Good form Georges - shall I now accuse you of being in denial so we can kill some more trees wondering why that isn't science? We tend to write Curate's Eggs.
There is a serious point for me in wondering how what we can know of science 'translates' into much more ordinary thinking that generally leads much less conclusively to experiment. Something has to be better than Nazi and Soviet Paradise or the dumb-irrational quasi- capitalism that is, despite being so obviously flawed. Your notion that words 'hint' is a good one, somewhat belied by your tendency to silence others (though for god's sake some need a sock in the mouth)! On 29 Nov, 15:47, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > --- On Sun, 11/29/09, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: archytas <[email protected]> > > Subject: [epistemology 11021] Re: Different points of view. > > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 2:33 PM > > Sadly Georges, one can play these > > idiot games with words at will and > > choose meaning in them having failed to grok the > > other's. > > ============= > G: > One may, I don't. Meaning of a concept it's the structure of perceived/ > recalled events, a point. So, it's given and there is nothing to > choose, unless one wants to lie to himself. > ============= > Neil: > We wouldn't> know truth if we met it, should it be possible to > > achieve. > > =============== > G: > Sure we wouldn't, as there ain't no sich animal as truth. > =============== > Neil: > You ask> the usual questions about holes, though these have long > > been > > answered. Maybe you have lost your spade? > > =============== > G: > I did not ask any questions about holes, usual or otherwise. I just > asked what you meant by "holes" > ============== > Neil: > Has> the Higg's Field > > replaced the Aether? > > ============== > G: > No. Knowing both you would not ask. > ================ > Neil: > Does it bring about some new> notion of mass? > > ================ > G: > No. "Mass" stays a pure mathematical, abstract coefficient without > any concrete physical meaning. BTW, what is its "old notion"? > =============== > Neil:> How is it possible to make one's mind up on theories of > > tired light? > > ============== > G: > I don't know. I ignore them and, unlike most, hate to prattle about what I > ignore. > > CHeers > 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.
