Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hansen discovers how to reason."
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Hansen discovers how to reason."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Next in thread: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:20:38 GMT
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1105889348.242434.42100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Androcles wrote:
>> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1105846187.721920.196850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Androcles wrote:
>> >> <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:1105819627.457138.33760@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> > [snip]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is my point.
>> >> >> Physics, as with any science, begins with observation,
>> >> >> investigates (experiments if you like) and explains the
>> > observation.
>> >> >> Idle speculation about what might be isn't physics at all, it
>> > isn't
>> >> >> even science.
>> >> >
>> >> > How does one distinguish idle from non-idle speculation?
>> >>
>> >> At it again, Reany? Always with the idle questions you
>> >> can figure out the answer to for yourself, if you only tried.
>> >> Androcles.
>> > You're the one who introduced the term, not me. Hypocrite.
>> >
>> You really are as thick as two short planks, Reany.
>>
>> Tell ya what.
>>
>> If you OBSERVE some phemonenon you do not understand,
>> come and talk to me about it, we'll try to figure it out.
>
> I don't understand the phemonenon of inveterate ignorance of people
> who
> should know better, like you and Bilge. But let's not even go there.
>
Since you raised the issue, inveterate ignorance is all yours.
>>
>> If you IMAGINE some phenomenon you do not understand,
>> take it elsewhere, I'm not interested in your imagination.
>
> But I am very interested in your reasoning processes!
It is called "logical deduction". We see something and try to
explain it.
AllYou! IMAGINED something and tried explain it.
You IMAGINE I'm ignorant and seek to explain it.
I KNOW you are, and accept it as it is.
> In science,
> things have to be justified, not just proclaimed.
Only if they are observations.
I don't have to justify anything imagined by others
And everything is on
> the table of inspection.
Ok, then justify how a unicorn hair through the core
of Harry Potter's wand makes the magic work.
>> Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?
>> Arsehole.
>
> No.
Didn't think it would.
> How does one know when one "understands a phenomenon," if
> understanding is not uniquely determined by the phenomenon itself?
> Where does understanding of a phenomenon reside?
Ask Harry Potter.
Androcles.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Hansen discovers how to reason."
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: Hansen discovers how to reason."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Next in thread: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
