Re: A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dgst1c$t88$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> JE:-
> When the scientific method is correctly and EMPIRICALLY applied no "level
> of
> judgment" is required to test a theory to refutation, just a little
> THOUGHT.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher

John,

You give me so much to think about that it will take me some time. Now that
you have brought the language down to a level I can process, you still pose
(it seems to me) some deductions that I am unable to bridge between some of
them.

You are very kind and patient to allow me room to catch up.

Do let me say, however, that I discern something of the nature of
"political" polarizations among some of the contributors to sbe. Some
impress me to desire to argue things on the basis of quoting someone who
wrote a statement merely reiterating their stance on something.

When someone does that, he does not present the argument, just finds a quote
that restates it (or sometimes strikes me as being unrelated to any argument
on it).

If I ask a person to explain something with non-LOADED words... as I did
you... and you respond thoughtfully and courteously, then I am motivated to
continue to try to follow their facts and reasoning by asking further
questions.

When, on the other hand, I get a personal attack -- for example the person
accuses me of being unintelligent -- that, to me, suggests they either are
not secure in the argument fully stated, or that they are not really sure of
their argument, or that they have an emotional problem that corrupts their
ability to communicate, or that they
simply are arrogant and egotistical.

Now, if they just don't have TIME, and tell me that, I reserve all judgement
and accept it. Having worked FOR DECADES on jobs requiring seventy to
eighty hour work weeks, I am well acquainted with not having time to explain
something fully.

Please continue to be patient with me as I try to figure out questions aimed
at asking you to fill a gap that I experience in trying to follow some of
the things you say. I TOTALLY understand if you have thought something
through so long ago that you no longer feel the need to connect every dot.

At my end, I sometimes encounter gaps in somebody's explanation of something
and do not even know quite how to ask about what lies between.

For sake of avoiding inundating you with questions, and some poorly worded,
let me just ask you something now and then as the spririt moves.

Thank you, again, for your courtesy and patience,

g
>
> edser@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>


.