Re: Finding useful functions- part 1

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:07:26 GMT

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 19:23:25 +0000, David Longley
<David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In article <10onhkajel02623@news20.forteinc.com>, Stargazer
><fuckoff@spammers.com> writes

[. . .]

>>You're trying to mix quinean philosophically charged ideas with
>>what is done in science, as practiced by today's scientists. These
>>things are immiscible. It is not possible to develop science (the
>>pursuit of knowledge of _unknown realms_) within purely extensional
>>contexts. Scientific definitions during that phase must begin
>>being provisional and property-oriented. This is not to say
>>that extensional definitions, heuristics, logics and practices
>>are not useful or that they should not be constructed. Of course
>>they are important (even methodologically), but not during most
>>of the time of discovery. Most of this time is spent creating
>>and evaluating intensional heuristics and formulating hypotheses
>>to be empirically tested (in other words, refining and polishing
>>eventual extentional referents that will later be used in
>>formalization). Without doing this way nothing new would ever be
>>discovered. If baby Quine thought this way since he was a child,
>>he would be still trying to look for an extensional definition
>>of even numbers.
>>
>>*SG*
>>
>>
>The above merely confirms what I have said elsewhere about what your are
>doing, ie, writing idiotic drivel. What you say above is all false or
>just nonsense, and you can't see why because like others of your ilk you
>have no conception of truth. That what you do write *is* rubbish could
>be ascertained by checking the facts, but you don't. Only human beings
>can behave as idiotically as you illustrate here and elsewhere, so
>you'll be welcomed by other idiots like Zick, Verhey, Michaels, Ozkural,
>Zero and no end of other delinquents.
>
>People like you are a blight.
>--
>David Longley

But David. We've given you the best years of our lives. Unfortunately.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... >>what is done in science, ... >>that extensional definitions, heuristics, logics and practices ... have some inkling about what neuroscience is and what scientists really do. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Commentary: Evolution: theory not fact
    ... certain and the only sort of thing in science that comes close ... may hear scientists casually refer to scientific results as ... How did the observer classify broken eggs? ... practices can be taught by ostension and imitation, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Creationists publishing in scientific journals
    ... Your definition of science is one who practices ... evolutionists try to save their own skins by redefining things. ... the new definition is that "scientists practices science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... > what is done in science, as practiced by today's scientists. ... > that extensional definitions, heuristics, logics and practices ... out the intensions in our thinking about the world around us. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: It seems to be very quiet in here....at the moment!
    ... I see bad engineering all the time. ... have to put up with what we scientists do - an industry devoted to ... The original debate here is about 'bad science'. ... 'Best practices' is an engineering ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)