> > What have people with your academic credentials accomplished > > lately? > > I already told you.
Everybody who believes he told me, please, raise your hands. > I don't think the TV is a massive achievement, anymore than astology. Why don't you think that a nearly constant price for television over 60 years is not an amazing acheivement? Name one thing non-electrical with an non-increasing price. Has the price of astrology services not increased? On Sep 19, 10:24 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 -- 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.
