On 06/30/2015 02:09 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The referent could be different sorts of things, like waves or particles.
The true nature of things forever remains unknown, but self-consistent precise
descriptions are essential so that experiments can be conducted by different
observers.
Perhaps you missed my point. Inter-description measures like self-consistency
are assertions about objective reality. The assumption that different
observers can conduct similar experiments also depends on an objective reality.
So, your claim that it's not about objective reality is simply false. Take
away your assumption of objective reality and your precise terminology argument
falls apart.
Just like it isn't clear what climate change deniers are willing to nail down.
"But it is NOT "just like ... climate change deniers". Are you seriously making
that equivalence?"
People on the left move the goal posts around to serve their argument just like
people on the right.
Sometimes people remove several words and replace them with "...", gosh, I
don't know why!
Why? Because removing the distracting text clarifies your analogy. You're claiming that the
methods of the SSCE are just like the methods of climate change deniers. They're not just alike.
Yes, they probably both "move goal posts around", because everyone does that, especially
as they grow and evolve, learn from what does and does not work, change membership, etc. Not
nailing down exactly what you'll do from now till the year 3015 doesn't imply that you're not
nailing things down just like climate change deniers aren't nailing things down. Your "just
like" analogy is so vague it's mind-bending.
Collect some like-minded folks, create a distinguished board of directors and start arguing from
authority. The premise that there are any particular "positive" goals has not been
demonstrated. It's just some randomwish-it-were-so thing they are throwing around -- it's not a
hypothesis it is an assertion. At some point in their "inquiry" there exists the
possibility that their goals can be falsified. So lose the goals and follow the evidence. The
voting booth is good place for this kind of activity.
OK. What you're doing is _predicting_ what the SSCE will do. That's fine.
But it's bad faith of you not to be clear that this is merely your prediction.
Or perhaps its (even weaker) your expectation. To some extent, I expect the
same. But I'm usually wrong, which means I'm interested in seeing if it
happens.
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
