Re: Greek Psi

frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:11 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which makes it useless. So as I said before: that's fine if you want to
indulge in useless mind games. Just don't mistake them for science.

Yes, when you decide that reality is whatever you imagine it to be,
obviously you can do whatever you want, but its effect is confined to
your own mind.

No, we want claims to be supported by science. If your claims aren't
falsifiable, then they aren't science, they are useless. Come up with
something falsifiable AND that provides a better explanation of affairs
than the conventional PIE one and then people will pay attention to you.
Better yet, do it without already having demonstrated yourself to be
someone who continues to espouse some of his claims even after he's been
told that established fact contradicts them, because credibility is how
you get people to listen to you in the first place. Unfortunately,
you've blown it on that account.

There's something I've realized is really galling about your position in
all of this. You go on and on about your *entitlement* to your ideas,
and at the same time you endlessly scold people for hold *their* ideas
and complaining bitterly that they won't give any credence to yours.
Everyone's basis for ignoring your claims is science, a really strong
basis that requires no justification. Well, perhaps *you* have no
appreciation for the distinction between science and that which you do,
or perhaps you think there is no distinction. In that case the situation
becomes one of us believing what we believe as distinct from what you
believe. In that case, then: how dare someone like you, who claims the
product of his mind to be the truth by fiat and rejects anything that
contradicts it, criticize anyone else for holding just as strongly to
their beliefs and rejecting yours? Your double standard, your hypocrisy
is revealed.

In all of this blabber on a meta-level - as usual on a
meta-level, never on the level of a scientific discussion

1. Your discussions aren't scientific because by your own acknowledgment their topics are unfalsifiable. You crow about this as though it were a qualification, but it's exactly what makes them unscientific.

2. Your comment about meta-levels is another way of saying, "Why are you discussing whether my discussions are worth paying attention to, instead of just paying attention to them without regard to their value?" I'm not paying attention to the content of your discussions because your discussions are of no value. Is that a meta-level determination that I've made? Yes, it is. There isn't anything remarkable about that.


- there is no word in defense of bear as the brown one,
and no hint at how bear as the brown one can be tested.

I have no idea. It isn't my argument, I didn't create it, I haven't espoused it, I haven't claimed to be the person who can support it. I also can't personally prove the existence of bosons, but I'm reasonably confident that the people who *can* didn't make it up and that *they* can prove it. I'm waiting for *you* to prove *anything*.

I must just _believe_ that bear means the brown one,

You can believe or disbelieve whatever the hell you want. The question is, why are you simultaneously, perennially indignant that no one believes *you*?

because you say so, and because you spit at me
from above, always from above. Kooks are known
for always evading to a meta-levell. You, Harlan
Messinger, are always droning from a meta-level.
Now go for the logical conclusion. Consider that there
are also kooks on the academic side of the fence.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What does it mean for a machine to understand something?
    ... do not understand even the basics of how science proceeeds despite your ... aspect - reasoning by analogy (which Cyc can already do). ... I disagree; there must be some way - just as there is in brain using NN!! ... I conder that a bizarre view since such wouold have a mind by ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Chapter 9: Consider the French
    ... Their menfolk are weak in body and mind, ... Their science is no better. ... destruction and madness by the evil plots of the Darwinists, ... It was easy to ensnare the minds of the lesser scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chapter 9: Consider the French
    ... Their menfolk are weak in body and mind, ... Their science is no better. ... destruction and madness by the evil plots of the Darwinists, ... It was easy to ensnare the minds of the lesser scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Kanye West
    ... science for political reasons) that attitude, ... the mind. ... Scientists are human, with all the ... One can tweak statistics to mask a negative result as maybe positive. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: OT. : Climate change
    ... _cause_ temperature changes. ... It is/was intended to mean that the science has been reviewed by "knowledgeable peers" in that discipline. ... In the name of "peer review," facts and conclusions that challenge widely accepted theories are deemed as "not true" based only upon assertion. ... In most cases, according to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, we develop a mind "set" that tends to resist the acceptance of ideas that do not conform to our mind set. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
Quantcast