Once again, the dialogue has been reduced to a shooting match... big snore (Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z.....). "Aruzinsky" once again finds himself pulled onto the black hole of irrationality for which "chazwin" has become so noteable. Chazzy, "You've been banging on your pots again, haven't you!!?! I've told you before, if you keep banging on them you won't have them any more..."
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:24 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 7:44 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > What have people with your academic credentials accomplished > > lately? > > I already told you. > > I don't think the TV is a massive achievement, anymore than astology. > > > > > > The "idiot" in "idiot box" refers to the people that watch it and not > > those who design it. The fact that you tried to use "idiot's lantern" > > as a means to denigrate electrical engineers, shows that you are > > either immoral or stupid. I suspect both. > > > > > I imagine you are trying to make a point, but your analogy is a > > > failure. > > > > You failed to identify the specific relevant differences, so, I'll > > have to take your word for that or assume that you blather. I choose > > the latter. > > > > On Sep 17, 1:15 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 6:05 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:35 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 7:07 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2:47 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:02 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 1. I did not say or imply "eternal and absolute." I said > SUBSTANTIAL > > > > > > > > spatial and temporal generality. > > > > > > > > > > 2. What you are calling "laws" were, in fact, models. > Whereas many > > > > > > > > past scientists falsely believed that their models were laws, > I > > > > > > > > suspect that modern scientists tend to no longer believe in > laws (I > > > > > > > > don't know because I haven't taken a poll.). Seehttp:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling. The practical > > > > > > > > difference between a law and a model is that a user, who > knows the > > > > > > > > model is not a law, isn't disgraced and does not whine when a > better > > > > > > > > model is discovered. Probably, engineers took the lead in > scientific > > > > > > > > modeling but that history isn't as important as the current > popular > > > > > > > > state of thinking. > > > > > > > > > It's all very interesting what you are saying but in practice > the > > > > > > > distinction is all about cases. It sees you are veering towards > an > > > > > > > objectivist position where you think that find a law that lasts > for > > > > > > > ever is possible. > > > > > > > > Wrong. As may be typical of engineers, I am stoically agnostic, > in > > > > > > that regard. And, as an electrical engineer, I point out that, > > > > > > despite inflation, TVs are better and cheaper than they were 60 > years > > > > > > ago. What has your kind accomplished lately? > > > > > > > Sadly understanding how to bash a nail, or make pretty pictures on > the > > > > > 'idiot's lantern' hardly begins to scratch the surface of the > > > > > fundamental nature of the universe - however much you seem to think > it > > > > > does. > > > > > > Sadly, that does not answer the question, "What has your kind > > > > accomplished lately?" > > > > > My 'kind' is human, and the human achievement is multifarious and > > > prone to a range of incompatible criteria - you might have to attempt > > > to ask a more reasonable question. > > > > > > > > > The trouble with that approach is that most > > > > > > > practitioners in the past, working with faulty models as if > they were > > > > > > > laws would think that what they had was a universal truth. You > have > > > > > > > only to read the astrological writings of Galileo (and I MEAN > > > > > > > astrological); or read the reflections on the 4 humours of > Galen or > > > > > > > Culpepper to realise that they were utterly convinced of the > absolute > > > > > > > truth of what we now consider rubbish. And although we think we > have > > > > > > > many of the answers and are building on solid ground now, so > did they. > > > > > > > > > > 3. It is not the belief in the model that must have > substantial > > > > > > > > spatial and temporal generality, as you seem to wrongly > assert, but > > > > > > > > the applicability and accuracy of the model that must have > substantial > > > > > > > > spatial and temporal generality. Note at the bottom of the > above > > > > > > > > reference, > > > > > > > > > Whilst I agree, I have to insist that all this stuff is > contingent and > > > > > > > open to revision no matter how reliable, accurate and > applicable. You > > > > > > > seem to think that I am anti-science, I'm not. I am simply > anti- > > > > > > > dogmatic science. > > > > > > > > If a model is perfectly reliable, accurate and applicable, the > only > > > > > > valid reason to revise a model is if the revision is simpler. > > > > > > > > Dogma is not a large part of the definition of science but with > the > > > > > > practice and do not confuse the definition with the practice. > First, > > > > > > clean your own house of dogma. > > > > > > > > > > "Ability to explain past observations" > > > > > > > > > > "Ability to predict future observations" > > > > > > > > > > That is what is meant by "temporal generality." > > > > > > > > > Which can all be applied to astrology AND chymos iatrics. > > > > > > > > I don't know what "chymos iatrics" is, but why do you think > astrology > > > > > > has those abilities? > > > > > > > I don't - but minds greater then mine did - that is the point. But > if > > > > > you want to understand the point you will have to read what I said. > > > > > You seem to have failed to understand what I said. > > > > > > Is this an example of what you mean and, if not, what are the > relevant > > > > differences?: > > > > > > 1. Someone with an IQ of 200 becomes schizoprenic and has a delusion > > > > that 2 + 2 = 5 and applies it to balancing his checkbook. > > > > > > 2. You believe that the person in 1 has a greater mind than yours > > > > because his IQ is 200 and yours is 90. > > > > > > 3. In an accounting forum, you state that the ability to balance a > > > > checkbook has been applied to 2 + 2 = 5. > > > > > > 4. When asked why you believe 2 + 2 = 5 has the ability to balance a > > > > checkbook, you say you don't, but, greater minds than yours did. > > > > > Maths is a human conceit. It is not natural, but useful, a means to an > > > end. > > > Maths was an important tool in astrology and still remains so. Success > > > in astrology relies on a keen understanding of maths. > > > I imagine you are trying to make a point, but your analogy is a > > > failure.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- 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.
