You habitually use very connotative words such as "idiot lantern" and "crawl under a rock" as a method of persuasion. Connotation has nothing to do with logic and illogical persuasion is immoral because it promotes the greater bad.
On Sep 19, 10:21 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Name One! > > On Sep 18, 7:54 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Absolutely, but not as much as your brain needs correction because I > > habitually correct myself, whereas you spread chaos by covering up > > your mistakes with deception. > > > On Sep 17, 1:16 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Maybe it's your brain that needs correction? > > > > On Sep 17, 6:12 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Correction: > > > > > 3. In an accounting forum, you state that the ability to balance a > > > > checkbook can be applied to 2 + 2 = 5. > > > > > On Sep 17, 11:05 am, 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?" > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 4. Apparently, your perception of reality is distorted by a > > > > > > > > > type in > > > > > > > > > insanity called "anthropocentrism," > > > > > > > > > seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism, > > > > > > > > > because you confuse > > > > > > > > > Ah perfect projection!! I am critiquing science for its > > > > > > > > anthropocentrism if you stop to think about it. Because what > > > > > > > > science > > > > > > > > is portraying as universally true is IN FACT anthropocentric. > > > > > > > > Science > > > > > > > > is a body of knowledge that his for humans, by humans, forged > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > interest of humans. > > > > > > > > There is nothing wrong with critiquing scientists for their > > > > > > > anthropocentrism, but anthropocentrism is not part of the > > > > > > > definition > > > > > > > of science, i.e., their job description, with possibly minor > > > > > > > exceptions such as anthropology. Your anthropocentrism manifests > > > > > > > itself as a confusion between scientists and science. > > > > > > > > > You will have to stop and think here for a moment. Astrology > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > thought to be a natural law of the universe that cryptic > > > > > > > > messages > > > > > > > > could be read from the stars as we were thought to be > > > > > > > > psychologically > > > > > > > > influenced by them. I am saying that this is nothing more than > > > > > > > > anthropocentrism. And if you continue to persist that science is > > > > > > > > somehow pure, objective and beyond the interests of human kind > > > > > > > > then it > > > > > > > > is you who are guilty of anthropocentrism. > > > > > > > > You are confusing the definition of science with the practice. > > > > > > > Scientists often engage in all kinds shenanigans, including > > > > > > > outright > > > > > > > fraud, but shenanigans are rarely part of their job description. > > > > > > > A > > > > > > > scientist can be solely motivated by monetary payment, and, as an > > > > > > > unitentional consequence, benefit all human kind. > > > > > > > Anthropocentrism > > > > > > > has nothing to do with these cases. > > > > > > > > Since philosophy students are rarely motivated by pay, maybe, it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > you who are projecting your lack of monetary incentive to > > > > > > > scientists. > > > > > > > And, I point out that a scientist's pay rate is not incorporated > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > the definition of science. > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
