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
<c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au>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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to