Colin, thanks for reflecting to my post. You asked: "when does observation and criticism bicome diatribe?" I think when it indulges in topical/symbolic applications what the reader cannot comprehend well. Or: when the reader reflects to a discussion in a language he is not sufficiently familiar with and uses words of inaccurate meaning. . Your 'tabulated' expansion about a "natural world" is referring still to the minisolipsically imagined portion of what we think today and applies the formulations therein. Model - restrictions applied. Measurement is also a comparison of the already known items - blown up to "truth". Criticism may be more than that, if we do not stick to "(reasonably) scientific".
Sorry, John On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]>wrote: > Interleaved... > > > John Mikes wrote: > > Hi, Colin, > > I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your ideas and > even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a praise or a > threat). > > Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of "science" - even > "scientist"? > > The following is the *measured, average* generic behaviour which captures > the basic common factors of scientific behaviour across all physical science > disciplines: > > > *tn* > > The natural world in *< insert context>* behaves as follows: *<insert > behaviour>* > > 1.1 > > *t0* > > The natural world in *< the context of a human being scientific about the > natural world >* behaves as follows: *< to create and manage the members > of a set T of statements of type tn, each of which is a statement > predictive of a natural regularity in a specific context in the natural > world external to and independent of the human arrived at through the > process of critical argument and that in principle can be refuted through > the process of experiencing evidence of the regularity>* > > 1.2 > > T = > > {*t0*, *t1*, *t2*, … ,* tn*, … *tN-1*, *tN*} > > 1.3 > > **The 'natural world' in this particular instance, is 'the scientist'. *This > is a measurement, not a guess. You empirically sample human scientists and > average across all sciences. t0 is is what you get.* > > Behaviour according to *t0* is fundamentally prevented from ever > explaining and observer because it presupposes an observer. (that is > 'experiencing evidence') > > So, *t0* is what we actually do. What we _should do_ to explain an > observer is a whole other area. It is the difference between the two > activities that I spoke of in the original 'diatribe' . When does > observation and criticism become diatribe? :-) > > cheers > colin > > > > (sometimes I consider an 'average' (=multitude of) scientist succumbing > to *conventional *ideas called 'scientific' and working within that > conventional world-view we get in schools). > And thanks for mentioning religion. > > Best regards > > John M > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
