Re: Philosophy of Science.
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: wespe: "Re: Measuring OWLS using an oscilloscope?"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 07:29:03 GMT
"Albert" <alwagner@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:20040710211958.049e0198@lfs.mydomain.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:37:28 GMT
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Albert" <alwagner@tcac.net> wrote in message
> > news:20040710102714.69e5c118@lfs.mydomain.com...
> > > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:10:22 GMT
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Someone who called scientific activity 'mind games' is in
> > > > no position to accuse others of straw man arguments.
> > >
> > > On the contrary. Recognition of a straw man requires nothing
> > > more that knowing the definition of a straw man and
> > > recognizing when someone else is erroneously characterizing
> > > your position.
> > >
> > > Read my previous posts for comprehension: If the term 'mind
> > > games' offends you then use 'gedanken experiments.'
> >
> > What offends me is describing what Einstein did in the totally
> > non standard and vague terminology of 'mind games'.
>
> I wasn't aware of a "standard terminology" for use in discussing
> Einstein. Nor do I consider the term 'mind games' vague.
>
> > The only
> > purpose of such is to confuse the issue by suggesting it really
> > had no physical content.
>
> I don't know what that statement means. I don't know about
> 'issues' that have no physical content. The only 'issues' that I
> am aware of contain grammar and semantic content.
You seem to know very little yet wish to suggest a lot. As Bob says: 'Your
motives and style appear to be snide. A real smart-ass ye arrrre.'. Wake up
to yourself.
Bill
>
> > The more standard term 'gedanken
> > experiments' makes it clearer Einstein was examining the
> > physical principles involved.
>
> Then use the "more standard term 'gedanken experiments'" that I
> suggested earlier. Personally, I find 'mind games' much more
> descriptive and without the requirement of german semantics.
>
> > You also failed to acknowledge,
> > despite it being repeatedly pointed out by me and linked
> > papers, that much more than'gedanken experiments' was involved.
> > It involved the use 'gedanken
> > experiments', the discussion of well accepted physical
> > principles, the translation of those principles into
> > mathematics, and the interpretation of the resulting formalism.
>
> Of course, but it involved no new physical experiments on
> Einstein's part.
>
> > Such tactics is an obvious variation of the straw
> > man argument - trying to suggest what the facts do not support
> > by use of language that is suitably vague - then when it is
> > pointed out falling back on that vagueness to maintain you were
> > 'lillly white'.
>
> I'm afraid that you still don't understand what a strawman
> fallacy is, even though I explained it to you above.
>
> > It is obvious you are not actually interested
> > in understanding what is really happening, but in using word
> > games and misdirection for the purpose of being argumentative.
>
> It only seems so to you, and contrary to what I have posted.
> Your whole argument seems to revolve around my choice of the term
> 'mind games' over the term 'gedanken [thought] experiments'.
> Yet, although I made it clear what I meant, and invited you to
> use either term, you insist that I was trying to be
> 'argumentative.'
>
> Sorry, but I know of no way to convince you that you have judged
> my motives wrongly.
>
> --
> "Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the
> physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the
> stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality;
> the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a
> great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental
> intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect
> that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of
> the realm of matter"
> --Sir James Jeans
- Next message: wespe: "Re: Measuring OWLS using an oscilloscope?"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Philosophy of Science."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
