Science > Physics > Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Al Zenner" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2005 07:56:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:11naf9qs3n1ihcf@corp.supernews.com:
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote in
news:memo.20051111215451.1048K@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk:
In article <11na3vs3bfp2dde@corp.supernews.com>,
into@oblivion.nothing.com (Skywise) wrote:
Correlation does not mean causation
Professor Christopher Hawksworth, currently at the MVO, said to me and
my fellow students on a hillside at Shap, while looking at an
uncomformity, "You can't prove something does not exist; it is a
scientific impossibility." and I could see exactly what he meant the
moment he said it.
Some of my fellow students could never quite see what he meant, and you
are like them too. You are constantly trying to state that this, or
that, is not so.
You may be a qualified geologist, but you are *not* a scientist until
the day you give up trying to prove things do not exist.
<Snipola>
<sigh> You know me not at all.
I understand perfectly well what your professor means. "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."
snip
While Alan is correct in the formality of his statement he is
contextually mistaken to such an extent that one might say he
doesn't understand what he's talking about.
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
His comment is a fool's trap. When a second sun isn't there, it
isn't there. That doesn't lend itself to, "well it *might* be!"
because you cannot prove it isn't.
Study of logic is in order for several people in this newsgroup.
Brits seem to be generally lousy in this discipline.
.
|
|
| User: "J. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 12:53:55 AM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:11naf9qs3n1ihcf@corp.supernews.com:
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote in
news:memo.20051111215451.1048K@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk:
In article <11na3vs3bfp2dde@corp.supernews.com>,
into@oblivion.nothing.com (Skywise) wrote:
Correlation does not mean causation
Professor Christopher Hawksworth, currently at the MVO, said to me and
my fellow students on a hillside at Shap, while looking at an
uncomformity, "You can't prove something does not exist; it is a
scientific impossibility." and I could see exactly what he meant the
moment he said it.
Some of my fellow students could never quite see what he meant, and you
are like them too. You are constantly trying to state that this, or
that, is not so.
You may be a qualified geologist, but you are *not* a scientist until
the day you give up trying to prove things do not exist.
<Snipola>
<sigh> You know me not at all.
I understand perfectly well what your professor means. "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."
snip
While Alan is correct in the formality of his statement he is
contextually mistaken to such an extent that one might say he
doesn't understand what he's talking about.
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
It is also begging the question, or circular reasoning, a logical
fallacy.
There are not two suns
We only see one
Therefore only one
You know exactly what you started with, nothing more!
His comment is a fool's trap. When a second sun isn't there, it
isn't there. That doesn't lend itself to, "well it *might* be!"
because you cannot prove it isn't.
The fool in a trap is the one using logical fallacies.
Study of logic is in order for several people in this newsgroup.
Brits seem to be generally lousy in this discipline.
Not that it will benefit your thinking.
JT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Zenner" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 10:21:29 AM |
|
|
"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.net> wrote in
news:1131864835.152205.297670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Al Zenner wrote:
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:11naf9qs3n1ihcf@corp.supernews.com:
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote in
news:memo.20051111215451.1048K@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk:
In article <11na3vs3bfp2dde@corp.supernews.com>,
into@oblivion.nothing.com (Skywise) wrote:
snip
I understand perfectly well what your professor means. "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."
snip
While Alan is correct in the formality of his statement he is
contextually mistaken to such an extent that one might say he
doesn't understand what he's talking about.
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
It is also begging the question, or circular reasoning, a logical
fallacy.
There are not two suns
We only see one
Therefore only one
You know exactly what you started with, nothing more!
My statement "There are not two suns in our solar system" was,
as presented, the conclusion which resulted from observation,
not the premise as you appear to believe. Science depends heavily
on observation. If you were universally successful in reversing
the logic sequence as you have attempted to do here then the
value of science itself would cease to exist.
I suggest you take this branch of the thread over to sci.logic
and discuss it over there; perhaps you'll even learn something.
I see no reason to involve myself further in such nonsense as
you have presented.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 11:51:05 PM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
My statement "There are not two suns in our solar system" was,
as presented, the conclusion which resulted from observation,
Still curious Al, what was the distinguishing characteristics of the
observation of not two suns versus, say, not three suns?
JT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 12:47:58 PM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.net> wrote in
news:1131864835.152205.297670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Al Zenner wrote:
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
news:11naf9qs3n1ihcf@corp.supernews.com:
alan@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk (Alan) wrote in
news:memo.20051111215451.1048K@veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk:
In article <11na3vs3bfp2dde@corp.supernews.com>,
into@oblivion.nothing.com (Skywise) wrote:
snip
I understand perfectly well what your professor means. "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence."
snip
While Alan is correct in the formality of his statement he is
contextually mistaken to such an extent that one might say he
doesn't understand what he's talking about.
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
It is also begging the question, or circular reasoning, a logical
fallacy.
There are not two suns
We only see one
Therefore only one
You know exactly what you started with, nothing more!
My statement "There are not two suns in our solar system" was,
as presented, the conclusion which resulted from observation,
not the premise as you appear to believe. Science depends heavily
on observation. If you were universally successful in reversing
the logic sequence as you have attempted to do here then the
value of science itself would cease to exist.
So, how exactly, do you observe "There are not two suns in our solar
system?"
At night is evidence of absence of the Sun, whereas, the observation
for a second sun has never been made, an absence of evidence and is
impossible to conclude there is not another.
The ONLY fact is the observation of ONE!
Look up the definition of absence and evidence.
I suggest you take this branch of the thread over to sci.logic
and discuss it over there; perhaps you'll even learn something.
I see no reason to involve myself further in such nonsense as
you have presented.
I agree nonsense, but it is not of my making, but feel free to extend
your ignorance to sci.logic.
JT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Zenner" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 01:20:14 PM |
|
|
"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.net> wrote in
news:1131907678.130755.231370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
snip
Look up the definition of absence and evidence.
I need look no further than to recognize a troll that is even
more vapid than it is vacant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
13 Nov 2005 01:53:38 PM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.net> wrote in
news:1131907678.130755.231370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
snip
Look up the definition of absence and evidence.
I need look no further than to recognize a troll that is even
more vapid than it is vacant.
More of those stellar logic skills?
JT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
11 Nov 2005 10:35:41 PM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
His comment is a fool's trap. When a second sun isn't there, it
isn't there. That doesn't lend itself to, "well it *might* be!"
because you cannot prove it isn't.
Then you could do well to apply the same logic/ reasoning to the
subduction zones and the Panthalassa and the tethys of Plate Tectonics,
and the other continental landmasses it fabricates, for that is
precisely the level of logic supporting them.
And the mythical heat engine of Plate Tectonics.
So why don't you recommend Plate Tectonics to your 'crank' site as
"Junk Science"
Study of logic is in order for several people in this newsgroup.
Brits seem to be generally lousy in this discipline.
Yours is on view, Al .... go for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Zenner" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
12 Nov 2005 01:44:24 PM |
|
|
"don findlay" <don@tower.net.au> wrote in
news:1131770141.736171.239710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Al Zenner wrote:
To Alan and those like him I simply say, "There are not two suns
in our solar system." Absence of evidence is indeed the evidence
of absence in such cases.
His comment is a fool's trap. When a second sun isn't there, it
isn't there. That doesn't lend itself to, "well it *might* be!"
because you cannot prove it isn't.
Then you could do well to apply the same logic/ reasoning to the
subduction zones and the Panthalassa and the tethys of Plate Tectonics,
and the other continental landmasses it fabricates, for that is
precisely the level of logic supporting them.
This argument of yours is so lame that it isn't worth further discussion.
And the mythical heat engine of Plate Tectonics.
ditto
So why don't you recommend Plate Tectonics to your 'crank' site as
"Junk Science"
Because Plate Techtonics is a working theory supported in part by
observation. Earth Expansion is a nonsense theory lacking support
of any sort. Develop information about any legitimate mechanism
supporting earth expansion and I'll readily eat my words. No one
has been able to come up with a mechanism and based on the present
knowledge we have about the universe it seems unlikely anyone will
ever discover one.
Study of logic is in order for several people in this newsgroup.
Brits seem to be generally lousy in this discipline.
Yours is on view, Al .... go for it.
So are you saying that there are possibly two suns in our solar
system? Or are you possibly just being "cute" because you don't
actually have anything of value to add?
.
|
|
|
| User: "don findlay" |
|
| Title: Re: Findlay's Folly (was Re: plate tectonics and real science) |
12 Nov 2005 04:41:00 PM |
|
|
Al Zenner wrote:
So are you saying that there are possibly two suns in our solar
system? Or are you possibly just being "cute" because you don't
actually have anything of value to add?
No, ..I never mentioned anything about "suns". And you're playing
'funny-buggers' in raising the issue.
I'm saying you're being selective in your application of logic. Plate
Tectonics has absolutely nothing going for it, is JUNK SCIENCE since it
assumes its conclusion to the benefit of its practitioners and to the
cost of its consumers (the funding public), fails on every one of its
tenets, has no credible mechanism driving it, and is a graphic
illustration of ***MASSIVE** ACADEMIC** FRAUD***, with Pteros ensconced
in self-serving duplicity knowing full well the weaknesses of their
position but refusing to address them. They focus on, talk up, and
manufacture supposed 'explanations' whilst at the same time ignoring
(or playing down) the failures in their argument, and ignoring aspects
that would negate them in a trice, mealy-mouthing support for their
argument as "a working hypothesis supported in part..." when nothing
works and nothing supports it.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/
And *MOST OF ALL* they ignore the first order geological features of
the Earth's crust.
And even more, tout that they have a model that explains things when it
manifestly doesn't (or I wouldn't be here).
And what's more you could leave me out of it, and just comment on
whatever geological aspects of my website you find objectionable.
That's what it's there for, but we don't hear you, nor anyone else for
that matter, saying anything about **IT**, just ad hominems about
**ME**.
<language snipped> <making porridge (and more tea) and laughing at
y'all>
(Don't think I'll melt any lead either this morning, but it reminds me
my gas bottle is just about empty. Doesn't matter, ...for what I have
to do I'll just stick it in the fridge. It'll work just as well -
according to theory.. All I have to do is wait. Who needs two suns
when one fridge will do? Where's Stuart? ..he should be in on this..)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
