotation creates the ILLUSION that the sun is rising or setting. This
> is a perfect example of the reality
> being counter intuitive. Observations are observations. They may be
> true or false but they are not science.

Er, might need to be a little careful here...

Observations are indeed observations. They can accurately record what is
being sensed or inaccurately record what is being sensed.

Then there are the _inferences_ made from those observations which can
be true or false.

I'm not going to tell somebody that they didn't observe the sun rising
or setting. I'm not going to tell them that it is a "false
observation." The observation is extremely precise and repeatable. It
is as true of an OBSERVATION as you can get.

What is false is the _inference_ from that observation that it is the
sun that is doing the moving...

(Hopefully the collected audience will allow me to take a pass on
explaining accelerated reference frames and allow me to go into the
next point? A planet in orbit is an accelerated reference frame.
Thanks...)

Unfortunately this runs us into trouble. The math and physics work out
in all non-accelerated reference frames.

The observation from the ground that a car is going by, and the
observation from within a car that the car is stationary and the ground
is going by are both equally valid.

If I'm trying to describe the motion of a ball tossed between two
passengers in the "moving" car, it is far more convenient to assume
that the car isn't moving, but the outside scenery is... The math works
out correctly either way, but the notation is easier when we assume it
is the car that isn't moving but the world that is...

We choose the ground-stationary/car-moving reference frame to be
"correct" due to convention. It is the (getting back to the original
topic) simplest model that explains the behavior. One can make all the
math work in the car-stationary/ground-moving reference frame, but it
gets messy very quickly.

We choose the conventional reference frame. The _science_ doesn't make
that distiction. (And, depending on the topic / behavior under study
we choose different, conventional reference frames.)

If I'm doing orbitology, I'm going to choose a geocentric model.
If I'm navigating my car I'll probably choose a "flat earth" model.
If I'm navigating a ship or plane, I'll probably choose a spherical
earth model.
If I'm launching missles trying to hit targets I'll choose a more
complicated than spherical earth model...

Are all of those models "wrong?" Yup!
Are they useful? You betcha!

-Donald
--
Hum, maybe I ought to fire up the gear and work the ISS this weekend...

[[email protected]]

Interesting because many, many years ago in a freshman English class I used Occam's
razor to refute the existence of God.
There is matter which has always been and will always be.
There is God which has always been and will always be (or who created God?)
There is always been God creating always been matter.
Use Occam's razor to remove the nonessential.
Unless of course we are only the figments of God's imagination.
ah well... long time ago.
Ingrid

Gunther > wrote:
>E.g. in explaining the existence of life, a religious person may
>invoke OR to justify belief that "life exists because God wanted it."
>In his/her mind, that's certainly simpler than the Neodarwinist's
>explanation. However, the Neodarwinist sees that explanation as
>much less elegant, and carrying a lot of unnecessary baggage.
>In fact, that explanation isn't even a choice for such a person,
>since it's no explanation at all. One may as well say that fire
>can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create
>heat and light.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[[email protected]]

http://puregold.aquaria.net/sp2004/p1/science_methods1.html
observation is just the first step of scientific method.
they can accurately record what is happening or completely lead one astray.
what those observations "mean" the reality, the proof (as apposed to truth) can only
be extracted by following scientific methods.
It is correct to say "the sun appears to rise in the east and set in the west". But
it was precisely absolute belief in the observation "the sun rises in the east and
sets in the west" that threw Aristotle et al the curve ball leading to a hopelessly
fuddled and wrong belief that earth is at the center of the universe.
I do make the distinction in context of a scientific conversation however, like in
class ... or when we are talking about it here. I wont correct people when they are
rhapsodizing about the beautiful sunrise or sunset they experienced.

Yes, most people can function throughout life using everyday observations and quite
incorrect inferences. But there are exceptions. What I have found is that in
general without scientific and/or critical thinking there is a vacuum often filled
with magical thinking, with pseudoscience, with junk science. In our increasingly
complex world these exceptions are increasing as well.
Ingrid

Donald K > wrote:
>Observations are indeed observations. They can accurately record what is
>being sensed or inaccurately record what is being sensed.
>Then there are the _inferences_ made from those observations which can
>be true or false.
>I'm not going to tell somebody that they didn't observe the sun rising
>or setting. I'm not going to tell them that it is a "false
>observation." The observation is extremely precise and repeatable. It
>is as true of an OBSERVATION as you can get.
>What is false is the _inference_ from that observation that it is the
>sun that is doing the moving...
>(Hopefully the collected audience will allow me to take a pass on
>explaining accelerated reference frames and allow me to go into the
>next point? A planet in orbit is an accelerated reference frame.
>Thanks...)
>Unfortunately this runs us into trouble. The math and physics work out
>in all non-accelerated reference frames.
>The observation from the ground that a car is going by, and the
>observation from within a car that the car is stationary and the ground
>is going by are both equally valid.
>
>If I'm trying to describe the motion of a ball tossed between two
>passengers in the "moving" car, it is far more convenient to assume
>that the car isn't moving, but the outside scenery is... The math works
>out correctly either way, but the notation is easier when we assume it
>is the car that isn't moving but the world that is...
>
>We choose the ground-stationary/car-moving reference frame to be
>"correct" due to convention. It is the (getting back to the original
>topic) simplest model that explains the behavior. One can make all the
>math work in the car-stationary/ground-moving reference frame, but it
>gets messy very quickly.
>
>We choose the conventional reference frame. The _science_ doesn't make
>that distiction. (And, depending on the topic / behavior under study
>we choose different, conventional reference frames.)
>
>If I'm doing orbitology, I'm going to choose a geocentric model.
>If I'm navigating my car I'll probably choose a "flat earth" model.
>If I'm navigating a ship or plane, I'll probably choose a spherical
>earth model.
>If I'm launching missles trying to hit targets I'll choose a more
>complicated than spherical earth model...
>
>Are all of those models "wrong?" Yup!
>Are they useful? You betcha!
>
>-Donald



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Donald K]

Ah,

But the first assumption in putting the existance of (g|G)od to this
sort of analysis is that this sort of analysis is applicable to the
subject at hand.

:-)

Faith is a matter of the heart. "Proving existance" is a matter of the
mind. One is the province of poets, the other science. As one distains
the poet attempting science, so should the reverse be true.

(And Occam's Razor doesn't PROVE anything, it merely indicates a more
likely/favored supposition. Whoever let you get you away with that
proof should have had their rhetorical license revoked...)

;-)

-Donald

wrote:

> Interesting because many, many years ago in a freshman English class I
> used Occam's razor to refute the existence of God.
> There is matter which has always been and will always be.
> There is God which has always been and will always be (or who created
> God?) There is always been God creating always been matter.
> Use Occam's razor to remove the nonessential.
> Unless of course we are only the figments of God's imagination.
> ah well... long time ago.
> Ingrid
>
> Gunther > wrote:
>>E.g. in explaining the existence of life, a religious person may
>>invoke OR to justify belief that "life exists because God wanted it."
>>In his/her mind, that's certainly simpler than the Neodarwinist's
>>explanation. However, the Neodarwinist sees that explanation as
>>much less elegant, and carrying a lot of unnecessary baggage.
>>In fact, that explanation isn't even a choice for such a person,
>>since it's no explanation at all. One may as well say that fire
>>can be explained as the manifestation of wood's desire to create
>>heat and light.


--
"One ought, every day at least, to hear a little song, read a good poem,
see a fine picture, and, if it were possible, to speak a few reasonable
words." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe