Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Is There A Method Behind My Madness?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on September 20, 2002 14:06:39 UTC

Of course there is. Anyone who doubts this is probably unfamiliar with me, or too dumb to see it.

I'm not so concerned with proving Harv's lack of intelligence as I am with proving Harv's imagination overrides his intelligence. My main reason for this is the frustration I've had trying to discuss Ontology-vs-Epistemology with Harv. Specifically, it is my view that separating our knowledge of reality into two philosophical "halves" is illogical; it is, in my view, a problem deeply rooted in the anthropic principle.

Some folks' biases run much deeper than their abilities to logically examine these biases. And it often seems any attempt to show this type of person their "flawed thinking" results in repetetive arguments built within this very inability to step away from these biases. As futile as it frequently seems, I'm convinced I can "get through" in the case of Harv.

The challenge asked, "Can you arrange them (the six toothpicks) to form four (4) identical equilateral triangles?" The challenge does not say, "Can you arrange the toothpicks, plus imaginary things, to form four (4) identical equilateral triangles?"

The "triangles" at the bottoms of Harvey's pyramids are imaginary products of a natural, holistic bias. In imaginary terms, this puzzle can resolve with as many triangles as one can imagine, by definition. But these are not non-imaginary solutions.

And so, not only did Harvey not solve the puzzle, he has shown -- again -- his tendency to elevate the products of his imagination to a level where they override "reality" outside of his imagination.

In order to refute my position Harv must now show that, either
1) the bottom "triangles" of his "solution" are not any more imaginary than the toothpicks
~or~
2) my current analysis of his imagined bottom triangles is "imaginary."

-LH

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins