Monday 22 October 2012

FA Cup Fourth Qualifying Round - AFC Totton 2 - 3 Cambridge City

AFC Totton crashed out of the FA Cup at the hands of Cambridge City, the final hurdle before the league clubs became involved.

The visitors started brightly, opening the scoring after just two minutes.  An out-swinging corner found David Theobald, whose thundering header crashed the underside of the crossbar before hitting the back of the net.

Totton pressed for an equaliser and they eventually got it. After scoring a hat-trick on Tuesday, Mike Gosney got on the end of Dave Allen's cross, heading past the sprawling keeper at the far post.

The Stags looked in control until City scored against the run of play. Totton couldn't scramble a cross clear and were made to pay when Adrian Cambridge connected with a superb 20 yard volley on 36 minutes.

Mike Gosney wasted a chance to put the hosts level, his free kick was poorly struck and didn't make it past the defence.

An equaliser never looked likely, Totton's long ball game was easily tamed by City's sturdy defence, and their dominance was rewarded after 60 minutes, David Prada hit a fantastic curling shot into the top corner, giving Barfoot no chance.

Dave Allen pulled one back for Totton - his volley hit the ground before bouncing over City's keeper. It proved to only be a consolation goal and when the final whistle went it was Cambridge and their fans celebrating. The magic of the FA Cup lives on within them as they welcome MK Dons in the First Round proper.


Wednesday 17 October 2012

Seminar Paper - Karl Popper and Logical Positivism

One of the main aims of the Vienna Circle was to lay down universal philosophical statements that are true and clarify which statements aren't philosophical and are false. This school of thought is known as 'Logical Positivism.' To do this they would take empirical statements such as 'everybody dies' which are records of experience and verify them using the verification principle. The verification principle is the idea that for something to be true it has to be verifiable with proof, the scientific method. For example 'everyone dies' has been learnt through experience, so far there hasn't been a case where someone hasn't died. This is the protocol that the idea is based on, although it is not impossible for it to be falsified. Opponents of this view-point say that statements are true to individuals, but to avoid solipsism Schlick said that so long as two people can agree on the definitions of words they can have a discussion using the language of science. If two people are arguing over what a trike is, but can agree that 'tri' means three then they can have a discussion.

Descartes is a victim of the verification principle, along with other Romanticists. His famous statement 'I think therefore I am' does not make sense and is tossed aside by logical positivists. Their argument? That you cannot verify that you exist by thinking. This is a sensible approach; by not taking anything at face value Logical Positivists extinguish any statements that can't be proven, leaving us with what they see as the bare facts about the world. These include necessary truths which are truths that are necessary for our understand of our surroundings, but don't tell you anything new. All triangles have three sides isn't exactly enlightening, it's just a truth that exists everywhere in the universe.

The verification principle itself raises some questions; is it a tautology? Was it verifiable by experience?In other words, was it its own worst enemy?

As for the first question it doesn't seem to be. It doesn't leave results as plainly obvious as 'all beginners are just starting,' instead it proves statements to be correct using the scientific method. It creates its own answers, rather than repeating itself. Whether it is verifiable by experience is a different matter, who's to say that the truths that it produces are correct? For years Aristotle's heliocentric theories were taught as facts in the top universities around the world, but over time this has been proven false. We currently study physics alongside Einstein's Laws of Relativity which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but even this has been questioned recently. If we can't verify what is true, how can the verification principle be verified itself?

Karl Popper attempted to answer this question by dismissing the verification process and replacing it with a falsification process. He argues that by falsifying theories with the scientific method we can eventually whittle our way down to the truth. This is a pain-stakingly long process, but one that has been in on-going for centuries. Ideas are there to be disproven, first it was Aristotle, then it was Francis Bacon. Einstein may be next.

But that's not to say that Popper thought that history was teleological and we would end up with absolute truths about everything. He believed that ideas would continue to be falsified and that we would never come to a final conclusion - history may be going somewhere but there was no definitive end that other theories such as Marx's idea of Communism being the light at the end of the tunnel suggested.

As part of the falsification process Popper answers questions that Hume's use of induction poses. He states that science assumes that nature is like the past and things that happened in the past will happen time and time again. This is called induction, but induction itself is not scientific. It begins with an idea and then experiments take control of whether it is true or not. Einstein, he says, allowed people to test his theory of relativity, by doing this he opened his idea for criticism. If his test passed the experiments the theory stood strong, however, if it fails any tests it is immediately falsified and cast aside. So long as I don't float up at any moment, Newton's theory of gravity stands as correct, but it is always being tested.

What is important about Popper is that he understood that everything is potentially untrue. Nothing is unfalsifiable. There will always be something out there, whether it be on a distant star or in the distant future, nothing is certain.

Wednesday 10 October 2012

AFC Totton 3 - 2 Merthyr Town


Despite the close score-line, AFC Totton made light work of swooping their Welsh counterparts aside in a thrilling encounter at the Testwood Stadium.

Totton started bright, forcing a few smart saves out of Town keeper Giles Cutlan before Jonathan Davies’ in-swinging corner appeared to evade everybody in the box to creep in at the near post. Although Davies claimed the goal, the ball seemed to get a touch off the out-stretched leg of Merthyr’s skipper, Steve Williams.

Richard Gillespie added his 17th goal of the season in all competitions with a powerful strike from 18 yards, having out-muscled a defender to run on to Dave Allen’s chipped pass.

Allen later found himself on the score sheet after Gillespie squared the ball past the keeper, gifting the midfielder with the simple chance of walking the ball into the net to make it 3-0 before the break.

Totton didn’t hold back after the break either, with Mike Gosney finishing a tantalising run by striking the ball directly at Town’s keeper, and then Richard Gillespie knocked down another long ball, only to find his shot blocked by Cutlan’s legs.

Merthyr gave their supporters something to cheer shortly afterwards. A string of passes found Ryan Prosser on his own in the six yard box and the number 9 could barely miss as his shot rasped over Gareth Barfoot into the net.

The Totton keeper was caught napping on 90 minutes, but Jamie Rewbury’s lob proved nothing more than a consolation goal as the final whistle blew after kick off.

Totton face Cambridge City at home in the next round.


Wednesday 3 October 2012

HCJ2 Seminar 1 Notes - Chapter 6 MWP + HWP Book 3, Part 1, Ch's 6 & 7


Chapter 6

-John Stuart Mill 
-All maths and science derives from experience

-Numbers are physical phenomena - 2 will always represent pairs, etc.

-The sums of equals are equals
-Inductive

-John Henry Newman

-Reason is knowledge derived from beyond the reach of our senses

-Doesn’t perceive anything, links things that are perceived to things which
aren’t.

-Infer from premisses

-Assent to conclusions

-Simple assent can be rash and unconscious

-Complex assent

-Proof

-Sense of intellectual contentment

-Irreversible

-Certainty - Know stuff for sure (Victoria was Queen)

-Infallible - I know for certain what I did yesterday but my memory is not infallible

-Pierce on Methods of Science

-Method of tenacity - I can’t believe them because I’d be stupid if I did

-Provides peace of mind

-Method of authority - Listen to authority for right and wrong

-Disadvantage 1: Terrorism to one state isn’t terrorism to the other

-Disadvantage 2: No institution can regulate opinion on every subject

-A priori meditation

-No fixation of belief, neither metaphysical or idealist

-Scientific method

-Logic - Using guiding principles of stuff that we do know to find out stuff we do not

-Perfect methods and processes to get better, more accurate results

-Belief

-Something we are aware of

-Appeases irritation of doubt

-Establishment in our rule of nature as an action / habit

-Different beliefs are distinguished by different actions

-Frege on Logic, Psychology, and Epistemology

-If a proposition is mathematical, it’s justification must be mathematical

-A proposition may be thought of without being true but also it may not be thought of but still can be true

-Psychology = Cause of our thinking

-Mathematics = Proof of our thinking

-Pronoun ‘I’ - Special meaning, name of beholder, everyone is presented to themselves differently to as they are presented to others

-We do not have thoughts, thoughts are what is grasped, ‘I am in pain’

-Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description

-Bertrand Russel

-The real table is not what we immediately experience but is an inference of what we immediately known through sense

-Sense data is all we can be certain of

-Introspection - acquaintance with own thoughts, feelings, etc

-Memory - Acquaintance with past data

-Self - Potentially have acquaintance with ourselves

-No acquaintance with other minds or objects

-Objects are logical constructions of sense data
-Husserl’s Epoche

-Adumbrations - Awareness of external objects consists of glimpses and contacts with them

-Wittgenstein on Certainty

-Doubt needs grounds

-Genuine doubt effects behaviour

The next notes are taken from my blog here

Science and the Clockwork Universe

Our journey with science begins with Copernicus, an astronomer who lived between 1473 and 1543. Copernicus was the first person since the Heliocentrics to say that the sun is at the centre of the universe. He had some rather outlandish claims, two of which were that the earth rotates around the sun once a year and that the earth spins on it's own axis once a day. How preposturous!

The Catholic Church certainly thought so; Copernicus dedicated his work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' to the Pope, but later the Church condemned the book claiming it was unholy. And low and behold, they had the backing of two philosophers. Luther was the first to derail the Heliocentric train when he said that there was proof in sacred texts that the theory was bonkers. He goes on to quote such a text and say that Joshua commanded the sun to stop, NOT the earth. There we go then. That's obviously conclusive proof. I asked for it to stop raining today, it didn't. Now I want Godly powers. Calvin also criticises the theory with God as his witness. He says that the world is stablished and cannot be moved and then questions who would believe the word of Copernicus over that of the Holy Spirit?

Russell points out that the important aspect of Copernicus' work is that it dethrones the earth from its geometrical pre-eminence. In other words, it throws it off-centre. Maybe this is what the religious bodies could not accept? Their whole works focus on the earth being the centre of everything, the be all and end all, yet now they've been shaken up by a new theory which basically suggests that the earth is not the most important object in the universe, and could even be used to suggest that without the sun we would not exist. Where's God hiding now?

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) holds a theory that is very much against Aristotle's view that the blanket above the moon (stars, planets, etc.) are immovable, that the sky looks the same from where ever you stand, be it on the moon or in Australia. Brahe supports this attack on Aristotle by noting the appearence of a new star in the sky, which is obviously beyond the moon. He also observed some very distant comets. Another of Brahe's important observations is that the sun and the moon rotate around the earth, but the other planets rotate around the sun. He was half-way there, I guess.

Our next important scientist is Kepler who roamed the earth between 1571 and 1630. Kepler was another Heliocentric who puts the sun at the centre of everything. He came up with the Three Laws of Planetary Motion, which I will try to explain here:
  1. Planets eliptically orbit the sun, not circually. This was hard for people the church and believers in Plato to believe as an elipse is an imperfect shape and a circle is it's perfect incarnation. Surely the Gods wouldn't create this imperfect universe?
  2. The lines joinging the planets to the sun sweep out equal distances in equal times. In the very mathematical way that Russell puts this: If S = Sun, and Planets at equal positions at certain times = P [to the power of]1 P2 P3 etc, then P1SP2, P2SP3 and so on prove that planets closer to the sun rotate around it quicker than those furthest away as they have less distance to travel.
  3. The square of the period of time the planet takes to complete one revolution is proportional to the cube of it's average distance from the sun. This compares measurements of different planets. If R = Average distance from the sun, and T = length of planet's year, then Rcubed divided by Tsquared is the same for all the planets. This helped to prove Newton's law of the inverse square for gravitation.
Galileo is and was a pioneer. He's most well known due to the development of his telescope - but more on that later. Right now we're concerned with his discovery of acceleration, a change in the velocity of an object. He developed the law of falling bodies which states that no matter what weight they are, they will fall at a rate of 32 feet per second in a vacuum. This is constant, so they gather 32 feet per second in velocity for every second they are falling. A body falling for 2 seconds, for example, will reach 64 feet per second, compared to a body falling for 5 seconds which hits 160 feet per second.

He is also noted for his work on projectiles. Up until Galileo, the general theory was that a projectile would carry on horizontally for a while, before vertical velocity took over and it dropped suddenly, almost at a right angle. Galileo showed that when vertical velocity takes over, the projectile still has the propulsion from the horizontal velocity, so the object would fall diagonally, covering both vertical and horizontal ground. Galileo's rule of inertia says that an object dropped from the top a tower hits the ground directly underneath it because it is carrying the velocity from the earth's rotation. This is why you don't land in your back garden when you jump 10 miles down the road. You keep the velocity of the rotation.

Now onto the telescope. Galileo already had heliocentric beliefs, so was obviously very keen to observe the sky. He knew that a telescope was being developed in Holland, so he made his own. Through it he could see the phases of venus, he could see that the Milky Way was made of a number of stars, and that Jupiter had four satellites. This is where religion, again, denounces science. They argue that seven is a holy number and that there are 7 holy bodies. Four more orbiting Jupiter will make that number 11, one with no holy significance, so how could Galileo be right? They accused the telescope of causing illusions and refused to look through it. Why? Because science was stomping all over their ancient beliefs and they did not want to lose the pillars of their ethos. Galileo was eventually condemned by the Italian inquisition, halting scientific progress in Italy for centuries.

Isaac Newton is known for discovering gravity, but he also proved Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. He also defined 'force' as a change of motion. If I jump, my force is taken me off the ground, however, when I fall, the force of gravity takes control, and thus I land. With his law of universal gravitation, Newton deduces everything in planetary theory from the planets, satellites, comets and the tides. The law itself states: "Every body attracts every other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." With this, Newton made the universe knowable to the masses, he made it clockwork.

There are other notable scientific discoveries in the 17th Century including: magnets, blood circulation, bacteria and the microscope.

Francis Bacon hated the Aristolean and Scholastic approach, he claimed it was both barren and circular, as it was undeveloped for many years and it kept on repeating itself. It didn't go anywhere. Critics of Bacon say that his biggest mistake is mixing religion and science as they have conflicting interests.

Bacon wasn't just a philosopher and scientist; at the age of 23 he joined parliament, then in 1618 he was made Lord Chancellor, but he lost this position after two years for accepting bribes. For this, he was sentenced to spend time in the Tower of London and to pay a £40,000 fine. Although he only spent four days in the tower and didn't pay the fine, he chose to spend the rest of his life writing books, avoiding the public eye.

He introduced the idea of induction: gaining knowledge, then testing it over and over to prove that it's right. This scientific method is still in use today. An example of how Bacon used it can be seen when he wanted to discover the nature of heat; he made a list of bodies that were hot, cold and those that had varying temperatures. He then tested them to see what aspects were heat specific - those that were present in hot bodies but absent in cold were clearly linked specifically to heat. He then tested this over and over in different circumstances to prove that he was right.