Re: Philosophy of Science.

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:00:33 -0000

 Albert:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:37:28 GMT
>"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:

>> 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.

  Let's see if I can explain some basic psychology. When you restate
something is such a way as to appear to be ridiculing it, most people will
assume, (1) you're trolling or, (2) you're clueless, (as opposed to simply
failing to understand something and asking a question with some intention
of trying to understand the explanation). Most people respond based upon
their perception. Playing more word games by feigning ignorance isn't
going be any more believable.

>> 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.
 
  Then, perhaps you would reveive more satisfactory responses if
you discussed those issues on a grammar and semantics newsgroup.
On this newsgroup, people who mistake semantics and grammar
for physics are usually called kooks or crackpots. Sometimes
worse.

>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.
 
  I don't suppose it occurred to you to simply translate the
word, thus avoiding the german semantics and at the same time,
retaining the original meaning? I realize you would have missed
out on posting a few digressions into explaining some trivia
about which, no one cares, but at least you wouldn't have blown
your troll so quickly.

>> 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.
 
  Surely, you are aware of the rocket einstein built in his garage
to conduct the twin's experiment? How could you think that einstein
didn't perform the pole-in-the barn experiment personally? He was
quite a sprinter in those days. Only an idiot would think that
einnstein committed fraud by referring to experiments he didn't
personally perform, as gedanken experiments.

>
>> 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.
 
  How about the straw troll fallacy?

>> 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'.
 
  Yes, anyone could do that unintentionally. So far, that faux pas
has occured at least once, now that you've committed it.
 
>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.
 
   Expected too, I'm sure.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Philosophy of Science.
    ... >>that I am aware of contain grammar and semantic content. ... > if you discussed those issues on a grammar and semantics ... On this newsgroup, ... > grammar for physics are usually called kooks or crackpots. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Heavy Lift Design for Mining/Cargo Propulsion
    ... Its not semantics its physics. ... You do NOT want to look at the physics! ... lol. ... I'm working in the alternative energy business right now. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... important than minor spelling, grammar, and style errors in this case. ... Surely the physics content is more important than minor spelling, grammar, or style errors. ... Saying "the angular momentum of the wave equals and balances the linear momentum" doesn't convey very much, because angular and linear momentum are different things, and can't be equal. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Genetics as a Language System
    ... > You can define a legal C program using grammar only. ... There is a lot of semantics attached to it, ... >> the best case and a run-time exception ... > quite important to people who write programs to test C compilers and their ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: win32api
    ... "formalized" English grammar and semantics which can be mapped more or less ... to programming structures (note, the idea is to make the program use ... "English-like" scripting language...). ...
    (comp.programming)