Neither of the two constructions you listed would result in a periodic table.
I… didn’t say that they would? If you change the map, it’s obviously a different map. You’d call it “Metallica’s table of metals,” or something.
So your telling me that I need to be cautious of you derailing the conversation away from it’s original premise?
No… I just don’t think you realize how anti-intellectual you’re being.
i’ll be keeping you to the premise and the periodic table for this discussion. It need not go further.
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 Peterson’s wikipedia. He is not a fan of whatever his meat-addled brain thinks Post Modernism is.
If the ordering of the periodic table were arbitrary, it couldn’t be a periodic table.
It is arbitrarily a periodic table because the periodic table has utility. That utility is why we don’t arrange them a different way. This isn’t 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.
In fact, the ordering even predicted languages that were not yet known to the person who developed the order.
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?
Im not being anti intellectual. I simply have no patience for frauds masquerading their metaphysics as philosophy.
In the end you can’t argue the point on its merits and are just engaging in sophistry. So we’ll come back to the first: you don’t actually know what the periodic table of the elements is. You should stop pretending you have a point if you can’t make make it.
If you don’t understand the difference between metaphysics and philosophy, its probably best you did neither.
I can’t engage with your point on its merits because it’s not relevant to the argument that I’m making—it’s a complete non-sequitur.
You want me to prove that the periodic table doesn’t 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: it’s 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.
I… didn’t say that they would? If you change the map, it’s obviously a different map. You’d call it “Metallica’s table of metals,” or something.
No… I just don’t think you realize how anti-intellectual you’re 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 Peterson’s 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 don’t arrange them a different way. This isn’t 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?
Im not being anti intellectual. I simply have no patience for frauds masquerading their metaphysics as philosophy.
In the end you can’t argue the point on its merits and are just engaging in sophistry. So we’ll come back to the first: you don’t actually know what the periodic table of the elements is. You should stop pretending you have a point if you can’t make make it.
If you don’t understand the difference between metaphysics and philosophy, its probably best you did neither.
Aw, don’t be a sore loser.
I can’t engage with your point on its merits because it’s not relevant to the argument that I’m making—it’s a complete non-sequitur.
You want me to prove that the periodic table doesn’t 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: it’s 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.
You are delusional if you think you “won” anything.
The only thing you did was demonstrate that you are a vapid waste of time. You being in a self sucking circle jerk with yourself isn’t philosophy.
You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to philosophy of science and are a waste of everyone’s time, including your own.
Christ, my man, do you need a time out? Are you late for a nap or something?
I promise you there’s nothing at stake here; I’m not “dismantling” chemistry. I agree it’s useful, it’s good stuff. Mendeleev did a good job.
you havent ‘done’ anything here other than jerk yourself off.