Re: You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: To Androcles and Henry: Ballistic Doppler Shift Equation"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Faster Than 'c' Communication."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Next in thread: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:50:54 GMT
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1105908328.900851.41560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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?
Exactly. It would be idle speculation.
Androcles.
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: To Androcles and Henry: Ballistic Doppler Shift Equation"
- Previous message: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: Faster Than 'c' Communication."
- In reply to: reany_at_asu.edu: "You do not logical deduce hypotheses of physical causes"
- Next in thread: AllYou!: "Re: Does that delineate idle from non-idle speculation for you?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
