Sadly Georges, one can play these idiot games with words at will and choose meaning in them having failed to grok the other's. We wouldn't know truth if we met it, should it be possible to achieve. You ask the usual questions about holes, though these have long been answered. Maybe you have lost your spade? Has the Higg's Field replaced the Aether? Does it bring about some new notion of mass? How is it possible to make one's mind up on theories of tired light?
On 29 Nov, 11:14, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just more shorthand on the > > idiot. > > =============== > G: > Which idiot? > ================ > Neil: > There is a separation of truth and> meaning in scientific epistemology. > > ================= > G: > Quite a separation indeed: > There ain't no sich animal as "truth" in science. There is a fuzzy > plausibility, but even that has nothing to do with "meaning". > "Meaning" (of abstraction) is the pointer to observable event(s) > it represents. > ================= > Neil: > We speak of holes as though they are objects, ... > ================ > G: > Who speaks? About which "holes"? And what are "objects"? > =============== > Neil: > ... of light as propagated with mass rather than as > disturbance in a medium. > =============== > G: > Which "mass"? Mass is just a mathematical coefficient having no > phenomenal meaning. Which "medium"? How "disturbed"? > Since the death of Aether light has no "medium", disturbed or > otherwise. > > Present my respects to the idiot. > > Georges. > ============== -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
