You guys crack me up with your anti-expert no standards stance.
Are you capable of responding to what has actually been said for once?
It isn't an anti-expert.
It is just anti your "experts are the only way" stance.
It is quite different.
everyone knows that is such an inefficient and the worst way to learn
So you accept it is a way to learn?
Negating the claim that just accepting what an expert says is the only way.
Again, the discussion is not about if experts exist, or if you can get knowledge from them.
It is about if the only way to obtain knowledge is to just accept what experts say, or if there is an alternative.
So by accepting it as a way to learn, you accept that it is a way to obtain knowledge, and thus refute Brawndo's claim.
Prototyping is a totally different activity.
Prototyping IS trial and error.
Trying to do something new doesn't mean it is no longer trial and error.
Prototyping is part of a problem solving process done in a planned and systematic way. Not like your dial twirling hap hazard method of photography.
Again, that is your strawmanning.
The actual way to do it is a planned and systematic way. You go through the settings in turn to determine what setting improves the result and which makes it worse. You build upon those settings (prototypes).
You would not do your strawman of just randomly setting settings and seeing if it works and if not discarding it and starting with a new random one.
That burden must be really weighing you down!
Again, the one with the burden here is you.
Again, if you wanted to pretend I had one, it has been met by the logical argument you are yet to even attempt to refute.
Here it is again:
1 - The only way to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth is by obtaining it from an expert on the shape of Earth.
2 - Thus without an expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible to obtain knowledge on the shape of Earth.
3 - You must have knowledge on the shape of Earth to be an expert on the shape of Earth.
4 - By 2 and 3, without an existing expert on the shape of Earth, it is impossible for new people to become experts on the shape of Earth.
5 - At some point in the past there was no expert on the shape of Earth.
6 - By 4 and 5, this means it is impossible for anyone to become an expert on the shape of Earth.
7 - Thus there can be no experts on the shape of Earth.
8 - Thus no one can know the shape of Earth.
9 - People know the shape of Earth.
10 - 8 and 9 are direct contradictions and thus the assumption (1) MUST be wrong.
Figured out a way to object to it yet?
If not, there cannot be any additional for me, as this logical argument proves you are wrong.
I take it they have come from your own fiddling about and not devised by someone who knew what they were doing?
Again, are you capable of reading simple English?
Or do you just hate the truth so much you are willing to continually strawman your opponents to pretend you are correct?
Again, while you continue with this dishonest BS, there is no point in me providing any experiment as you will just use this dishonest BS to pretend you are correct.
Grow up.
Try being honest for once and just admitting you are wrong.
Now the difference between you and the monkeys is a difficult call. You tell me!
I did, but like everything that shows you are wrong, you just ignored it.
Let's stick to the central question
Yes, lets stick to the central question.
The claim is that the only way to learn the shape of Earth is to just accept what an expert says Earth is.
This is not stating that you need some kind of expert help. Instead it states you need to just accept what they say Earth is.
I.e. expert says Earth is round, so you accept it is round.
If this was the case, no one could ever be an expert, like I have already explained.
Engineers like everyone make mistakes but they certainly don't use trial and error. There are laws against that.
And what law would that be?
Especially considering engineers use trial and error all the time. They call it prototyping.
It is used in all sorts of fields.
But bringing it back to science, that is a key part of science.
You make an observation and based upon that observation you come up with a hypothesis. You then test (i.e. TRIAL) that hypothesis. If you find it faulty (i.e. IN ERROR) you improve it.
Wikipedia even has this to say:
Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving. [1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2]
Describing applications, it even has something akin to my monkey example:
Suppose a collection of 1000 on/off switches have to be set to a particular combination by random-based testing, where each test is expected to take one second. The strategies are:
- the perfectionist all-or-nothing method, with no attempt at holding partial successes. This would be expected to take more than 10^301 seconds
- a serial-test of switches, holding on to the partial successes (assuming that these are manifest), which would take 500 seconds on average
- parallel-but-individual testing of all switches simultaneously, which would take only one second
The first example, which is the way you cling to, is the stupid way.
The way I gave is more akin to the second one.
It then even has examples:
Trial and error has traditionally been the main method of finding new drugs, such as antibiotics.
Trial and error is also commonly seen in player responses to video games - when faced with an obstacle or boss, players often form a number of strategies to surpass the obstacle or defeat the boss, with each strategy being carried out before the player either succeeds or quits the game.
The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error.
Jumping spiders of the genus Portia use trial and error to find new tactics against unfamiliar prey or in unusual situations, and remember the new tactics.[7] Tests show that Portia fimbriata and Portia labiata can use trial and error in an artificial environment
It then contains links to other examples, such as Ariadne's thread, Brute force attack, Brute force search and genetic algorithms.
So we have you declaring trial and error as a fools errand; while we have experts indicating the opposite (note: I'm not saying wikipedia is the expert, I am saying that is a compilation of expert knowledge, you are free to go look at the references).
This approach you say you use only seeking your own advice is a road to nowhere akin to interbreeding.
Did you mean inbreeding? Do you even speak English? Because not speaking and understanding English could explain a lot.