Nicholas Geti wrote: > Doesn't look to me like you ever took a course in experimental design and > measurement. >
LOL And what is the relation of that to the issue? You answer none of my arguments. What's more, you seem to have completely forgotten your original argument. I think there is no possible communication with someone who can't follow a line of reasoning, and can't stop contradicting himself in the same paragraph. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:32 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] The Fallacy of Gray > > > >> Nicholas Geti wrote: >> >>> I got all that originally. But in order to say something is wrong you >>> have >>> to know what is correct. Therefore since no one can say that it is either >>> wrong or correct, then the discussion is all hot air. >>> >>> You height example doesn't demonstrate anything. All measurements of the >>> physical world are wrong >>> >> WHAT!!!?!?!?!?! >> How do you know? Do you know the "right" measurements? You don't ? Then >> according to your previous paragraph "in order to say something is wrong >> you have to know what is correct". So which is it? Don't you have the >> wit to not contradict yourself in two subsequent paragraphs? >> >> >>> ; there is a tolerance that always exist for any >>> given measurement. >>> >> How do you know the error of your measurement without knowing the >> "correct" measurement? That does not seem possible..... or else your >> first paragraph is the babble of an idiot. >> >> >>> You cannot say one is less wrong than the other. >>> >> Now you contradict yourself in the SAME paragraph. Man! Are you on >> drugs? Because I hate reasoning with dimwits. >> >> >>> In your >>> height example we know that it can be measured to a closer tolerance than >>> your numbers so any number outside what we normally accept as reasonable >>> is >>> considered wrong. All others are said to be correct. >>> >>> I would not get into a philosophical argument as to which one is wronger. >>> That smacks of the same discussion of the early Greek philosophers who >>> figured they could logically determine the number of teeth in a horse's >>> mouth. I would just go out and count and forget wasting my time trying to >>> deduce the answer. In other words if you cannot come up with a model or >>> set >>> of assumptions you cannot deduce anything. >>> >>> >> But the models are not "right" (in a non-moral way). Models adjust >> better to the data at hand than other models. And then you have models >> that adjust better to certain applications of the model and not others >> (e.g. the wave/particle models for light). So there you have, the grays >> and shade of grays. Just what we were talking about. >> But of course, if you are on drugs you got nothing I just said. >> Sigh..... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
