Comment on Strawberries are nuts š
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone āØ1ā© āØmonthā© agoIt can be constructed in other ways. I gave you two of them. Those other presentations are not āless correct,ā theyāre just less useful. It just so happens that the most useful, scientific depiction of the table to us is also the one that contains the most facts.
You are also wrong in the basic philosophy of it.
Keep in mind, this argument I had was several proxy-arguments downstream of whether or not transwomen are women. So, be aware of what waters youāre treading into.
Isnāt the rejection of post-modernism like a very Jordan-Petersonālike thing to do? Iām pretty sure I heard him whining about it when he was also whining about jews cultural marxists.
Isnāt the rejection of post-modernism like a very Jordan-Petersonālike thing to do?
Peterson is kinda the embodiment of post-modernism, that is, he does all his ideology building by questioning everything else into oblivion.
Of course, not knowing what heās talking about is also something very Jordan-Peterson-like so that all tracks.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Neither of the two constructions you listed would result in a periodic table. You donāt this because you donāt actually know what a periodic table is. Try again.
To help you along, please explain to me: why the elements in the periodic table are ordered as they are? Or more readily, what determines the ordering of the periodic table? Iāll give you two huge hints, and a name to help you. Search the name Mendeleev, and orbital and proton.
So your telling me that I need to be cautious of you derailing the conversation away from itās original premise?
And there we are.
No itās a very Noam Chomskey thing to do. Jordon Peterson, like most fascists, draws largely on the principles of post-modernists. For all intents and purposes, he is one, in that he relies on the idea that truth and reality are relative to justify his arguments. I agree with Chomskey in his critiques of both post modernism and fascism, especially in their arbitrary use of language and sophistry to disguise the hollowness of their arguments.
That being said, iāll be keeping you to the premise and the periodic table for this discussion. It need not go further.
If the ordering of the periodic table were arbitrary, it couldnāt be a periodic table. It is only a periodic table by this very reason. When ordering by orbital and atomic weight, Mendeleev not only came up with a diagram that effectively predicted all of the observable properties of the elements, but also predicted elements which were not yet known to human kind.
And therein lay the difference.
Imagine a person is coming up with a dictionary for English. And in a dream they came up with some alternative ordering. And in that alternative ordering, suddenly, they not only had a dictionary for English, cut also Farsi, and Cantonese. Every language became interpretable through this reordering. In fact, the ordering even predicted languages that were not yet known to the person who developed the order. But the order stated that they should be there, or at least be possible.
This is the difference.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Iā¦ didnāt say that they would? If you change the map, itās obviously a different map. Youād call it āMetallicaās table of metals,ā or something.
Noā¦ I just donāt think you realize how anti-intellectual youāre being.
Okay, dad. But, you were the one who brought up fascists.
Very rude, by the way.
Uh, to anyone reading, I guess: Look up Jordan Petersonās wikipedia. He is not a fan of whatever his meat-addled brain thinks Post Modernism is.
It is arbitrarily a periodic table because the periodic table has utility. That utility is why we donāt arrange them a different way. This isnāt complicated.
If you want an example of different motivations: Do these periods tell you how beautiful each element is? Does beauty rise in each column and row? You might need a different map for that.
That would be very insightful. I would say we should arbitrarily prefer that ordering because of how useful it would be to us.
Or we could arbitrarily choose not to because just the one language is good enough, innit?
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Im not being anti intellectual. I simply have no patience for frauds masquerading their metaphysics as philosophy.
In the end you canāt argue the point on its merits and are just engaging in sophistry. So weāll come back to the first: you donāt actually know what the periodic table of the elements is. You should stop pretending you have a point if you canāt make make it.
If you donāt understand the difference between metaphysics and philosophy, its probably best you did neither.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone āØ1ā© āØmonthā© ago
Aw, donāt be a sore loser.
I canāt engage with your point on its merits because itās not relevant to the argument that Iām makingāitās a complete non-sequitur.
You want me to prove that the periodic table doesnāt predict undiscovered elements? What does that have to do with where people direct their effort and attention?
This is why the tomato fruit/vegetable example is so useful: itās about what facts are useful to whom. It actually has nothing to do with the periodic table at all, that just happens to be a particularly prickly thorn for stem majors.