| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peter Kinane" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2004 03:36:20 AM |
| Object: |
SR R.I.P. |
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsbmge.8tk.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
This, in a faint hope, is directed to those who are new to discussion;
those for whom, perhaps through manipulation at a young age, premise
is necessary truth.
Peter Kinane:
First to look at the premise that there is "empirical evidence", or
that it "accords with experiment or observation", as weight of a
model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it
means that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set. Expt.-
-Observation: It does or they do. *
I've seen few, if any more inane an attempt to call something a theory
than this ridiculous logical fallacy you keep posting. Are really as
dense as that lame attempt at a theory indicates?
I encourage you to progress from assertion to argument, if you are
familiar with the concept. If you are, but laziness is your problem,
at least make an attempt. If you are afraid of embarassment, well, a
little might be good for your personality. In case you simply do not
know how to discuss, here are some suggestions:
1. Give an example of what you regard as a theory which is the
opposite of an "inane" theory.
2. Show the difference between that and mine.
3. Express, in your words, the flat Earth and Sun or suns rising,
travelling across the sky and setting theory in accord with
observation(as it was).
4. Show how the point you are making impacts the rigour of the
principle I am expressing - that relationship of different models
effect more coherent rigour of value than simply relying on the theory
in accord with experiment- -observation principle.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: SR R.I.P. |
20 Dec 2004 04:53:22 PM |
|
|
Peter Kinane:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
This, in a faint hope, is directed to those who are new to discussion;
those for whom, perhaps through manipulation at a young age, premise
is necessary truth.
I'd say that so long as no one takes you seriously, that hope has
been realized.
Peter Kinane:
First to look at the premise that there is "empirical evidence", or
that it "accords with experiment or observation", as weight of a
model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it
means that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set. Expt.-
-Observation: It does or they do. *
I've seen few, if any more inane an attempt to call something a theory
than this ridiculous logical fallacy you keep posting. Are really as
dense as that lame attempt at a theory indicates?
I encourage you to progress from assertion to argument, if you are
familiar with the concept.
First you have to provide something other than a non-sequiter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: SR R.I.P. |
20 Dec 2004 02:53:55 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0412200136.16cb5a6b@posting.google.com...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncsbmge.8tk.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
This, in a faint hope, is directed to those who are new to
discussion;
those for whom, perhaps through manipulation at a young age, premise
is necessary truth.
Just what might that garbage mean?
I've seen few, if any more inane an attempt to call something a
theory
than this ridiculous logical fallacy you keep posting. Are really
as
dense as that lame attempt at a theory indicates?
I encourage you to progress from assertion to argument,
One can conduct an argument only with one who has something between
the ears with which to understand and respond to an argument
if you are
familiar with the concept. If you are, but laziness is your problem,
at least make an attempt. If you are afraid of embarassment, well, a
little might be good for your personality. In case you simply do not
know how to discuss, here are some suggestions:
1. Give an example of what you regard as a theory which is the
opposite of an "inane" theory.
2. Show the difference between that and mine.
I have not seen any theory emanating from you. You only emit waffle.
Why don't you just go and get pissed for Christmas instead of
pretending to have any intellect?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
