Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:23:17 GMT

The only mystery here is that you consider your remarks substantive
much less responsive to what I wrote. In case you have any lingering
thoughts on the subject, my rejoinders to you were in kind. None of
your remarks represented a serious critique of what I posted. And most
either duplicated what I said or were completely extraneous. I think
you'll find that when your remarks approach serious criticism, my
replies to your remarks will be comparably responsive.

On 25 Jan 2005 06:43:40 -0800, "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In response to tadchem's substantive comments on his previous post,
>Lester Zick wrote:
>
>> >Science is most decidedly NOT a democracy. It matters squat what
>"most
>> >people" think.
>>
>> It matters squat what people who pay scientists' bills think? Elitist
>> bull***.
>
><Straw man, ad himinem attack>
>
>> >Certainly no empirical scientist would make such an assertion.
>Science
>> >relies on falsifiability primarily through empirical testing;
>> >mathematical falsifiability comes through rigorous logic.
>>
>> Yes, well, one day perhaps scientists can learn to put their minds in
>> gear sometime before, during, or after the reading process.
>
><veiled ad hominen attack>
>
>> >We need science because sometimes our best logic is inadequate, and
>our
>>
>> Please don't confuse your logic with our best logic.
>
><veiled ad hominen attack>
>
>> >axioms are not alwaysd explicitly stated and thus available for
>logical
>> >analysis. Empirical validation/falsification works without detailed
>> >analysis of the logic, but can only apply itself to that which can
>be
>> >measured - repeatibly and independently.
>>
>> Empirical contradiction doesn't seem to have done much for your
>logic.
>
><ad hominen attack>
>
>> >If you are smart, you will soon recognize the need to develop a
>> >perception of science.
>>
>> Unlike yourself? What do you think I've just done, dufus?
>
><ad hominen attack>
>
>> >We could also choose to organize our libraries alphabetically by
>height
>> >(in Imperial units), but there *ARE* more effective ways to
>accomplish
>> >the same task.
>>
>> Not in your case.
>
><ad hominen attack>
>
>> >Analysis by exception - amazingly inefficient...
>>
>> Your prose certainly is.
>
><veiled ad hominen attack>
>
>> > Science works using the scientific method -
>a cyclic
>> >interaction between interpretation and experimentation.
>>
>> A cyclic interaction between empirical observation and ignorance.
>
><metonymy>
>
>> >Science
>> >unhesitatingly discards ideas that are shown to be inaccurate
>> >descriptions of how the universe works, and requires that new ideas
>> >provide some *testable statements* about how the universe works. By
>> >throwing out all the straw men, science eventually closes in on the
>> >golden needles.
>>
>> Quite an anal analogy. How did science every get along without you?
>
>Actually a mixed metaphor, injected for illustrative effect...
>Your ungrammatical sarcasm is gratuitous.
>
>> >It is apparent to many of us scientists that the most important
>> >elements of the 'historical tapestry' are those that tell us what
>> >*doesn't* work, so we can avoid repeating those mistakes. The chief
>> >value of tha historical tapestry is mainly as an error log.
>> ><Gotta Go - boss is coming>
>>
>> I'd be fascinated to know exactly which elements of the historical
>> tapestry didn't work? Better ask your boss to avoid repeating the
>same
>> mistakes as those elements of the historical tapestry which didn't
>> work.
>
>'Elements of the historical tapestry' that didn't work include
>Aristotelian gravity, geocentric astronomy, alchemy, phlogiston,
>Lysenkoism, 'cold fusion', polywater, and many, many more half-baked
>ideas that were sooner or later invalidated by empiricism. You should
>already be aware of these.
>
>> Regards - Lester
>
>It is apparent from your responses that you are not really interested
>in establishing a dialectic exchange, but rather in luring people to
>post comments addressed to you that allow you to freely abuse them.
>You use cheap rhetorical devices instead of addressing the *substance*
>of my comments.
>
>If you are interested in continuing in this vein, you will receive
>enlightenment by carefully studying all the key words linked on the
>following page:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
>
>You can do so without any further attention from me.
>Tom Davidson
>Richmond, VA
>

Regards - Lester

Quantcast