Jump to content

User:Saeed.Veradi/Notebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Saeed.Veradi/Workshop User:Saeed.Veradi/Templates User:Saeed.Veradi/Toolbox User:Saeed.Veradi/Base User:Saeed.Veradi/Sandbox User:Saeed.Veradi/Notebook User:Saeed.Veradi/Atlas
R&D Tags Tools Base Drafts Notes Maps

This page was last edited by Saeed.Veradi (talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Update timer)

Biomechanics

[edit]

Top journals: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

Scientific journals

Bio-mechanics websites

Bio-mechanics textbooks

  • Fung, Yuan-cheng (2010). Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. Springer, 2010. ISBN 9781441931047.
  • Peterson, Donald R. (2007). Biomechanics: principles and applications. CRC Press. ISBN 9780849385346.
  • McGinnis, Peter Merton (2005). Biomechanics of sport and exercise. Human Kinetics. ISBN 9780736051019.
  • Roger, Bartlett (2007). Introduction to sports biomechanics. Routledge. ISBN 9780415339933.
  • Knudson, Duane V. (2003). Fundamentals of biomechanics. Springer. ISBN 9780306474743.
  • Fung, Yuan-cheng (1997). Biomechanics: circulation. Springer. ISBN 9780387943848.
  • Fung, Yuan-cheng (1990). Biomechanics: motion, flow, stress, and growth. Springer. ISBN 9780387971247.
  • Vogel, Steven (2003). Comparative biomechanics: life's physical world. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691112978.
  • Kreighbaum, Ellen (1996). Biomechanics: a qualitative approach for studying human movement. Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 9780205186518. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Fundamentals of biomechanics: equilibrium, motion, and deformation. Birkhäuser. 1999. ISBN 9780387982830. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Academic conference using: www.allconferences.com

Mapping Science

[edit]
  1. A comprehensive compact general book is chosen
  2. It is then studied, analyzed, outlined, and summarized (see the style section below)
  3. A concept map is made.
  4. It's history is studied to create storylines.
  5. The result is simplified and proposed to a number of critics. (closed discussion)
  6. Any change demanded by the critic is made until he is satisfied.
  7. All the versions are compound and an FAQ is written.
  8. The compound version plus all other versions and an FAQ is published, and The mapper answers the rest of the questions(open discussion.)
  9. (NEW) The final version is uploaded to knowledgeatlas.coop :-)

Map of science

[edit]

Basic assumption: Information is only in the form of text (and picture).

Information can be classified using two aspects

First) in ten topics:

  • Informatics
  • Epistemology
  • Mathematics
  • Existencology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Cosmology
  • Biology
  • Psychology
  • Sociology

Second) in four fields

  • Theory: General fields
  • Ideas: Research fields
  • Branches: Subfields
  • Technology: Applied fields

Thus, Information has 10*4=40 categories.

Example of subfields:

Informatics - Literature
Physics - Mechanics
Cosmology - Astronomy, Meteorology, Geography, Geology
Sociology - Religious, Politics & Economic Systems

Each subfield has more subfields. Example:

Mechanics - of particle, of rigid subject, of solid, of fluids
Mechanics - Statics, Kinematics, Kinetics
Religion - Beliefs, Ethics, Traditions

Map of solid mechanics

[edit]

Definition of philosophy

[edit]

Philosophy has had six meanings throughout history (Omit the fifth):

  1. Three centuries before Christ Philosophy meant love of wisdom. Socrates called himself "Lover of wisdom" or Philosopher, instead of "Wise" or Sophist.
  2. In the Hellenistic west, the meaning of philosophy changed to knowledge. Philosopher's meaning then changed to Scholar.
  3. In the 8th century, when the roman books were translated to Arabic, It started to mean "Abstract science", which used to mean "theoretical field", in contrast to empirical field. This meaning is still widely popular.
  4. During 9th to 16th century philosophy meant Ontology. This was because Ontology was the main concern of philosophers before 16th century. 16th century is the end of Islamic golden age. That’s why this meaning is still the most popular in Arabic. Arabs and Muslims don't name any other book or field "Philosophy". But it’s not the case in the west. Because in 10th to 12th century, philosophy returned to Europe, and a second concern was added: Epistemology. So Europeans never limit its wide meaning to Ontology.
  5. In the 18th century, one century after newton called his work "natural philosophy", the word science come to mean empirical field. So science and philosophy had opposite meanings.
  6. 19th century many other sciences had separated themselves from philosophy. As a result, almost all things that were once considered to be philosophy had a separate field and name. Then "Philosophy" came to mean "the field that investigates presumptions of other fields". As a field, this is the most popular meaning today.
  7. 20th century: from about 100 years ago, scientists have tried to define science as an activity, an industry, an enterprise and ... but have not gained complete success yet. Some philosophers also tried to define philosophy as a parallel activity. This gave credit to philosophy and allowed philosophers to follow philosophy as a full-time job, instead of a free-time one. But they didn't succeed in changing the meaning. Because two other rival new definitions were also proposed: existentialistic and linguistic ones. They both tended to define physiology as a field. Not an activity.

FAQs

[edit]

Definition?

1. Intentional definitions:

  • Technically: "study of axioms"
  • Roughly: the field that tends to investigate the presumptions of other fields.

2. Extensional definitions: there are three sets of things under philosophy

  • In classic university books, subjects are:
    • God
    • Good and bad
    • Politics
    • Reality
    • Knowledge
    • Mind
    • Art

This definition is obviously outdated. It's a list of difficult problems that philosophers have worked on, during this 2500 years.

  • Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of problems. Almost no "non-philosophical" subject is included, and no philosophical one is omitted. Since Wikipedia was actually started by philosophers, it's natural.
  • Philosophy studies all axioms; all presuppositions. An extensional definition is not necessary. What's necessary is to investigate, track, identify, and classify all the axioms and presuppositions underlying each field of knowledge. It won’t be just an extensional definition of philosophy; but also a summary of all human knowledge.

It's really hard, but really fruitful. I have worked on doing this for four years. And that's one of the reasons I really need an atlas of knowledge.

What do we mean by philosophy today? Abstract field? Ontology? Study of Axioms? An activity?

We really use all those meanings.

How to identify which one the speaker is referring to?

It needs practice. But there are a few guidelines. - When it's on the cover of an Arabic book, it means ontology - When it's on the cover of an English book, it means study of axioms (presumptions) - When someone is talking about the word itself, he means abstract field.

So what's Philosophy for us? How should WE use the word?

For referring to "study of axioms." The strength of this definition is in its ability to convey all popular meanings and values of philosophy, without tending to define philosophy as" whatever philosophers do".

Definition of physics

[edit]

User:Saeed.Veradi/Definition of Physics

Definition of science

[edit]

{Warning. this discussion does not cite any reference. but i'll try to add them gradually. so please don't criticize before then.}

Intentional definition

[edit]

Inclusive

[edit]

here is the minimal Inclusive definition:

  1. Science field is a set of justified statements. 500BC.
  2. Science (social system) is the statement justification enterprise. 20th century. technical term.

Exclusive

[edit]

Exclusive definitions contain concepts added to the above definition. but these are not controvercy free.

1. Among scientists, the word science alone, refers to the second meaning. they need to say "Science field" to refer to a field rather than the enterprise. except when they use the name of a field. like: "Physics is a science".

Criticizm: The increase in literacy rate in the Occident this term is being more and more accepted among the new generation. but because scientists and students remain a fraction of global population, and because the whole population still uses the archaic term, it's not yet majorly accepted. but it's the least controversial and it's becoming more and more accepted everyday even in the other languages.

2.There is a consensus among scientists about what a science is. here is the concepts they like to add to the definition: Science is...

  • social, even national, even occidental, even international, even global, even decentralized.
  • peer reviewed, even paper based. even journal based. even ISI based.
  • university based.
  • systematic, even observational even empirical only, even non-surreal. even separate from humanities, even "Physics is the only science"
  • idea or thesis based, even Hypothesis (no contradiction) based, even theory (tested) based, even certain facts, even completely based on self-justified axioms.
  • completely separate from any superstition, even pseudoscience, even fringe science, even protoscience.

Extensional definition

[edit]

It is up to phylosophy of science, ontology, and epistemology scholars to define and identify science from a neutral point of view. The scientists themselves may say X is pseudoscience, to defend their own thesis. here are examples of what has been called "not science":

  • Astrology
  • Creationism
  • Flood geology
  • History
  • Sociology
  • Classic psychology
  • Epistemology
  • All classic knowledge
  • Phylosophy
  • Evolution
  • Natural phylosophy
  • Mathematics
  • String theory (Physics)
  • Probability based quantum mechanics (Physics)
  • [present day] Science

Yes. Even science itself has said to be wrong by scientists. so there is a serious lack of consensus here. because we have to identify what's a science and what's not a science.

SUGGESTION: let's include all the branches of science, even pseudoscience and refuted science under science. Instead of discussing if it's a science, we should remain neutral and focus on classifying them according to subject. the visitors can decide for themselves is something is science or not.

{please don't criticize until I add my references. I will also not contribute to the science tree until then.}

Definition of religion

[edit]

I could find a few important conclusions. Took me three weeks actively and two years waiting:

1. There are about 80 definitions for religion. non of them are inclusive and exclusive. - A companion to great religions by Hossein Tawfiqi.

2. The definition of human is prerequisite to the definition of religion. that's why religion is hard to define. - Faith, equality, freedom by Ali Shariati.

3. Religion has an extensional definition: Formal religions & Ideologies(Informal religions). So If we can define both of them, Religion will be defined.

4. A formal religion is "a named set of beliefs, ethics or laws."

Benefit) It doesn't define religion. but at least it defines formal religion.
Benefit) This is not an extensional definition. it's intensional.
Benefit) It contains all the religions of the world.
Benefit) It's inclusive It uses "logical or" which means a religion doesn't necessary contain both belief and law. but it must contain at least one of them.
Drawback) "Logical or" is a technical concept. people might misunderstand it.

an easier to understand version is: "a named set of beliefs, ethics, laws or a combination of them."

Dispute) It's exclusive, but It can contains things that we don't call definition, like dharma. and if we can agree not to call them religion, it will be no more exclusive.
Drawback) It can't be generalized to both formal and informal religion. because by removing "named", it's no longer exclusive

5. belief in god or any supernatural being is not necessary in eastern religions. so the extensional definition of religion is NOT: "Atheism, Polytheism, monotheism, ..." This is the extensional definition of theology, and these are belief systems. religion is more than just belief systems. for example there is both theist and atheist Christianity.

6. Ideology (technical term): a set of beliefs, ethics, laws or a combination of them.

So here is my suggestions:

Religion:

  • Formal religion
  • Ideology

Ideology:

  • Theology: Polytheism, Monotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Atheism.
  • Ethics
  • Rules (like Dharma, Shari'a, Ahkam, ...)

Formal religion:

  • Abrahamic: like Judaism, Christianity, Islam
  • Dharmic: Like Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto

Criticism: Formal religions can be identified using terms like "monotheistic" & ... Answer: I should become more specific and post a full classification of theology and formal religions diagrams to see whether of not it is completely possible.

criticism is closed until I answer this.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Saeed.Veradi/Notebook&oldid=537701414"