You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes
reany_at_asu.edu
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Faster Than 'c' Communication."
- Previous message: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Jan 2005 12:45:28 -0800
Androcles wrote:
> <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.
I admitted to ignorance! I am ignorant of the rule you use. Tell us the
rule!
>
> >>
> >> 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.
Try to explain it in terms of what, though? Hypotheses? You do not
logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes!
Science education is lousy!
> 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
Are you saying that the physical content of physics is resticted to
those things that can be "observed" by humans?
>
>
> 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.
Why should I? What's the relevance to this discussion? There is a huge
gap between rocks and unicorns. It's the rules for identifying the
in-between cases that you seem to be so sure of and which I want you to
clue the rest of us in on. Since I haven't seen a magic wand, what
relevance does it have to the discussion?
>
> >> Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?
> >> Arsehole.
> >
> > No.
>
> Didn't think it would.
Citing special cases is not the same as providing a rule, Nitwit.
>
>
> > 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.
Maybe, if he posts here. Let me know. Is he smarted than you? Woops.
Silly question! That goes without saying! Probably nicer too. Oh well,
Newsgroups.
Patrick
- Next message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Faster Than 'c' Communication."
- Previous message: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
